# Thread: hyperfocal distance

1. ## Re: hyperfocal distance

Originally Posted by Clockunder
I think what jeanie meant is that is it framing should be such that it includes only things that are at least 1/2 of hyperfocal distance away (i.e. 1.25m away) so that there will not be anything out of focus in the frame if we focus at hyperfocal distance (2.5m).
That is what she asked...
Originally Posted by jeanie
WHAT IF i focus at 1.25m AND My composition of the scene is that the bottom of the frame is at 1.25m(where i focus)?you understand bo?
... which she was wrong.

2. ## Re: hyperfocal distance

Originally Posted by xiaolanku
yo guys,
wanna ask one question..

if u wanna shoot a subject, say a mountain 100m infront of u,
and the whatever "hyperfocal distance table" at the selected aperture wants u to focus at 2m away from u.

If there is nothing "only thin air" infront of u, then u focus on what huh?.

If there is nothing at 2m, why would you want to keep the photo focused at 2m.

The idea of using hyperfocal distance is when you have something near you that you want to keep in focus and at the same time you'd like the background to be in focus.

You can either do a manual focus using distance marking on the lens, or focus-lock on something, in this case 2m, that you know is at least further than the hyperfocal distance.

3. ## Re: hyperfocal distance

Originally Posted by Scaglietti
That is what she asked...

... which she was wrong.
Opps!

If she focuses at 1.25m, then she won't be able to get infinity in focus liao because hyperfocal distance is 2.5m which is the minimum distance to get the infinity into focus. Anything nearer than 2.5m won't get infinity at focus.

In fact, according to a rough calculation using the DOF table, if she focuses at 1.25m,

DOF(near point) = 0.85m
DOF(far point) = 2.4m (which is way off infinity)

DOF = DOF(far) - DOF(near) = 1.55m only ........ a whole world of difference when compared to the 1.25m to infinity DOF when focused at hyperfocal distance 2.5m.

I think she will slowly get your point.

4. ## Re: hyperfocal distance

This is to illustrate how print size (magnification) affects DOF...

The following is the same photo but in different sizes.

Compare this

with this (2x)

and this (4x) cropped...

and if blown up extreme big (12.1x)... and seeing just a crop of it

You can see the DOF decreases when the magnification increases. (Don't change the viewing distance.)

As for viewing distance... if you put your eyes real close to scruntise, you will see more out-of-focus than you view it from a distance. Thus, DOF is smaller when view closer and further away.

5. ## Re: hyperfocal distance

Originally Posted by Scaglietti

and if blown up extreme big (12.1x)... and seeing just a crop of it

For the above picture, the blurry -3 and 4 look much sharper when I stand a few metres away to look at it than when I'm sitting right in front of the screen.

DOF is indeed a perception issue and that's why picture size and viewing distance matter.

6. ## Re: hyperfocal distance

Wow.....Scaglietti, ......for this illustration

for your effort !

7. ## Re: hyperfocal distance

Originally Posted by jeanie
actually hor scag,
the definition according to what i know is that(from the settings above), everything from HALF of the Hyperfocal distance to infinity will be sharp.
therefore, half of 1.7meters is 0.85m to infinity will be sharp right?so as long as i focus at 1m, also will do the trick rite?
Jeanie, I think your circle of confusion is getting bigger and bigger by the posts. To put it simply, if you fixed your setting ie using 20mm at F11, then whenever you encounter a situation where you'd like the forground right up to infinity to be in acceptable focus, then you walk right up to your foreground subject till it is roughly 1.25m then focus your lens to 2.5m. In this situation, if the theory is correct, anything from your 1.25m subject to infinity will be in focus. Hope this clears things up a little bit.

8. ## Re: hyperfocal distance

Originally Posted by jeanie
actually hor scag,
the definition according to what i know is that(from the settings above), everything from HALF of the Hyperfocal distance to infinity will be sharp.
therefore, half of 1.7meters is 0.85m to infinity will be sharp right?so as long as i focus at 1m, also will do the trick rite?
Let me join in this circle of confusion. Hopefully to clear it.

Jeanie, you set your focus on the hyperfocal distance, not half of it. Look at your post which I just quoted. You said, when you focus at 1.7m, all the objects from 0.85m to infinity will be sharp, at your aperture setting. So you focus at 1.7m, not at 1 m.

