Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
05-12-2010, 01:17 PM   #31
Pentaxian
Marc Sabatella's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Denver, CO
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 10,686
QuoteOriginally posted by Alex00 Quote
I have to agree with GeneV on this. hyperfocal will get everything in the background in focus and doesn't matter what aperature you are on. Higher Aperture will only get you more foreground in focus.
That's not really what we were talking about, though. It wasn't so much a question of using hyperfocal distance versus stopping down as a way of increasing DOF, but rather finer points of how in focus something needs to be in order to look sharp at 100%. When using hyperfocal distance, things closer to infinity may be acceptably sharp for typical (print) uses as assumed by the DOF calculations that lead one to the hyperfocal distance, but not necessarily acceptably sharp when pixel peeping at 100%.

It's true that hyperfocal focusing is a great way to get lots of DOF, but that does *not* mean everything within that allegedly-in-focus zone will look equally sharp at 100%. And this has a lot to do with why people often mistakenly see corners as being relatively unsharp.

QuoteQuote:
The same goes if you were trying to focus on a far away object, although this is OK, using hyperfocal is the way to go and you do not have to worry about where t
Yes - if what you care about is prints viewed from typical distances, as DOF and hyperfocal calculations assume. But if you're going to pixel peep at 100%, then actually focusing further into the distane will make a difference.

The example given by the OP is a classic example of that difference: those corners actually *do* look in focus at the posted size, but I have no trouble believing that 100% views would show them being somewhat softer. Your example would probably serve equally well. the distant throwpillow in your hyperfocal version looks reasonably in focus at the posted size, but a 100% view would doubtless show it not quite as sharp as closer objects. Actually focusing on the distant throw pillow would change that.

05-12-2010, 01:35 PM   #32
Senior Member
Alex00's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: California
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 294
i do allot of pixel peeping.
Instead of looking at the pillows that have soft look with the naked eye, look at the frames hanging on the wall. In another example i tried focusing directly at frames them then i tried the hyperfocal method, both are equally sharp with no difference at all, i was viewing at 300%. You do not get sharper images if you directly focused on a subject compared to hyperfocal. Try it out for yourself and let me know what you find. I will be doing more testing to confirm this method.

Last edited by Alex00; 05-12-2010 at 02:06 PM.
05-12-2010, 01:58 PM   #33
Pentaxian
Marc Sabatella's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Denver, CO
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 10,686
I find what I've always found - distant objects are sharper if I focus in the distance. those pillows might not be distant enough to show this effect.
05-12-2010, 02:01 PM   #34
Veteran Member
wlachan's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Canada
Photos: Albums
Posts: 2,626
QuoteOriginally posted by Marc Sabatella Quote
That's not really what we were talking about, though. It wasn't so much a question of using hyperfocal distance versus stopping down as a way of increasing DOF, but rather finer points of how in focus something needs to be in order to look sharp at 100%. When using hyperfocal distance, things closer to infinity may be acceptably sharp for typical (print) uses as assumed by the DOF calculations that lead one to the hyperfocal distance, but not necessarily acceptably sharp when pixel peeping at 100%.
This has been my experience too when I was doing film scans many years ago. I was always doing hyperfocal for landscape but the scans were not sharp. It was after I compared some identical shots with hyperfocal and focused at infinity, I could see those focused at infinity were much sharper. This was also true when I did the test with SMC15/3.5 which some believed focus was unimportant due to DOF. It does not matter how far you stop down, the exact focus DO matter even with very wide lenses.

05-12-2010, 02:31 PM   #35
Senior Member
Alex00's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: California
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 294
Sorry but I'm finding out otherwise. Hyperfocal seems to be more in focus then focusing directly at an object. The cropped images below shows this. The camera is at f5.6 with self timer of 12sec on a manfrotto tripod at a distance of about 20 ft. . First image is focused directly at the portrait frame, the other is using the hyperfocal method. The hyperfocal shows it's more in focus. I did more then several test shots using the same frame on the wall in case i wasn't properly focused on the frame. Results all favored the hyperfocal method.

Focused directly at the object


Using Hyperfocal

Last edited by Alex00; 05-12-2010 at 02:42 PM.
05-12-2010, 02:43 PM   #36
Veteran Member
wlachan's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Canada
Photos: Albums
Posts: 2,626
The only explanation from your test is that the AF was not accurate. There is no way hyperfocal would be sharper than the one that was already in focus.
05-12-2010, 02:53 PM   #37
Senior Member
Alex00's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: California
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 294
For far away objects hyperfocal should always be used unless you want to limit DOF or need the bokeh effect. remember only one thin plane of your subject matter will be in perfect focus for far away objects. The further away an object is from this plane, the less sharp it will be and thus we use the hyperfocal method to get everything sharp and in focus. For near by objects, direct focusing should be used. AF is most accurate with object 20ft or less.

