the last word

Photography meets digital computer technology. Photography wins -- most of the time.

  • site home
  • blog home
  • galleries
  • contact
  • underwater
  • the bleeding edge
You are here: Home / The Last Word / Comparing real and simulated defocus blur — Sony 135 STF

Comparing real and simulated defocus blur — Sony 135 STF

May 5, 2017 JimK Leave a Comment

This is the fourth in a series of posts about building a bokeh simulator. This series starts here.

I wanted to get an idea of how simulated defocusing compared to the real thing with the Sony 135mm STF lens. I took this sharp image with an a7RII at f/11:

In focus

Then I set it to the widest STF aperture and made a somewhat-defocused image:

Defocused STF #1

The defocusing was achieved my focusing the lens closer to the camera than the actual subject, so there is some magnification.

I took the in-focus image, and ran it through the simulator with three out of focus (OOF) point spread functions (PSFs): one for the actual STF lens, a Gaussian with 2.4 sigma extent, and a spherical model with the diameter of the sphere 1.2 time the diameter of the apodizing element. I set the blur circle diameter to 30 pixels on the 1500×2250 downsampled image that I sent to the simulator. 

Actual OOF PSF, 30 px diameter

 

Gaussian, 2.4 sigma extent, 30 px diameter

 

Spherical, 120% sphere, 30 px diameter

 

These all look like reasonable approximations to the actual defocus blur to me.

 

Then I defocused a bit more, and did the same thing.

Actual STF defocus #2

 

Actual OOF PSF, 50 px diameter

 

Gaussian, 2.4 sigma extent, 50 px diameter

 

Spherical, 120% sphere, 50 px diameter

The images are similar.

Then I did it again with even more defocusing. I promise this will be the last one.

Actual STF defocus #3

 

Actual OOF PSF, 80 px diameter

 

Gaussian, 2.4 sigma extent, 80 px diameter

 

Spherical, 120% sphere, 80 px diameter

 

Next I’ll do the same thing with the Zeiss 135/2 Apo-Sonnar. Thankfully, there will be only one set of modeled behavior.

 

 

 

The Last Word

← How to capture OOF PSFs Comparing real and simulated defocus blur — Zeiss 135/2 Apo-Sonnar →

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

December 2023
S M T W T F S
 12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930
31  
« Nov    

Articles

  • About
    • Patents and papers about color
    • Who am I?
  • Good 35-70 MF lens
  • How to…
    • Backing up photographic images
    • How to change email providers
    • How to shoot slanted edge images for me
  • Lens screening testing
    • Equipment and Software
    • Examples
      • Bad and OK 200-600 at 600
      • Excellent 180-400 zoom
      • Fair 14-30mm zoom
      • Good 100-200 mm MF zoom
      • Good 100-400 zoom
      • Good 100mm lens on P1 P45+
      • Good 120mm MF lens
      • Good 18mm FF lens
      • Good 24-105 mm FF lens
      • Good 24-70 FF zoom
      • Good 35 mm FF lens
      • Good 60 mm lens on IQ3-100
      • Good 63 mm MF lens
      • Good 65 mm FF lens
      • Good 85 mm FF lens
      • Good and bad 25mm FF lenses
      • Good zoom at 24 mm
      • Marginal 18mm lens
      • Marginal 35mm FF lens
      • Mildly problematic 55 mm FF lens
      • OK 16-35mm zoom
      • OK 60mm lens on P1 P45+
      • OK Sony 600mm f/4
      • Pretty good 16-35 FF zoom
      • Pretty good 90mm FF lens
      • Problematic 400 mm FF lens
      • Tilted 20 mm f/1.8 FF lens
      • Tilted 30 mm MF lens
      • Tilted 50 mm FF lens
      • Two 15mm FF lenses
    • Found a problem – now what?
    • Goals for this test
    • Minimum target distances
      • MFT
      • APS-C
      • Full frame
      • Small medium format
    • Printable Siemens Star targets
    • Target size on sensor
      • MFT
      • APS-C
      • Full frame
      • Small medium format
    • Test instructions — postproduction
    • Test instructions — reading the images
    • Test instructions – capture
    • Theory of the test
    • What’s wrong with conventional lens screening?
  • Previsualization heresy
  • Privacy Policy
  • Recommended photographic web sites
  • Using in-camera histograms for ETTR
    • Acknowledgments
    • Why ETTR?
    • Normal in-camera histograms
    • Image processing for in-camera histograms
    • Making the in-camera histogram closely represent the raw histogram
    • Shortcuts to UniWB
    • Preparing for monitor-based UniWB
    • A one-step UniWB procedure
    • The math behind the one-step method
    • Iteration using Newton’s Method

Category List

Recent Comments

  • Gordon Ownby on Hasselblad XCD 90/2.5 V bokeh on X2D
  • JimK on Hasselblad XCD 90/2.5 V bokeh on X2D
  • Gordon Ownby on Hasselblad XCD 90/2.5 V bokeh on X2D
  • JimK on Fujifilm GFX 100 II — ISOlessness at high ISO settings
  • Gerald Hill on Fujifilm GFX 100 II — ISOlessness at high ISO settings
  • JimK on Hasselblad 90/2.5 XCD-V on X2D — Siemens star
  • JimK on Hasselblad XCD 90/2.5 V lens on X2D
  • Marko on Hasselblad XCD 90/2.5 V lens on X2D
  • Glen on Hasselblad 90/2.5 XCD-V on X2D — Siemens star
  • JimK on Hasselblad 90/2.5 XCD on X2D, edge falloff

Archives

Copyright © 2023 · Daily Dish Pro On Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in

Unless otherwise noted, all images copyright Jim Kasson.