My advice to you Jeanie, is to meditate and chew on what people are telling you and you will see the light, and not to straight away rebutt back with questions which will further confuse you. So for the next 2 days, dont post anymore responses to this thread, just read thru the whole thread a few times and I will guarantee you you will see the light and understand the whole thing. You need time to digest. Some people like me, with low to average intelligence, took some years to understand this concept of DOF, hyperfocal, etc, and so at the beginning I just accepted the facts(formulas, charts, etc) without understanding it. For you, it is OK if you take a few days.

9. ## Re: hyperfocal distance

thanks for all answers.
i STILL have question to ask.

ok, same scenario.
so according to chart, i'm suppose to focus at 2.5meters.

do i have to focus MANUALLY?or can i point my focus cursor at 2.5meters and fire away?

i'm the angel of the circle of confusion.
amitaba!

10. ## Re: hyperfocal distance

Originally Posted by jeanie
thanks for all answers.
i STILL have question to ask.

ok, same scenario.
so according to chart, i'm suppose to focus at 2.5meters.

do i have to focus MANUALLY?or can i point my focus cursor at 2.5meters and fire away?

i'm the angel of the circle of confusion.
amitaba!
focus anyway you want, just as long as it is somewhere there can already.
sometimes i think you are the

with your experience, this kind of questions don't make sense

11. ## Re: hyperfocal distance

Originally Posted by ortega
focus anyway you want, just as long as it is somewhere there can already.
sometimes i think you are the

with your experience, this kind of questions don't make sense
dun lidat lei!what experience?

12. ## Re: hyperfocal distance

Originally Posted by jeanie
dun lidat lei!what experience?
fcough 4cough ..... coughf cough5 .... cough metz cough

this haze is getting to me

13. ## Re: hyperfocal distance

Originally Posted by ortega
fcough 4cough ..... coughf cough5 .... cough metz cough

this haze is getting to me
Wahahahah... I know what you're driving at... haha

14. ## Re: hyperfocal distance

do you guys use a measuring tape to get the distance right. by looking at the viewfinder I just can't tell 1.5 meter from 1meter

15. ## Re: hyperfocal distance

Originally Posted by dDarkroom
do you guys use a measuring tape to get the distance right. by looking at the viewfinder I just can't tell 1.5 meter from 1meter

You need to have a camera that has a lens that has distance markings on it and allows you to control its aperture size.

You have to use these distance markings on the lens to guide you in focusing at the right distance.

_

16. ## Re: hyperfocal distance

Originally Posted by dDarkroom
do you guys use a measuring tape to get the distance right. by looking at the viewfinder I just can't tell 1.5 meter from 1meter
Well.. if you want to be SUPER accurate about it, you can get a laser distance mesuring device.

Just kidding.... just estimate and use the lens to guage the distance. When it focuses, there will be a marking which moves about, that would be the estimated distance.

17. ## Re: hyperfocal distance

Originally Posted by zac08
Well.. if you want to be SUPER accurate about it, you can get a laser distance mesuring device.

Just kidding.... just estimate and use the lens to guage the distance. When it focuses, there will be a marking which moves about, that would be the estimated distance.
i guess in order to get the photo right straight from the cam I will invest in the polaroid laser measuring device. anyway it only cost abt \$1000.

but where should I measure from - the viewfinder, the tip of the lens, or in between the lens and body.

18. ## Re: hyperfocal distance

Originally Posted by dDarkroom
i guess in order to get the photo right straight from the cam I will invest in the polaroid laser measuring device. anyway it only cost abt \$1000.

but where should I measure from - the viewfinder, the tip of the lens, or in between the lens and body.
i think if you REALLY want to be extremely accurate with laser range finder,
you measure from the focal plane marking on your DSLR to your subject.

19. ## Re: hyperfocal distance

Originally Posted by ortega
fcough 4cough ..... coughf cough5 .... cough metz cough

this haze is getting to me
if i drive a ferrari F430 or Scaglietti(hor scag) ,
does that mean my driving skills are comparable to michael schumacher?

please.just because i can afford the gears doesnt mean i know everything mah.else i waste time to post and come back to read all the wonderful advice for what?sibeh eng huh!

20. ## Re: hyperfocal distance

Originally Posted by jeanie
if i drive a ferrari F430 or Scaglietti(hor scag) ,
does that mean my driving skills are comparable to michael schumacher?

please.just because i can afford the gears doesnt mean i know everything mah.else i waste time to post and come back to read all the wonderful advice for what?sibeh eng huh!
think "time frame"

Page 4 of 6 First ... 23456 Last

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•