what is the secret to getting bokeh with my S3

[Aharami]

i cant seem to get good bokeh in wide angle, even if i set aperture to max (2.7). max aperture should create a shallow DOF, right? so how come background is sharper in wide angle and aperture at 2.7 than in telephoto and Av = 3.5?

Some examples of what im talking about
Widest.
http://pics.bbzzdd.com/users/aharami/IMG_0024.jpg

Max zoom (standing far back)
http://pics.bbzzdd.com/users/aharami/IMG_0025.jpg

I think telephoto creates a much more desirable picture as the background is completely blurred out. But i cant seem to create that type of bokeh in wide angle...even with macro on

Are there some other secrets to getting desirable bokeh in WA? or is that not possible?

 

[IeraseU]

You need to use a longer focal length and large aperture (small f/stop) to maximize bokeh. Sensor size, aperture, focal length and distance from subject to background all affect bokeh.

 

[fuzzybabybunny]

Small P&S cameras "suffer" from much wider DOF than SLR camera lenses, even at their widest apertures.

http://www.wrotniak.net/photo/tech/dof.html#BASIC

http://www.cambridgeincolour.c...als/depth-of-field.htm

The M×A Rule:

The depth of field of a camera with focal length equivalence ratio (crop factor) of M, at a given aperture (F-number) A, is the same as that of a 35 mm camera with a lens of the same angle, closed down to the aperture of M×A.

The S3 has a 1/2.5" sensor with M=6. At wide on the S3 (6mm), the equivalent 35mm focal length is 6mm x 6 = 36mm. f/2.7 on the S3 @ 6mm is equivalent to f/2.7 * 6 = f/16 on a FF camera, and f/11 on a APS-C camera like the Rebel XT/30D

There's not much you can do except maybe blur out the background in Photoshop.

 

[Aharami]

Originally posted by: fuzzybabybunny
Small P&S cameras "suffer" from much wider DOF than SLR camera lenses, even at their widest apertures.

http://www.wrotniak.net/photo/tech/dof.html#BASIC

http://www.cambridgeincolour.c...als/depth-of-field.htm

The M×A Rule:

The depth of field of a camera with focal length equivalence ratio (crop factor) of M, at a given aperture (F-number) A, is the same as that of a 35 mm camera with a lens of the same angle, closed down to the aperture of M×A.

The S3 has a 1/2.5" sensor with M=6. At wide on the S3 (6mm), the equivalent 35mm focal length is 6mm x 6 = 36mm. f/2.7 on the S3 @ 6mm is equivalent to f/2.7 * 6 = f/16 on a FF camera, and f/11 on a APS-C camera like the Rebel XT/30D

There's not much you can do except maybe blur out the background in Photoshop.

thanks for explaining it. the links you provided are very good! I've played with the lens blur filter in CS2 and have had decent results (original, background blurred), but its kinda time consuming. Wish the camera did it for me. A DSLR's looking more and more attractive to me as time goes on. There is only so much you can do with a P&S, albeit a high-end one like the S3.

 

[IeraseU]

Well there are also times having a great deal of DoF can come in handy. Specifically for macro and landscape applications.

 

[fuzzybabybunny]

Originally posted by: Aharami

Originally posted by: fuzzybabybunny
Small P&S cameras "suffer" from much wider DOF than SLR camera lenses, even at their widest apertures.

http://www.wrotniak.net/photo/tech/dof.html#BASIC

http://www.cambridgeincolour.c...als/depth-of-field.htm

The M×A Rule:

The depth of field of a camera with focal length equivalence ratio (crop factor) of M, at a given aperture (F-number) A, is the same as that of a 35 mm camera with a lens of the same angle, closed down to the aperture of M×A.

