Optimal aperture position?

Started 4 months ago | Discussions
fferreres Veteran Member • Posts: 4,164
Re: Optimal aperture position?

E Dinkla wrote:

Without grasping all, this PDF was a nice introduction to a Triplet design as well:

https://www.willbell.com/tm/ChapterB.3.pdf

Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst
No photographer's gear list is complete without the printer mentioned !

Just when I convinced myself I spent unreasonably much on lenses and feel a bit torn, Leica comes to the rescue and makes me feel like a yogi on a long diet.

fferreres Veteran Member • Posts: 4,164
Re: Apodizing filters

I really like it. Taking for example a 50/1.4, if I measure the diameter of the aperture, and of the barrel, would you be able to print one on transparent material? I am just asking because many lenses are easy to open and install one? The apodized bokeh even if stopped to f2.8 has a lovely look.

ProfHankD
ProfHankD Veteran Member • Posts: 6,866
Re: Apodizing filters

fferreres wrote:

I really like it. Taking for example a 50/1.4, if I measure the diameter of the aperture, and of the barrel, would you be able to print one on transparent material? I am just asking because many lenses are easy to open and install one? The apodized bokeh even if stopped to f2.8 has a lovely look.

You can easily get overhead transparency material designed for either inkjet or laser printers. The inkjet stuff looks really hazy because it has a rough coating to absorb the ink. The laser material is more transparent, and will not melt when it contacts the binding drum in the laser (don't try using inkjet transparencies in a laser!).

The catch is that sizing it correctly involves determining the widest aperture at which the lens doesn't vignette, which is very lens dependent.

 ProfHankD's gear list:ProfHankD's gear list
Canon PowerShot SX530 Olympus TG-860 Sony a7R II Canon EOS 5D Mark IV Sony a6500 +30 more
fferreres Veteran Member • Posts: 4,164
Re: Apodizing filters

ProfHankD wrote:

fferreres wrote:

I really like it. Taking for example a 50/1.4, if I measure the diameter of the aperture, and of the barrel, would you be able to print one on transparent material? I am just asking because many lenses are easy to open and install one? The apodized bokeh even if stopped to f2.8 has a lovely look.

You can easily get overhead transparency material designed for either inkjet or laser printers. The inkjet stuff looks really hazy because it has a rough coating to absorb the ink. The laser material is more transparent, and will not melt when it contacts the binding drum in the laser (don't try using inkjet transparencies in a laser!).

The catch is that sizing it correctly involves determining the widest aperture at which the lens doesn't vignette, which is very lens dependent.

This is a very good idea. I didn't see it mentioned anywhere. Any suggestion at what shape to print assuming laser?

ProfHankD
ProfHankD Veteran Member • Posts: 6,866
Re: Apodizing filters
1

E Dinkla wrote:

With the Elmaron's resemblance to the Thambar design a bit of element shifting + some different sized spot filters at the front should create a similar soft focus. No aperture needed then. $6000 upgrade.

https://www.leica-camera.blog/2017/10/17/thambar-m-12-290-mm/

Ah yes; the poster child for undercorrected Spherical Aberration (SA)... with an optional dark center spot to block the rays that aren't chock full of SA. Not a look I like, but pretty easy to pervert another lens into doing the same sort of thing....

 ProfHankD's gear list:ProfHankD's gear list
Canon PowerShot SX530 Olympus TG-860 Sony a7R II Canon EOS 5D Mark IV Sony a6500 +30 more
ProfHankD
ProfHankD Veteran Member • Posts: 6,866
Re: Apodizing filters

fferreres wrote:

ProfHankD wrote:

fferreres wrote:

I really like it. Taking for example a 50/1.4, if I measure the diameter of the aperture, and of the barrel, would you be able to print one on transparent material? I am just asking because many lenses are easy to open and install one? The apodized bokeh even if stopped to f2.8 has a lovely look.

You can easily get overhead transparency material designed for either inkjet or laser printers. The inkjet stuff looks really hazy because it has a rough coating to absorb the ink. The laser material is more transparent, and will not melt when it contacts the binding drum in the laser (don't try using inkjet transparencies in a laser!).

The catch is that sizing it correctly involves determining the widest aperture at which the lens doesn't vignette, which is very lens dependent.

This is a very good idea. I didn't see it mentioned anywhere. Any suggestion at what shape to print assuming laser?

