Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > DoF and hyperfocal distance calculators and charts

Reply
Thread Tools

DoF and hyperfocal distance calculators and charts

 
 
Kulvinder Singh Matharu
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-24-2008
There will be some situations out in the middle of nowhere when I may
need to calculate the hyperfocal distance. But despite all the smarts
built into my Nikon D700, and with the lenses that I have, there does
not appear to be any way of calculating the hyperfocal distance using
the D700. That's a real pity.

I'd have thought it would be elementary to set the required circle of
confusion and save this in the camera, and then when required
activate a "hyperfocal lock" function (let's call it "HF-L") and then
point the camera at the closest feature that you want in focus and
the camera then locks focus to the hyperfocal distance. But the D700
doesn't do this. So…

I've looked at software. I currently use a BlackBerry Curve device
which I nearly always have with me so I could use that using suitable
DoF software. Can you advice which is the best software to use?
Preferably free!

But even so, sometimes I might not have the BlackBerry device with
me. So I'm thinking of some kind of small mechanical calculator kinda
like a slide-rule or disc which I can attach to my camera or lenses.
I've seen this but it's limited in the number of focal lengths that
it can use so some guesswork may be required for zooms:

http://www.dofmaster.com/custom.html

What I think may be better (but bowing to your superior experience
and knowledge!) is using some charts. Again, at the same site I came
across this:

http://www.dofmaster.com/charts.html

I think that I can print one or two of these charts to cover my
lenses that I can then print very small and then laminate. I'd really
like to attach these to my camera strap. What do you think of this
idea? Or do you think that I should be approaching this differently?

Thanks for reading this far. Hope to get some valuable feedback from
everyone but with the holidays I know that some of you may be a bit
distracted over the next few days.

Happy holidays!
--
Kulvinder Singh Matharu

Website : www.metalvortex.com
Contact : www.metalvortex.com/contact/

Brain! Brain! What is brain?!
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Dudley Hanks
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-25-2008

"Kulvinder Singh Matharu" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> There will be some situations out in the middle of nowhere when I may
> need to calculate the hyperfocal distance. But despite all the smarts
> built into my Nikon D700, and with the lenses that I have, there does
> not appear to be any way of calculating the hyperfocal distance using
> the D700. That's a real pity.
>
> I'd have thought it would be elementary to set the required circle of
> confusion and save this in the camera, and then when required
> activate a "hyperfocal lock" function (let's call it "HF-L") and then
> point the camera at the closest feature that you want in focus and
> the camera then locks focus to the hyperfocal distance. But the D700
> doesn't do this. So.
>
> I've looked at software. I currently use a BlackBerry Curve device
> which I nearly always have with me so I could use that using suitable
> DoF software. Can you advice which is the best software to use?
> Preferably free!
>
> But even so, sometimes I might not have the BlackBerry device with
> me. So I'm thinking of some kind of small mechanical calculator kinda
> like a slide-rule or disc which I can attach to my camera or lenses.
> I've seen this but it's limited in the number of focal lengths that
> it can use so some guesswork may be required for zooms:
>
> http://www.dofmaster.com/custom.html
>
> What I think may be better (but bowing to your superior experience
> and knowledge!) is using some charts. Again, at the same site I came
> across this:
>
> http://www.dofmaster.com/charts.html
>
> I think that I can print one or two of these charts to cover my
> lenses that I can then print very small and then laminate. I'd really
> like to attach these to my camera strap. What do you think of this
> idea? Or do you think that I should be approaching this differently?
>
> Thanks for reading this far. Hope to get some valuable feedback from
> everyone but with the holidays I know that some of you may be a bit
> distracted over the next few days.
>
> Happy holidays!
> --
> Kulvinder Singh Matharu
>
> Website : www.metalvortex.com
> Contact : www.metalvortex.com/contact/
>
> Brain! Brain! What is brain?!


