Does a lens exist

[Rubycon]

Human eyes do a superb job at this.

Why doesn't the camera?

 

[Brainonska511]

I can't do that with my eyes....

 

[Rubycon]

Originally posted by: Brainonska511
I can't do that with my eyes....

Really?!! :shocked:

 

[imported_Snagle]

Originally posted by: C6FT7
Human eyes do a superb job at this.

Why doesn't the camera?

Look at the light switch on the wall. Now put your finger in front of your face; is it in focus? Nope.

 

[Rubycon]

Originally posted by: Snagle

Look at the light switch on the wall. Now put your finger in front of your face; is it in focus? Nope.

Umm yes it is - perfectly clear. I'd take a picture but ummm nevermind.

 

[mercanucaribe]

Originally posted by: C6FT7

Originally posted by: Snagle

Look at the light switch on the wall. Now put your finger in front of your face; is it in focus? Nope.

Umm yes it is - perfectly clear. I'd take a picture but ummm nevermind.

That's physically impossible.

 

[imported_Snagle]

Originally posted by: C6FT7

Originally posted by: Snagle

Look at the light switch on the wall. Now put your finger in front of your face; is it in focus? Nope.

Umm yes it is - perfectly clear. I'd take a picture but ummm nevermind.

yeah, it's clear if you focus on it, but then the light switch will be out of focus.

It is impossible for the eye to have 1 object 6 inches from it in focus while retaining focus on something 10 feet away.

 

[Rubycon]

Originally posted by: mercanucaribe

That's physically impossible.

Well there has to be an explanation.

Originally posted by: Snagle

yeah, it's clear if you focus on it, but then the light switch will be out of focus.

It is impossible for the eye to have 1 object 6 inches from it in focus while retaining focus on something 10 feet away.

6 inches? Why so far away? Now a screen will be tricky but that is probably some kind of illusion. I can watch things through a screen without too much interference but if something is moving perpendicular to the screen elements it will flicker badly like a borked de-interlacer. Moire is present sometimes as well.

Moving back a few inches off the screen improves things dramatically. An insect on the screen (hopefully on the outside!) is in clear focus as is things 20 meters past the screen. I did not think this was abnormal. Now if a picture is taken one has to choose what to focus on. I believe if everyone's eyes worked like (the camera) they would go crazy in short order!

 

[bsobel]

Originally posted by: C6FT7
Human eyes do a superb job at this.

Why doesn't the camera?

Did you mean to say 'keep the background in focus'?

 

[bsobel]

Originally posted by: C6FT7

Originally posted by: mercanucaribe

That's physically impossible.

Well there has to be an explanation.

Yep, its a trick your brain plays on you (seriously).

 

[ViRGE]

Originally posted by: C6FT7

Originally posted by: mercanucaribe

That's physically impossible.

Well there has to be an explanation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lens_%28optics%29

 

[MillionaireNextDoor]

A friend's friend in Stanford has such a lens. Cost him $10k to build it with his technique. No one else makes them as far as I know.

 

[clamum]

You can alter the depth of field on a camera so it is very small (one thing or part of it in focus, the rest is blurry) or large so the whole picture from close up to far away is in focus.

 

[Rubycon]

Originally posted by: bsobel

Did you mean to say 'keep the background in focus'?

Yes, thank you.

 

[imported_Snagle]

Originally posted by: MillionaireNextDoor
A friend's friend in Stanford has such a lens. Cost him $10k to build it with his technique. No one else makes them as far as I know.

Huh? I can set any of my lenses to F14 and get everything in the frame in focus.

 

[Slacker]

Composite image FTW!

 

[DurocShark]

Originally posted by: MillionaireNextDoor
A friend's friend in Stanford has such a lens. Cost him $10k to build it with his technique. No one else makes them as far as I know.

Shens

Optics are a well understood science. The only "new" technology was the ability to create aspherical class thanks to computers. But all those really do is correct chromatic aberrations and distortion.

 

[DigDug]

Well there has to be an explanation.

C6FT7 is a blonde.

 

[imported_Snagle]

Originally posted by: DurocShark

Originally posted by: MillionaireNextDoor
A friend's friend in Stanford has such a lens. Cost him $10k to build it with his technique. No one else makes them as far as I know.

Shens

Optics are a well understood science. The only "new" technology was the ability to create aspherical class thanks to computers. But all those really do is correct chromatic aberrations and distortion.

Yup. Canon pours millions in to R&D each year, there isn't much they don't know about how lgiht works and interacts with glass

 

[aiex]

Just use a really small appeture >f/10 and that should work for you...

 

[DurocShark]

Originally posted by: aiex
Just use a really small appeture >f/10 and that should work for you...

F/10 is not a small aperture.

f/22 or higher. I have a lens for an 8x10 camera that goes to f/64.

 

[halik]

small aperture (ie f22) and lots of light/long exposure does it

 

[DigDug]

Yuck. Depth of field is what makes things so interesting. Point and shoots always use infinity focus. That's pictures from those things are so damn boring.

 

[Rubycon]

Originally posted by: DigDug

C6FT7 is a blonde.

What does that have to do with the price of Casix MCA's? Play nice now.

 

[bsobel]

Originally posted by: C6FT7

Originally posted by: bsobel

Did you mean to say 'keep the background in focus'?

Yes, thank you.

I kinda derived that, but sure was confused at first