Recent content by Oldhouse

@Drakkith Yes, agreed. @DaveC426913 If you actually studied cinematography, you certainly are familiar with the “American Cinematographer Manual” (the Bible of Cinematography). Here is an excerpt: “Depth of field determines the range in front of and behind a designated focusing distance...

Looks like you are slowly catching on to what DOF means: It is all about being able to distinguish "discrete" points... If the image is small, you can't therefore it is considered in focus. The more you enlarge the image, the more discrete points you can distinguish. Just think about it this...

So what is your point... you still only get about 3mm in focus on the bottom picture but about 10+mm in the top picture... (if it is legible or not is irrelevant).

You clearly are confusion multiple things here... just because something is legible doesn't mean it is in focus. In the picture attached bellow... the number is "legible" but clearly out of focus:

No, even in the tape measure it is clearly visible. You only get about 3mm of DOF in the bottom image... and about 10+mm in the image on top.

Of course I stick to the generally accepted definition of DOF... you don't get to make up your own definition. You still haven't answered any of the posed questions.... The CoC is an aspect of DOF as per definition... and the CoC is affected by resolution and other factors like grain...

Credit: Steven Kersting (https://photo.stackexchange.com/) You can clearly see how the DOF changes simply by enlarging the picture. Especially noticable if you look at the carpet.

Not true at all... I actually studied Cinematography and worked as a cinematographer. You don't know what you are talking about.

Ok, let's break this down, and you tell me how that is illogical: See attached image for the formula of DOF. "c" stands for the circle of confusion. Now lets look at how the permissible CoC is defined: "In photography, the circle of confusion diameter limit (CoC limit or CoC criterion) is...

It is not sloppy at all. It is like that by definition: This also makes total sense when it comes to practical applications: If I film two people standing at different distance to the camera, and if I want them both to be in focus, I need to know if the film will be shown in an iMax theater or...

Yes, it is indeed true that the right picture has less DOF than the left... absolutely!

@DaveC426913 You are getting this completely wrong. Please define "sharpness". If possible, what would the formula be? What permissible size circle of confusion are you choosing, and what is the process of settling on a specific size.

It is not. Go to post #8 and read the posted link for a pretty easy to understand explanation.

I would say you misunderstand depth of field. In post #15, another member even posted the formula which makes it obvious that sensor size has an influence on DOF. Furthermore, you can simply use any depth of field calculator (for example: https://dofsimulator.net/en/) and test it yourself. Leave...

No, you forget that the Zeiss Formula was derived from the DOF markings of an Zeiss Triotar lens, and the DOF markings were put on the lens with a CoC calcululated with a viewing distance that is equal to the picture diagonal. I'm done talking about this... We are going in circles.