A quick but dirty way to set hyperfocal distance is to run your lens to
infinity focus; then, after pressing your DOF preview gbutton, slowly back
off
the focusing ring until the horizon starts to go blurry. Bringing the
horizon back into focus will establish the hyperfocal range of your lens for
whatever aperture you are stopping down to.

Just curious why you're trying to hyperfocal an autofocus camera...

"In the old days," hyperfocusing was done to save time and eliminate the
need for having to manually focus the lens in extreme situations -- i.e.
very low light, fast action, shooting over crowds, etc.

Using modern cameras, it seems to me that most situations can be covered
with modes like aperture priority, shutter priority, or scene modes.

Are you working with subjects which are hard to autofocus on? Or, is it
that you are just into manual shooting?

Take Care,
Dudley


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Paul Furman
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-25-2008
Kulvinder Singh Matharu wrote:

> But the D700 doesn't do this. So…


Trial & error with an educated guess. Live view could be your shortcut
with the D700, zoom in & scroll around while focusing & stopping down.
Hmm, a quick check shows I must have something set funny because I can't
scroll around once zoomed in live view... I'm sure that can be changed
though.

--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com

all google groups messages filtered due to spam
 
Reply With Quote
 
frank
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-25-2008
On Dec 24, 6:30*pm, "Dudley Hanks" <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:
> "Kulvinder Singh Matharu" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in messagenews:hec5l493su754h1tuaj1aj16cmsggllt66@4ax .com...
>
>
>
> > There will be some situations out in the middle of nowhere when I may
> > need to calculate the hyperfocal distance. But despite all the smarts
> > built into my Nikon D700, and with the lenses that I have, there does
> > not appear to be any way of calculating the hyperfocal distance using
> > the D700. That's a real pity.

>
> > I'd have thought it would be elementary to set the required circle of
> > confusion and save this in the camera, and then when required
> > activate a "hyperfocal lock" function (let's call it "HF-L") and then
> > point the camera at the closest feature that you want in focus and
> > the camera then locks focus to the hyperfocal distance. But the D700
> > doesn't do this. So.

>
> > I've looked at software. I currently use a BlackBerry Curve device
> > which I nearly always have with me so I could use that using suitable
> > DoF software. Can you advice which is the best software to use?
> > Preferably free!

>
> > But even so, sometimes I might not have the BlackBerry device with
> > me. So I'm thinking of some kind of small mechanical calculator kinda
> > like a slide-rule or disc which I can attach to my camera or lenses.
> > I've seen this but it's limited in the number of focal lengths that
> > it can use so some guesswork may be required for zooms:

>
> >http://www.dofmaster.com/custom.html

>
> > What I think may be better (but bowing to your superior experience
> > and knowledge!) is using some charts. Again, at the same site I came
> > across this:

>
> >http://www.dofmaster.com/charts.html

>
> > I think that I can print one or two of these charts to cover my
> > lenses that I can then print very small and then laminate. I'd really
> > like to attach these to my camera strap. What do you think of this
> > idea? Or do you think that I should be approaching this differently?

>
> > Thanks for reading this far. Hope to get some valuable feedback from
> > everyone but with the holidays I know that some of you may be a bit
> > distracted over the next few days.

>
> > Happy holidays!
> > --
> > Kulvinder Singh Matharu

>
> > Website :www.metalvortex.com
> > Contact :www.metalvortex.com/contact/

>
> > Brain! Brain! What is brain?!

>
> A quick but dirty way to set hyperfocal distance is to run your lens to
> infinity focus; *then, after pressing your DOF preview gbutton, slowly back
> off
> *the focusing ring until the horizon starts to go blurry. *Bringing the
> horizon back into focus will establish the hyperfocal range of your lens for
> whatever aperture you are stopping down to.
>
> Just curious why you're trying to hyperfocal an autofocus camera...
>
> "In the old days," hyperfocusing was done to save time and eliminate the
> need for having to manually focus the lens in extreme situations -- i.e.
> very low light, fast action, shooting over crowds, etc.
>
> Using modern cameras, it seems to me that most situations can be covered
> with modes like aperture priority, shutter priority, or scene modes.
>
> Are you working with subjects which are hard to autofocus on? *Or, is it
> that you are just into manual shooting?
>
> Take Care,
> Dudley


I agree with this. Note digital is just a box to put on the back of
the lens. Nothing more. Ditto with a film camera. Hey, this IS a 35mm
group.

