File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
A question for /p/ - would it be possible to make a photo which would be perfectly focused on every visible object? I would guess that with a nice digital camera you could take many images in rapid succession, but with the focus changing slightly each time, and then patch everything together to make an epic-quality photo. Is this feasable?

Have some 1950's Colorado Springs as payment.
>> Macheath !8b4g0BkNZg
You could stop down to an aperture that has a very large depth of field. Cropped sensors also increase depth of field as well.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
Yeah, small aperture is a better idea than digital trickery. And if you *really* love DoF, a crappy digital camera's better than a good digital camera, since a larger imaging surface means shallower DoF at a given aperture.
>> Anonymous
That and focus 1/3 into the scene. That way you'll cover the maximum range of it with sharpness.
>> Anonymous
You'll be able to do it soon enough. I don't remember name or source, but a camera/lens is in the works where they use something like 20,000 pieces of glass to put together a 100% sharp image. They're also doing software to be able to select depth of field afterward, on the computer.
>> Anonymous
You can get something like that with a large format camera. Just look at Ansel Adams work, or another large format photographers work. You just have to tilt the plane of focus correctly.
>> iProd !8x7lXo9zIQ
     File :-(, x)
:>

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS DIGITAL REBEL XTiCamera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 MacintoshImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2007:08:25 17:21:23Exposure Time1/500 secExposure ProgramManualISO Speed Rating100Lens Aperturef/6.3Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length135.00 mmColor Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width1400Image Height932
>> Anonymous
>>71694
Why does this make even a dedicated digiphile like me extremely uncomfortable?

>>71681
Could you explain this? I thought DOF extended more back from the point of focus than forwards.
>> What is hyperfocal distance and why should I care? des
>>71722
http://www.vividlight.com/articles/3513.htm

aka Hay guys remember when lenses had DoF chits on the barrel?
aka Hay guys go to the library and read the Time Life Photography books from oldternet.
get off my lawn, etc
>> Anonymous
>>71722

Exactly. It extends about twice as much in the back than in front. So focus 1/3 into the scene and you'll cover it best.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>71751
That doesn't make sense. By 1/3rd into the scene, do you mean 1/3 away from the photographer?

Are you saying to focus on plane A in the attached diagram? Because then wouldn't it work out like I drew it, where green is the area in focus in front of the plane, and yellow is the area in back? Wouldn't the final area be left out of focus (blue)?

Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:
>> Anonymous
>>71733
I was about to make a post like this upon seeing OP's post, thank you for sparing me the trouble.
>> Anonymous
I likeeeee
>> mrdevon
btw, it's 1/3 into the scene for a Normal focal length lens (~50mm for 35mm cameras). 1/2 into the scene for telephoto and 1/4 for wide angle.
>> mrdevon
this is getting into some serious hyperfocal distance stuff.

the "1/3 into scene" thing (or 1/2 or 1/4) has to do with how much you want in focus.

if you're shooting something covering an entire table-top, say, 3' long (using a normal lens) and you want all of it in focus, you would focus 1' into the scene.

and you would want an aperture value with a wide enough DOF.

most lens have (colored) lines/notches or guides on the lens that tell you how much DOF you get at each (smaller) aperture.
>> mrdevon
just wiki Depth of Field and Hyperfocal distance.
>> Anonymous
and then "wiki" (worst verb ever) focus bracketing. because that's exactly what the OP is talking about, and it's already an established digital technique.

srsly guyz
>> Anonymous
As an interesting side note
Check out:
http://graphics.stanford.edu/papers/lfcamera/

Interesting sensor and lens design which allows you to take a picture that you can re-focus digitally afterwards.

Adobe's application of this technology appears to be using a huge multi-focal-length lens on regular CMOS sensors to get super high DOF (as if f/22) at a wider aperture (like f/4).

Nikon's idea is more in tune with the Stanford research - they're using microlenses like prisms to create full-color sensors. I suppose this is an effort similar to the Foveon X3 sensor in the Sigma SD-14 cameras.