Depth of Field Myths: Does Focal Length & Sensor Size Affect DoF?

Подписаться 444 тыс.

Просмотров 131 тыс.

50% 1

Discussing various factors that affect depth of field including focal length, sensor size, f-stop, & distance to subject and debunking common DoF myths.
👍 Thanks for watching! Please like, comment, & subscribe.
=============================
Relevant Links:
=============================
DOF Simulator: dofsimulator.net
Video on Entrance Pupils & f-stops: • Aperture & f-stop Myth...
Video on Crop Factor & Field of View: • Crop Lenses on Crop Bo...
=============================
Gear I Use to Make Videos:
=============================
kit.co/GeraldU...
=============================
Music:
=============================
I use Artlist for my background music needs. Use this link to get two extra months when signing up: bit.ly/2TV5sYT
=============================
Follow Me:
=============================
Twitter: / geraldundone
Instagram: / geraldundone
Discord: / discord
=============================
Affiliate Links:
=============================
Some of the links in my video descriptions are affiliate links, which means at no extra cost to you, I will make a small commission if you click them and make a qualifying purchase. If you have a different purchase in mind, you can also use these storewide links below.
🛒 Amazon: geni.us/1m1G32
🛒 B&H Photo: bhpho.to/2MYRKBE
🚩 If you're a fellow RU-vidr, I highly recommend you try TubeBuddy. It's helped my channel immensely: www.tubebuddy....
=============================
From Wikipedia:
=============================
In optics, the phenomenon known as depth of field (DOF) is the distance about the plane of focus where objects appear acceptably sharp in an image. Although an optical imaging system can precisely focus on only one plane at a time, the decrease in sharpness is gradual on each side so that within the DOF the unsharpness is imperceptible under normal viewing conditions.
In some cases, it may be desirable to have the entire image sharp, and a large DOF is appropriate. In other cases, a small DOF may be more effective, emphasizing the subject while de-emphasizing the foreground and background. In cinematography, a large DOF is often called deep focus, and a small DOF is often called shallow focus.
Precise focus is possible in only one two-dimensional plane; in that plane, a point object will produce a point image. In any other plane, a point object is defocused, and will produce a blur spot shaped like the aperture of the lens viewing it. When this circular spot is sufficiently small, it is indistinguishable from a point, and appears to be in focus and is considered "acceptably sharp". The diameter of the circle increases with distance from the plane of focus; the largest circle that is indistinguishable from a point is known as the acceptable circle of confusion. The increase of the circle diameter with defocus is gradual, so the limits of depth of field are not hard boundaries between sharp and unsharp.
=============================
#depthoffield #bokeh #sensor

Опубликовано:

1 окт 2024

Ссылка:

Скачать:

Готовим ссылку...

Добавить в:

Мой плейлист

Посмотреть позже

Комментарии : 717

@geraldundone 6 лет назад

Thanks for watching! 😃 I hope my explanations were clear and helpful. There was a section that I completely cut from the video because I felt it bogged down the flow and made it much more confusing, but if you’re interested in knowing more about how focal length affects depth of field, read below. In the video I suggest that focal length has no direct affect on depth of field--only secondary, and this is only true if the goal is to maintain a consistent size of the subject in the frame or magnification. If we remove distance to the subject as a condition, then focal length becomes a direct influencer on depth of field. This often seems confusing, because you’d think a longer lens with a greater focal length would have a deeper depth of field because it has a more narrow field of view, but what’s actually happening is the longer lenses are increasing the noticeability of discrepancies in focus. Basically, if rays aren’t meeting perfectly at the correct plane, they cross over each other and can go on infinitely getting further and further apart. So longer lenses allow these less-than-perfect alignments to get further from each and thus further from focus when travelling down the longer focal length. Where a wider lens, which converges more powerfully, cuts the errors off sooner so they’re less blurry when compared to the point of true focus. More simply, longer focal length lenses magnify or bring things closer to you visually, which includes exaggerating discrepancies in focus, making the range of acceptable focus more shallow than if you used a wider lens. As explained in the video, however, this is easily overcome by achieving the same subject magnification or filling the frame equally with the subject when using a wider lens. So, as you can see, it’s both true and untrue that focal length affects depth of field, depending on what you’ve determined to be the primary goal. If your goal is to have equal subject weight, focal length will have no important affect, just move the physical location of the camera or the subject. If, however, you wish you maintain a constant physical distance, then focal length will be a primary and direct factor in influencing your depth of field. I hope this addendum didn’t obfuscate the utility of the video too much. And to those who braved the further reading, I hope you have a wonderful day! 😃🙏💗

@josecolon8143 6 лет назад

Gerald Undone you are a natural educator! Bravissimo!!! 🎉🎊🌟🍾👏👏👏👏👏👏

@RegWestly 6 лет назад

yes please

@paullavender6227 6 лет назад

Great video, thank you. P.

@earlmcnulty4665 5 лет назад

I absolutely LOVE these technical videos. Keep em coming!!!

