Timeline for What is "bokeh panorama" (also called the "Brenizer method")?
Current License: CC BY-SA 2.5
9 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 28, 2012 at 0:31 | comment | added | user2719 | You could get "close enough for government work" with a 300/2.8, and would be less than a stop off with a 200/2 (both of which would save you a lot of shooting). As it happens, Brenizer usually uses an 85/1.4, and his usual coverage is actually equivalent to a 28mm/0.46 or so. So sue me. | |
| Jun 22, 2011 at 19:16 | comment | added | Imre | So, to simulate the never-seen 24mm f/0.2, should I use a lens with 120 mm aperture, e.g. 500mm f/4? That'd be interesting, though it takes several hundreds of shots to cover the 24 mm FOV... | |
| Feb 13, 2011 at 3:31 | comment | added | user2719 | I figured those were the actual focal lengths. To get the "equivalent" aperture, take the actual aperture at the long end (70mm/5.9, or 11.86mm) and divide that into the apparent focal length you are covering. Let's say you can successfully cover the entire field of view of the 5mm end of the lens, so that would give you an equivalent of 5mm/11.86, or f/0.42. Trying to cover that much variation is going to result in a huge amount of barrel distortion -- but you'll likely have enough pixels to correct it safely (do the correction in the bokeh area; it'll tolerate losses well). | |
| Feb 12, 2011 at 22:17 | comment | added | tomm89 | I forgot to tell you, those focal distances aren't 35mm equivalent. So you would have to multiply them by 6 times. So the 70mm focal distance of my camera equals a 420mm in 35mm format, which is a very narrow angle. Having said that, I think the final image would have a much bigger aperture (i.e. f/0.8) am I right? Is there an easy way to calculate the equivalent f number when the final image is done? | |
| Feb 12, 2011 at 9:31 | comment | added | user2719 | Still, a 70mm f/5.9 picture that covers the same field of view as you would get at 5mm f/3.1 will have a smaller depth of field. It won't be nearly as small as what you could get at f/2.8, but it should look better than your camera's wide angle setting. Remember to get as close to the subject as you can while keeping the framing you need, and make sure that there is a good amount of distance between the subject and anything in the background/foreground. | |
| Feb 12, 2011 at 9:27 | comment | added | user2719 | Because that's the way the lens is designed. Almost all low-cost zoom lenses are variable-aperture designs. Constant-aperture lenses are more expensive to produce, and artificially limit the aperture at lower focal lengths (for exposure consistency). If your lens had a constant aperture, it would be f/5.9. And a lot of point and shoot cameras don't have an aperture you can set at all -- the sensor, and therefore the lenses, are so small that diffraction would make the image unacceptable at less than the maximum aperture the lens can deliver. | |
| Feb 12, 2011 at 8:49 | comment | added | tomm89 | In my P&S with 70mm of focal distance with the maximum zoom, the aperture is f5.9, slower than f3.1, which is the aperture my camera has when the focal distance is 5mm. Why is that happening? | |
| Feb 10, 2011 at 17:48 | vote | accept | tomm89 | ||
| Feb 10, 2011 at 8:10 | history | answered | user2719 | CC BY-SA 2.5 |