Camera and Lens Math - EASY!

beardybrave · 03-29-2009, 03:30 AM

Brilliant tool. I was just about to post here bemoaning the fact that all my modern lenses seem to lack a hyperfocal scale when I fell upon this. Many thanks.

swensonorama · 04-18-2009, 12:01 PM

bet you could make some cash if you could create an iPhone app for this

Venturi · 04-18-2009, 08:38 PM

I have toyed with the idea of making it into an AdobeAIR app. I think to go and learn yet another programming tech would require some motivation by people requesting it. hehe

jem · 04-18-2009, 10:14 PM

Hi Jim,

Terrific utility! Would you consider adding HFOV & VFOV? I find these terms useful at work and I thought I might use your spreadsheet there. I would add it to my copy but then I would be out of sync if you rev it again. Thanks for your time!

Best,
John

**Lowell Goudge** · 04-20-2009, 06:57 AM

this may seem a little over the top, but why not add the following.

you show the area (for example at 10 feet) which I assume is really meant to be the area for the case where subject distance is much greater than focal lenght (much greater usually means an order of magnitude or more). I have no problem with this, and my first suggestion is to add one more line to the calculations. the area (in either square inches or mm) of one pixel on the sensor. Also you could put the linear distance between pixels. Therefore you would need to have the sensor size also (6.1, 10. or 14 MP)

These points althoug simple would allow people to appreciate the ultimate resolution of the system.

Another simple but not related to FOV calculation you could do is to have an image size calculator

image size = subject size * focal length / distance.

people often forget this when shooting with long tele's

**Ron Boggs** · 04-20-2009, 07:17 AM

As you neared completion of this great resource, did you find that you needed to increase the volume and frequency of the machine that goes PING? That seemed to be an important factor for the Pythons when they used the early versions of the PING machine.
Nice work...

HermanLee · 04-20-2009, 09:53 AM

Thank you, Jim.

Great work. We need more people like you.

Venturi · 04-20-2009, 03:24 PM

Originally posted by Lowell Goudge

this may seem a little over the top, but why not add the following.

you show the area (for example at 10 feet) which I assume is really meant to be the area for the case where subject distance is much greater than focal lenght (much greater usually means an order of magnitude or more). I have no problem with this, and my first suggestion is to add one more line to the calculations. the area (in either square inches or mm) of one pixel on the sensor. Also you could put the linear distance between pixels. Therefore you would need to have the sensor size also (6.1, 10. or 14 MP)

These points althoug simple would allow people to appreciate the ultimate resolution of the system.

Lowell, correct me if I'm wrong but you'd need to have the full sensor specs in order to do those resolution calculations "accurately"? You would need the actual size of each pixel as simple resolution (pixel count) wouldn't quite get you there. I'm also not sure how to relate that to the film columns.

Originally posted by Lowell Goudge

Another simple but not related to FOV calculation you could do is to have an image size calculator

image size = subject size * focal length / distance.

people often forget this when shooting with long tele's

Not sure what you're asking for here. The FRAME SIZE row tells you how big a subject will fit in your frame at a given distance, and the IMAGE SCALE tells gives you the ratio of image to FOV - but it seems you're after something different?

Originally posted by Ron Boggs

As you neared completion of this great resource, did you find that you needed to increase the volume and frequency of the machine that goes PING? That seemed to be an important factor for the Pythons when they used the early versions of the PING machine.
Nice work...

Ron, you will have to submit requisition form BA-1100-N in triplicate to the Department of Redundancy Dept. for that information; you'll need to have a valid ID-10T card as well.

And thanks

Originally posted by HermanLee

Thank you, Jim.

Great work. We need more people like you.

You're most welcome, Herman!

**Lowell Goudge** · 04-20-2009, 04:02 PM

Originally posted by Venturi

Lowell, correct me if I'm wrong but you'd need to have the full sensor specs in order to do those resolution calculations "accurately"? You would need the actual size of each pixel as simple resolution (pixel count) wouldn't quite get you there. I'm also not sure how to relate that to the film columns.

this may be correct, but it would be useful to show the size of a pixel (based upon the pitch) so that people start thinking in terms of the smallest resolvable object is. Specifically that you can't read a 2 inch high letter if a pixel is 4 inches square

Quote:

Not sure what you're asking for here. The FRAME SIZE row tells you how big a subject will fit in your frame at a given distance, and the IMAGE SCALE tells gives you the ratio of image to FOV - but it seems you're after something different?

i am looking for the inverse, not how big a subject fills your frame, but how big an image is in your frame, let's perhaps present it a different way, magnification ratio, not size. that way, at 10 feet with a 200mm lens you know the 4 inch (100mm) bird you are photographing is only 1.33mm high on the sensor

wtf_cowboy · 11-25-2010, 12:13 PM

Originally posted by Venturi

Ron, you will have to submit requisition form BA-1100-N in triplicate to the Department of Redundancy Dept. for that information; you'll need to have a valid ID-10T card as well.