@kardnails8729 5 лет назад

When you were comparing the 50mm and 25mm at the end, why didn't you divide the F stop by two as well?

@gabrielviero 5 лет назад

I'm a physics student and also photographer, and seriously, this is by far the best and most accurate explanation about DoF I've ever seen on an accessible medium

@geraldundone 5 лет назад

Thanks so much, Gabriel! That means a lot coming from a person with your background.

@millerman2133 4 года назад

seriously. (im no physics major lol) of all the articles and books I've read, this video is the most technical, yet understandable way of explaining DoF. why couldn't I find this video a year ago?!

@vincenzodellama7158 4 года назад

@@geraldundone what about compression of the background and distortion? Shouldn't the background look closer and the lens have less distortion the longer it is?

@JordanDanielWende 4 года назад

Vincenzo Del Lama While not addressing distortion he does talk about compression at the end of the video and shows examples with the DoF calculator (the woman in front of the tree)

@ariesmight6978 3 месяца назад

You beat to me to posting. A nearly exact same response.

@Noojtxeeg 6 лет назад

This was much better explained than a lot of other videos out there.

@geraldundone 6 лет назад

Thanks, mate! Cheers. 😃👍

@ChocoLater1 5 лет назад

@@geraldundone People who talk about it don't understand it at all obviously.

@rossthomas4738 5 лет назад

Gerald you need to be invited on other photography channels to once and for all explain this subject. Undisputed the best explanation on this subject EVER. You impress me more each video.

@MeAMuse 6 лет назад

The first video on this subject that has not got a million angry people angry writing comments. I would say thats a big success. Good job!

@geraldundone 6 лет назад

Haha. That's a fun way to look at it. Cheers! 😃

@whoismatt 5 лет назад

Really loved this explanation dude!

@geraldundone 5 лет назад

Thanks a lot, Matt! Means a lot coming from you. I really enjoy your videos. 😃🙏

@geraldundone 5 лет назад

Do you still not have Twitter though?

@whoismatt 5 лет назад

@@geraldundone @whoismattj but I'm rarely on it haha

@johannbauermeister3916 5 лет назад

Wow. After decades of photography, I find out I had an incomplete understanding of this. Thanks!

@stumpyjock 6 лет назад

What a fantastic explanation of dof. Loving your work Gerald, these tech orientated videos that you produce absolutely rock!

@geraldundone 6 лет назад

Thanks, Steve! That's a really nice comment. Much appreciated! 😃👍

@radialbladeworks6183 3 года назад

My god, man. You clearly have an absolute grasp on the subject matter. Not only this, but you have the ability to conversationally explain the material. Finally, you identify common issues and misconceptions, indicating an awareness of the general community’s perspective. This is top tier teaching. Fantastic video

@DJLsbVapes 6 лет назад

What an awesome and perfect explanation...

@geraldundone 6 лет назад

Thanks, mate! Much appreciated. 😃👍

@MrRlaureano 6 лет назад

You should be in the science field Gerald! :D That was the best explanation I've ever heard, seen or read regarding DOF. I really appreciate learning the "science" in photography, which is indisputable, compared to the art in photography, which is subjective. The fact that you add motion graphics makes watching your videos not only entertaining but also very educational. Excellent work!

@geraldundone 6 лет назад

Thanks, Robert! Appreciate your kind words. I'm glad you like the graphics. They're the most time consuming so it's good to hear that they're worth it. 😃

@TiagoSilva-tx9hz 6 лет назад

after this video if people still don't understand DOF they can quit photography :D

@Veterans_for_Harris 6 лет назад

Photography isn't a science. It's an art.

@aiquelindo 5 лет назад

@@Veterans_for_Harris Yes, but photography is made with cameras and cameras are made with science. If you don't understand the technical aspect of photography you will be very limited in your artistic decisions.

@khuo0219 5 лет назад

No need to be condescending. Some people learn faster some slower. Some by watching and reading, and some by doing.

@floatingrabbit3556 5 лет назад

@@Veterans_for_Harris its both... depending on how you at it.

@floatingrabbit3556 5 лет назад

@@khuo0219 some don't at all

@DiversReady 4 года назад

Another great video. I learn so much from this channel. Thanks Gerald.

@cliff9101 6 лет назад

That DoF simulator is so helpful and explains the relationship between all these factors (crop factor, aperture, distance to main subject and how far away the background appears, quality of bokeh, etc) in such an easy and intuitive way. It's also helping with my next lens decision. Thanks!

@GoExperimental 4 года назад

never change your intro haha its so catchy

@SteveMayedaTV 6 лет назад

I was already a fan...now I’m a ‘Fanboy’ Thanks a million man You have no idea how many photographers (and even photography professors) that question over the past 20 plus years

@geraldundone 6 лет назад

My pleasure! Thanks for the continued support. 😃

@TonyMacina 6 лет назад

Finally, a well articulated explanation! I'd been trying to tell people this when I mentioned looking at a GH5s instead of a full frame camera for short films. With a plethora of decent manual focus lenses like the Voigtlander range at f/0.95 and the Veydra at T/2.2, most needs are met by M4/3 for narrative video work.