The hyperfocal distance cards were pretty standard and pretty much
didn't change at all as its a function of focal length.

Most of the time when you did this was you knew you were going to be
from 20 to 50 feet from the lead singer or whatever and were using
flash. Or not. Sort of like using old manual flash where you had to
look up coverage at a given distance and f stop.

IF you didn't have an SLR, this was a great way to shoot. Rangefinders
were really quiet.

If you have distance markings on your lenses, I'd almost do the old
markings for f stop on the barrel. Mark say, infinity, 50 feet, 20
feet if you don't have it on the focus. whatever you shoot at, then do
the f stop with the hyperfocus and go that way. You could use AF, look
at the barrel and see whats a more optimal f stop if needed and change
settings accordingly. Sort of like we did it in the old days.

Small bits of Dymo label tape would probably work well. different
colors for say f8, f11, f16.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Paul Furman
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-25-2008
David J. Littleboy wrote:

> Using the hyperfocal distance is simply defocusing from infinity focus
> by as much as possible.


This procedure should work with live view. Stop down, zoom into
something at infinity & turn the focus ring closer till it softens.


>> Live view could be your shortcut with the D700, zoom in & scroll around
>> while focusing & stopping down.

>
> This is incredibly useful with the 24mm TSE lens.
> With a 24mm on the 5D2, the focal length squared term plus the smaller CoC
> mean that you really have to play tilt games, and putting the magnified view
> at the bottom of the frame means you can get to the optimal tilt quickly.
> Here's more detail on this:
>
> http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...ssage=30457586
>



--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com

all google groups messages filtered due to spam
 
Reply With Quote
 
Colin.D
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-25-2008
Kulvinder Singh Matharu wrote:
> There will be some situations out in the middle of nowhere when I may
> need to calculate the hyperfocal distance. But despite all the smarts
> built into my Nikon D700, and with the lenses that I have, there does
> not appear to be any way of calculating the hyperfocal distance using
> the D700. That's a real pity.
>
> I'd have thought it would be elementary to set the required circle of
> confusion and save this in the camera, and then when required
> activate a "hyperfocal lock" function (let's call it "HF-L") and then
> point the camera at the closest feature that you want in focus and
> the camera then locks focus to the hyperfocal distance. But the D700
> doesn't do this. So…
>
> I've looked at software. I currently use a BlackBerry Curve device
> which I nearly always have with me so I could use that using suitable
> DoF software. Can you advice which is the best software to use?
> Preferably free!
>
> But even so, sometimes I might not have the BlackBerry device with
> me. So I'm thinking of some kind of small mechanical calculator kinda
> like a slide-rule or disc which I can attach to my camera or lenses.
> I've seen this but it's limited in the number of focal lengths that
> it can use so some guesswork may be required for zooms:
>
> http://www.dofmaster.com/custom.html
>
> What I think may be better (but bowing to your superior experience
> and knowledge!) is using some charts. Again, at the same site I came
> across this:
>
> http://www.dofmaster.com/charts.html
>
> I think that I can print one or two of these charts to cover my
> lenses that I can then print very small and then laminate. I'd really
> like to attach these to my camera strap. What do you think of this
> idea? Or do you think that I should be approaching this differently?
>
> Thanks for reading this far. Hope to get some valuable feedback from
> everyone but with the holidays I know that some of you may be a bit
> distracted over the next few days.
>
> Happy holidays!