I just died of laughter...
...also, great tool.

pivous · 05-08-2011, 10:13 AM

Dear Jim, I can't find your attachement on the forum - the nice spreadsheet. Am I blend? :-) . Can You help me please? Pivous.

JHD · 05-08-2011, 03:45 PM

Originally posted by pivous

Dear Jim, I can't find your attachement on the forum - the nice spreadsheet. Am I...

...blind? Same here.

**Kerrowdown** · 05-09-2011, 01:05 PM

Originally posted by pivous

Dear Jim, I can't find your attachement on the forum - the nice spreadsheet.

Not just me then.

I feel reassured now.

Venturi · 05-09-2011, 08:07 PM

Whoops. I was housecleaning my old attachments and I dropped that one too. I've reattached the original version plus the English Measurements only version I use currently (added 645D sensor specs).

**Lowell Goudge** · 05-15-2011, 09:54 AM

In looking at the data inout a little more, there is one other thing I think shoud be put there, but it is not at present.

you are using the CofC considering printing, I assume, to an 8 x 10 print. You may wish to add either an elnargement ratio from 8X10 or final print size, because DOF changes with print size also.

I would suggest a print scale factor based upon 8 x 10 is 1:1

04-20-2009, 09:53 AM	#22
HermanLee Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Southern California, USA Photos: Gallery Posts: 729	Thanks Thank you, Jim. Great work. We need more people like you.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
How bad if fungus on a lens? Easy to remove?	shaolin95	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	12	08-31-2012 07:42 AM
Any Math people?	Fl_Gulfer	General Talk	3	11-11-2009 12:08 PM
Dismantling a lens - easy?	ViS	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	24	12-02-2008 06:26 AM
I hate math, so help me....	Buddha Jones	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	8	04-22-2008 08:11 AM
How to do the math for a closeup lens?	raider	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	6	03-11-2008 05:57 AM

03-29-2009, 03:30 AM	#16
beardybrave New Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Fife, Scotland Photos: Gallery Posts: 10	Brilliant tool. I was just about to post here bemoaning the fact that all my modern lenses seem to lack a hyperfocal scale when I fell upon this. Many thanks.

04-18-2009, 12:01 PM	#17
swensonorama Inactive Account Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: southwestern Maine Posts: 25	bet you could make some cash if you could create an iPhone app for this

04-18-2009, 08:38 PM	#18
Venturi Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Tulsa, OK Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,636 Original Poster	I have toyed with the idea of making it into an AdobeAIR app. I think to go and learn yet another programming tech would require some motivation by people requesting it. hehe

04-18-2009, 10:14 PM	#19
jem Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 217	Hi Jim, Terrific utility! Would you consider adding HFOV & VFOV? I find these terms useful at work and I thought I might use your spreadsheet there. I would add it to my copy but then I would be out of sync if you rev it again. Thanks for your time! Best, John

04-20-2009, 06:57 AM	#20
Lowell Goudge Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Toronto Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,886	this may seem a little over the top, but why not add the following. you show the area (for example at 10 feet) which I assume is really meant to be the area for the case where subject distance is much greater than focal lenght (much greater usually means an order of magnitude or more). I have no problem with this, and my first suggestion is to add one more line to the calculations. the area (in either square inches or mm) of one pixel on the sensor. Also you could put the linear distance between pixels. Therefore you would need to have the sensor size also (6.1, 10. or 14 MP) These points althoug simple would allow people to appreciate the ultimate resolution of the system. Another simple but not related to FOV calculation you could do is to have an image size calculator image size = subject size * focal length / distance. people often forget this when shooting with long tele's

04-20-2009, 07:17 AM	#21
Ron Boggs Site Supporter Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: MT Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,349	As you neared completion of this great resource, did you find that you needed to increase the volume and frequency of the machine that goes PING? That seemed to be an important factor for the Pythons when they used the early versions of the PING machine. Nice work...

