Timeline for Why don't we focus at the nearest hyperfocal distance to get everything in focus?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
17 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 13, 2015 at 15:43 | vote | accept | rcs | ||
| Mar 12, 2015 at 16:21 | comment | added | Edgar Bonet | @CountIblis: That may be a little bit extreme, especially if you have a 24+ Mpix camera. But if you want pixel-level sharpness, it’s certainly the way to go. | |
| Mar 12, 2015 at 16:12 | comment | added | Count Iblis | @EdgarBonet Indeed, it's better to equate it to the size of a pixel size, that way you have an objective measure of the blur and whether or not there exists a blur at all. | |
| Mar 12, 2015 at 12:25 | answer | added | Edgar Bonet | timeline score: 3 | |
| Mar 12, 2015 at 11:12 | comment | added | Edgar Bonet | The article you cite assumes a circle of confusion of 30 µm, which is a very old standard suitable for the kind of fast grainy film photojournalists used in the previous century. Use this for landscapes on a high pixel count camera and you will almost certainly be disappointed. | |
| Mar 12, 2015 at 4:44 | answer | added | user74091 | timeline score: 0 | |
| Mar 12, 2015 at 2:03 | answer | added | Jim | timeline score: 3 | |
| Mar 11, 2015 at 20:56 | answer | added | Guffa | timeline score: 8 | |
| Mar 11, 2015 at 20:28 | answer | added | Flying Trashcan | timeline score: 6 | |
| Mar 11, 2015 at 18:01 | comment | added | JohannesD | The hyperfocal distance is the nearest focus distance where infinity is still in acceptable focus. Focus any nearer, and infinity won't be in focus anymore. If, on the other hand, you're not interested in far away objects and only want eg. the three objects in your example in focus, by all means focus closer. | |
| Mar 11, 2015 at 17:05 | answer | added | Fran Borcic | timeline score: 2 | |
| Mar 11, 2015 at 17:01 | comment | added | Dan Wolfgang | But if you adjust focus to 0.4m, then you're no longer focused at the hyperfocal distance. Changing the focus doesn't change the hyperfocal distance for a given lens and aperture. | |
| Mar 11, 2015 at 16:49 | comment | added | mattdm | What exactly do you mean by "why don't we"? Sometimes, we do! | |
| Mar 11, 2015 at 16:41 | history | edited | rcs | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added some description
|
| Mar 11, 2015 at 16:32 | comment | added | rcs | Take this statement as an example: Using the aforementioned scenario involving a 20mm lens at f/11 on a full-frame camera, you get a hyperfocal distance of 1212 mm, or 1.2 meters (almost 4 feet). So you should focus on an object that is approximately 1.2 meters away; everything from 0.6 meters (half the hyperfocal distance) away to infinity will be in focus. -- Then why don't I focus at the nearest object that falls into the frame? | |
| Mar 11, 2015 at 16:31 | comment | added | Philip Kendall♦ | I don't understand what you mean by "nearest as possible" - the nearest to what? The hyperfocal distance is the point which achieves the maximum depth of field - any closer and points at infinity will no longer be in focus. | |
| Mar 11, 2015 at 16:28 | history | asked | rcs | CC BY-SA 3.0 |