DOF is not simply a function of lens and focus distances. It includes
also the circle of confusion, the diameter of which is chosen to be
'almost' a point taken to be acceptably sharp in the final image or
print. Therefore, CoC is not a fixed size, but varies with the
magnification ratio between the camera image and the print size, and
complicated by the intended viewing distance of the final print. It is
said that smaller images like those from P&S or cropped sensor cameras
have greater DoF than larger images, but this is offset to some degree
by the need for greater magnification to give a similar-sized print to
that from a larger sensor.

The original concept of DoF was Leica's, calculated for a 35mm negative
enlarged to 10x8, and viewed at a distance equal to the print diagonal.
Other sizes of film/sensor, print size, and viewing distance require a
different CoC diameter. Some digital camera makers assume a CoC based
on their sensor size, and a print viewing distance equal to the print
diagonal, which tends to cancel the magnification factor (but is by no
means guaranteed with very small or very large prints).

Canon uses these assumptions with their DEP function on their dslrs,
whereby placing one focus area on a near object and another on the
farthest object and taking a half-pressure allows the camera to
instantly calculate the required aperture, which can then be set using
Av, a very handy function that I use frequently.

The older lenses with DoF scales were calibrated more or less according
to the Leica standard, and if used on cropped-sensor cameras will not
be accurate unless allowance is made.

BTW, viewing an image at 100% gives no idea at all of the DoF, since it
applies only to a print at screen resolution, 72 ppi, which implies an
image more than a metre across with most dslrs.

Colin D.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Paul Furman
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-26-2008
Colin.D wrote:
> ...
> The original concept of DoF was Leica's, calculated for a 35mm negative
> enlarged to 10x8, and viewed at a distance equal to the print diagonal.


Wouldn't it be the same numbers for any size print at a viewing distance
equal to the diagonal of the print? (assuming full frame sensor in this
case).

> Other sizes of film/sensor, print size, and viewing distance require a
> different CoC diameter. Some digital camera makers assume a CoC based
> on their sensor size, and a print viewing distance equal to the print
> diagonal, which tends to cancel the magnification factor (but is by no
> means guaranteed with very small or very large prints).


Ah, OK, yep (generally).


> Canon uses these assumptions with their DEP function on their dslrs,
> whereby placing one focus area on a near object and another on the
> farthest object and taking a half-pressure allows the camera to
> instantly calculate the required aperture, which can then be set using
> Av, a very handy function that I use frequently.
>
> The older lenses with DoF scales were calibrated more or less according
> to the Leica standard, and if used on cropped-sensor cameras will not
> be accurate unless allowance is made.
>
> BTW, viewing an image at 100% gives no idea at all of the DoF, since it
> applies only to a print at screen resolution, 72 ppi, which implies an
> image more than a metre across with most dslrs.


I'm amazed how much nasty pixely stuff disappears in a print, even at
200dpi or more magnification.

--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com

all google groups messages filtered due to spam
 
Reply With Quote
 
Colin.D
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-26-2008
Paul Furman wrote:
> Colin.D wrote:
>> ...
>> The original concept of DoF was Leica's, calculated for a 35mm
>> negative enlarged to 10x8, and viewed at a distance equal to the print
>> diagonal.

>
> Wouldn't it be the same numbers for any size print at a viewing distance
> equal to the diagonal of the print? (assuming full frame sensor in this
> case).


Yes, for a FF sensor, maybe, but the Leica standard was for film, and I
think that a higher standard may be desired for a high-megapixel camera,
which means a smaller DoF. I was trying to make the point that DoF and
COC pertain to particular setups, and are by no means universal.

>
>> Other sizes of film/sensor, print size, and viewing distance require
>> a different CoC diameter. Some digital camera makers assume a CoC
>> based on their sensor size, and a print viewing distance equal to the
>> print diagonal, which tends to cancel the magnification factor (but is
>> by no means guaranteed with very small or very large prints).

