The Depth of Filed Comparison

[Russ Yost]

Yes, JIm, but it's not much blurring. See my earlier post in this thread, where I go through the calculations to estimate the blurring in terms of pixel counts.

Hi,

It has a circle of confusion for the 717.

http://dfleming.ameranet.com/dofjs.html

--
Jim Tan

--
Russell

 

[Poss]

Poss,

all of the 2/3" sensor cams have the same problem. It is inherrent
to all Digicams with small sensors. It can be a big factor for
portrait people.

Don

That's true but one can still use the tele end and the fast lens (f2.4) to obtain a pretty good blurring effect. In fact the 717 would be one of the best prosumer digicams at that because of its lens. The equivalent of 190mm with f2.4 ain't all that bad after all...

Peace!

--
Bogdan

Life is beautiful

 

[Don Northup]

I agree it ain't no big deal for me either. Could be better. Only gravy for me.

truce it is,

Don

Poss,

all of the 2/3" sensor cams have the same problem. It is inherrent
to all Digicams with small sensors. It can be a big factor for
portrait people.

Don

That's true but one can still use the tele end and the fast lens
(f2.4) to obtain a pretty good blurring effect. In fact the 717
would be one of the best prosumer digicams at that because of its
lens. The equivalent of 190mm with f2.4 ain't all that bad after
all...

Peace!

--
Bogdan

Life is beautiful

 

[fengtianrui]

fengtianrui ,
You may find this site interesting.
http://dfleming.ameranet.com/dofjs.html

Ken from CO. 2100uz+b300+Viv283+Promaster 5750+Tiffen.75Mega Plus
and DSC-F717 http://www.pbase.com/kenron

Ken Pearson, thankx, That's exactly what I want.....

Oh... thanks god, oh no it's u, hehe....

 

[David Goldwasser]

I had looked at this long ago for pano tools section. I really like in your photshop section how you have the radio buttons setup to change the photo as well as snapshot of the photoshop layers pallet.

I think Alex is being short minded in his analysis. You don't need a 3d camera. For starters you coudl focus bracket while you shoot to assist in your method, although as there is subtle FOV change with focus change would have to adjust for that. I used technique similar to yours to take a clear picture of me and simulate as if I was behind frosted glass where there is quick falloff of focus as the subject (me) would ger further away fromthe background. Before Alex jumps in I did this quickly and could have spent more time to make it more accurate, but was not worth the trouble for me.



One piece of advise will add is that one someone is doing this kind of editing pretty often is to buy a pressure sensative wacom tablet which starts udner $100. I hevily feather masks and draw in much by hand.

--
David Goldwasser
http://www.inertia-llc.com

 

[alex wetmore]

I had looked at this long ago for pano tools section. I really like
in your photshop section how you have the radio buttons setup to
change the photo as well as snapshot of the photoshop layers pallet.

I think Alex is being short minded in his analysis. You don't need
a 3d camera. For starters you coudl focus bracket while you shoot
to assist in your method, although as there is subtle FOV change
with focus change would have to adjust for that. I used technique
similar to yours to take a clear picture of me and simulate as if I
was behind frosted glass where there is quick falloff of focus as
the subject (me) would ger further away fromthe background. Before
Alex jumps in I did this quickly and could have spent more time to
make it more accurate, but was not worth the trouble for me.

Just to be fair, I said that I didn't think effect simulated DOF. I didn't say that it wasn't an interesting or useful effect.

Focus bracketing to simulate depth of field would be an interesting techique. I expect you could get something that looked good with less than 10 focal planes. The other technical problem (besides FOV changes) for shooting this way is that it would only work for static subjects.

alex