frankencamera...

[Noons]

http://www.avhub.com.au/index.php/Features/ProPhoto/the-hdv-d-slr.html

OMFG! Is there no end to idiocy?
Let me see here: would a top of the line exchangeable lens video camera produce
an order of magnitude better results than this contraption, at all levels?
Narh, of course not. And it wouldn't cost less, either...

[Chloe]

There is a very fine line between broadcast quality Video and That which
can be produced with a DSLR capable of recording video.

The single biggest problem faced by DSLR vidcam operators is focus. No
DSLR has yet managed to auto focus on variable distance objects with any
degree of consistency. The current popular solution is to mount a DSLR
on rails and use a wheel with friction drive to manually focus with.

Once you go to that trouble, the temptation to kit up an outfit with
remote screen and very large hood capable of taking broadcast level
filters and provide shoulder mount capability is tempting to people who
think they can do the impossible.

Your example is where the madness begins. From there there is steadycam
holders costing up to $20,000 so you can have smooth vision on the run
and a whole spate of accessories meant to imitate real professional
cinematographers capabilities.

It's like a kid in a candy store. Not happy with changing fixed length
lenses for different scenes shot from a fixed position, old timers used
to build rails to run the camera along. Boys and their toy DSLRs today
expect to run along beside the object using a gyroscope (steadycam) rig
to smooth out the bumps. Maybe even use an overhead gantry.

I've got a model helicopter I mount a camera under (still or video). To
get enough power to hold everything aloft, I spent as much as a car
building the thing and no insurance company will cover it.

Why did I do this? So I could film a race from above and create Promos
and commercials for small resorts that couldn't afford the cost of a
real helicopter, pilot and film crew.

That outfit you point to is definitely functional overkill. It only
makes up for the functionality DSLRs don't have when it comes to
broadcast quality video. For what that gear probably cost, you could buy
a Pro level camcorder and get the added advantage of being able to shoot
60 fps and on at least one such camcorder I've seen, slow-motion too.

Noons, as long as there are idiots around, idiocy will prevail. The one
thing critical to all footage shot with these DSLRs is the need for
equally expensive editing equipment. It'll all be outdated soon anyway
and if the idiots have any money left, the idiocy will resume.

The interesting thing is that I've shot scenes on my iPhone that make me
just as much as if I'd used my camcorder! I glued a thread to the iPhone
and screw on a hood or filters. I've even flown it on the helicopter to
see what the results were like. For Utube stuff I can't see you'd need
much more!

Chloe

[Noons]

Chloe wrote,on my timestamp of 16/04/2012 11:24 PM:

> There is a very fine line between broadcast quality Video and That which can be
> produced with a DSLR capable of recording video.

I really don't think so. Unless we count surveillance camera work as "broadcast
quality". Yeah, sure: lots of definition. And some of the most boring, steady
camera footage I've ever seen!

> The single biggest problem faced by DSLR vidcam operators is focus. No DSLR has
> yet managed to auto focus on variable distance objects with any degree of
> consistency. The current popular solution is to mount a DSLR on rails and use a
> wheel with friction drive to manually focus with.

And a few others. Like for example: move (or shake) the camera and the entire
sequence turns to jello. IOW: only surveillance camera footage.
Completely ignoring the simple fact that one of the most effective and used
video and cine camera technique is a panning/moving camera.
But let's not allow reality to interfere with gizmo marketing!

> Your example is where the madness begins. From there there is steadycam holders
> costing up to $20,000 so you can have smooth vision on the run and a whole spate
> of accessories meant to imitate real professional cinematographers capabilities.

You got it in one: imitation.
And expensive, as well!

> to run the camera along. Boys and their toy DSLRs today expect to run along
> beside the object using a gyroscope (steadycam) rig to smooth out the bumps.

The funny thing is they can't. The moment they do that, it all turns to jello.

> I've got a model helicopter I mount a camera under (still or video). To get
> enough power to hold everything aloft, I spent as much as a car building the
> thing and no insurance company will cover it.
>
> Why did I do this? So I could film a race from above and create Promos and
> commercials for small resorts that couldn't afford the cost of a real
> helicopter, pilot and film crew.

But that's perfectly legit! Compare the cost of your contraption to buying a
real helicopter and licensing it for the effect? Surely it was less. But the
stuff these guys are selling is, added up, as expensive as a pro-quality video
camera to start with, with none of the advantages! Why bother?

