Crazy thought regarding bokeh for m4/3rds.

Discussion in 'Open Discussion' started by Brian Mosley, Feb 8, 2010.

  1. Brian Mosley

    Brian Mosley Administrator Emeritus Charter Member

    Dec 15, 2009
    Hello everyone,

    Steve Huff has just posted an interesting comparison of bokeh between the Leica M9 and the Olympus E-P2 here.

    Obviously, the 4/3rds format sensor gives deeper depth of field due to the smaller sensor size.

    I've attached a graphic of comparative sensor sizes to show the difference between the M9's FF sensor and 4/3rds.

    It just occured to me... If you could take three shots with the lens front focused, in focus and back focused by some distance, could you combine all three images - using the two out of focus images to modify the in-focus image, to simulate a narrower depth of field?

    It would have to be a fast focusing lens... or perhaps the camera could 'record' images as it's performing CDAF?

    What do you think?

    Cheers

    Brian
     

    Attached Files:

  2. BBW

    BBW Super Moderator Emeritus Charter Member

    I think you're way beyond me.:drinks:

    But seriously, I am sure others more technically inclined will have some good responses. I think I've caught something from Bill.:wink:
     
  3. Bill Gordon

    Bill Gordon Mu-43 Top Veteran Charter Member

    I really don't know what you are talking about Brian because all you are illustrating is the various sizes of the sensors and we all know that the 4/3rds is smaller than the other DSLRs.
     
  4. Brian Mosley

    Brian Mosley Administrator Emeritus Charter Member

    Dec 15, 2009
    The sensor size diagram was to illustrate why Steve Huff is getting the difference in depth of field in his M9 vs E-P2 bokeh comparison (using same lenses on the two cameras).

    The conclusion people are making is that narrow depth of field will never be possible with m4/3rds... I'm just wondering whether it could be simulated by in-camera combination of three images - one front focused, one in focus, one back focused.

    Sort of using the out of focus images to 'amplify' the out of focus regions of the in-focus image. The camera would have to build up a '3d focusing map' by recording a contrast detect map as it moves from front focused - to in focus - to back focused.

    Cheers

    Brian
     
  5. Streetshooter

    Streetshooter Administrator Emeritus Subscribing Member Charter Member

    Dec 15, 2009
    Phila, Pa USA
    Brian,
    Sounds kinda like HDR for DOF...hmmmmm

    It's so crazy it just might work......

    Ya know, I've been a photographer for over 45 years and to tell the truth, it's just in the last 4-5 years or so that I even heard about Bokeh.....

    I've heard about it...I even saw examples of it posted and read conversations about it but I ain't never seen it on the street, so I don't believe in it...

    That's my story and I'm sticking to it....
    not that there's anything wrong with it....
     
  6. deckitout

    deckitout Mu-43 Veteran Charter Member

    236
    Jan 28, 2010
    Essex UK
    Brian

    I think you may notice the difference between out of focus parts of an image and the creamy Bokeh that you get with some lenses.

    There is some fancy techniques and software attempting to simulate bokeh even these don't fool the experts. I think to try this out you would need to combine the images in PS (or similar) and use graduated masks so the image is gradually coming in and out of focus, I am not sure it would be worth the hassle, but maybe someone will prove me wrong, I just might try it myself.

    The most extreme use of shallow DOF that I have seen was from Joe Mama who is now on a lifetime ban from DPR, a lot of people hated his work, I actually loved it, horses for courses I guess.




     
  7. Brian Mosley

    Brian Mosley Administrator Emeritus Charter Member

    Dec 15, 2009
    If you do try it out Phil, I'd be interested in seeing the results. Joe Mama was largely before my time... he must have made quite a splash though. Hopefully dpreview will have learned from the fiasco.

    Cheers

    Brian
     
  8. Streetshooter

    Streetshooter Administrator Emeritus Subscribing Member Charter Member

    Dec 15, 2009
    Phila, Pa USA
    They didn't, as you well know.....
     