You'd print something like the image I showed above:

The above is 6000x6000 pixels with a central shaded portion that's a tad less than 2200 pixel diameter. If you printed that 6000x6000 image scaled to 60mm wide, then the central shaded area would be about 22mm -- or about f/2.3, which might be small enough to not suffer too much vignetting.

I've done this many times, but don't happen to have images handy right now.

BTW, I've also tried producing apodizing masks using film and using a homemade sputtering machine... each of which works better than this, but is much harder to do.

 ProfHankD's gear list:ProfHankD's gear list
Canon PowerShot SX530 Olympus TG-860 Sony a7R II Canon EOS 5D Mark IV Sony a6500 +30 more
Alan WF
Alan WF Senior Member • Posts: 2,019
Re: Apodizing filters

Once you've experimented to find the right size, you might try find one of these commercial apodizing masks that matches:

https://www.thorlabs.com/newgrouppage9.cfm?objectgroup_id=1163

https://www.edmundoptics.com/f/continuously-variable-apodizing-filters/13777/

Regards,

Alan

 Alan WF's gear list:Alan WF's gear list
Sony a6000 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GM5 Sony E 16-50mm F3.5-5.6 PZ OSS Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS STM Canon EF-S 10-18mm F4.5–5.6 IS STM +13 more
fferreres Veteran Member • Posts: 4,164
Re: Apodizing filters

ProfHankD wrote:

fferreres wrote:

ProfHankD wrote:

fferreres wrote:

I really like it. Taking for example a 50/1.4, if I measure the diameter of the aperture, and of the barrel, would you be able to print one on transparent material? I am just asking because many lenses are easy to open and install one? The apodized bokeh even if stopped to f2.8 has a lovely look.

You can easily get overhead transparency material designed for either inkjet or laser printers. The inkjet stuff looks really hazy because it has a rough coating to absorb the ink. The laser material is more transparent, and will not melt when it contacts the binding drum in the laser (don't try using inkjet transparencies in a laser!).

The catch is that sizing it correctly involves determining the widest aperture at which the lens doesn't vignette, which is very lens dependent.

This is a very good idea. I didn't see it mentioned anywhere. Any suggestion at what shape to print assuming laser?

You'd print something like the image I showed above:

The above is 6000x6000 pixels with a central shaded portion that's a tad less than 2200 pixel diameter. If you printed that 6000x6000 image scaled to 60mm wide, then the central shaded area would be about 22mm -- or about f/2.3, which might be small enough to not suffer too much vignetting.

I've done this many times, but don't happen to have images handy right now.

BTW, I've also tried producing apodizing masks using film and using a homemade sputtering machine... each of which works better than this, but is much harder to do.

Fantastic. I have bookmarked the thread.

If there was anything that could print into a skylight filter. There are so many sizes and it's so easy to remove the element.

Thanks Alan too for the links. I would need a laser printer first (some are very cheap) so it am only toying. Those are some expensive optics!

ProfHankD
ProfHankD Veteran Member • Posts: 6,866
Re: Apodizing filters

Alan WF wrote:

Once you've experimented to find the right size, you might try find one of these commercial apodizing masks that matches:

https://www.thorlabs.com/newgrouppage9.cfm?objectgroup_id=1163

https://www.edmundoptics.com/f/continuously-variable-apodizing-filters/13777/

Yeah, that's about all the standard choices. These filters generally have gradient until the last mm or so of the edge, so you'd want to mount them in a wider diameter carrier... which could fairly easily be machined or 3D printed. In a 50mm lens, the 25mm diameter would be OK as long as the base lens has very little vignetting at f/2, which is a test most fast 50mm lenses would fail. More likely would be good in a fast 85mm....

You can actually get custom ones made with whatever density profile you want (different profiles can be very worthwhile), and I've seriously considered it, but the cost per mounted apodizing filter is >$200 even in modest quantities. The real issue is that the diameter needed varies a lot with the base lens model... makes it more awkward for marketing if one wanted to do it as a business.

BTW, although their coating sure looks metallic, Edmund says their reverse bulls eye filters are good for 400-700nm. That might mean the coating doesn't block NIR (nor even all of NUV) enough for general use. That's also an issue if you make the mask using color slide film. Basically, artifacts like purple fringing can be made dramatically worse than the base lens alone if the filter doesn't block NIR. The Thorlabs filters claim 350-1100nm, which sounds more typical for an apodizer made using a metallic coating... and their mounted price is pretty good, although their mount is thick enough to probably be a problem for this use.