The S3 has a 1/2.5" sensor with M=6. At wide on the S3 (6mm), the equivalent 35mm focal length is 6mm x 6 = 36mm. f/2.7 on the S3 @ 6mm is equivalent to f/2.7 * 6 = f/16 on a FF camera, and f/11 on a APS-C camera like the Rebel XT/30D

There's not much you can do except maybe blur out the background in Photoshop.

thanks for explaining it. the links you provided are very good! I've played with the lens blur filter in CS2 and have had decent results (original, background blurred), but its kinda time consuming. Wish the camera did it for me. A DSLR's looking more and more attractive to me as time goes on. There is only so much you can do with a P&S, albeit a high-end one like the S3.

Yeah, it is time consuming, but also note that for really wide angle shots, there's still a lot of DOF even with SLR lenses, unless of course you're doing something like focusing on something a foot away and going out to infinity, in which case you'll get good background blur. But if you're doing something like focusing on something 5 feet away to infinity, you won't get nearly as much background blur on a wideangle.

 

[troytime]

Originally posted by: fuzzybabybunny
Small P&S cameras "suffer" from much wider DOF than SLR camera lenses, even at their widest apertures.

http://www.wrotniak.net/photo/tech/dof.html#BASIC

http://www.cambridgeincolour.c...als/depth-of-field.htm

The M×A Rule:

The depth of field of a camera with focal length equivalence ratio (crop factor) of M, at a given aperture (F-number) A, is the same as that of a 35 mm camera with a lens of the same angle, closed down to the aperture of M×A.

The S3 has a 1/2.5" sensor with M=6. At wide on the S3 (6mm), the equivalent 35mm focal length is 6mm x 6 = 36mm. f/2.7 on the S3 @ 6mm is equivalent to f/2.7 * 6 = f/16 on a FF camera, and f/11 on a APS-C camera like the Rebel XT/30D

There's not much you can do except maybe blur out the background in Photoshop.

that was awesome.
i love it when math is used to explain stuff

now for my contribution,
fake bokeh in photoshop:
duplicate the layer
filter->gaussian blur on the new layer (pick whatever settings looks best)
then erase the 'in focus' area (non bokeh)
If its intricate, i recomend using the quick mask features (actually, its probably best to use the quick mask anyways)

EDIT: Aharami, your pic is nice!

 

[episodic]

The only question I have is where did the number 6 come from?

 

[Deadtrees]

If Bokeh concerns you, go for Canon 5D as it provides f/1.5 stop more bokeh due to its FF sensor.

 

[fuzzybabybunny]

Originally posted by: episodic
The only question I have is where did the number 6 come from?

That's the crop factor. A FF camera has a sensor size of 24x36mm, and the diagonal of this is 43.3mm. Since this is the basis upon which crop factor is based, its crop factor is 1. The S3 sensor size is 4.3x5.8mm, with a diagonal of 7.2mm. 43.3mm/7.2mm = 5.99, which is its crop factor (M).

 

[AmigaMan]

Originally posted by: Deadtrees
If Bokeh concerns you, go for Canon 5D as it provides f/1.5 stop more bokeh due to its FF sensor.

riiight. like a person who is using a $400 Canon S3 is going spring for a $2000 5D just for the bokeh. Hell I have a $700 Sony Alpha and get decent bokeh from my 50mm f1.7 lens. You don't need to spend an arm and a leg to get decent bokeh.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: fuzzybabybunny

Originally posted by: episodic
The only question I have is where did the number 6 come from?

That's the crop factor. A FF camera has a sensor size of 24x36mm, and the diagonal of this is 43.3mm. Since this is the basis upon which crop factor is based, its crop factor is 1. The S3 sensor size is 4.3x5.8mm, with a diagonal of 7.2mm. 43.3mm/7.2mm = 5.99, which is its crop factor (M).

this full frame nonsense is annoying. it's not full frame. it's 35 mm.


anyway, depth of field (which is only an artistic opinion anyway as only one plane is in focus and the rest is out of focus) depends on the absolute size of the aperture. so, at the long end it's 72 mm/3.5 = 20.6 mm. at the short end it's 6 mm/2.7 = 2.22 mm, which is absolutely tiny. in fact, it's impossible to make a wide angle with as shallow a depth of field as a telephoto (given that they're for the same camera).