@jamesbartoschsr.9474 2 года назад

I am 71 years old and been doing photography since I was 8 years old. I have taken multiple classes on photography and you have been the only one that has explained DOF clearly. Thanks...

@JohnSmith-hm8xl 5 лет назад

I'm watching, I understand, I'm smarter, I click Like, Subscribe and Save to Watch later.

@BigMilan 6 лет назад

Wow! I love this type of thing. I notice a number of things in photography terminology have been made up by people who don’t fully understand how the related physics work, but this one never occurred to me either - thank you very much for this video! Subscribed!

@mirasga 4 года назад

That's why in macrophotography using F/8-F/16 is not uncommon. My father has this old school, DOF calculator that does the same thing as the DOF calculator you have shown, minus the visual representation. :D Great explanation!

@ujoel2 3 года назад

Hi Gerald, great video thanks! I have a question.... I tried using the calculator that you demonstrated and I left everything the same including distance, but changed only the sensor size (FF to M4/3.) If sensor size does not affect DOF, then why is it calculating different DOFs when all else is equal? What am I missing? From my understanding, the calculator should not be trying to take into account composition or equivalencies between resulting FOVs from the different crop factors you explained... Same lens, same distance, same aperture... I just put a different camera behind it. Yes, the composition will be different, and yes the smaller sensor would not be using the full image being cast on it from the lens... But if the sensor does not affect DOF why do I have two different results?

@justoalejandrogonzalez5097 5 лет назад

DUDE, THOSE EXPLANATION SKILLS!!! GOD FREAKING DAMN IT! Great dang video.

@geraldundone 5 лет назад

Thanks so much! Very much appreciated.

@borderlands6606 6 лет назад

The clearest explanation I've heard. Especially the part about the photographer not moving position at 9:44

@geraldundone 6 лет назад

Thanks so much! I'm really glad to hear that. Cheers 😃👍

@borderlands6606 6 лет назад

Gerald Undone something I'm not clear on is the onset of diffraction relative to lens size. So for example it's generally accepted that diffraction becomes evident on full frame lenses with an aperture smaller than f8. Diffraction is a by-product of iris diameter - the smaller the "hole" the more light waves bend or deflect. However if I want a deep DoF for street photography, will diffraction become less of an issue on a small sensor camera because I'm using f5.6 rather than f11, and is the entrance pupil a constant in diffraction? I hope that's clear.

@geraldundone 6 лет назад

If I'm understanding you right, my answer would be that diffraction is still a concern and is scaled in the same way most things are with full frame to m43 (by a factor of 2). So, if you're experiencing unwanted results at f/16 full frame, you'll get similar results at f/8 on m43. Assuming build quality, etc. is similar.

@borderlands6606 6 лет назад

Gerald Undone Ok so diffraction onset is a format variable not an aperture constant. That makes sense. Thanks.

@5050-Films 4 года назад

I’ve been doing photography for 40 years and am an engineer - this video and your video on f-numbers are hands-down two of the best photography videos I have ever watched. Keep creating sir!!

@donsylvester5275 5 лет назад

Really like your 'firehose' style. Am bored by presenters who go sllloooowwwwllllyyyyy. Yeah ... fire up the grey matter and blast away with all you've got ... that's what the Fwd and Back controls are for! Solid coverage of the physics. Your video is kinda like studying Organic Chemistry in order to cook a meal ... waaaaay over the top ... and I love it for the sheer curiosity satisfaction. Pls do more.

@geraldundone 5 лет назад

Haha. Love this comment. Thanks, Don! Cheers. 👍🙏😃

@MisterBlueSky 5 лет назад

Yeah, I actually had to use the back button twice. But I loved the video. Great work!!! @@geraldundone

@reginaldworthington7558 5 лет назад

After reading this comment I decided to try something as I do find Gerald flies through the info rather quickly given the deep technical dives he’s doing. I set ‘play-speed’ to 75% and replayed part of this video. Surprisingly he still sounds pretty normal although the audio EQ gets a bit strange. I found that a better pace for me to take it all in at and no more rewinds to regurge the content! Beauty!!

@sidewaysfcs0718 3 года назад

So, in short, it's physically impossible to achieve very shallow depth of field on a phone camera, since the largest the entrance pupil will ever be is a few milimeters (5-8mm at best) while for a dedicated camera the entrance pupil can easily be tens of milimeters large for well-built lenses.

@nshea3286 2 года назад

What am I missing here? Depth of field should be the same on a cropped sensor as a Full Frame with the same focal length and f-stop. Yet when I look at depth of field calculators it isn't - the full frame has more depth of field. Is this because the greater field of view of the Full frame makes the out of focus elements relatively smaller, thus increasing sharpness relative to a cropped frame.

