theory all you want, this makes no sense. The worse your eyesite, the worse things are in focus ( harder it is to make out fine details). Its really absurd to suggest that bad eyesite improves ANYTHING relatedt to sharpness, IT DOESNT. Like I said in my earlier posts, COC selection does not change, improve, or degrade the DOF in an image, it just changes the way you measure it. And in this case, changing the way you measure it is the opposite of real world perception. Bad eyesite doenst make out of focus areas look sharper, it makes in focus areas look blurred.
JC O'Connell [email protected] -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Jos from Holland Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2009 2:50 AM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Trading resolution for depth of field Not correct, if bad eyesight leads to a percieved COC larger than the generally defined COC, a larger deviation from the focal plane is needed to see a reduced sharpness, hence the percieved DOF is larger. JC OConnell wrote: > no, they have less DOF since they see less in focus > > JC O'Connell > [email protected] > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf > Of Derby Chang > Sent: Wednesday, April 08, 2009 5:43 PM > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > Subject: Re: Trading resolution for depth of field > > > Jos from Holland wrote: > >> Exactly! Thats why people with poor eyesight are lucky: they have a >> larger COC >> > > > MARK! > > -- 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.