I know a pro video maker (international tv channel) who still uses his Pana
pro"tank" (for those who don't know, it's a H-U-G-E camera similar in size to an
Arri), initially with a S-VHS back, after with a digital tape back and now with
a digital video back. He's never changed the body, only added lenses and backs
to it. Blessed thing cost him nearly 12 grand 18 years ago and the HQ digital
back was around 8 grand. That investment has paid so many times over it's not
even funny to compare. Then again he uses it for a living, just about every day...

> That outfit you point to is definitely functional overkill. It only makes up for
> the functionality DSLRs don't have when it comes to broadcast quality video. For
> what that gear probably cost, you could buy a Pro level camcorder and get the
> added advantage of being able to shoot 60 fps and on at least one such camcorder
> I've seen, slow-motion too.

Bingo!

> Noons, as long as there are idiots around, idiocy will prevail. The one thing
> critical to all footage shot with these DSLRs is the need for equally expensive
> editing equipment. It'll all be outdated soon anyway and if the idiots have any
> money left, the idiocy will resume.

And now we've got 4K just around the corner, to buy editors for as well... It
never ends, does it?

>
> The interesting thing is that I've shot scenes on my iPhone that make me just as
> much as if I'd used my camcorder! I glued a thread to the iPhone and screw on a
> hood or filters. I've even flown it on the helicopter to see what the results
> were like. For Utube stuff I can't see you'd need much more!

Absolutely! It's why I keep telling folks who only publish 800X600 on the
internet: their 20+MP dslrs are completely W-A-S-T-E-D! They might as well use a
Mavica and save heaps!

[Paul Furman]

But that won't give the DOF effects of 35mm or the high ISO for candle
lit scenes. The setup in the OP is not over the top compared to shooting
film, and it's still a lot more compact.

[Noons]

On Apr 19, 1:22 am, Paul Furman <pa...@-edgehill.net> wrote:

> But that won't give the DOF effects of 35mm or the high ISO for candle
> lit scenes. The setup in the OP is not over the top compared to shooting
> film, and it's still a lot more compact.

DOF effects are completely unrelated to the size of the sensor...
Get the correct lens and you get the correct DOF effect, for any
format.
As for high ISO for candle-lit scenes, watch Stanley Kubrick's Barry
Lyndon: shot on "dirty" low iso film, candle lit, 38 years ago. Of
course they used the frankencamera...

[Rol_Lei Nut]

Assuming Canon junkies are capable of watching Barry Lyndon, brace
yourself for the inevitable "Oooh! They must have filmed that using L
lenses..."

;-)

[David Dyer-Bennet]

Noons <wizo...@gmail.com> writes:

> On Apr 19, 1:22 am, Paul Furman <pa...@-edgehill.net> wrote:
>
>> But that won't give the DOF effects of 35mm or the high ISO for candle
>> lit scenes. The setup in the OP is not over the top compared to shooting
>> film, and it's still a lot more compact.
>
> DOF effects are completely unrelated to the size of the sensor...
> Get the correct lens and you get the correct DOF effect, for any
> format.

Nonsense. The size of the negative enters into DOF calculation (as does
the intended final print size).

For many small sensors, lenses fast enough to get some of the desired
effects are unavailable, or even physically impossible.

> As for high ISO for candle-lit scenes, watch Stanley Kubrick's Barry
> Lyndon: shot on "dirty" low iso film, candle lit, 38 years ago. Of
> course they used the frankencamera...

Yes, they did. Rather special lenses!
--
David Dyer-Bennet, dd...@dd-b.net; http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info

[Noons]

On Apr 19, 7:55 pm, Rol_Lei Nut <Speleo_Karstlens...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
> Assuming Canon junkies are capable of watching Barry Lyndon, brace
> yourself for the inevitable "Oooh! They must have filmed that using L
> lenses..."

Absolutely! Anything else would have been a communkist conspiracy!

[Noons]

On Apr 20, 1:05 am, David Dyer-Bennet <d...@dd-b.net> wrote:


> > DOF effects are completely unrelated to the size of the sensor...
> > Get the correct lens and you get the correct DOF effect, for any
> > format.
>
> Nonsense. The size of the negative enters into DOF calculation (as does
> the intended final print size).

