If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
film vs CMOS
"Phil Hobbs" wrote in message
... But why can't we use a bigger film then? Should we always compare 135 film against CMOS sensors of different size? A bit of possibly useful discussion: https://electrooptical.net/News/photographic-film/ One other factor to bear in mind: the depth of field varies with lens focal length, not field of view of the subject. This means that if you take a photo on 120 film and on 35 mm, with appropriate focal lengths of the two lenses to give the same field of view of the subject in both cases, and use the same aperture, the DOF will be less on the 120 photo than the 35 mm photo. So if 80 mm gives a certain field of view on 120 and 50 mm gives the same field of view (ie shows the same extent of the subject) on 50 mm, and both lenses are at f 4 (and so both will use the same shutter speed for the same speed of film), the 120 photo will have a shallower DOF. That is why it is so difficult to get shallow DOF on a compact or phone camera, because the lens is such a short focal length to suit the very small sensor, that almost everything is in focus even at a wide aperture (and the lens might have more artifacts and aberrations than the comparable lens that gives the same field of view for a 35 mm camera). In all this, I'm talking about the field of view of the *subject* - ie how much of the subject (wide/telephoto) is included within the frame of film or the sensor. This is why some drama TV programmes are shot on 16 mm or with a similar size CMOS sensor, but with a 35 mm-format movie camera lens and an intermediate ground-glass screen. This allows a shallower DOF to be achieved for artistic reasons without having to open up the (16 mm format) lens to a wider aperture which might show more lens flaws. The lens for 35 mm format produces an image on the ground-glass screen that has a certain field of view and depth of field which would be recorded on 35 mm film. The 16 mm camera focuses that image (which is all at one plane) onto 16 mm film. I wish I could find a URL that describes it, but I'm obviously not feeding Google with the correct search keywords - a common problem I have. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
film vs CMOS
In article , NY
wrote: One other factor to bear in mind: the depth of field varies with lens focal length, not field of view of the subject. actually, it's aperture. This means that if you take a photo on 120 film and on 35 mm, with appropriate focal lengths of the two lenses to give the same field of view of the subject in both cases, and use the same aperture, the DOF will be less on the 120 photo than the 35 mm photo. nope. it will be identical for the same image quality. So if 80 mm gives a certain field of view on 120 and 50 mm gives the same field of view (ie shows the same extent of the subject) on 50 mm, and both lenses are at f 4 (and so both will use the same shutter speed for the same speed of film), the 120 photo will have a shallower DOF. That is why it is so difficult to get shallow DOF on a compact or phone camera, because the lens is such a short focal length to suit the very small sensor, that almost everything is in focus even at a wide aperture (and the lens might have more artifacts and aberrations than the comparable lens that gives the same field of view for a 35 mm camera). only because the lens on the cellphone can't open wide enough to match the depth of field of the larger sensor camera. however, the lens on larger sensor camera will likely be able stop down to match the depth of field of the cellphone camera. some lenses might not, but that's a physical lens limitation. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
film vs CMOS
On Sun, 12 Aug 2018 00:54:04 +0800, "Mr. Man-wai Chang"
wrote: On 8/12/2018 12:50 AM, nospam wrote: In article , Mr. Man-wai Chang wrote: But how do you get a 100% TRUE lossless original? Using good, old film-based cameras? film is more lossy than digital. I don't know much about photography films. And you might need to talk about the size (length x width) as well as the resolution of the senors and films! But isn't film molecular level? Not really. A film image is constructed of crystaline grains which are far above molecules in size. -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
film vs CMOS
"nospam" wrote in message
... This means that if you take a photo on 120 film and on 35 mm, with appropriate focal lengths of the two lenses to give the same field of view of the subject in both cases, and use the same aperture, the DOF will be less on the 120 photo than the 35 mm photo. nope. it will be identical for the same image quality. So as long as film grain isn't the limiting issue, you should be able to take a photo on 120 film with a lens that gives a certain field of view, and then on 35 mm with a different lens that gives the same field of view, and if you use the same aperture on both lenses, you shouldn't see a shallower DOF on a print from the larger format negative? That goes against everything I've ever learned about photography, and the fringe benefit of using larger film (the main one being finer level of detail for the same type of film). I'll have to try taking comparison photos on my SLR and compact cameras, to test it. As I thought, the SLR photo has a shallower DOF than the compact, for same aperture and comparable lens focal lengths to give same field of view in both photos. Nikon D90, 18-200 mm lens, set to 150 mm, 35 mm equivalent=225mm, f5.6, image size 4288 x 2848 pixels https://s22.postimg.cc/phiylnsnl/DSC_0151.jpg Canon Powershot SX260HS, 4.5-90 mm lens, set to 34 mm, no 35 mm equivalent stated, f5.6, image size 4000 x 2664 https://s22.postimg.cc/k6420pe81/IMG_1316.jpg Both these are full frame, both focussed on the pins of the mains adaptor in the centre of the picture. Both pictures taken from same position (ie same distance to subject in foreground). Very similar image resolution. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