  9. Brian Mosley

    Brian Mosley Administrator Emeritus Charter Member

    Dec 15, 2009
    :horse: I know :horse: I know :horse:

    Cheers Don

    Brian
     
  10. pxpaulx

    pxpaulx Mu-43 All-Pro Charter Member

    Jan 19, 2010
    Midwest
    Real Name:
    Paul
    I am quite sure the wikipedia is accurate on the word origin...it is from a Japanese word, and the photography application to out of focus elements was translated over by the owner/editor of The Online Photographer (a site sponsor no less!). whoops...forgot the link:

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

    So, I don't think you're crazy in thinking it is a relatively new term, and one that probably didn't trickle down to the masses about the same time DSLR sales started to become mainstream (i.e. about the time I realized I could buy a Pentax *istDL for about $350 bucks...and never looked back, haha)
     
    • Like Like x 2
  11. Djarum

    Djarum Super Moderator Moderator Subscribing Member Charter Member

    Dec 15, 2009
    Huntsville, AL, USA
    Real Name:
    Jason
    Off Topic: Its sad when dpreview bans someone

    Back on topic:

    I don't think Oly or Panny want to make fast glass to achieve the sort of Bokeh found in FF or even APS-C sized sensors.

    I do believe there is a difference between the look of the DOF and what the foreground or background appear to be like out of focus. I guess one could experiment and try it out.
     
  12. BillN

    BillN Mu-43 All-Pro Charter Member

    Jan 19, 2010
    SW France
    Steve Huff's article and initial images explain it well

    the M4/3 sensor turns traditional 35mm lenses into telephotos reducing the OOF areas significantly as a proportion of the image.

    It is a pity, but I suppose it will not change unless a larger sensor is put into the body.

    There is still a life for DSLRs


    (Brian or anyone, I've lost spell check - is it the site or is it my browser, (Firefox), I'm sure that you will know - without spell check I'm dyslexic)
     
  13. Brian Mosley

    Brian Mosley Administrator Emeritus Charter Member

    Dec 15, 2009
    Hi Bill, the site doesn't provide spell check - so I'm guessing it's your browser - but I didn't know that Firefox had a spell checker, unless it's an addon? I could do with that myself :wink:

    Cheers

    Brian
     
  14. BillN

    BillN Mu-43 All-Pro Charter Member

    Jan 19, 2010
    SW France
    Unless I am going funny - as I am sure that I had it yesterday - yes I am sure that I did - It must be an add on, because it asked me to confirm my add ons earlier in the day - and I said "bu**er off" - as i thought that there was something funny happening
     
  15. Brian Mosley

    Brian Mosley Administrator Emeritus Charter Member

    Dec 15, 2009
  16. Brian Mosley

    Brian Mosley Administrator Emeritus Charter Member

    Dec 15, 2009
    Just installed the British English dictionary - a godsend!

    Thanks for asking, Bill. :thumbup:

    Cheers

    Brian
     
  17. BillN

    BillN Mu-43 All-Pro Charter Member

    Jan 19, 2010
    SW France
    Hi Brian - I have it enabled in Tools - Advanced etc., but it is just not working - have to check to see what is happening tomorrow

    Firefox has been having a few "strange turns" over the past couple of months
     
  18. BBW

    BBW Super Moderator Emeritus Charter Member

    Just an aside here but as I type on this reply form it does have the ability to let me know if I've misspelled something, though it doesn't tell me how to spell it.:wink:

    P.S. Just FYI, I had to look up the term bokeh in my first week on this site.
     
  19. BillN

    BillN Mu-43 All-Pro Charter Member

    Jan 19, 2010
    SW France
    You must have the US dictionary installed, (no words)..try the English one

    what you never did Japanese at school........I always remember it as OO........F - out of focus
     
  20. Brian S

    Brian S Mu-43 Top Veteran Charter Member

    714
    Apr 11, 2009
    I've seen references to this before.

    The only professional use of it that I saw demonstrated was on a Zeiss microscope using what they called "Deepview". It built up an incredibly deep field of view for microscopy using a digital camera and computer.

    What you want is the reverse. It would be easier to simulate a narrower field of view using a smoothing function with some sort of threshold- if the subject were in sharpest focus, leave it alone. Or use the front focussed image as a mask for where to run the smoothing function..