The size of negative has nothing to do with DOF. DOF is determined
uniquely by subject magnification at the sensor plane. Sensor size
only comes into it as an indirect factor required by the different
types of lenses used in each format.

> For many small sensors, lenses fast enough to get some of the desired
> effects are unavailable, or even physically impossible.

Really? Ever tried to use a tele setting instead of a wide angle one?
You mean I can't take "bokeh" shots with my CV25/0.95 and EPL1 as good
as with my M645 and a 80/2.8 lens? News to me...

> > As for high ISO for candle-lit scenes, watch Stanley Kubrick's Barry
> > Lyndon: shot on "dirty" low iso film, candle lit, 38 years ago. Of
> > course they used the frankencamera...
>
> Yes, they did.  Rather special lenses!

Ah, so a camera is a lens? All is explained...

Next imbecile comment?

[Alan Browne]

On 2012-04-19 11:05 , David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
> Noons<wizo...@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> On Apr 19, 1:22 am, Paul Furman<pa...@-edgehill.net> wrote:
>>
>>> But that won't give the DOF effects of 35mm or the high ISO for candle
>>> lit scenes. The setup in the OP is not over the top compared to shooting
>>> film, and it's still a lot more compact.
>>
>> DOF effects are completely unrelated to the size of the sensor...
>> Get the correct lens and you get the correct DOF effect, for any
>> format.
>
> Nonsense. The size of the negative enters into DOF calculation (as does
> the intended final print size).

Yep. Enlargement ratio (negative size to print) is actually the most
important aspect of DOF presentation. I'm surprised that Noonsie
doesdn't know that.

> For many small sensors, lenses fast enough to get some of the desired
> effects are unavailable, or even physically impossible.
>
>> As for high ISO for candle-lit scenes, watch Stanley Kubrick's Barry
>> Lyndon: shot on "dirty" low iso film, candle lit, 38 years ago. Of
>> course they used the frankencamera...
>
> Yes, they did. Rather special lenses!

f/0.7 Zeiss designs for NASA (Apollo program) and then further modified.
It's not clear to me if Kubric borrowed/rented/bought/stole the lenses
from NASA or if they were new lenses made for him.

--
"I was gratified to be able to answer promptly, and I did.
I said I didn't know."
-Samuel Clemens.

[Eric Stevens]

See http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/sk/ac/len/page1.htm

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[Noons]

Alan Browne wrote,on my timestamp of 21/04/2012 6:06 AM:

> Yep. Enlargement ratio (negative size to print) is actually the most important
> aspect of DOF presentation. I'm surprised that Noonsie doesdn't know that.

And what'that got to do with size of sensor, moron?
DOF doesn't change ONE bit with size of sensor.
And you know that perfectly well.

> f/0.7 Zeiss designs for NASA (Apollo program) and then further modified. It's
> not clear to me if Kubric borrowed/rented/bought/stole the lenses from NASA or
> if they were new lenses made for him.

And of course those were frankemcameras with large sensors?
In fact, I'm quite sure that sensor size is defined in "fn.n" units.
And that "negative size to print" had a lot to do with it, of course...

[Noons]

Eric Stevens wrote,on my timestamp of 21/04/2012 8:49 AM:

>>
>> f/0.7 Zeiss designs for NASA (Apollo program) and then further modified.
>> It's not clear to me if Kubric borrowed/rented/bought/stole the lenses
>>from NASA or if they were new lenses made for him.
>
> See http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/sk/ac/len/page1.htm
>

Amazing how sensor size and "negative size to print" aren't once mentioned!...

[Noons]

Noons wrote,on my timestamp of 21/04/2012 6:30 PM:
> Alan Browne wrote,on my timestamp of 21/04/2012 6:06 AM:
>
>> Yep. Enlargement ratio (negative size to print) is actually the most important
>> aspect of DOF presentation. I'm surprised that Noonsie doesdn't know that.
>

Stop being such an ignorant fool, Alan:

http://diglloyd.com/blog/2012/20120209_1-DepthOfField.html

"At a given image size and viewing distance, finer pixel pitch really doesn't
change depth of field"

"As Glenn correctly points out, depth of field is purely an optical property
which is fixed by optical laws, and thus bears no relation which sensor or film
is recording the image"

Alan, your ignorance will just keep getting exposed every single time.
Better shut up now...

