Focusing the View Camera: A Scientific Way to Focus the View Camera and Estimate Depth of Field. by Harold M. Merklinger. Merklinger’s method is less widely used, but is much easier to apply in the field. . Harold Merklinger describes his method for optimizing depth of field here. Harold Merklinger on Depth of Field. If you arrived at this page by a direct link, it will be helpful for background information if you read my article, More on Depth.
|Published (Last):||19 June 2006|
|PDF File Size:||8.62 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||2.64 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Junk claims Scheimpflug first published his work verbally in and then on paper in He suggested a simple way out. Merklinger’s method is less widely used, but is much easier to apply in the field.
Unfortunately photographers often do hwrold know how to interpret the results of the classical theory.
Kevin Boone’s Web site
If the final photograph is not big merklingdr, we will see that everything from a certain distance to infinity is quite sharp, because 0. But it is absolutely natural.
However, the problem is that his theory perfectly works when the resolution is discussed, but it is not suitable for the purposes of sharpness. Note this email gets spammed a lot so if you merkpinger to get your message through please prefix “Holding Tank” in the title. In my previous articles [ 12 ] I have already explained the basic ideas of depth of field and described all the necessary formulas to calculate it.
Now let us consider most important cases. The traditional theory proved to be true again. If one asks “What do I need to do to resolve objects a quarter-inch in diameter at any subject distance? Harold Merklinger offered another approach to linearization. With the help of a non-linear transformation, the object field, where fuzziness varies linearly, can be recalculated into the image field model, where fuzziness is described by non-linear functions.
Merklinger’s aperture for a disk of confusion of 2mm-4mm, for various lens focal lengths. The eyes remain blurry, and that is the point. The usual standard is that the smallest detail need be no finer than the focal length of the camera lens f divided by Essentially, considering the traditional landscape situation, Merklinger notes that distant objects, being at smaller magnification than close objects, contain more detail and thus need more resolution.
First of all, let us recall what the traditional theory recommends. Return to the Photo Books Table of Contents. In the table below, the green horizontal line shows the acceptable level of fuzziness c 0while the dash blue line corresponds to the fuzziness of an infinitely distant point c’.
Hyperfocal distance as it is traditionally employed in landscape photography — focusing at the hyperfocal distance ensures a depth-of-field from merklinyer the hyperfocal distance to infinity. On each of these supporting pages, the first available link will usually take you back to where you left this main page, or at least back to the following Table of Contents. However if we make a sufficient enlargement, it will not be difficult to notice that the DOF area is asymmetrical.
In this case, we had to increase the distance between the toucan and the plate in proportion to the focal length.
Technical Books on Photography by Harold M. Merklinger
But a number of questions still remain unanswered. Now let us look at the same graph calculated exactly in accordance with our formula Fig.
So far as this article is concerned, his method for dealing with scenes that extend to infinity or, at least, for miles can be expressed very simply: It now includes a version of VuCamText. You will not find any other pieces of math in this text.
BAC Event Photos
Some other Zoomify views will nevertheless work with Flash Player 8 – but seemingly not this one. That white line cannot exist, of course, as the the sky everywhere should be at least as dark as a single pass print alone! If you wish to move ahead quickly now, you may jump directly to any of the topics in the following. Merklinger’s theory wil be discussed a little bit later. Nobody would anticipate the opposite outcome. And that was one of my recommendations that I gave in another article – How do out-of-focus areas look like?
If focusing can be described by Fig.