Originally posted by Jewelltrail I have a question for you Nanok: Are not the circles of confusion a part of the FOV?
not as such. they are connected of course, but (as somebody else here already mentioned), defining the circle of confusion is actually quite a voodoo-like art
. but that's not the point, i think what you mean to point out is that your statement is valid, which i _did_ mention in my previous post. nothing to argue there. i was not arguing against your statement, i was just trying to do the same thing as you, summarize, but using a slightly different aproach (which people with a different mindset might find easier to understand).
Quote: It helps a lot and I appreciate all the excellent work you contribute to this thread. I was trying to summarize, as succinctly as possible, the many paragraphs of writing now in print at the forum on DOF on different sensors. I hope my one-sentence summary did not offend anyone.
surely not, i cannot imagine why you would think so. it is not about being offended,
it's about trying to help to the best of my ability. i did mention what you said was fundamentally not incorrect, just potentially confusing, the explanation was not so much for you as it was for anybody who might be reading (point being: i assume that, if you are able to abstractize the fov as a measure for the circle of confusion, you understand all the steps in between already)
your input is just as helpful, but as you noted there are many angles to look at something. also, asking the right questions is in my oppinion just as important as giving the right answers, so whoever asks the questions is just as "responsible" for the overall usefulness of the discussion as people answering them (if not more). i'm just trying to do my best at my part in here
Quote: .
Having spent a lot of time in higher education, I realize different levels of understanding demand different levels of explanation. It is interesting that the more we love and study something, the more demanding we become in our explanation of it.
agreed, and i tend to go on until i understand the "root" cause of anything, this is why i can become annoying to some people, at times
. sorry about it.
Quote: That is why this forum is so great; it allows for multiple levels of understanding to peacefully co-exist, side by side. Best!
agreed, and as i said before, the insight one can get here on various subjects is amazing (and often not only photography, but pretty much anything you can imagine)
so, to clear a small misunderstanding: i did not label your one-sentence summary as an oversimplification, actually, if you want labels, i would be more inclined to go towards "too complicated" (too abstract), but labeling of any kind was not my intention, i just wanted to help clarify things, for whomever might have been reading (which i did before reading the thread you mentioned, as i did say, sorry about that), so the point was more to give your (very brief and concentrated) statement a bit of context for people who might be reading and be a bit lost in it.
sorry again if my explanation sounded a bit scholar-like
(it seems this fov vs. equiv. focal length issue is becoming somewhat of a pet peeve of mine, perhaps that's why i sounded a bit grumpy)
cheers