[David Dyer-Bennet]

Noons <wizo...@yahoo.com.au> writes:

> Noons wrote,on my timestamp of 21/04/2012 6:30 PM:
>> Alan Browne wrote,on my timestamp of 21/04/2012 6:06 AM:
>>
>>> Yep. Enlargement ratio (negative size to print) is actually the most important
>>> aspect of DOF presentation. I'm surprised that Noonsie doesdn't know that.
>>
>
> Stop being such an ignorant fool, Alan:
>
> http://diglloyd.com/blog/2012/20120209_1-DepthOfField.html
>
> "At a given image size and viewing distance, finer pixel pitch really
> doesn't change depth of field"

Yep, that's true.

> "As Glenn correctly points out, depth of field is purely an optical
> property which is fixed by optical laws, and thus bears no relation
> which sensor or film is recording the image"

That's sort-of true. If you're planning to take a picture with one of
two cameras with different sensor (or film) sizes, and you're planning a
print of a particular size -- the degree of enlargement will be larger
from the camera with the smaller sensor (or film). And degree of
enlargemend *does* affect DOF.

[Ryan McGinnis]

On Wed, 18 Apr 2012, Noons wrote:

> On Apr 19, 1:22 am, Paul Furman <pa...@-edgehill.net> wrote:
>
>> But that won't give the DOF effects of 35mm or the high ISO for candle
>> lit scenes. The setup in the OP is not over the top compared to shooting
>> film, and it's still a lot more compact.
>
> DOF effects are completely unrelated to the size of the sensor...

No.

> As for high ISO for candle-lit scenes, watch Stanley Kubrick's Barry
> Lyndon: shot on "dirty" low iso film, candle lit, 38 years ago. Of
> course they used the frankencamera...

It was shot with a f/0.7 Zeiss lens borrowed from NASA (developed for the
moon landing). There was only one of them. Ironically (given that you
use it as a counterpoint to a "frankencamera"), the lens had to be
modified to work on a movie camera, as it was designed to work on a 35mm
SLR still camera.

I don't think anyone claimed film couldn't do low light with a silly-fast
lens, but show me some film stock that looks good when pushed to ISO
12800.

Ryan McGinnis            digi...@gmail.com              @bigstormpicture
Follow my storm chasing adventures at http://bigstormpicture.blogspot.com
Images@Getty: http://bit.ly/oDW1pT        Images@AGE http://bit.ly/w4EuWB
The BIG Storm Picture:  http://bigstormpicture.com    PGP Key: 0x65115E4C

[Noons]

On Apr 24, 12:24 am, David Dyer-Bennet <d...@dd-b.net> wrote:

> >http://diglloyd.com/blog/2012/20120209_1-DepthOfField.html
>
> > "At a given image size and viewing distance, finer pixel pitch really
> > doesn't change depth of field"
>
> Yep, that's true.

I'm glad you agree with a scientist.

> > "As Glenn correctly points out, depth of field is purely an optical
> > property which is fixed by optical laws, and thus bears no relation
> > which sensor or film is recording the image"
>
> That's sort-of true.  If you're planning to take a picture with one of
> two cameras with different sensor (or film) sizes, and you're planning a
> print of a particular size -- the degree of enlargement will be larger
> from the camera with the smaller sensor (or film).  And degree of
> enlargemend *does* affect DOF.

There is no such thing as "sort-of-true". Two "ifs" don't make a rule
that extends across the board. Of course there are always specific
cases.

The statement made by Alan-the-"expert" is that it's all to do with
the "negative size to print". As if that was the only variable. It
isn't.

It's a combination of various factors. One is the lens aperture and
focal distance. That's what defines the standalone circle of
confusion of the original capture. Any enlargement is a specific case
applied to a specific image because someone wants to print at a given
size.

To be taken in consideration for each instance, combining the two
variables needed for that specific outcome: the enlargement and the
focal length/aperture choice.

But print at annika's preferred size of 600X400 and you'll need to
photoshop in any DOF, regardless of the camera/lens used!

[Noons]

On Apr 24, 5:25 am, Ryan McGinnis <r...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> > DOF effects are completely unrelated to the size of the sensor...
>
> No.

Oh, get lost. Go learn the basics of optics.

> Ironically (given that you
> use it as a counterpoint to a "frankencamera"),

No I did not. Learn to read English.

> the lens had to be
> modified to work on a movie camera, as it was designed to work on a 35mm
> SLR still camera.

