Ah, but it does compute, Bill, and very precisely regardless of what you
think of the source.
I'll be happy to send you a copy of my favorite Windoze depth of field
calculator which used to be a freebie from Digital Light & Color, makers
of Picture Window Pro. They've apparently stopped supporting it other
than the Pocket PC version. It's a 540KB file but I'll be happy to send
it if you like.
Plug in the numbers below taking care to use a resolution value (inverse
of circle of confusion) that is double the 35mm value for the E-1. The
program uses 30 lines/mm as a default for 35mm (sharp 8x10) so you need
to use 60 lines/mm for the E-1 since the magnification for the same size
print will be twice as much. See the help file for information on
circle of confusuion/resolution and the algorithms they use.
You'll find that the DOF is identical using the numbers below from the
Wikipedia article.
Chuck Norcutt
Bill Pearce wrote:
>>>“If you mount a 50 mm, F/1.4 lens on the E-1 and use it wide open, the
>>>DOF will be the same as when you mount a 100 mm, F/2.8 lens on a film
>>>camera…
>
> If they had said a 100/2, I might have swallowed it, but TWO STOPS????????
>
> That just doesn't compute.
>
> But if it's wikipedia, consider the source.
>
> Bill Pearce
>
>
> ==============================================
> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
>
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|