@1RJ2 6 лет назад

Dudr. Best fucking video ever. When i started getting into the thecnical part or photpgrahy and i searched for this it was always some confusing video of people doing field test and debating that everyone was wrong. This proves it.

@TheManShel 5 лет назад

**Hands raised in defeat** "Okay math man... you win"

@edma22 6 лет назад

So glad I came across your channel! This is the single most useful video I've some across about this subject. I've tried to wrangle DOF as I switch between 35mm film/sensors and up to 6x6 and 6x9 film backs. I'd figured out the focal length equivalency but struggled with the way DOF was changing. Suddenly, the circle of confusion I had about the subject, if may apply a weak pun, has resolved incredibly sharply! Thank you for your sterling work.

@geraldundone 6 лет назад

Haha. I chuckled a little at the pun. 😃

@michaelmazzen 5 лет назад

Pretty much the best way I've ever heard anybody explain this stuff... Im totally going to steal this next time Im explaining this to my own students :))

@herrchristophotto 2 года назад

Thanks a lot for finally giving a good and clear explanation of these relationships. Most people all over the internet are like: larger sensors produce shallower depth of fielp per se. Which, in my opinion, is plain rubbish. Point is, you're basically using longer focal lengths to achieve an equivalent field of view with larger sensors. Hence, you're automatically getting shallower depth of field using the same f-numbers. E.g. 50mm f4.0 gives you a shallower depth of field than say 25mm f4.0 for the same focal distance. That has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the sensor size but ONLY with the basically longer focal lengths you're using. Thanks for finally making this clear on the interwebz :)

@matteogiordano6166 Год назад

Straight question: same lens, same focus distance, same aperture and different sensor size. I should have the same depth of field and different field of view, I thought. But it's not! Why? Please help, my mind is melting. I have used DOF calculator: 100mm lens, f5.6, subject/focus distance 5metres; then I switch from FF to micro4/3. Result: the micro4/3 has the depth of field half shallower! What am I missing??? Since a sensor is just something the captures an image, how can it on earth have something to do with the depth of field?

@KruiserIV 5 лет назад

As always, great video. Concise, accurate and informative. Something I've noticed is that the more frame space my subject occupies, the more thin the depth of field appears to be. For example, if I photograph a person's upper body with a 105mm lens at f/1.4 and their body occupies 50% of the frame, I can achieve the same apparent depth of field using a 35mm lens at f/1.4 as long as I move the camera closer to my subject so that their upper body occupies the same 50% of the frame. So, I can use my subject's size, relative to the frame, plus my f/stop, as a rough yardstick to measure the perceived DOF.

@geraldundone 5 лет назад

Yeah, definitely. That absolutely works!

@marizgarcia1 4 года назад

Very illustrative, well understood thanks a lot :)

@AlexZavalny 5 лет назад

Hate leaving comments, because I hate typing, but man this channel is gold. I thought I was nerd, before watching it, now I know I am complete noob. Excellent video, excellent explanation to old topic which everyone says is easy but almost nobody truly understands. Thanx.

@geraldundone 5 лет назад

Thanks for taking the time. Appreciate your kind words. Cheers!

@nowornever2504 4 года назад

Just watched “What is undone video.” Undone...thorough but easy to understand at the same time. “Effectively informative and comprehensive”

@krzemian 3 года назад

Lol, 40 minutes ago I was playing a guessing game on which thumbnail to click for the long awaited explanation of DoF contributing factors, aperture, light, shit like that. I'm glad I ended up with you as the teacher. I appreciate the down to earth, no bullshit just-enough-scientific explanation of these complex subjects. I wouldn't likely consider them that complex had I slept more than an hour today, but hey, you gotta roll with the punches. Will definitely revisit these with a fresh pair of brain hemispheres in a while. With that, if you like my comment, make sure to keep making these technical explanation videos. If you don't, please make a revenge on me by making them twice as often. Thank you.

@ElMeach 5 лет назад

Damn, I knew something was wrong with the common explanations, something was wrong, I feel like Neo when Morpheus tells him he has a voice at the back of his head telling him "What... is the matrix?" I feel illuminated, but still confused, yet happy... and crying. I have more questions, but the voice is finally silent. What has just happened?

@geraldundone 5 лет назад

Haha. This is quite the journey of a comment.

@BrandonFoltz 5 лет назад

BRILLIANT explanation

@geraldundone 5 лет назад

Thanks, Brandon! Really appreciate that.

@RangelCostes 5 лет назад

This is literally one of the few videos that CLEARLY illustrates what's going on. Thank you SUPER helpful, keep up the great work 👍

@HybridphotoPro 3 года назад

Another great video Gerald, you really do a great job. Just one thing as a respectful suggestion please? Your diagrams on screen with the "rays" suggest the DOF in front of the subject and behind the subject are equal. I'll bet you know that it is possible to have a 1:1 front/back DOF ratio, but it's rather rare. Just like the old axiom of a 1:2 ratio - which again does in fact happen but it too is rare. Maybe make a video to share this and maybe how the shape of the DOF changes with different lens designs and lengths? Could be really interesting to we photo nerds. Thanks Gerald! -Will Crockett

@19meric19 5 лет назад

Because of your magic tricks, I immediately subscribed. Love the creativity and humor, thanks!