 ProfHankD's gear list:ProfHankD's gear list
Canon PowerShot SX530 Olympus TG-860 Sony a7R II Canon EOS 5D Mark IV Sony a6500 +30 more
ProfHankD
ProfHankD Veteran Member • Posts: 6,866
Printing

fferreres wrote:

If there was anything that could print into a skylight filter. There are so many sizes and it's so easy to remove the element.

Thanks Alan too for the links. I would need a laser printer first (some are very cheap) so it am only toying. Those are some expensive optics!

For laser or inkjet printing, just go to any local copy shop (e.g., FedEx store); I doubt you'd have to spend much more than $1 for a transparency sheet with multiple apodizer images on it. You might even be able to do it free at your public library.

You could get it printed either on transparency film (overhead projector sheets) or as a self-adhesive sticker. I've never tried the self-adhesive transparent sticker sheets, but it wouldn't shock me if they're actually not too bad -- after all, they are designed to be applied to windows and still let folks see through them.

There are really three issues for printing:

  1. Optical transparency of unprinted areas. This is where inkjet doesn't do so well, because the material needs a coating to hold the ink.
  2. Optical density and continuity of the printed areas. Inkjet makes relatively smooth shades, while laser output tends to be clumpy and less continuous (discrete particles of toner). Laser toners vary wildly, but some can produce higher transmission density than any inkjet will give; some (mostly older)  lasers also produce solid-shaded regions that have markedly higher density at the edges than in the middle of a region, which makes them unusable for making apodization masks.
  3. Spectral blocking. Organic dye is generally transparent in NIR, so you need pigmented ink for an inkjet. Most black laser toners are pretty good, but it does vary. Ideally, you want carbon black in the ink/toner.
 ProfHankD's gear list:ProfHankD's gear list
Canon PowerShot SX530 Olympus TG-860 Sony a7R II Canon EOS 5D Mark IV Sony a6500 +30 more
fferreres Veteran Member • Posts: 4,164
Re: Printing

ProfHankD wrote:

fferreres wrote:

If there was anything that could print into a skylight filter. There are so many sizes and it's so easy to remove the element.

Thanks Alan too for the links. I would need a laser printer first (some are very cheap) so it am only toying. Those are some expensive optics!

For laser or inkjet printing, just go to any local copy shop (e.g., FedEx store); I doubt you'd have to spend much more than $1 for a transparency sheet with multiple apodizer images on it. You might even be able to do it free at your public library.

You could get it printed either on transparency film (overhead projector sheets) or as a self-adhesive sticker. I've never tried the self-adhesive transparent sticker sheets, but it wouldn't shock me if they're actually not too bad -- after all, they are designed to be applied to windows and still let folks see through them.

There are really three issues for printing:

  1. Optical transparency of unprinted areas. This is where inkjet doesn't do so well, because the material needs a coating to hold the ink.
  2. Optical density and continuity of the printed areas. Inkjet makes relatively smooth shades, while laser output tends to be clumpy and less continuous (discrete particles of toner). Laser toners vary wildly, but some can produce higher transmission density than any inkjet will give; some (mostly older) lasers also produce solid-shaded regions that have markedly higher density at the edges than in the middle of a region, which makes them unusable for making apodization masks.
  3. Spectral blocking. Organic dye is generally transparent in NIR, so you need pigmented ink for an inkjet. Most black laser toners are pretty good, but it does vary. Ideally, you want carbon black in the ink/toner.

Thanks! I feel little dumb as it had not occurred to me I could just make different sizes and print all of them on one sheet. It's obvious, unless after it's mentioned. Are there any other fun shapes to play with that make sense /only work near the aperture (I liked the black spot in middle to leave a lens with the most aberrated part only too)?

Do you know if there's any name for a tool to cut perfect circles? I guess I will start apreciating lens centering after this experiments.

My next step is researching which lens may be a good test lens (easy to remove front element and it being an entire block). I am thinking a 135/2.8.

Alan WF
Alan WF Senior Member • Posts: 2,019
Re: Printing

Do you know if there's any name for a tool to cut perfect circles? I guess I will start apreciating lens centering after this experiments.

I may be missing something, but I don't think you have to center apodization masks to optical precision. Just make the clear aperture undersized according to your ability to center it.

Also, print the outer circle too, so you know where to cut.