film vs CMOS
In article , NY
wrote: This means that if you take a photo on 120 film and on 35 mm, with appropriate focal lengths of the two lenses to give the same field of view of the subject in both cases, and use the same aperture, the DOF will be less on the 120 photo than the 35 mm photo. nope. it will be identical for the same image quality. So as long as film grain isn't the limiting issue, you should be able to take a photo on 120 film with a lens that gives a certain field of view, and then on 35 mm with a different lens that gives the same field of view, and if you use the same aperture on both lenses, you shouldn't see a shallower DOF on a print from the larger format negative? if you do that, then the image quality will be different, which means other characteristics may also be different. also, depth of field is a function of the physical aperture (not f/stop), so if you use the same f/stop on both (for exposure purposes) you're actually using a larger aperture on the longer focal length lens, thus the difference you're seeing (along with the difference in image quality from the larger format, which can't be ignored). That goes against everything I've ever learned about photography, it's a common myth. and the fringe benefit of using larger film (the main one being finer level of detail for the same type of film). in other words, different image quality. this explains it exceptionally well: http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/dof_myth/ A commonly cited advantage of smaller digital cameras is their greater depth-of-field. This is incorrect. € The myth, simply stated, is: smaller digital cameras have a larger depth-of-field than larger digital cameras. The simple reason why the myth is incorrect is that depth of field is set by aperture, focal length, and a criterion for spatial resolution, and if one keeps aperture of the larger camera the same as that in the smaller camera, the two cameras record the same image with the same signal-to-noise ratio and the same depth of field with the same exposure time. Below are details explaining why this is true, and Figure 1 gives an example. .... Given the identical photon noise, exposure time, enlargement size, and number of pixels giving the same spatial resolution (i.e. the same total image quality), digital cameras with different sized sensors will produce images with identical depths-of-field. (This assumes similar relative performance in the camera's electronics, blur filters, and lenses.) The larger format camera will use a higher f/ratio and an ISO equal to the ratio of the sensor sizes to achieve that equality. If the scene is static enough that a longer exposure time can be used, then the larger format camera will produce the same depth-of-field images as the smaller format camera, but will collect more photons and produce higher signal-to-noise images. Another way to look at the problem, is the larger format camera could use an even smaller aperture and a longer exposure to achieve a similar signal-to-noise ratio image with greater depth of field than a smaller format camera. Thus, the larger format camera has the advantage for producing equal or better images with equal or better depth-of-field as smaller format cameras. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
film vs CMOS
"nospam" wrote in message
... That goes against everything I've ever learned about photography, it's a common myth. and the fringe benefit of using larger film (the main one being finer level of detail for the same type of film). in other words, different image quality. I hadn't appreciated that image quality affected DOF. So same lens, same camera, same aperture (but different shutter speed) on very slow fine-grained film and very fast coarse-grained film will produce different DOF? Well, well. this explains it exceptionally well: http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/dof_myth/ A commonly cited advantage of smaller digital cameras is their greater depth-of-field. This is incorrect. Interesting article. The reason for the myth is that we are comparing the wrong things and keeping the wrong things constant in the comparison. The longer lens needed to produce the same field of view on the camera with the larger sensor needs to be stopped down further make the *absolute* aperture the same as for the camera with a smaller sensor and correspondingly smaller focal length to give same field of view. Comparing f5.6 on the longer lens with f5.6 on the shorter lens is wrong in terms of DOF. Understood! Of course, in practical photographic terms, we tends to constraint aperture to *roughly* the same range of f numbers for any lens. A lens that is 10x as long doesn't have apertures which are roughly 1/10 (in f number terms) - on all lenses, they will always be around f2 - f16 give or take a couple of f numbers either way. That's so the light-gathering abilities of the lenses are comparable. So a camera with a small sensor will have a lens that has usable apertures in terms of light-gathering capabilities which equate to a camera with a larger sensor and hence a longer lens that has much smaller apertures and therefore needs much longer exposures if film speed / CMOS sensitivity is the same. So a smaller camera doesn't inherently produce a greater depth of field, but when it used in the same conditions of image brightness and film speed, and the need to avoid diffraction due to excessively small apertures, the smaller camera's range of *available* apertures produce a greater DOF than the *available* range of apertures on a longer lens on a larger camera. In other words, it's the age-old difference between theory and practical usability. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
