>
> Normally said as "all wet" rather than "completely wet". At least I
> think that's what he meant. See definition #2 here:
> <http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/all_wet>
>
I think his conclusion is correct, but the path to get there is wrong. The
math does not match his assumptions--especially in the discussion about
cropped image vs longer focal-length. This is when his theories break down
because as Chuck has clearly stated, in order to calculate DoF you must work
from a known output size (magnification). Ctein is using "non-test tests to
figure this out and is being fooled by how different optical designs can
alter other imaging characteristics which can be misinterpreted as an
increase/decrease in DoF.
AG
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|