@geraldundone 5 лет назад

Awesome! Thanks so much. Always glad to have a new subscriber!

@critstixdarkspear5375 6 лет назад

“Once and for all removing confusion. “Hi there. Seems this is your first time on the Internet I will let you know now that you are going to spend your life re-explaining this to people.

@shaun8666 5 лет назад

Superbly explained, it melted my brain a bit trying to keep up ha. I think you explained this far better than other popular photography channels who I dont feel are as passionate about photography, they just do videos. Good work :)

@geraldundone 5 лет назад

Thanks so much, Shaun! That's very kind of you to say. Cheers!

@SweetSourTravel 5 лет назад

So clear and focus on the subject theme 😀

@geraldundone 5 лет назад

Thank you very much! 😃🙏

@TheMikeCrispy 6 лет назад

E Q U I V A L E N C E. Great video!

@marvelito76 5 лет назад

TCO Collective ahah whygevhebehb

@martinwillis8015 5 лет назад

I agree with most of the comments here that this and the other 2 videos are very informative and well explained even for a reasonably complex topic. What has been mostly refreshing is the comments that have been made. I have seen many other you tube content producers try explanations on the subject and the comments section turns into a bun fight. The quality of your content is clearly far superior as are the quality of you viewers it seems (hopefully that includes me!) so for that i congratulate all here. fabulous channel and that seems to attract a good group of followers.

@geraldundone 5 лет назад

Thanks, Martin! I agree, we've built a quality community here. Cheers!

@thecolorblindphotographer1087 2 года назад

Thank you! I am getting into photography and this was SOOO helpful!

@thecolorblindphotographer1087 2 года назад

You offer plenty of value so I am subscribed! I hope to buy a shirt soon!

@OneManOneCamera 6 лет назад

Very good video and I was just on DOF Simulator a couple of weeks ago. It really is a handy tool to get an idea of things before you set-up.

@krishnakumarraghu 2 года назад

Wealth of information. Thank you 😊

@ginatinyverge9661 5 лет назад

Man... this channel is overloading my brain with valuable information.

@Dreamphography 5 лет назад

Great, great, great explanation!!!... I have learn some new things that are key for the kind of work I do.... Thanks!!!!

@mexxtexx1 5 лет назад

Hi Gerald. Supercool Channel. I love it! Thank you

@geraldundone 5 лет назад

Thank you very much! 😃🙏

@patronusphotography 6 лет назад

Great vid and much better than a lot of the big-name vids I've seen on the subject. I ran some simulations on that site... A 50mm f/1.2 on FF is the same as a 26mm f/0.6 on M43 is the same as a 210mm f/5.6 on my 4x5 film camera. Very similar actual DOF and framing looks are quite interesting...

@geraldundone 6 лет назад

Thanks for the comment and compliments. Those are some fun comparisons you ran. I don't know where you're going to find that 26mm f/0.6 though. Haha. 😜

@patronusphotography 6 лет назад

Me either!

@EmilFromFilm 6 лет назад

These videos are so amazing Gerald. My brain hurts a little bit and then I start to get it. Feels great that I actually understand the physics of my photography.

@geraldundone 6 лет назад

Awesome! Thanks for saying so. I'm glad. 😃👍

@AlexSciChannel Год назад

I'm not done with the video but isn't f-stop basically the same variable as the size of the pupil and focal length that plays into the distance to the subject?

@dajael 6 лет назад

00:56 I instantly saw a female butt, and then you made it bigger and smaller. Teach me this magic you wield so I can finally answer my wife's " does my butt look big?" question with sincerity. I have a feeling her sensor size is affecting my depth of field perception! Another great explanation G, if you are not a teacher in real life....you might have missed your calling. Love the way you simplify complexity! Cheers Mr. Undone. *edit - I can't be certain but I think you may have just figured out whether or not we are living in a simulation, or a simulation of a simulation, or a sim....well...you get the point! My gawd, you are hyper-intelligent!

@geraldundone 6 лет назад

This was an incredible entertaining comment. I appreciate your kind words! I can only see a butt now. Thanks a lot. 😜

@gaghalfront3363 4 года назад

Hi Gerald, I think people are going to be confused when they try the app and see that one of the settings is sensor size. I think they are going to be even more confused when they see that selecting a larger sensor while leaving the other settings alone, makes a larger depth of field.

@sho7810 3 года назад

That's me. I hope someone can explain this.

@antonioPaulino 5 лет назад

Thank you G. It all makes so perfect sense to me. Keep it going mate.

@Tricksandbeats 4 года назад

Very well explained, I love your video's and information!

@jeffparkin3122 Год назад

For years I've been looking for a video like this that concisely explains to my college students the interaction of DoF, sensor size and focal length. THANK YOU!

