Hi,
I don't think this is quite correct. Although it would make the
coc smaller than we can resolve, it is not futile because an increasing
number of otherwise progressively more out-of-focus points approach the
size of the coc and are therefore acceptably sharp, so the depth of field
is increased. I hope that makes sense - it's quite difficult to
express.
Furthermore, it's not the absolute size of the coc that matters
(haven't I heard something like that somewhere before?) but the size
relative to viewing distance and print size.
---
Bob
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Thursday, July 19, 2001, 9:07:01 PM, you wrote:
> Bill is correct, up to a point. Many SLR lenses have scales
> based on 5x7 prints. For each size larger using the mark for the
> next larger aperture works well. OTOH, the human eye can
> perceive a dot (circle of confusion) only so small, a smaller
> dot is not visible. DOF is based on that size dot. So, trying to
> get deeper DOF than that is an exercise in futility. But, as
> always people will believe more is better even if it isn't.
> --Tom
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