i forget what effect smaller pixels has on depth of field (i would think it would tend to make it larger).

anyway, depth of field is not the same thing as bokeh. bokeh is the look of out of focus highlights. you could have a shallow depth of field and an ugly bokeh, for example. bokeh depends on the design of the lens more than anything else. circular aperture blades will give better bokeh, iirc. not much you can do to change that. bokeh is also more appealing, generally, when wide open (lens designers know that there is more area out of focus, therefore more out of focus highlights, when the lens is wide open).

 

[Deadtrees]

Originally posted by: AmigaMan

Originally posted by: Deadtrees
If Bokeh concerns you, go for Canon 5D as it provides f/1.5 stop more bokeh due to its FF sensor.

riiight. like a person who is using a $400 Canon S3 is going spring for a $2000 5D just for the bokeh. Hell I have a $700 Sony Alpha and get decent bokeh from my 50mm f1.7 lens. You don't need to spend an arm and a leg to get decent bokeh.

Ummm...I, for one, made a jump from S2 IS to 5D although it wasn't just because of that extra gain of f/ 1.5 stop DOF (EDIT: I forgot to mention that I used Pentax *istDS before making that jump)
Plus, I paid $3000 for 5D.

 

[Deadtrees]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: fuzzybabybunny

Originally posted by: episodic
The only question I have is where did the number 6 come from?

That's the crop factor. A FF camera has a sensor size of 24x36mm, and the diagonal of this is 43.3mm. Since this is the basis upon which crop factor is based, its crop factor is 1. The S3 sensor size is 4.3x5.8mm, with a diagonal of 7.2mm. 43.3mm/7.2mm = 5.99, which is its crop factor (M).

this full frame nonsense is annoying. it's not full frame. it's 35 mm.

(35mm sensor is, indeed, called as Full Frame sensor. However, don't be mistaken with Kodak's Full Frame Transfer sensor. Kodak's Full Frame Transfer is not about the size of sensor.)

anyway, depth of field (which is only an artistic opinion anyway as only one plane is in focus and the rest is out of focus) depends on the absolute size of the aperture. so, at the long end it's 72 mm/3.5 = 20.6 mm. at the short end it's 6 mm/2.7 = 2.22 mm, which is absolutely tiny. in fact, it's impossible to make a wide angle with as shallow a depth of field as a telephoto (given that they're for the same camera).

i forget what effect smaller pixels has on bokeh (i would think it would tend to make it larger).

anyway, depth of field is not the same thing as bokeh. bokeh is the look of out of focus highlights. you could have a shallow depth of field and an ugly bokeh, for example. bokeh depends on the design of the lens more than anything else. circular aperture blades will give better bokeh, iirc. not much you can do to change that. bokeh is also more appealing, generally, when wide open (lens designers know that there is more area out of focus, therefore more out of focus highlights, when the lens is wide open).

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What you said is quite true beside those 2.

 

[AmigaMan]

Originally posted by: Deadtrees

Originally posted by: AmigaMan

Originally posted by: Deadtrees
If Bokeh concerns you, go for Canon 5D as it provides f/1.5 stop more bokeh due to its FF sensor.

riiight. like a person who is using a $400 Canon S3 is going spring for a $2000 5D just for the bokeh. Hell I have a $700 Sony Alpha and get decent bokeh from my 50mm f1.7 lens. You don't need to spend an arm and a leg to get decent bokeh.

Ummm...I, for one, made a jump from S2 IS to 5D although it wasn't just because of that extra gain of f/ 1.5 stop DOF (EDIT: I forgot to mention that I used Pentax *istDS before making that jump)
Plus, I paid $3000 for 5D.

The 5D is only $2000 at B&H, guess you got ripped off.