>
> Ah, OK, yep (generally).
>
>
>> Canon uses these assumptions with their DEP function on their dslrs,
>> whereby placing one focus area on a near object and another on the
>> farthest object and taking a half-pressure allows the camera to
>> instantly calculate the required aperture, which can then be set using
>> Av, a very handy function that I use frequently.
>>
>> The older lenses with DoF scales were calibrated more or less
>> according to the Leica standard, and if used on cropped-sensor
>> cameras will not be accurate unless allowance is made.
>>
>> BTW, viewing an image at 100% gives no idea at all of the DoF, since
>> it applies only to a print at screen resolution, 72 ppi, which implies
>> an image more than a metre across with most dslrs.

>
> I'm amazed how much nasty pixely stuff disappears in a print, even at
> 200dpi or more magnification.
>

Compared with 100% view on a monitor, yes. At 200 ppi the image is only
a third as much enlarged as at 100%.

Actually, I don't know where this 100% idiom came from. What it means
is simply that the image is enlarged to give a 1:1 relationship between
the image and the monitor ppi, i.e. each image pixel is displayed by one
monitor pixel.

This also means that comparisons of camera and lens performance judged
by 100% images is false, since the magnification is a function of pixel
density. A true comparison can only be made when the images are the
same size, which doesn't happen with 100% crops.

Colin D.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Paul Furman
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-26-2008
Colin.D wrote:
> Paul Furman wrote:
>> Colin.D wrote:
>>> ...
>>> BTW, viewing an image at 100% gives no idea at all of the DoF, since
>>> it applies only to a print at screen resolution, 72 ppi, which
>>> implies an image more than a metre across with most dslrs.

>>
>> I'm amazed how much nasty pixely stuff disappears in a print, even at
>> 200dpi or more magnification.
>>

> Compared with 100% view on a monitor, yes. At 200 ppi the image is only
> a third as much enlarged as at 100%.
>
> Actually, I don't know where this 100% idiom came from. What it means
> is simply that the image is enlarged to give a 1:1 relationship between
> the image and the monitor ppi, i.e. each image pixel is displayed by one
> monitor pixel.
>
> This also means that comparisons of camera and lens performance judged
> by 100% images is false, since the magnification is a function of pixel
> density. A true comparison can only be made when the images are the
> same size, which doesn't happen with 100% crops.


Yes, probably the fair way to compare on-screen is to enlarge the low-MP
shots to match the high-MP image. Or make prints & scan those

--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com

all google groups messages filtered due to spam
 
Reply With Quote
 
Kulvinder Singh Matharu
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-26-2008
On Thu, 25 Dec 2008 00:30:02 GMT, "Dudley Hanks"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

[snip]
>Just curious why you're trying to hyperfocal an autofocus camera...


Sometimes I've got an object near to me and I want to maintain
acceptable focus all the way out to the horizon.

example:
http://www.nikonians.org/html/resour...perfocal1.html

>"In the old days," hyperfocusing was done to save time and eliminate the
>need for having to manually focus the lens in extreme situations -- i.e.
>very low light, fast action, shooting over crowds, etc.
>
>Using modern cameras, it seems to me that most situations can be covered
>with modes like aperture priority, shutter priority, or scene modes.
>
>Are you working with subjects which are hard to autofocus on? Or, is it
>that you are just into manual shooting?


See above. Not likely to be used in many occasions, but when I need
to it's nice to know that I can!
--
Kulvinder Singh Matharu

Website : www.metalvortex.com
Contact : www.metalvortex.com/contact/

Brain! Brain! What is brain?!
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
How to use knowledge of hyperfocal distance...? kasterborus@yahoo.com Digital Photography 11 10-28-2005 02:36 PM
hyperfocal, night, limited distance scale, zoom lens Brian Digital Photography 2 10-02-2005 07:23 PM
D70 Setting hyperfocal distance BioColor@aol.com Digital Photography 9 11-06-2004 12:44 PM
hyperfocal distance leo Digital Photography 80 07-07-2004 11:25 PM
Hyperfocal Distance and Nikon D100 JackB Digital Photography 1 10-14-2003 12:05 AM



Advertisments