If you are working in the 1-4x magnification regime and calculating DOF using the widely distributed DOF = 2 N C (M + 1 / M x M) formula, do you use the marked f number of effective f number in the calculation ?
Andrew
DOF calculation - marked f number or effective f number ?
Moderators: rjlittlefield, ChrisR, Chris S., Pau
- rjlittlefield
- Site Admin
- Posts: 23608
- Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:34 am
- Location: Richland, Washington State, USA
- Contact:
Marked.
If your lens is asymmetric, then there's an additional correction that depends on pupillary magnification factor. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depth_of_field.
--Rik
If your lens is asymmetric, then there's an additional correction that depends on pupillary magnification factor. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depth_of_field.
--Rik
- rjlittlefield
- Site Admin
- Posts: 23608
- Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:34 am
- Location: Richland, Washington State, USA
- Contact:
It's good for that. Effective f-number is also what determines the exposure time, should you ever be reduced to computing that instead of just measuring it.
Speaking of which...
In my experience (and I'm a math guy), the DOF formulas are good for general guidance and that's about it. By the time you factor in pupillary magnification and diffraction issues, it may be faster and it's certainly more reliable to just test your actual setup to see what works best for your application.
If you're stacking, for example, then you'll probably be looking for the smallest aperture that gives you adequate resolution. But almost by definition, diffraction will be significant at that point. The standard DOF formulas don't take diffraction into account, and as a result, they give a number that's too big. Choosing focus step based on the calculation will not give as good a result as good as one obtained by experiment.
--Rik
Speaking of which...
In my experience (and I'm a math guy), the DOF formulas are good for general guidance and that's about it. By the time you factor in pupillary magnification and diffraction issues, it may be faster and it's certainly more reliable to just test your actual setup to see what works best for your application.
If you're stacking, for example, then you'll probably be looking for the smallest aperture that gives you adequate resolution. But almost by definition, diffraction will be significant at that point. The standard DOF formulas don't take diffraction into account, and as a result, they give a number that's too big. Choosing focus step based on the calculation will not give as good a result as good as one obtained by experiment.
--Rik
Ah, well I'm an engineer / lapsed plasma physicist. In our world 2+2=5 (just to be safe), well to be really safe let's make it 6. Actually, sod it, to be really sure let's just round it up to 10, oh and do a test run, or two, anywayIn my experience (and I'm a math guy), the DOF formulas are good for general guidance and that's about it.
To be nice to my neighbours I don't do machine work at night (I need to mill a recess into a small drive housing so I can couple a miniature linear bearing to it - pictures will follow, someday soon) so sometimes I play with numbers Like you say though, unless you have a really good proven model, sometimes they just point you in the general direction.
Andrew
- rjlittlefield
- Site Admin
- Posts: 23608
- Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:34 am
- Location: Richland, Washington State, USA
- Contact:
- Charles Krebs
- Posts: 5865
- Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:02 pm
- Location: Issaquah, WA USA
- Contact:
- rjlittlefield
- Site Admin
- Posts: 23608
- Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:34 am
- Location: Richland, Washington State, USA
- Contact:
-
- Posts: 5786
- Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2008 2:17 am
- Location: Reading, Berkshire, England
-
- Posts: 5786
- Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2008 2:17 am
- Location: Reading, Berkshire, England
The other thing to remember, if using flash illumination (and not metering), is that, in macro setups, the light source is usually very close to the subject and intensity at the subject varies proportionally to reciprocal of the distance, not to the reciprocal of its square. That is, halve the distance and you get double, not four times, the intensity.
Harold
Harold
My images are a medium for sharing some of my experiences: they are not me.