New Mandate: 46.8 Degrees; due Januray 17th, 2010
in [Digital Cameras]
|
Prev: [SI] New Mandate: 46.8 Degrees; due Januray 17th, 2010
Next: Lens with Depth of Field indicator. (For full frame [36x24mm] digital camera.)
From: Wilba on 19 Dec 2009 21:27 Wilba wrote: > Troy Piggins wrote: >> JimKramer wrote: >>> >>> We are trying to make it clear that for a given position, focus point >>> and f stop that the image formed does not change other than the >>> over all FoV; i.e. you can crop a wide angle image to the same >>> FoV as a longer focal length lens image and it will be identical to >>> the image taken with the longer focal >>> length lens. You are having a difficult time grasping the math and >>> are making it overly complicated, so again go out and take some >>> pictures to prove it to yourself. Any variations from this are caused >>> by real world defects in the lens or the image capture device. >> >> Sorry Jim. Standing in the same spot, focusing on the same >> object, using the same aperture and same camera, with 2 different >> focal length lenses will yield 2 different depths of field. The >> shot taken with the shorter focal length lens will have more >> stuff in focus than the longer focal length lens shot. > > What you say is true, but it doesn't describe the comparison in question. > Once you crop the shot taken with the shorter focal length lens to give > the same view as the shot taken with the longer focal length lens, the > DOF will be identical in _those_ images. Oops! (Once again I learn that I can't trust my memory.) You get the same DOF with the shorter lens if you move closer to get the same FOV, not by cropping. Sorry.
From: Robert Coe on 20 Dec 2009 10:13 On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 22:30:08 -0500, tony cooper <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote: : On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 13:52:29 -0000, "whisky-dave" : <whisky-dave(a)final.front.ear> wrote: : : > : >"tony cooper" <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote in message : >news:61shi5l8nv95cvha8hgelptp4ciq4c4mk7(a)4ax.com... : >> On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 07:53:56 -0500, "Bowser" <its(a)bowzah.ukme> wrote: : >> : >>>Testament to the stupidity of our system of idolizing athletes and : >>>entertainers. Truly bizzare that we make millionaires out of people who : >>>contribute nothing to society. : >> : >> We disagree there. While I feel the compensation to athletes is : >> excessive, it's pure supply and demand. : > : >Yep, that's true but I really donl;t understand where all the money comes : >from. : : From us, in the basic sense. A team's income is from radio and : television contracts, ticket sales, and merchandise sales...in that : order. The radio and television networks recoup their costs by : selling time to advertisers, and advertisers recoup those costs by : selling products. You buy the products, the tickets, and the team : merchandise. : : Whether or not you buy the brand of beer advertised, a ticket to see a : match, or a coffee mug with the team logo on it is immaterial. : There's tangible evidence that enough do that we know the system : works. : : >From my POV I find it amazing that some people care enough about a team : >to pay X amount to watch them play. : : That's so, but I'll guarantee that you spend money on something that I : would never spend a dime on. Some might claim that anyone who spends what we do on camera equipment is certifiably insane. Bob
From: Ray Fischer on 20 Dec 2009 13:39
Robert Coe <bob(a)1776.COM> wrote: >On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 22:30:08 -0500, tony cooper <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> >wrote: >: On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 13:52:29 -0000, "whisky-dave" >: <whisky-dave(a)final.front.ear> wrote: >: >: > >: >"tony cooper" <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote in message >: >news:61shi5l8nv95cvha8hgelptp4ciq4c4mk7(a)4ax.com... >: >> On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 07:53:56 -0500, "Bowser" <its(a)bowzah.ukme> wrote: >: >> >: >>>Testament to the stupidity of our system of idolizing athletes and >: >>>entertainers. Truly bizzare that we make millionaires out of people who >: >>>contribute nothing to society. >: >> >: >> We disagree there. While I feel the compensation to athletes is >: >> excessive, it's pure supply and demand. >: > >: >Yep, that's true but I really donl;t understand where all the money comes >: >from. >: >: From us, in the basic sense. A team's income is from radio and >: television contracts, ticket sales, and merchandise sales...in that >: order. The radio and television networks recoup their costs by >: selling time to advertisers, and advertisers recoup those costs by >: selling products. You buy the products, the tickets, and the team >: merchandise. >: >: Whether or not you buy the brand of beer advertised, a ticket to see a >: match, or a coffee mug with the team logo on it is immaterial. >: There's tangible evidence that enough do that we know the system >: works. >: >: >From my POV I find it amazing that some people care enough about a team >: >to pay X amount to watch them play. >: >: That's so, but I'll guarantee that you spend money on something that I >: would never spend a dime on. > >Some might claim that anyone who spends what we do on camera equipment is >certifiably insane. Fortunately for me, we have a friend who bought a nice BMW and spends money on things like performance tires for when he drives fast at events. I can just point to him and show my wife that _my_ insane hobby isn't nearly so expensive. :-) -- Ray Fischer rfischer(a)sonic.net |