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 / Maximizing DOF in the face of diffraction

Maximizing DOF in the face of diffraction

June 10, 2016 By JimK Leave a Comment

This is a continuation of a report on new ways to look at depth of field. The series starts here:

A new way to look at depth of field

We’ve seen in this series that stopping down giveth depth of field (DOF), and taketh away sharpness (measured in terms of MTF50,

Is there a way to get a handle on this?

Maybe.

I took Jack Hogan’s MTF50 calculation program, which over the last two days has been modified into near unrecognizability, I set it to model the 55mm, not-quite diffraction limited lens that we’ve seen in the last two posts, set the focused distance to infinity (well, 10 km), the camera to the Sony a7RII, and look at MTF50 in cycles per picture height (cy/ph) vs subject distance for apertures in one-third stop intervals from f/4 through f/22.

Here’s what I got:

HHFD dense fstops

If you look at the cet of curves carefully, you’ll notice two thing that — at least to me — are interesting and potentially useful.

  • The best depth of field for a given sharpness is obtained at an aperture that gives infinity sharpness of slightly higher than the desired sharpness.
  • However, that aperture gives poorer sharpness at nearer subject distances than could be obtained by stopping down more.

How is this useful? If you’re focusing at infinity, and you have a specific object in the foreground that you want to be sharp, pick an f-stop is near the widest one that delivers the desired sharpness. Anything closer than your chosen object will suffer from this decision.

Conversely, if you’re focusing at infinity, and have a foreground so deep that you know you won’t be able to get it as sharp as you want, decide how much sharpness you really need at infinity, and stop the lens down to that aperture.

The first approach is entirely compatible with the hyper-hyperfocal distance approach discussed in the preceding post, if you focus on the HHFD instead of infinity.

 

 

← The hyper-hyperfocal distance Object-field methods for DOF management →

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published.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

January 2021
S M T W T F S
 12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930
31  
« Dec    

Articles

  • About
    • Patents and papers about color
    • Who am I?
  • How to…
    • Backing up photographic images
    • How to change email providers
  • 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

  • JimK on Detectability of visual signals below the noise
  • JimK on Does repeated JPEG compression ruin images?
  • Bill Claff on Detectability of visual signals below the noise
  • Mike B on Does repeated JPEG compression ruin images?
  • Robert Frangioso on Leica 280/4 Apo-Telyt R on GFX 50R in infrared
  • Robert Frangioso on Why so few posts?
  • Ken on Noise reduction and downsampling
  • Robert Kuechle on Chronography video up
  • JimK on Leica 90/2 Apo-Summicron ASPH-M on GFX 50S
  • DanB on Leica 90/2 Apo-Summicron ASPH-M on GFX 50S

Archives

Unless otherwise noted, all images copyright Jim Kasson.