| Andrew Cooke | Contents | Latest | RSS | Twitter | Previous | Next

C[omp]ute

Welcome to my blog, which was once a mailing list of the same name and is still generated by mail. Please reply via the "comment" links.

Always interested in offers/projects/new ideas. Eclectic experience in fields like: numerical computing; Python web; Java enterprise; functional languages; GPGPU; SQL databases; etc. Based in Santiago, Chile; telecommute worldwide. CV; email.

Personal Projects

Lepl parser for Python.

Colorless Green.

Photography around Santiago.

SVG experiment.

Professional Portfolio

Calibration of seismometers.

Data access via web services.

Cache rewrite.

Extending OpenSSH.

C-ORM: docs, API.

Last 100 entries

Transcript of German Scientists on Learning of Hiroshima; Calvert Journal; Telephone System Quotes for Cat Soft LLC; Owen Jones on Twitter; Telephone System Quotes for Cat Soft LLC; Possible Japanese Authors; Complex American Literature; Chutney v5; Weird Componentized Virus; Interesting Argentinian Author - Antonio Di Benedetto; Useful Thread on MetaPhysics; RAND on fighting online anarchy (2001); Now Is Cat Soft LLC's Chance To Save Up To 32% On Mail; NSA Hacked; Call Center Services for Cat Soft LLC; Very Good LRB Article on Brexit; Nussbaum on Anger; Credit Card Processing for Cat Soft LLC; Discover new movies on demand in our online cinema; Tasting; Credit Card Processing for Cat Soft LLC; Apple + Kiwi Jam; Hit Me; Increase Efficiency with GPS Vehicle Tracking for Cat Soft LLC; Sudoku - CSP + Chaos; Recycling Electronics In Santiago; Vector Displays in OpenGL; Call Center Services for Cat Soft LLC; And Anti-Aliased; OpenGL - Render via Intermediate Texture; And Garmin Connect; Using Garmin Forerunner 230 With Linux; Payroll Service Quotes for Cat Soft LLC; (Beating Dead Horse) StackOverflow; Current State of Justice in China; Now Is Cat Soft LLC's Chance To Save Up To 32% On Mail; Axiom of Determinacy; Ewww; Fee Chaos Book; Course on Differential Geometry; Increase Efficiency with GPS Vehicle Tracking for Cat Soft LLC; Okay, but...; Sparse Matrices, Deep Learning; Sounds Bad; Applebaum Rape; Tomato Chutney v4; Have to add...; Culturally Liberal and Nothing More; Weird Finite / Infinite Result; Your diamond is a beaten up mess; Maths Books; Good Bike Route from Providencia / Las Condes to Panul\; Iain Pears (Author of Complex Plots); Plum Jam; Excellent; More Recently; For a moment I forgot StackOverflow sucked; A Few Weeks On...; Chilean Book Recommendations; How To Write Shared Libraries; Jenny Erpenbeck (Author); Dijkstra, Coins, Tables; Python libraries error on OpenSuse; Deserving Trump; And Smugness; McCloskey Economics Trilogy; cmocka - Mocks for C; Concept Creep (Americans); Futhark - OpenCL Language; Moved / Gone; Fan and USB issues; Burgers in Santiago; The Origin of Icosahedral Symmetry in Viruses; autoenum on PyPI; Jars Explains; Tomato Chutney v3; REST; US Elections and Gender: 24 Point Swing; PPPoE on OpenSuse Leap 42.1; SuperMicro X10SDV-TLN4F/F with Opensuse Leap 42.1; Big Data AI Could Be Very Bad Indeed....; Cornering; Postcapitalism (Paul Mason); Black Science Fiction; Git is not a CDN; Mining of Massive Data Sets; Rachel Kaadzi Ghansah; How great republics meet their end; Raspberry, Strawberry and Banana Jam; Interesting Dead Areas of Math; Later Taste; For Sale; Death By Bean; It's Good!; Tomato Chutney v2; Time ATAC MX 2 Pedals - First Impressions; Online Chilean Crafts; Intellectual Variety; Taste + Texture; Time Invariance and Gauge Symmetry; Jodorowsky

© 2006-2015 Andrew Cooke (site) / post authors (content).

Depth of Field

From: "andrew cooke" <andrew@...>

Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2007 16:58:36 -0300 (CLST)

From
http://www.flickr.com/groups/panasonicdmc-lx1/discuss/72157603526533457/#comment72157603525884094

in
http://www.flickr.com/groups/panasonicdmc-lx1/discuss/72157602866039023/#comment72157602895143765
the depth of field in compact p&s cameras was shown to be much greater
than in a 35mm lens at the same aperture (f number).

why is this?

naively i would expect that if you take a lens and put it in a magic
"shrinking machine" that scales it to (say) half size, then you 
would get much dimmer pictures (smaller absolute aperture - 1/4 area of
lens) that cover a smaller area of the focal plane (1/4 area of sensor),
but that  he f number would stay the same (it does, right?).

furthermore, since everything seems to be "the same but smaller"
i would expect the depth of field to be the same (when you make a photo 
smaller or bigger in photoshop the depth of field in the image doesn't 
change).

yet clearly this isn't the case, and it's the thing i miss most in my
camera.  does anyone have a good intuitive explanation why?

[...]

ok, so it's quite simple really :)

in my argument above (which is a "scaling argument") i imagined
taking a lens (well, an entire optical system) and shrinking it.

what i forgot is that when i shrink the camera i also have to shrink the
world it is inside!

less cryptically, there's an extra distance, in the "real world"
that i had forgotten to take into account - the distance from the camera
to the subject.  this may seem unusual, because typical, simple geometric
optics considers subjects that are at an "infinite" distance -
this simplifies things (shrinking infinity is still infinity) and is often
a reasonable assumption.  but depth of field doesn't work "at
infinity", it only works for relatively close objects, so this is not
a good approximation to make.  this is why, incidentally, the first link
above keeps talking about "intermediate distances".

so, once you realise that the distance from the lens to the subject is
important things become a lot clearer.  the shrinking argument is correct,
but you have to shrink the distance to the subject too.

so, for example, the depth of field for a 50mm lens with a 35mm sensor at
10m is the same (in relative terms) as a 25mm lens with a 17.5mm sensor at
5m (we have simply shrunk everything by a factor of 2, geometry - angles
and relative resolutions - stay unchanged).

almost there...

the problem then, of course, is that when we compare depth of field for
different sized sensors we are implicitly talking about taking pictures of
things <em>at the same distance</em>.  and we all know that as you get
closer to the lens depth of field becomes more important (ie smaller). 
conversely, moving further away makes depth of field effects less
pronounced.

so if we want to compare depth of field for two different sensor sizes
<em>with the subject at the same distance</em> then in the smaller sensor
case it is "as if" the subject was futher away (compared to
where it would be if we simply scaled everything).  and, as a consequence,
depth of field for the smaller sensor is larger (less pronounced).

i don't know if that helps anyone except me, but i find that much more
intuitive than looking at formulae...

Comment on this post