@RogerHyam 6 лет назад

Great explanation but but but.... What is considered to be acceptably sharp depends on the viewing distance and print/screen size. i.e. the angle subtended at the eye by the *final product* is important. So really there are three variables: distance, entrance pupil and acceptable size of circles of confusion for your intended application. If you have one of those annoying portraits where one eye is unacceptably blurry and just ruins it then view the print/screen from the other side of the room and the depth of focus will magically appear to be greater. That out of focus eye will appear as sharp as the in focus eye because you can't tell the difference in blurriness between the two from that far away but the background will still be out of focus. (Or just view it small on the screen) Another way of thinking is that it doesn't matter the size of the circle of confusion on the sensor/film it is the resulting size of blur (loss of resolution/acuity/whatever) on the finished product. Hence a large format camera doesn't have as shallower depth of focus as one might think because you can have larger circles of confusion because the magnification of any prints is going to be far less. Bottom line for loads of people out there is that an APS-C sensor will give just as creatively useful depth of field as a full frame sensor *for the same final product* if you think in terms of having lenses that are about a stop faster. They will be smaller, lighter and cheaper that FF equivalents too. As in your examples M43 think 2 stops.

@geraldundone 6 лет назад

Yeah, that's a great point about the actual viewing. It's true that since this all just truly a factor of the resolution of the eye, viewing distance is everything. it would be more scientific if we had a coefficient for that or a standard for that resolution. Anyway, I'm rambling, good point; good comment.

@bobhanuman65 6 лет назад

I'm waiting to see what the new sigma 56mm 1.4 lens for aps-c is like. And if it could replace an 85mm on a full frame. Especially if Sony comes out with a 30megapixel sensor on the a6700/7000. I have the 16mm sigma on an a6500 which I love because the camera is just so compact.

@RogerHyam 6 лет назад

I had the Fuji 56mm 1.2 on my X-Pro 2 but sold it because I never really used it beyond about f2 or f2.8 (the wonders of metadata in lightroom) and it was big and heavy and expensive - but also gorgeous. Having used an f2 80mm on "full frame" (i.e. film) many years ago I'd say that f1.4 56mm on aps-c will feel very similar if not a little too shallow in many situations. There is quite a fetish about fast lenses. I've certainly had it in the past. But you only need a lens that is fast enough and performs well enough wide open to achieve what you want. In my opinion compared to an f4 - f5.6 zoom any prime at f2 is going to be plenty even on ASP-C.

@stuartschaffner9744 6 лет назад

Just found your channel, Gerald. Really well done. Unfortunately I am not certain your results will be applied correctly even if they are correct. You showed some magic tricks at the beginning of your video where lenses changed into other things. Later in your explanation of the light cone, when you got to where the various rays were about to hit the sensor you suddenly started talking about the resolution of the eye, not the sensor. That allowed you to ignore pixel stride and to imply that the circle of confusion was tied to the resolution of the eye. Since we can’t yet change the resolution of our eyes, we then can use some default blur diameter in depth of field calculations. My dof app had a default value of about 30 micrometers. For an APSC sensor with roughly 30 megapixels, that default blur circle would cover an enormous number of pixels. I suspect that modern high-megapixel crop sensors waste most of their resolving power. Perhaps it would be optically better to have a smaller number of larger pixels. However this would upset the buyers, who think they need 30 megapixels instead of, say, 3 megapixels. One other point: blur comes from diffraction as well as parallax. For high-megapixel sensors, this puts strict limits on f numbers.

@AlessioMichelini 6 лет назад

I was about to point out the same thing, acceptable circle of confusion is the third factor, and often most of the photographers doesn't even know what it is, but that's also why if you use a depth of field calculator, you need to also specify which camera model you are using as each of them has a difference circle of confusion size

@stephenscharf6293 6 лет назад

Yay! More actual science! Thanks, Gerald!

@mattdustz9215 5 лет назад

Man there is no other source on this platform (all big ones included) than can explain things this sharp. Thank you.

@MichaelWootten 5 лет назад

I’m so glad I found your channel! You’re out here proving REAL and SCIENTIFIC information! You’re speaking the language of professionals. So much good stuff in this video, but a huge nod to dispelling the myth that a larger sensor inherently gives you more depth of field.

@geraldundone 5 лет назад

Thanks, Michael! I'm glad you found the channel as well and that you're enjoying it. Cheers!

@petersigma Год назад

I think the focal "plane" produced by the lens, is actually a bit curved I think ( even with aspheric lenses). So a larger sensor ( assuming its flat) would tend to have that curve of the " focal plane ) it would have more distance to pull away from this curve. I understand your video, but I think it practically confuses the issue. Wide lenses effectively do have deeper depth of field than longer lenses. With a parafocal zoom lens you can zoom in on your "subject" and focus with the focus ring, and objects behind will go out of focus, when you zoom out to a wide (short) focal length, the depth of field expands and the background comes into focus. Also... f numbers are representative approximations of a complicated math formula... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-number @@geraldundone

@MIMCKMedia 5 лет назад

Best explanation I've seen so far. As an engineer I love these type of videos

@geraldundone 5 лет назад

Thank you! That means a lot. 🙏😃

@deepakkumarphotography 6 лет назад

The most brilliant brain and explanation i found here on your channel ...thanks for sharing with us .