 

[dartworth]

Originally posted by: Deadtrees

Originally posted by: AmigaMan

Originally posted by: Deadtrees
If Bokeh concerns you, go for Canon 5D as it provides f/1.5 stop more bokeh due to its FF sensor.

riiight. like a person who is using a $400 Canon S3 is going spring for a $2000 5D just for the bokeh. Hell I have a $700 Sony Alpha and get decent bokeh from my 50mm f1.7 lens. You don't need to spend an arm and a leg to get decent bokeh.

Ummm...I, for one, made a jump from S2 IS to 5D although it wasn't just because of that extra gain of f/ 1.5 stop DOF (EDIT: I forgot to mention that I used Pentax *istDS before making that jump)
Plus, I paid $3000 for 5D.

 

[Deadtrees]

Originally posted by: AmigaMan

Originally posted by: Deadtrees

Originally posted by: AmigaMan

Originally posted by: Deadtrees
If Bokeh concerns you, go for Canon 5D as it provides f/1.5 stop more bokeh due to its FF sensor.

riiight. like a person who is using a $400 Canon S3 is going spring for a $2000 5D just for the bokeh. Hell I have a $700 Sony Alpha and get decent bokeh from my 50mm f1.7 lens. You don't need to spend an arm and a leg to get decent bokeh.

Ummm...I, for one, made a jump from S2 IS to 5D although it wasn't just because of that extra gain of f/ 1.5 stop DOF (EDIT: I forgot to mention that I used Pentax *istDS before making that jump)
Plus, I paid $3000 for 5D.

The 5D is only $2000 at B&H, guess you got ripped off.

I guess you can't read numbers.
5D was about $3500 when it first came out and it's now $2629.95 at B&H.
BTW, I got it about a year ago.

 

[fuzzybabybunny]

Originally posted by: dartworth

Originally posted by: Deadtrees

Originally posted by: AmigaMan

Originally posted by: Deadtrees
If Bokeh concerns you, go for Canon 5D as it provides f/1.5 stop more bokeh due to its FF sensor.

riiight. like a person who is using a $400 Canon S3 is going spring for a $2000 5D just for the bokeh. Hell I have a $700 Sony Alpha and get decent bokeh from my 50mm f1.7 lens. You don't need to spend an arm and a leg to get decent bokeh.

Ummm...I, for one, made a jump from S2 IS to 5D although it wasn't just because of that extra gain of f/ 1.5 stop DOF (EDIT: I forgot to mention that I used Pentax *istDS before making that jump)
Plus, I paid $3000 for 5D.

I jumped from an S2 IS to twin 1DsMKIIs. Stupid people and their money issues. Losers. How can they *not* even afford to go from a $400 camera to a $2500 camera?

 

[SZLiao214]

Great thread, was about to post about my s2 on the same topic

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Deadtrees

Originally posted by: ElFenix
this full frame nonsense is annoying. it's not full frame. it's 35 mm.

(35mm sensor is, indeed, called as Full Frame sensor. However, don't be mistaken with Kodak's Full Frame Transfer sensor. Kodak's Full Frame Transfer is not about the size of sensor.)


i forget what effect smaller pixels has on bokeh (i would think it would tend to make it larger).

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What you said is quite true beside those 2.

it's only called full frame by canon nerds insulting nikon nerds that nikon doesn't use all of it's imaging circle. (though most canon nerds don't have 35 mm cameras either)

as someone else was pointing out, (ZV i think) what is medium format? fuller frame? how about large format? fullest frame? hey, my film is bigger than your print.

35 mm is 35 mm. not full frame.


iirc, smaller pixels do have an affect on depth of field as well. there is a ton of discussion over on various 4/3 boards about what the effect of the 10 MP E-410/510 has on DoF (vs a 10 MP APS sensor camera) (DoF is a huge issue due to their lens elements being 1/2 the diameter of 35 mm lenses for equivalent FoVs and f-stops). then there is the extra enlarging that 4/3 cameras have to do for equivalent print sizes... it's a mess.