Regards,

Alan

 Alan WF's gear list:Alan WF's gear list
Sony a6000 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GM5 Sony E 16-50mm F3.5-5.6 PZ OSS Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS STM Canon EF-S 10-18mm F4.5–5.6 IS STM +13 more
fferreres Veteran Member • Posts: 4,164
Re: Printing

Alan WF wrote:

Do you know if there's any name for a tool to cut perfect circles? I guess I will start apreciating lens centering after this experiments.

I may be missing something, but I don't think you have to center apodization masks to optical precision. Just make the clear aperture undersized according to your ability to center it.

Also, print the outer circle too, so you know where to cut.

Regards,

Alan

Great observation and suggestion!

ProfHankD
ProfHankD Veteran Member • Posts: 6,866
Side-by-side images with laser-printed apodizer

fferreres wrote:

ProfHankD wrote:

There are really three issues for printing:

  1. Optical transparency of unprinted areas. This is where inkjet doesn't do so well, because the material needs a coating to hold the ink.
  2. Optical density and continuity of the printed areas. Inkjet makes relatively smooth shades, while laser output tends to be clumpy and less continuous (discrete particles of toner). Laser toners vary wildly, but some can produce higher transmission density than any inkjet will give; some (mostly older) lasers also produce solid-shaded regions that have markedly higher density at the edges than in the middle of a region, which makes them unusable for making apodization masks.
  3. Spectral blocking. Organic dye is generally transparent in NIR, so you need pigmented ink for an inkjet. Most black laser toners are pretty good, but it does vary. Ideally, you want carbon black in the ink/toner.

Thanks! I feel little dumb as it had not occurred to me I could just make different sizes and print all of them on one sheet. It's obvious, unless after it's mentioned. Are there any other fun shapes to play with that make sense /only work near the aperture (I liked the black spot in middle to leave a lens with the most aberrated part only too)?

Do you know if there's any name for a tool to cut perfect circles? I guess I will start apreciating lens centering after this experiments.

None of this is particularly difficult, but the printed masks tend to be pretty miserable quality. Here's an example shot of a Christmas tree (out of focus) using a laser-printed 300DPI apodizer vs directly shooting at f/1.7 using an old Minolta Rokkor 50mm f/1.7:

Notice that the apodized OOF PSFs look rather grainy, contrast is dramatically lower, and there is still deformation of the OOF PSF by vignetting (and the above is a roughly APS_C crop). In other words, you see problems #1 and #2 described above plus the vignetting I also warned about.

Now I have to make it clear that LED Christmas tree lights are NOT good point sources, so some of the flaws above are due to that. For comparison, here's the same scene shot with the perfectly apodized Sony STF 100mm (and uncropped FF):

From the above you should note that the circles that have a dark ring around a bright core are the result of lenses on the LEDs interacting with the apodization... the very smooth ones are what you get from better approximations to point sources.

 ProfHankD's gear list:ProfHankD's gear list
Canon PowerShot SX530 Olympus TG-860 Sony a7R II Canon EOS 5D Mark IV Sony a6500 +30 more
OP E Dinkla Senior Member • Posts: 1,880
Re: Side-by-side images with laser-printed apodizer

ProfHankD wrote:

fferreres wrote:

ProfHankD wrote:

There are really three issues for printing:

  1. Optical transparency of unprinted areas. This is where inkjet doesn't do so well, because the material needs a coating to hold the ink.
  2. Optical density and continuity of the printed areas. Inkjet makes relatively smooth shades, while laser output tends to be clumpy and less continuous (discrete particles of toner). Laser toners vary wildly, but some can produce higher transmission density than any inkjet will give; some (mostly older) lasers also produce solid-shaded regions that have markedly higher density at the edges than in the middle of a region, which makes them unusable for making apodization masks.
  3. Spectral blocking. Organic dye is generally transparent in NIR, so you need pigmented ink for an inkjet. Most black laser toners are pretty good, but it does vary. Ideally, you want carbon black in the ink/toner.

Thanks! I feel little dumb as it had not occurred to me I could just make different sizes and print all of them on one sheet. It's obvious, unless after it's mentioned. Are there any other fun shapes to play with that make sense /only work near the aperture (I liked the black spot in middle to leave a lens with the most aberrated part only too)?

Do you know if there's any name for a tool to cut perfect circles? I guess I will start apreciating lens centering after this experiments.

