| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#11
|
|||
|
|||
John H wrote: On 30 Mar 2005 08:59:06 -0800, wrote: So, Fritz, are you going to tell us? YOU stated that your brother told you there weren't many tourists in Guantanamo, when in fact, that region is the tourism hot spot for Cuba!!!! YOU said that it was "Labatt's", when in fact it's not. Now, why, when YOU WERE DEAD WRONG BOTH TIMES, would you blame it on me? I didn't make you either lie, or post in ignorance. basskisser, YOU said: "The further away a subject is, the less depth of field there is." Yes, and John, you don't see the problem here. You've shown a comparison of depth of field THROUGH A LENS OF 'X' FOCAL LENGTH. Do this. Look out of your window, look at something, say some trees that are close to you. Notice that you can judge distance quite well? Now. Look at trees off a hundred yards. Notice that you CAN'T judge the distance? Okay, what did we learn? You see, if the photographer was using a small cheap digital camera, and using DIGITAL zoom, as opposed to altering focal length, a new and amazing thing happens. Depth of field now works like your eye, as opposed to using a zoom lens!!!! I hope this clears it up for you. Do this, take a camera with a DIGITAL zoom, use it to take a picture off in the distance. Now, take a 35mm, use a zoom LENS, take the same picture. Print them both. You will notice the above difference in depth of field, using the Circle of Confusion. |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| NOYB and Harry go Boating.... | General | |||
| Hey, NOYB | General | |||
| Patriot acts? | ASA | |||
Threaded Mode