 

[fuzzybabybunny]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Deadtrees

Originally posted by: ElFenix
this full frame nonsense is annoying. it's not full frame. it's 35 mm.

(35mm sensor is, indeed, called as Full Frame sensor. However, don't be mistaken with Kodak's Full Frame Transfer sensor. Kodak's Full Frame Transfer is not about the size of sensor.)


i forget what effect smaller pixels has on bokeh (i would think it would tend to make it larger).

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What you said is quite true beside those 2.

it's only called full frame by canon nerds insulting nikon nerds that nikon doesn't use all of it's imaging circle. (though most canon nerds don't have 35 mm cameras either)

as someone else was pointing out, (ZV i think) what is medium format? fuller frame? how about large format? fullest frame? hey, my film is bigger than your print.

35 mm is 35 mm. not full frame.

Not really.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full_frame_digital_SLR

It was in use during the film days, and no, it's not just Canon that has full frame.

 

[Deadtrees]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Deadtrees

Originally posted by: ElFenix
this full frame nonsense is annoying. it's not full frame. it's 35 mm.

(35mm sensor is, indeed, called as Full Frame sensor. However, don't be mistaken with Kodak's Full Frame Transfer sensor. Kodak's Full Frame Transfer is not about the size of sensor.)


i forget what effect smaller pixels has on bokeh (i would think it would tend to make it larger).

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What you said is quite true beside those 2.

it's only called full frame by canon nerds insulting nikon nerds that nikon doesn't use all of it's imaging circle. (though most canon nerds don't have 35 mm cameras either)

as someone else was pointing out, (ZV i think) what is medium format? fuller frame? how about large format? fullest frame? hey, my film is bigger than your print.

35 mm is 35 mm. not full frame.


iirc, smaller pixels do have an affect on depth of field as well. there is a ton of discussion over on various 4/3 boards about what the effect of the 10 MP E-410/510 has on DoF (vs a 10 MP APS sensor camera) (DoF is a huge issue due to their lens elements being 1/2 the diameter of 35 mm lenses for equivalent FoVs and f-stops). then there is the extra enlarging that 4/3 cameras have to do for equivalent print sizes... it's a mess.

The term FF was used even before Canon came out with their 1st FF dslr. It was even used when Contax ND first came out and possibly even before that.

What's that either Mamiya or HB medium format digital camera that has a crop factor? Do you think people call it as FF medium format camera just because it's a medium format camera? Nope. It's labeled as a Crop body medium format camera.

FF, crop factor is not about size of sensors/films; it's about the mount and how that mount is designed to work with lens/sensor.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Deadtrees

The term FF was used even before Canon came out with their 1st FF dslr. It was even used when Contax ND first came out and possibly even before that.

ok, i'm guessing it was a response to 'crop frame' by their marketing department, but i'll acknowledge it

What's that either Mamiya or HB medium format digital camera that has a crop factor? Do you think people call it as FF medium format camera just because it's a medium format camera? Nope. It's labeled as a Crop body medium format camera.

why would anyone call a crop framed camera a full frame camera?

i bet they call the 'full frame' MF cameras 645 of 67 or 66 or whatever their film/sensor size is, though.

FF, crop factor is not about size of sensors/films; it's about the mount and how that mount is designed to work with lens/sensor.

i'll note that the 'half frame' cameras referred to in fuzzy's wikipedia article were designed, mount, lenses, and all, to use half of a 35 mm frame (making them full blown 17.5 mm cameras). of course, they still used 135 film. if that article's reference to 'full frame' in that sense is correct, then historically the first modern use of 'full frame' is for a 35 mm digital slr camera.

so if it's as you're saying, it's more proper to say full frame 35 mm camera. but crop frame 35 mm camera sounds stupid as it isn't a 24x36 image format, it's an APS format. and back when we had APS cameras we didn't run around saying 'full frame' and 'crop frame.' we said 35 mm and APS. (though, iirc, there was only one APS SLR that took 35 mm camera lense, the canon EOS IX)

