Re: [OM] IMG: Sunrise, Moonset

[Mike Lazzari]

> It's only an objective fact once you have defined the desired Circle of
> Confusion. And we might well find that the generally-accepted CoC for a
> given format dates back to the 1920s. I suspect that the resolving power of
> all parts of the image-forming chain in aggregate has improved somewhat
> since then, as has our ability (and propensity) to inspect images far more
> closely. Result? It appears that hyperfocal scales are wildly optimistic,
> because we can see that the in-focus area is significantly narrower than it
> "should" be. Note "appears", as the scales have indeed been calculated
> properly according to time-honoured formulae - it's just that we look too
> closely (pixel-peeping).
Exactly Piers. The math stems from a definition of what's "sharp" and 
that is an anachronism at best and and mostly useless as is the 
mathematical exercise outside of its entertainment value.  My reference 
to digital/analogue was referring not to technology but to the way of 
thinking. Hyperfocal is a digital concept. Inside the arbitrarily marked 
zone is ON, outside is OFF. Look through the viewfinder and turn the 
focusing ring and what you see is analogue. Even this is going to change 
soon I think. However I don't think that we look too closely/pixel-peep. 
I like the ability to make significant crops and still have a useable image.
Mike
not missing the hyperfocal marks
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/