Uniformed gibberish, as expected. Kubrick used 35mm film stock so he
had to modify NOTHING other than the lens mount. Learn some facts
before you spout uninformed opinions.

> I don't think anyone claimed film couldn't do low light with a silly-fast
> lens, but show me some film stock that looks good when pushed to ISO
> 12800.

Who the heck needs to push film stock to 12800? Or any stock, for
that matter? Can you comprehend that because some marketeer has
decided that high ISOs "sell" it doesn't necessarily follow that ALL
photography has to be made at that ISO or that it is even desirable to
use such?
Can you also comprehend that I did not mention film anywhere? The
comparison with shooting film was made by someone else, totally out of
context?

The subject is frankencamera. As in a totally unnecessary and useless
expensive gizmo.

[Ryan McGinnis]

"HURRRR DURRRR, I'M AN ASS TO PEOPLE ON THE INTERNETS! GIVE ME ATTENTION!
HURRR DURRRR!"

Makes me pine for the old days of Usenet, when trolls were interesting and
talented. :)

[Alan Browne]

On 2012-04-25 15:01 , Ryan McGinnis wrote:
> "HURRRR DURRRR, I'M AN ASS TO PEOPLE ON THE INTERNETS! GIVE ME
> ATTENTION! HURRR DURRRR!"
>
> Makes me pine for the old days of Usenet, when trolls were interesting
> and talented. :)

I pine for day that people remember to ignore them.

[Noons]

Ryan McGinnis wrote,on my timestamp of 26/04/2012 5:01 AM:

> "HURRRR DURRRR, I'M AN ASS TO PEOPLE ON THE INTERNETS! GIVE ME ATTENTION! HURRR
> DURRRR!"

OK, take the bone. Now, go choke on it somewhere else, OK?

> Makes me pine for the old days of Usenet, when trolls were interesting and
> talented. :)

Me too. Unfortunately, uninformned idiots like you are the norm nowadays.
Hence why the Usenet is dying.

[Noons]

Alan Browne wrote,on my timestamp of 26/04/2012 9:59 AM:

>
> I pine for day that people remember to ignore them.

And remarkably, what you pine for has never succeeded.
Must suck to be so ignored, eh?

[Chloe]

Dearest Noons...
Dear Alan Browne...

And Anyone else interested in this fascinating subject... Depth of
field. DOF for short. The first and most critical subject for Portrait
specialists to comprehend and understand. Well maybe understanding light
and shade might be so I'll call it equal to light and shade...

All of you are entirely correct and completely wrong at the same time,
depending on the application of the subject. Precision in wording is
missing from all your posts. Specific detail lost in your rush to best
your opponent. What a shame and complete waste of effort. Still I guess
if you no longer have a darkroom to while away your idle hours...

As a general rule, small sensors WILL produce a greater depth of field
than larger ones IF the picture is the same compositional size. A quick
and dirty example is comparing an iPhone to my pride and joy- a Phase
One (actually an updated Mamiya 645AFDII). The same photo at the same
screen composition size will have a seriously deep DOF on the iPhone but
barely hold focus for a few inches with the P1 at the same aperture and
compositional size. --Take note I said nothing about the lens focal length.

The reason for this DOF conundrum is in the focal length of a lens
needed to achieve the same compositional size wrongly referred to by the
gorgeous Alan Browne as "Enlargement Ratio"... An entirely different
subject.

85mm (I call this the useless size once supplied as a standard lens I.E.
equal to 50mm with 35mm frame size) on my P1 it is a "standard" lens but
I only ever use it for shooting art prior to making LE prints.

The iPhone "Standard" lens has a 3.9 mm focal length although you can
digitally zoom it to about 12mm FL if you feel adventurous. And here
lies the conundrum ladies... Forget all about the size of the
composition, it's the focal length and aperture of a lens that dictates
how much or how little DOF a camera will have.

TO see why you are all right and wrong at the same time, look up some
DOF specs of various focal length lenses. There is a canyon of distance
between what will stay in focus with a 4mm focal length lens and an 85mm
FL lens. In fact many phone cameras use such a wide angle lens,
everything past 3 feet is in focus all the time.

What you have as a DOF with a "full frame" DSLR using a 50mm lens at
f2.8 (almost nothing useful for sharpness) will be measured in feet,
even meters with a 4mm lens at the same aperture.