The only way to prove this otherwise is to see test shots by others.

In addition and according to the dof calculator http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html, it's perfectly matching my numbers when testing. I never read anywhere that hyperfocal method would be less sharp then direct focusing. How did you come about this rumor.

Last edited by Alex00; 05-12-2010 at 03:24 PM.
05-12-2010, 05:37 PM   #38
Veteran Member
wlachan's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Canada
Photos: Albums
Posts: 2,626
Huh? I speak from experience. I merely pointing out the potential issue with your last tests in good faith. Believe what you want to believe. I have nothing to gain from your BS.

05-12-2010, 10:55 PM   #39
Senior Member
Alex00's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: California
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 294
QuoteOriginally posted by wlachan Quote
Huh? I speak from experience. I merely pointing out the potential issue with your last tests in good faith. Believe what you want to believe. I have nothing to gain from your BS.
I don't know what part of my reply offended you. I respect your point of view and i was sharing mine without the intention of offending anyone. I stood behind my word by presenting a proof, i'm not making anything up or reinventing the wheel, hyperfocal is known for what it does and there is no known fact mentioned anywhere that it is less sharp then direct focusing. It would be fairly equal if could show your images.
05-13-2010, 03:07 AM   #40
Veteran Member
wlachan's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Canada
Photos: Albums
Posts: 2,626
Guess I misinterpret your message. Sorry. I am unable to find the old scans which were done years ago, and I don't have time to redo the tests meaningfully. I am well aware of the hyperfocal usage and used to use it a lot, until I drew my own finding. I have no intention to prove myself however. People are free to stick with what they prefer.
05-13-2010, 01:45 PM   #41
Pentaxian
Marc Sabatella's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Denver, CO
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 10,686
QuoteOriginally posted by wlachan Quote
The only explanation from your test is that the AF was not accurate. There is no way hyperfocal would be sharper than the one that was already in focus.
I agree - if hyperfocal focusing did better than focusing directly, then the AF must not have locked one the same object. That picture frame is *far* too small in the frame to be know for sure if the camera focused on it or not. Even if you selected a focus point directly over it, the focus sensor is large enough that the camera may have focused something else. And this is also precisely the sort of subject where focus-recompose could introduce slightly errors like this.
05-13-2010, 01:49 PM   #42
Pentaxian
Marc Sabatella's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Denver, CO
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 10,686
QuoteOriginally posted by Alex00 Quote
In addition and according to the dof calculator Online Depth of Field Calculator, it's perfectly matching my numbers when testing.
I already explained why DOF calculators should be be used for this - they are only telling you what will be acceptable sharp for a typical print viewed from a typical size, not what will be acceptably sharp when pixel peeping.

QuoteQuote:
I never read anywhere that hyperfocal method would be less sharp then direct focusing. How did you come about this rumor.
It's not a rumor, it's simple logic - knwoing that the whole notion of hyperfocal focusing is based on DOF calculations that assume typical print szies viewed from typical distances, not 100% pixel peeping. And while I don't have any tests handy (nor do I have my camera handy to take any), I've certainly shot tons of landscapes where I have seen this effect - distant objects looking sharp "enough" using hyperfocal focusing, but looking *sharper still* actually focusing on the distance.
05-13-2010, 02:17 PM   #43
Pentaxian
Just1MoreDave's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Aurora, CO
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 4,815
QuoteOriginally posted by Alex00 Quote
For far away objects hyperfocal should always be used unless you want to limit DOF or need the bokeh effect. remember only one thin plane of your subject matter will be in perfect focus for far away objects. The further away an object is from this plane, the less sharp it will be and thus we use the hyperfocal method to get everything sharp and in focus. For near by objects, direct focusing should be used. AF is most accurate with object 20ft or less.

The only way to prove this otherwise is to see test shots by others.

In addition and according to the dof calculator Online Depth of Field Calculator, it's perfectly matching my numbers when testing. I never read anywhere that hyperfocal method would be less sharp then direct focusing. How did you come about this rumor.
The part I marked in bold is the key. (With some lenses, the plane might not be officially a geometric, flat plane, but that's beside the point.) With large angles of view, small apertures, small sensors, large distances and some viewing conditions, the area that appears in acceptible focus can be wider than this plane. But it is always a very narrow region.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
20mm, corners, da14mm, da15mm, fa31mm, k-mount, lens, pentax lens, slr lens, voigtlander
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
For Sale - Sold: Pentax DA14mm f2,8 JeffJS Sold Items 7 03-24-2010 10:09 AM
DA14mm F2.8 - soft at F2.8? dugrant153 Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 9 01-26-2010 01:29 PM
For Sale - Sold: PENTAX DA14mm maxwell1295 Sold Items 4 10-24-2008 02:59 AM
LBA - DA14mm f/2.8 ED (IF) Asad_Masede Post Your Photos! 24 04-17-2007 12:13 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:58 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top