Paultricounty
Well-known member
Lol, I was just having some fun with ya. Truly no offense intended, don’t leave 😁 ✌🏼🙏🏼I do not contest the results and I do not find something offensive in your post.
I am out of this thread.
Lol, I was just having some fun with ya. Truly no offense intended, don’t leave 😁 ✌🏼🙏🏼I do not contest the results and I do not find something offensive in your post.
I am out of this thread.
It should be evident, however, that since each observer must have a unique, subjective perception of DOF, the phrase "subjective DOF" is an oxymoron, and the phrase "true/real DOF" is a fiction...., the eye exhibits a certain tolerance to out-of-focus images, a feature that is known as depth-of-focus (DOF). The corresponding distance range in which the objects are seen ‘‘clearly’’ is known as depth-of-field (DOFi).
No, he’s just saying that Henry is not qualified and simply another “opinion” and that he “will search my self on Internet".Ted (post # 94), are you saying that Henry is wrong?
Thank youPsychophysics is an interdisciplinary branch of Psychology and Physics. Depth-of-Focus is a psychophysical term. As stated in the second article attached:
It should be evident, however, that since each observer must have a unique, subjective perception of DOF, the phrase "subjective DOF" is an oxymoron, and the phrase "true/real DOF" is a fiction.
Ed
Okay, fair.No, he’s just saying that Henry is not qualified and simply another “opinion” and that he “will search my self on Internet".
Actual science has always been in favor, still is, and most of the supposition of lack of support of it has come from people in support of nonscientific claims.I know science is not in favor these days, but I trust this is a temporary thing and reason will return to humans before long
well you're starting with a bell curve so half the people are dumber than average....right out of the starting gate. Add in a deliberate campaign of scientific illiteracy from the corporate media, compulsory public school methods that fail for many people, and it only goes downhill from there!Those traits are not uniformly distributed.
LoL! Nice!I could never understand how anyone, who had ever been inside a library, could ever think they knew very much.
Simply because vision is inherently a form of perception, and, as such, subjective. In my first post in this thread I showed how visual acuity, a highly individual trait, may affect the perceived DOF in similar ways as the level of magnification does.I cannot understand the point of continual references to subjectivity, psychophysics, etc on this topic. We are talking not about different individuals' perceptions using the same instrument, but the other way around.
We weren’t, until your post.Oh boy it sounds like we’re getting close to politics again.
Maybe I was tired when I read his first one, but #115 was much easier to follow and is now causing me to think of this subject in a different light. Thanks for pointing these posts out for reexamination.Post #102 and #115 are what one should read and try to understand.
Simply because vision is inherently a form of perception, and, as such, subjective. In my first post in this thread I showed how visual acuity, a highly individual trait, may affect the perceived DOF in similar ways as the level of magnification does.
An afocal instrument like a binocular does not contain the property 'depth of field' since an observer is involved, and the observer's powers will have the greatest impact on how they perceive the DOF.
The term 'depth of field' is nonsensical without an observer, and even more so because binoculars [roughly] can be used in one single manner.
The other possible way to use a pair of binoculars or a scope - digiscoping, either with line pair targets or with diffraction circles, mean that the virtual image delivered through the instrument is focused to a real image on a sensor, would theoretically show the depth of field with regard to magnification and dioptrical defocus, but such a result is still purposeless since everyone asking about DOF actually refers to perceived DOF.
In this regard, depth of field shares a common trait with colours - neither exists, unless in the observer's consciousness.
//L