None of this is particularly difficult, but the printed masks tend to be pretty miserable quality. Here's an example shot of a Christmas tree (out of focus) using a laser-printed 300DPI apodizer vs directly shooting at f/1.7 using an old Minolta Rokkor 50mm f/1.7:

Notice that the apodized OOF PSFs look rather grainy, contrast is dramatically lower, and there is still deformation of the OOF PSF by vignetting (and the above is a roughly APS_C crop). In other words, you see problems #1 and #2 described above plus the vignetting I also warned about.

Now I have to make it clear that LED Christmas tree lights are NOT good point sources, so some of the flaws above are due to that. For comparison, here's the same scene shot with the perfectly apodized Sony STF 100mm (and uncropped FF):

From the above you should note that the circles that have a dark ring around a bright core are the result of lenses on the LEDs interacting with the apodization... the very smooth ones are what you get from better approximations to point sources.

Nice examples!

I guess there are trade offs with any choice of printing technology for this purpose.  For example my HP Z3200 wide format 12 ink inkjet printer in B&W gloss mode will use 3 monochrome pigment inks that are perfectly neutral. No color ink is added to make the B&W print neutral. That is quite unusual for inkjet printers, the carbon pigments used are normally warm, dye grey/black inks are not neutral either and not stable in time. I can use it on transparent PET media with an inkjet emulsion that is not too thick but still not perfectly transparant.

For alternative photo printing processes the photo inkjet printers with dye inks usually make better gradients on the films to use in contact printing than pigment printers do. Neutrality there is less important as their task is to block actinic light for the process and that is often better controlled with the color inks than with the monochrome inks in the ink set. Yet for the camera filter purpose even a small percentage of colored dots might influence the image.

Using analogue thin emulsion B&W lith film with a developer that delivers a softer image may be the best choice, the PET film there has more optical transparency and the silver halide image will be quite neutral. It may still be possible to print a negative radial gradient with an inkjet printer and use it in contact to expose the B&W lith film. Some trial and error steps to get the gradient right in the lith film.

Stochastic halftoning gradients made on an image setter could be an answer too, film like the lith film but the gradient still made with high density black spots. At least the stochastic distribution will reduce moire compared to normal halftone. I do not know whether the raster point size will not introduce other optical phenomena.  However there are few companies with image setters for film these days.

Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst
No photographer's gear list is complete without the printer mentioned !

ProfHankD
ProfHankD Veteran Member • Posts: 6,866
Film-based apodizer

E Dinkla wrote:

Using analogue thin emulsion B&W lith film with a developer that delivers a softer image may be the best choice, the PET film there has more optical transparency and the silver halide image will be quite neutral. It may still be possible to print a negative radial gradient with an inkjet printer and use it in contact to expose the B&W lith film. Some trial and error steps to get the gradient right in the lith film.

Using silver hallide film (or that type of emulsion on a glass plate) is the best method I know for repeatable production of high-quality apodization masks. Actually, I've also done this for making flash projection masks for structured light 3D capture. Mask quality this way can be excellent, although it does mean bringing out an old film camera and remembering how to process film. Medium or large format are needed for larger apertures, but 135 film can handle masks for most fast 50s and shorter focal lengths because they tend to vignette a lot with a larger aperture.

The sneaky trick is that we're trying to get a gradient, not a sharp image, so the way I create the image is to basically photograph a computer-generated display with a long exposure and enough (deliberate) motion to blur any raster pattern.

PS: Reciprocity failure can be your friend -- that's how you can get arbitrarily higher contrast on film than the image you photographed had. When photographing the negative image, keep the exposure balanced so the stuff you want clear on the film is below the reciprocity failure threshold and the bright parts are above.

 ProfHankD's gear list:ProfHankD's gear list
Canon PowerShot SX530 Olympus TG-860 Sony a7R II Canon EOS 5D Mark IV Sony a6500 +30 more
fferreres Veteran Member • Posts: 4,164
Re: Side-by-side images with laser-printed apodizer

ProfHankD wrote:

fferreres wrote:

ProfHankD wrote:

There are really three issues for printing:

  1. Optical transparency of unprinted areas. This is where inkjet doesn't do so well, because the material needs a coating to hold the ink.
  2. Optical density and continuity of the printed areas. Inkjet makes relatively smooth shades, while laser output tends to be clumpy and less continuous (discrete particles of toner). Laser toners vary wildly, but some can produce higher transmission density than any inkjet will give; some (mostly older) lasers also produce solid-shaded regions that have markedly higher density at the edges than in the middle of a region, which makes them unusable for making apodization masks.
  3. Spectral blocking. Organic dye is generally transparent in NIR, so you need pigmented ink for an inkjet. Most black laser toners are pretty good, but it does vary. Ideally, you want carbon black in the ink/toner.

