On 10 Apr 2010, at 5:55 AM, Moose wrote:
> On 4/9/2010 4:17 PM, Jim Nichols wrote:
>> Moose,
>>
>> The thing that confounds me, with macro lenses, and I should have
>> expected this from the start, is that as one moves in closer to the
>> subject, the DOF decreases to a ridiculous point.
>
> It's just "do the math" physics. There are some new and very different
> imaging concepts being worked on that may change DOF possibilities,
> but
> as long as we stick to simple refraction based lenses, the rules are
> fixed.
Did anybody say "focus stacking" ? There are, for me, two reasons to
shoot digital:
- Focus stacking for macro work
- Multi-exposure High-dynamic range (for when 14 stops of B&W film
just ain't enough)
The work done on plenoptic cameras (where a 4-dimensional light field
is captured, and in
software one can afterwards place the focus plane anywhere one likes)
is also very very
interesting
http://graphics.stanford.edu/papers/lfcamera/
but the resolution currently is pitifully low to my understanding
(much lower than diffraction-limiting
yourself by stopping down a Macro lens all the way, even to like f/45)
and I am not sure what has been
done in terms of Macro images with plenoptic cameras - i.e. whether it
will even work properly?
If so, that would be amazing, sign me up.
Dawid
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|