@benharris3949 6 лет назад

Brilliant! I finally understand this. Thanks for taking the time to break it down into primary and secondary influences, that makes so much sense. And I finally understand the relationship between sensor size, aperture, and dof. Thanks for a such a helpful video.

@geraldundone 6 лет назад

Perfect! That's exactly what I wanted to hear. Thanks for letting me know it helped. Cheers! 😃👍

@RegWestly 6 лет назад

You are very good at explaining this subject in a clear and simple way. Well done! Your examples and style work very well

@PWlangford1 6 лет назад

Very good graphics. 🇨🇦

@ianpineda 5 лет назад

Gotta love those magic tricks, subscribed.

@geraldundone 5 лет назад

Thanks, Ian! Happy to have a new subscriber!

@ThunderfallFilms 3 года назад

Gerald why are you yelling here lol

@FilmmakerIQ 3 года назад

Late to the party - but there needs to be addition of magnification to the direct attributes to depth of field. In your discussion about what's acceptably sharp and what isn't you left out how we make that determination. When you magnify something more, your ability to detect whether something is in focus or not is increased (that's why the zoom in feature is used to set critical focus). Magnification takes place both in focal length and sensor size - with the interesting caveat that smaller sensors have inherently shallower depth of field!

@yuvrajwadhwani 3 года назад

Interesting point

@gazsibb 5 лет назад

Gerald you are a smart cookie

@barrycohen311 4 года назад

Is DOF related at all to Toneh?

@richardsimms251 Год назад

Very good. Thank you.

@NoName-xv3vh 6 лет назад

Thank you for the good video!

@nixboy32 6 лет назад

Really great videos, this explanation has saved me lots of research, thanks. It would be cool to cover, in the same vein (with your refreshing scientific/mathematical clarity), topics like, autofocusing systems, shuttering types, manual focusing systems, video frame rates, still and video compression approaches 👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍

@geraldundone 6 лет назад

Thanks! There is an autofocusing systems video already in the works. 😜

@PaulKretz 6 лет назад

Wonderful info and speech! Still can't get used to the magenta skintone tint, though =) Looking forward to new videos anyway! Cheers from Russia!

@geraldundone 6 лет назад

Thanks, Paul. Appreciate the continued support. Cheers! 😃👍

@bonsaimediahousetx 6 лет назад

your prowess for explaining scientific science stuff, passion for the field and cheesy yet adorable jokes have given you away. you were clearly a 90s kid who grew up on bill nye the science guy.

@geraldundone 6 лет назад

I was born in the 80s (1985), but I'm definitely a product of 90s pop culture. I sure did watch a lot of Bill Nye. I'm glad you like the videos! 😃 Thanks for the fun comment.

@heylou 5 лет назад

sucked at basic math in school. graduated in 2013. met Gerald....getting a Nobel prize next week. great video really helped!

@thelifeofjools8384 6 лет назад

I think I get it :)) I may have to watch the vid a 3rd or 4th time.... Essentially though from a practical point ... you hit a brick wall because there aren't the lenses available. So.. to get the equivalent dof as a full frame 50mm 1.2, on a micro 4/3 camera... you'd need a 25mm 0.6 lens ?

@timbeaton5045 6 лет назад

Excellent, clear and understandable. Great video!

@LEXPIX 4 года назад

Good stuff man, I think the majority of confusion comes from lens manufactures not giving the equivalent FOV when marking their lenses. Example, a micro 4/3 or crop APS-C lenses are given in full frame values. Marketing trick to be sure on their part, but if they listed the crop value and equivalent true aperture at the given sensor size, their lenses wouldn't look as impressive on paper.

@joshuatatro4503 5 лет назад

You're too good for this RU-vid world, Gerald.

@PRAXYBEATS 3 года назад

HEY, Thank you so much for thus great explanation. I WAS ACTUALLY CONFUSED AND YOU CLEARED ALL MY DOUBTS.

@RichLackey 5 лет назад

I finally realize how I've explained this to people all wrong. Thanks for the math!

@geraldundone 5 лет назад

Cheers, Richard!

@muhammadobaid7500 4 года назад

Woooow , just wow ! I've been studying and working in this domain for more than 10 years.. However, this video, believe it or not, made me stand up and clap ! I can't say thx enough Gerald !

@TheHeesin 5 лет назад

Epic! I'm getting drawn into watching your tutorials. They're no nonsense "this is how it works" stuff and you show why. Like it!

@geraldundone 5 лет назад

Awesome! Glad to hear it. Thanks for the comment. 😃👍

@andrewelder2739 15 дней назад

I appreciate the breakdown (even a few years late to seeing it). I've heard conflicting reports that the area of focus is actually weighted toward BEHIND the focal point (30% in front, 70% in back), but it looks like you're proving that it's a lot closer to 50/50!