 

[Deadtrees]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Deadtrees

The term FF was used even before Canon came out with their 1st FF dslr. It was even used when Contax ND first came out and possibly even before that.

ok, i'm guessing it was a response to 'crop frame' by their marketing department, but i'll acknowledge it

What's that either Mamiya or HB medium format digital camera that has a crop factor? Do you think people call it as FF medium format camera just because it's a medium format camera? Nope. It's labeled as a Crop body medium format camera.

why would anyone call a crop framed camera a full frame camera?

i bet they call the 'full frame' MF cameras 645 of 67 or 66 or whatever their film/sensor size is, though.

FF, crop factor is not about size of sensors/films; it's about the mount and how that mount is designed to work with lens/sensor.

i'll note that the 'half frame' cameras referred to in fuzzy's wikipedia article were designed, mount, lenses, and all, to use half of a 35 mm frame (making them full blown 17.5 mm cameras). of course, they still used 135 film. if that article's reference to 'full frame' in that sense is correct, then historically the first modern use of 'full frame' is for a 35 mm digital slr camera.

so if it's as you're saying, it's more proper to say full frame 35 mm camera. but crop frame 35 mm camera sounds stupid as it isn't a 24x36 image format, it's an APS format. and back when we had APS cameras we didn't run around saying 'full frame' and 'crop frame.' we said 35 mm and APS. (though, iirc, there was only one APS SLR that took 35 mm camera lense, the canon EOS IX)

As I said earlier, full frame is about the design of the mount. For an example, Canon's 35mm mount is made to work with specific the lenses and films. In this case, it'd be 135mm films. By using cropped sensor in any given cameras, the sensor that isn't originally designed for 135mm standard, it becomes what's known as cropped frame camera. And, that is why cameras that use FourThird system(Olympus being the leader) isn't considered as cropped frame cameras (Because FourThird started off by designing a new mount for that 2x smaller than 35mm sensor system).

And, don't forget people do use the term APS, APS-H cameras when referring to cropped frame cameras. Again, this is about the design of the mount, not just about the size of the film. If that EOS IX used 35mm mount, it's a cropped frame camera.
If it had its own mount designed for work with that specific APS film, then it'd be a FF APS camera.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Deadtrees
As I said earlier, full frame is about the design of the mount. For an example, Canon's 35mm mount is made to work with specific the lenses and films. In this case, it'd be 135mm films. By using cropped sensor in any given cameras, the sensor that isn't originally designed for 135mm standard, it becomes what's known as cropped frame camera. And, that is why cameras that use FourThird system(Olympus being the leader) isn't considered as cropped frame cameras (Because FourThird started off by designing a new mount for that 2x smaller than 35mm sensor system).

And, don't forget people do use the term APS, APS-H cameras when referring to cropped frame cameras. Again, this is about the design of the mount, not just about the size of the film. If that EOS IX used 35mm mount, it's a cropped frame camera.
If it had its own mount designed for work with that specific APS film, then it'd be a FF APS camera.

and, again, in fuzzy's history of the terms full frame, it was apparently used to set it apart from such compact cameras as the olympus pen (which was half frame, though specifically designed to thrown an imaging circle of that size in order to make a much more compact camera). under your definition, the olympus pen is a full frame half frame camera.

the EOS IX used regular EF lenses. the nikon APS SLR competitor, the pronea, used it's own system lenses rather than F mount.

and people use APS-H and APS-C.

now that pentax is moving it's whole lens lineup to be oriented around APS-C, does that make their APS-C specific lenses and bodies full frame? they are using their legacy mount (for good reason), but everything is now designed for the APS-C image circle (just so happens that most 35 mm mount systems have good telecentricity for standard image sensors of APS-C size). instead of the 35 mm 70-200 they're making an APS 50-135 which gives similar FOV to a 75-202.5 mm 35 mm lens.

whatever it is, it's confusing.