Thanks! I feel little dumb as it had not occurred to me I could just make different sizes and print all of them on one sheet. It's obvious, unless after it's mentioned. Are there any other fun shapes to play with that make sense /only work near the aperture (I liked the black spot in middle to leave a lens with the most aberrated part only too)?

Do you know if there's any name for a tool to cut perfect circles? I guess I will start apreciating lens centering after this experiments.

None of this is particularly difficult, but the printed masks tend to be pretty miserable quality. Here's an example shot of a Christmas tree (out of focus) using a laser-printed 300DPI apodizer vs directly shooting at f/1.7 using an old Minolta Rokkor 50mm f/1.7:

Notice that the apodized OOF PSFs look rather grainy, contrast is dramatically lower, and there is still deformation of the OOF PSF by vignetting (and the above is a roughly APS_C crop). In other words, you see problems #1 and #2 described above plus the vignetting I also warned about.

Now I have to make it clear that LED Christmas tree lights are NOT good point sources, so some of the flaws above are due to that. For comparison, here's the same scene shot with the perfectly apodized Sony STF 100mm (and uncropped FF):

From the above you should note that the circles that have a dark ring around a bright core are the result of lenses on the LEDs interacting with the apodization... the very smooth ones are what you get from better approximations to point sources.

Excellent examples. I just gave up on the laser transparency. I definitely won't like the "hazed" blurry outcome. There must be something better, more like a ND filter that varies towards the center. I know that's what an apodizing filter does, but man, really $300 for one filter is a lot.Is it possible pint laser on a skylight 10cmx10cm filter, then cut into round shape? At least it'd be perfectly transparent if good optical glass (and would have to figure out how to cut to round shape).

WHat about tinting, like it is done for eyewear? https://www.leaf.tv/articles/how-to-tint-existing-eyeglasses/ Maybe one could make 4 transition zones, laters, by masking increasingly smaller portions of the center of a skylight filter, so that the outer layer stay in contact say 2 hours, then 90 minutes, then 60, then 40, then 20, then 10, then zero (center).

Would tinted glass as in eyewear be useful?

Alan WF
Alan WF Senior Member • Posts: 2,019
Re: Side-by-side images with laser-printed apodizer

Excellent examples.

Yes, but fairly extreme examples.

I just gave up on the laser transparency. I definitely won't like the "hazed" blurry outcome.

It might be more acceptable on other scenes. It would cost you almost nothing to try it. Come on, make it a holiday DIY project and get the scissors and tape out like you were back in primary school again!

There must be something better, more like a ND filter that varies towards the center. I know that's what an apodizing filter does, but man, really $300 for one filter is a lot.

Use laser prints on transparencies to get the geometry, then try film, as Hank has suggested. Develop it at home for more DIY fun.

Regards,

Alan

 Alan WF's gear list:Alan WF's gear list
Sony a6000 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GM5 Sony E 16-50mm F3.5-5.6 PZ OSS Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS STM Canon EF-S 10-18mm F4.5–5.6 IS STM +13 more
fferreres Veteran Member • Posts: 4,164
Re: Side-by-side images with laser-printed apodizer

Alan WF wrote:

Excellent examples.

Yes, but fairly extreme examples.

I just gave up on the laser transparency. I definitely won't like the "hazed" blurry outcome.

It might be more acceptable on other scenes. It would cost you almost nothing to try it. Come on, make it a holiday DIY project and get the scissors and tape out like you were back in primary school again!

There must be something better, more like a ND filter that varies towards the center. I know that's what an apodizing filter does, but man, really $300 for one filter is a lot.

Use laser prints on transparencies to get the geometry, then try film, as Hank has suggested. Develop it at home for more DIY fun.

Regards,

Alan

I may try the labels then, but not sure where to adhere them too. As Hank guesses they may be better as these may be agreed to Windows. I only worry about the effect of glue

Alan WF
Alan WF Senior Member • Posts: 2,019
Re: Side-by-side images with laser-printed apodizer
1

Also, see this digital-to-film example:

http://www.4photos.de/camera-diy/Apodization-Filter.html

Regards,

Alan

 Alan WF's gear list:Alan WF's gear list
Sony a6000 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GM5 Sony E 16-50mm F3.5-5.6 PZ OSS Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS STM Canon EF-S 10-18mm F4.5–5.6 IS STM +13 more
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads