3 ms·

I'm not an expert on optics, but one thing I remember from my high school photography class (using film, perhaps dating myself a bit) is that smaller depth of f

I'm not an expert on optics, but one thing I remember from my high school photography class (using film, perhaps dating myself a bit) is that smaller depth of field basically requires a large sensor. I guess you could imitate this automatically with software, but it's probably not a coincidence that every photo in the linked page has very large depth of field. To me, this would be a fair reason to prefer a more "normal" camera. Edit: The article linked below says I'm wrong about why phone cameras have wide depth of field. Based on skimming it, I'm right in that phone cameras will have wide depth of field, but it's due to the the small focal length. https://fstoppers.com/education/no-larger-sensors-do-not-produce-shallower-depth-field-254158 https://fstoppers.com/education/no-larger-sensors-do-not-pro...

bigdubs 7y ago
they're getting really close simulating shallow depth of field with depth sensors and computational photography, but in the same way there is no replacement resolution-wise for 8x10 and other large formats, its better just to use the real thing
- mc32 7y ago
  If people demand it they may simulate medium format. But yeah seeing large prints from LF or MF cameras the whole image looks very different, more immersive of the scene.
  - i_am_proteus 7y ago
    The available resolution of LF, even from "only" 4x5, beats full-frame digital handily. It's also simultaneously cheaper (dollars) and more expensive (time).
  - foldr 7y ago
    There are no real differences beyond those arising from differences in aperture and focal length. For example, here are two very similar shots, one shot on a DX format DSLR and the other shot on 4x5 film: https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B4v6yNyRkl5uUThuRm9tVWhGNUE https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B4v6yNyRkl5uUThuRm9tVWhGNU... https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B4v6yNyRkl5ua1BlMzNHVlRUUHc https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B4v6yNyRkl5ua1BlMzNHVlRUUH... The one exception would be movements: most 4x5 cameras can do tilt and shift, whereas tilt/shift lenses for DSLRs are very expensive and specialist.
starky 7y ago
Depth of field is proportional to the aperture/focal length^2 For a given field of view your focal length must change for different sensor sizes so effectively you see a shallower depth of field. While computational imaging is doing amazing things right now, I've yet to be impressed by any sort of portrait mode, they simply do a mediocre job at creating a realistic sharpness falloff and fail far too often at identifying the edges of a subject. Once they get it right however, they could theoretically do some absolutely amazing things by simulating different bokeh and as small of a DoF as you could ever desire.

bigdubs 7y ago

they're getting really close simulating shallow depth of field with depth sensors and computational photography, but in the same way there is no replacement resolution-wise for 8x10 and other large formats, its better just to use the real thing

mc32 7y ago
If people demand it they may simulate medium format. But yeah seeing large prints from LF or MF cameras the whole image looks very different, more immersive of the scene.
- i_am_proteus 7y ago
  The available resolution of LF, even from "only" 4x5, beats full-frame digital handily. It's also simultaneously cheaper (dollars) and more expensive (time).
- foldr 7y ago
  There are no real differences beyond those arising from differences in aperture and focal length. For example, here are two very similar shots, one shot on a DX format DSLR and the other shot on 4x5 film: https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B4v6yNyRkl5uUThuRm9tVWhGNUE https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B4v6yNyRkl5uUThuRm9tVWhGNU... https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B4v6yNyRkl5ua1BlMzNHVlRUUHc https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B4v6yNyRkl5ua1BlMzNHVlRUUH... The one exception would be movements: most 4x5 cameras can do tilt and shift, whereas tilt/shift lenses for DSLRs are very expensive and specialist.

starky 7y ago

Depth of field is proportional to the aperture/focal length^2 For a given field of view your focal length must change for different sensor sizes so effectively you see a shallower depth of field. While computational imaging is doing amazing things right now, I've yet to be impressed by any sort of portrait mode, they simply do a mediocre job at creating a realistic sharpness falloff and fail far too often at identifying the edges of a subject. Once they get it right however, they could theoretically do some absolutely amazing things by simulating different bokeh and as small of a DoF as you could ever desire.