film vs CMOS
"NY" wrote in message
o.uk... Interesting article. The reason for the myth is that we are comparing the wrong things and keeping the wrong things constant in the comparison. The longer lens needed to produce the same field of view on the camera with the larger sensor needs to be stopped down further make the *absolute* aperture the same as for the camera with a smaller sensor and correspondingly smaller focal length to give same field of view. Comparing f5.6 on the longer lens with f5.6 on the shorter lens is wrong in terms of DOF. Understood! The only thing that I'll need to read a few more times is the issue of number of photons. I can see that this affects how much light the film/sensor receives and therefore the brightness of the image. But I can't see how it has any effect on the DOF of that image which is a purely optical, lens issue: a dim image and a bright image will still have the same objects in sharp focus and the same objects blurred by some amount. So if in some way you halve the number of photos reaching the sensor (by making the aperture smaller, by using a neutral density or by dimming the illumination of the subject) then as long as you make the sensor twice as sensitive or double the exposure time then the recorded image will be the same. Of these, only altering the aperture alters the DOF. As long as the aperture doesn't change, you can change all the other parameters and as long as you do so proportionally, the image will be identical, both in brightness and in DOF. To think of it another way, suppose you have two sensors which have pixels which are same size. In one case, the pixels border each other, without any space between them; in the other case the pixels are the same size but spaced more widely. Sensor 1 x x x x x x x x x versus Sensor 2 x x x x x x x x x The pixel size (the x) is the same size. So the size of the buckets is the same. But if the pixels are spaced more widely, the sensor will be physically larger and will need a longer lens to capture the same field of view (and so will need a smaller f number to give the same absolute size of aperture and hence DOF). But if we replace Sensor 2 by the more normal situation where the pixels are bigger although their spacing hasn't altered (Sensor 3), the same lens is needed and for the same aperture the DOF will be the same. I presume... Sensor 3 X X X X X X X X X The spacing is the same but the pixel size has increased from x to X which means the larger buckets can gather more pixels. I'm still struggling to see how altering the "size of the buckets" has affected the DOF, if the pitch of the buckets is the same. My brain hurts. I'm probably over-thinking all this :-) |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
film vs CMOS
On 2018-08-14 09:08, nospam wrote:
In article , NY wrote: One other factor to bear in mind: the depth of field varies with lens focal length, not field of view of the subject. actually, it's aperture. actually, it's the ratio of focal length to aperture. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
film vs CMOS
In article , +++ATH0
wrote: One other factor to bear in mind: the depth of field varies with lens focal length, not field of view of the subject. actually, it's aperture. actually, it's the ratio of focal length to aperture. nope. depth of field is a function of physical aperture. what you describe is f/stop, which is used for exposure purposes, and in some cases (usually movies), t/stops are used, which is actual light transmission through the lens, not a simple ratio. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
film vs CMOS
On 2018-08-25 15:06, nospam wrote:
In article , +++ATH0 wrote: One other factor to bear in mind: the depth of field varies with lens focal length, not field of view of the subject. actually, it's aperture. actually, it's the ratio of focal length to aperture. nope. depth of field is a function of physical aperture. what you describe is f/stop, which is used for exposure purposes, and in some cases (usually movies), t/stops are used, which is actual light transmission through the lens, not a simple ratio. Are you claiming that focal length has no bearing on depth of field? That's an interesting viewpoint. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Windows 7 upgrade to Windows 10 vs. new laptop with Windows 10. | Larry[_12_] | Dell Computers | 10 | September 6th 16 05:58 PM |
Windows 10 i5 machine, dirty upgrade from Windows 8, all legalcopies, takes forever to startup | RayLopez99 | Homebuilt PC's | 4 | March 1st 16 04:45 AM |
Inspiron 1525 laptop, lost Windows Vista DVD, Necessary for Windows 7 Reinstall? | [email protected] | Dell Computers | 2 | June 8th 13 12:45 PM |
WTB: URGENT NEED - MICROSOFT OFFICE SOFTWARE ALL VERSIONS/TYPES -MICROSOFT WINDOWS XP PRO, WINDOWS 2000 PRO, WINDOWS HOME ALL VERSIONS/TYPES- NEED AS MANY AS YOU CAN SELL US | none | Homebuilt PC's | 0 | April 16th 09 02:18 PM |
PSU problem causing windows\system32\config\system is missing or corrupt in windows XP | dk | Homebuilt PC's | 3 | March 2nd 05 12:14 AM |