4 ms·

Group F/64

31 points by tintinnabula 4y ago

R0b0t1 4y ago
FounderBurr 4y ago
For those not in on this long running Wikipedia in joke, this article started as and continues to be a venue for contributors to one up each other on the pretension scale. I think it’s going well so far.
- gjm11 4y ago
  Maybe I'm just naturally pretentious or something, but it doesn't read to me as anywhere near as pretentious as I would expect a Wikipedia article to be if that were true. Do you have some links or something to support what you say?
- meepmorp 4y ago
  Seems like you're being the pretentious one, tbh.
- mlindner 4y ago
  Do you have any source for such a claim? I've been a wikipedia editor for quite a long time, and have never heard of this and the article itself seems perfectly reasonable in form. It's also well sourced.
nousermane 4y ago
They were way ahead of their time. Bear with me for this explanation. To quote [1], > f-number of an optical system such as a camera lens is the ratio of the system's focal length to the diameter of the entrance pupil ("clear aperture"). In other words, this is a relative number. And as far "being sharply in focus" (stated reason for f/64 style) is concerned, for the same field-of-view angle, smaller sensor would require proportionally more open f-stop number to exactly match the look. 2-inch sensor with 90-degeree f/2 lens, would produce exact same depth-of-focus as 4-inch sensor with 90-degree f/4. According to [2], Adams was using 6,5×8,5 inch negatives around the time (let's call it 8 inch "sensor"). Compare that to the 1/2 to 1/4 inch sensors [3] of iPhone 13. So what aperture latter would need to exactly match the picture f/64 group wanted? (1/64) × 8 / (1/2) = 1/4 = f/4 (1/64) × 8 / (1/4) = 1/2 = f/2 As luck would have it, f/2 is pretty much bang-on the aperture of the same iPhone. In other words, when you take a photo with a current-gen smartphone, that photo would have, give or take, exact same depth-of-focus that group f/64 wanted. Everyone is group f/64 now. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-number https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-number [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monolith,_the_Face_of_Half_Dome#Location https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monolith,_the_Face_of_Half_Dom... [3] https://www.dpreview.com/articles/6780391159/all-apple-iphone-13-and-13-pro-camera-upgrades-explained https://www.dpreview.com/articles/6780391159/all-apple-iphon...
- maxnoe 4y ago
  Only that for weird historical reasons, the 1 / 2 inch sensors are much smaller than 1/2 inch. The inch number refers to the diameter of the vacuum tube having the same sensitive area... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_sensor_format#Table_of_sensor_formats_and_sizes https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_sensor_format#Table_of...

31 points by tintinnabula 4y ago

For those not in on this long running Wikipedia in joke, this article started as and continues to be a venue for contributors to one up each other on the pretension scale. I think it’s going well so far.

gjm11 4y ago
Maybe I'm just naturally pretentious or something, but it doesn't read to me as anywhere near as pretentious as I would expect a Wikipedia article to be if that were true. Do you have some links or something to support what you say?
meepmorp 4y ago
Seems like you're being the pretentious one, tbh.
mlindner 4y ago
Do you have any source for such a claim? I've been a wikipedia editor for quite a long time, and have never heard of this and the article itself seems perfectly reasonable in form. It's also well sourced.

nousermane 4y ago

They were way ahead of their time. Bear with me for this explanation. To quote [1], > f-number of an optical system such as a camera lens is the ratio of the system's focal length to the diameter of the entrance pupil ("clear aperture"). In other words, this is a relative number. And as far "being sharply in focus" (stated reason for f/64 style) is concerned, for the same field-of-view angle, smaller sensor would require proportionally more open f-stop number to exactly match the look. 2-inch sensor with 90-degeree f/2 lens, would produce exact same depth-of-focus as 4-inch sensor with 90-degree f/4. According to [2], Adams was using 6,5×8,5 inch negatives around the time (let's call it 8 inch "sensor"). Compare that to the 1/2 to 1/4 inch sensors [3] of iPhone 13. So what aperture latter would need to exactly match the picture f/64 group wanted? (1/64) × 8 / (1/2) = 1/4 = f/4 (1/64) × 8 / (1/4) = 1/2 = f/2 As luck would have it, f/2 is pretty much bang-on the aperture of the same iPhone. In other words, when you take a photo with a current-gen smartphone, that photo would have, give or take, exact same depth-of-focus that group f/64 wanted. Everyone is group f/64 now. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-number https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-number [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monolith,_the_Face_of_Half_Dome#Location https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monolith,_the_Face_of_Half_Dom... [3] https://www.dpreview.com/articles/6780391159/all-apple-iphone-13-and-13-pro-camera-upgrades-explained https://www.dpreview.com/articles/6780391159/all-apple-iphon...

maxnoe 4y ago
Only that for weird historical reasons, the 1 / 2 inch sensors are much smaller than 1/2 inch. The inch number refers to the diameter of the vacuum tube having the same sensitive area... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_sensor_format#Table_of_sensor_formats_and_sizes https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_sensor_format#Table_of...