04-20-2009, 03:24 PM	#23
Venturi Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Tulsa, OK Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,636 Original Poster	Originally posted by Lowell Goudge this may seem a little over the top, but why not add the following. you show the area (for example at 10 feet) which I assume is really meant to be the area for the case where subject distance is much greater than focal lenght (much greater usually means an order of magnitude or more). I have no problem with this, and my first suggestion is to add one more line to the calculations. the area (in either square inches or mm) of one pixel on the sensor. Also you could put the linear distance between pixels. Therefore you would need to have the sensor size also (6.1, 10. or 14 MP) These points althoug simple would allow people to appreciate the ultimate resolution of the system. Lowell, correct me if I'm wrong but you'd need to have the full sensor specs in order to do those resolution calculations "accurately"? You would need the actual size of each pixel as simple resolution (pixel count) wouldn't quite get you there. I'm also not sure how to relate that to the film columns. Originally posted by Lowell Goudge Another simple but not related to FOV calculation you could do is to have an image size calculator image size = subject size * focal length / distance. people often forget this when shooting with long tele's Not sure what you're asking for here. The FRAME SIZE row tells you how big a subject will fit in your frame at a given distance, and the IMAGE SCALE tells gives you the ratio of image to FOV - but it seems you're after something different? Originally posted by Ron Boggs As you neared completion of this great resource, did you find that you needed to increase the volume and frequency of the machine that goes PING? That seemed to be an important factor for the Pythons when they used the early versions of the PING machine. Nice work... Ron, you will have to submit requisition form BA-1100-N in triplicate to the Department of Redundancy Dept. for that information; you'll need to have a valid ID-10T card as well. And thanks Originally posted by HermanLee Thank you, Jim. Great work. We need more people like you. You're most welcome, Herman!

04-20-2009, 04:02 PM	#24
Lowell Goudge Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Toronto Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,886	Originally posted by Venturi Lowell, correct me if I'm wrong but you'd need to have the full sensor specs in order to do those resolution calculations "accurately"? You would need the actual size of each pixel as simple resolution (pixel count) wouldn't quite get you there. I'm also not sure how to relate that to the film columns. this may be correct, but it would be useful to show the size of a pixel (based upon the pitch) so that people start thinking in terms of the smallest resolvable object is. Specifically that you can't read a 2 inch high letter if a pixel is 4 inches square Quote: Not sure what you're asking for here. The FRAME SIZE row tells you how big a subject will fit in your frame at a given distance, and the IMAGE SCALE tells gives you the ratio of image to FOV - but it seems you're after something different? i am looking for the inverse, not how big a subject fills your frame, but how big an image is in your frame, let's perhaps present it a different way, magnification ratio, not size. that way, at 10 feet with a 200mm lens you know the 4 inch (100mm) bird you are photographing is only 1.33mm high on the sensor

11-25-2010, 12:13 PM	#25
wtf_cowboy Forum Member Join Date: Nov 2010 Location: Houston, Tx Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 52	Originally posted by Venturi Ron, you will have to submit requisition form BA-1100-N in triplicate to the Department of Redundancy Dept. for that information; you'll need to have a valid ID-10T card as well. I just died of laughter... ...also, great tool.

05-08-2011, 10:13 AM	#26
pivous New Member Join Date: May 2011 Posts: 1	Dear Jim, I can't find your attachement on the forum - the nice spreadsheet. Am I blend? :-) . Can You help me please? Pivous.

05-08-2011, 03:45 PM	#27
JHD Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Photos: Albums Posts: 1,406	Originally posted by pivous Dear Jim, I can't find your attachement on the forum - the nice spreadsheet. Am I... ...blind? Same here.

05-09-2011, 01:05 PM	#28
Kerrowdown PEG Moderator Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Highlands of Scotland... "Hold Infinity in the palm of your hand" - William Blake Photos: Gallery Posts: 57,816	Originally posted by pivous Dear Jim, I can't find your attachement on the forum - the nice spreadsheet. Not just me then. I feel reassured now.

05-09-2011, 08:07 PM	#29
Venturi Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Tulsa, OK Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,636 Original Poster	Whoops. I was housecleaning my old attachments and I dropped that one too. I've reattached the original version plus the English Measurements only version I use currently (added 645D sensor specs).

05-15-2011, 09:54 AM	#30
Lowell Goudge Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Toronto Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,886	In looking at the data inout a little more, there is one other thing I think shoud be put there, but it is not at present. you are using the CofC considering printing, I assume, to an 8 x 10 print. You may wish to add either an elnargement ratio from 8X10 or final print size, because DOF changes with print size also. I would suggest a print scale factor based upon 8 x 10 is 1:1