5 лет назад

Excellent video. Just a small correction. It's not the sensor size but the photosite size that create this "illusion" of more or less dof. Larger photosites or smaller ones will have this "fake influence" on dof. Of course is easier have a bigger photosites on bigger sensor, but is not a rule, u can have a bigger sensor with smaller photosites than a smaller sensor, and than, the smaller one will give you a bigger "bokeh". That's because everything is related with circle of confusion. Your demonstration was perfect. The problem is the confusion which some people makes mixing bokeh and dof, which are not the same thing. And th3 equivalence was perfectly demonstrated. Congratz.

@luizarroyo988 5 лет назад

This video is awesome! Gerald, you are quickly becoming my favorite RU-vid channel. These explanations are tremendously helpful.

@geraldundone 5 лет назад

Glad to hear it, Luiz! Thanks for the encouragement and kind words.

@MyOlympusOMD 11 месяцев назад

Hi Garreth, I watched your video and found it very interesting. My concern is one critical point everyone explains incorrectly. There are 2 key points when discussing image sensors. These are the Optical characteristics and the Technical characteristics of every image sensor. You did a great job explaining the Optical differences and failed, like everyone else, on the Technical aspects of the image sensor. An image sensor is an electronic component with technical limitations. The size of the sensor does not change these technical limitations. For example, the sensor has an active noise component (floor) the moment the camera is switched on. Dishonest marketers decided not to tell the truth because selling more FF cameras is more important. We have the opportunity to manage the sensor's saturation and SNR. How does one do that? The daily repeated marketing phrase claiming "One sensor captures more light" is dishonest. The challenge we ALL face is how to best deal with the different reflected light intensities from the scene. All image sensors undersaturate in the shadow parts of the scene. That means a lower SNR and more visible image noise in the shadows. Your ISO simply amplifies the lower SNR in the shadow parts of the image signal. Why do all image sensors produce excellent image quality in bright light, and NOT only M43 sensors? Because the sensor saturates in good light. That means a high SNR, low visible noise, and more tonal data. Why? (think gamma & tonal data distribution) Go to my Blog for more information on what digital photographers should know... Best Siegfried

@TrevorMcGrathPhotography 5 лет назад

Came across your channel when researching videos on A73. This is my third vid of yours I've watched and reading comments the word "Genius" has been mentioned...I agree, it is possible that you are one! You not only recorded a video on HDMI cables but also made it interesting.

@georgedavall9449 8 месяцев назад

First of all, Thanks for this very clear and correctly explained video. Late comment here, but HUGE THUMBS UP for @ 0:59 ! So many people get this, and DOF wrong. Yes, there is only one true plane of focus, but I constantly see Content creators stating, “ I had everything in focus from this rock to that tree in the background,” and so on and so forth… ( Yes, a Pet Peave of mine. ) Age of Digital seems to have made for some lazy Photographers. I fondly remember my Film days, of lenses having manual aperture rings along with the DOF scales on the lenses. I learned to ‘approximate the DOF’ by both the lenses, and by the ratio that called for DOF to being roughly 1/3 in front of the plane of focus, and 2/3 behind. There are of course variables in all of this. Well Done, Gerald Undone! 👍✌📸 😉

@dudenamedskip 2 года назад

I've never understood the crop factor when using a matching lens for a smaller sensor until this video. 35mm is 35mm but the FOV gets more narrow on MFT which causes you to stand further away than a 35mm FF. Seriously, thank you for always making things so dang clear and easy to understand.

@KaiSosceles 4 года назад

Something to consider as people think about this topic in relation to sensor size is that sure...on paper you can just keep dividing the aperture to get a shallow depth of field equivalent from let’s say, an MFT sensor compared to a Full Frame. But when you’re working with fast lenses on full-frame, you’d have divide that f-stop into a number that literally doesn’t exist for MFT lenses. If I’m shooting f/1.2 on FF, what lens for an MFT sensor is going to give me that equivalent? A 25mm f/0.6? That lens doesn’t exist.

@noahh.9151 4 года назад

I know this is an older video Gerald, but hopefully you still see the comment. In your video about Aperture, you talked about why when you zoom in, your entrance pupil gets bigger, but exposure stays the same. Which makes sense. What doesn't make sense is that you are saying that focal length indirectly affects DoF even though focal length DIRECTLY affects the size of your entrance pupil, which directly affects DoF. So should focal length also directly affect DoF? Did any of that make sense?

@TimothyGordon 6 лет назад

Finally an explanation that appropriately uses the science and practical application in the real world. This hands down makes more sense then experiments and attempted explanations on other channels. Thank you for all your hard work, research, and clear demonstration. I really can’t get enough of your work. Hope we get to meet and collaborate some day.

@geraldundone 6 лет назад

Thanks, Timothy! As always, I really appreciate your comments. I'm glad the video came across clear and useful. 😃👍