"sharpness" has to be defined to define a particular DOF. But when you want to increase or decrease DOF, the whole sharpness/COC thing washes out, only camera f-stops and camera image magnification changes get you there.
Im not buying into the argument that if you make anything tiny enough the image DOF is increased or if you make it the size of a billboard the DOF is reduced. Its not, the definition I have been using since the beginnning of thread is that image DOF is all relative, not absolute, and its the relative sharpness of the out of focus planes that can only be changed with mag/fstop. Print size doesnt affect that. JC O'Connell [email protected] -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Matthew Hunt Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2009 3:19 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Trading resolution for depth of field On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 3:14 PM, JC OConnell <[email protected]> wrote: > Smaller prints dont have more DOF, they're > just harder to see clearly! And that's what determines depth of field: The appearance of sharpness. Every derivation of DOF begins with that criterion. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