But when you start swapping and assuming, picking up and interposing
snips of relevant and irrelevant information you've picked up as you
surf through the plethora of bullshit written on the subject... You'll
all be right and wrong at the same time and as this thread demonstrates
so eloquently, end up not knowing when to apply what piece of
information about what subject. all you've done is try (but fail
miserably) to demonstrate that bullshit beats brains. Well it might in
newsgroups but not when your income depends of the brains.

TO Noons... Pull you head in Sweetheart. Be specific if you intend to
use this sort of information in an argument or to start one. That way
you'll be right from the start and not have to learn as your combatants
make similar mistakes.

TO Alan Browne... When you get cold, go inside and light a fire, don't
try to start one here with flaming people. Your cut and paste knowledge
starts to show up. So until you are prepared to do what you so often
expect others to do... Be specific... Shut up!

Enlargement ratio has SFA to do with depth of field. It's all about
focal length and aperture. Nothing more or less. Trying to display your
technical ineptitude by posting stuff you once read and (wrongly)
thought was correct only shows up your true self... Someone who thinks
photographing snow flakes in a winter storm with Ektachrome E100G is
artistic creativity.

Chloe
--
© This manuscript is copyright material.
A license is granted for newsgroup reading, electronic storage as part
of a greater newsgroup, copying and sending electronically to individual
people. No license is granted for printing, use in publications
including web sites, newsletters, electronic books, sending to more than
one addressee at a time or educational application of any type without
written permission from the copyright owner and original creator.
chloe(underline here)brown@live.(usecomhere).au

[David Dyer-Bennet]

Chloe <chloe....@use.one> writes:

> Enlargement ratio has SFA to do with depth of field. It's all about
> focal length and aperture.

Focal length, aperture, focal distance, and circle of confusion, surely?
All of those enter into the real formulas.

And the choice of suitable circle of confusion is conventionally based
on film size and intended degree of enlargement; those last two
amounting to "enlargement ratio".

[Alan Browne]

On 2012-04-27 14:02 , David Dyer-Bennet wrote:

> on film size and intended degree of enlargement; those last two
> amounting to "enlargement ratio".

Doh! You're supposed to let "her" ramble some more and really dig
"her"self into the ground first!

[Alan Browne]

On 2012-04-27 10:08 , Chloe wrote:

> TO Alan Browne... When you get cold, go inside and light a fire, don't
> try to start one here with flaming people. Your cut and paste knowledge
> starts to show up. So until you are prepared to do what you so often
> expect others to do... Be specific... Shut up!

Grow up. You're a mental midget with delusions of adequacy.

> Enlargement ratio has SFA to do with depth of field.

Besides the commonly understood (photography 101) relationship of FL,
aperture and distance to subject, enlargement ratio is the most
important aspect of DOF perception. If you actually spent time printing
at various sizes and examining the result this would be obvious. Even
to you!

Now, let's see some of your great iphone videos that are better than the
one Bret posted. Really - put up or evaporate Douglas, er, "Chloe".

[David Dyer-Bennet]

Alan Browne <alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> writes:

> On 2012-04-27 14:02 , David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
>
>> on film size and intended degree of enlargement; those last two
>> amounting to "enlargement ratio".
>
> Doh! You're supposed to let "her" ramble some more and really dig
> "her"self into the ground first!

Oops, sorry! Had no intention of interfering with the roasting!

[Noons]

Chloe wrote,on my timestamp of 28/04/2012 12:08 AM:

> All of you are entirely correct and completely wrong at the same time, depending
> on the application of the subject. Precision in wording is missing from all your
> posts.

Really? I think you are being a bit vague there...

> ladies... Forget all about the size of the composition, it's the focal length
> and aperture of a lens that dictates how much or how little DOF a camera will have.

That's funny. And here I am recalling that I said precisely that. But I guess
acknowledging the "wog" was right would hurt the sensibilities of the
enlightened superior race, wouldn't it?

> TO Noons... Pull you head in Sweetheart. Be specific if you intend to use this
> sort of information in an argument or to start one. That way you'll be right
> from the start and not have to learn as your combatants make similar mistakes.

I've been specific: it's the lens focal length and the aperture that define the
DOF. It is incredible that you now try to claim it's not and that I was wrong
in claiming what you say is right. Ah, whatever: that must be your definition
of consistency...