Is it possible to achieve "Bokehs" with normal PnS cameras?

[kriegsketten]

actually your question is whether a normal PnS can produce images which render the background out of focus, am I right?
The term 'bokeh' is incorrectly used in your question.

Sorry, I maybe new to the terminologies and to the word "bokeh" in general, as such may have been confused with what I was asking.

Let me elaborate further. I wasn't refering to the out of focus (blurred - de-focused) backgrounds in general but rather I was targetting directly at capture of those visual "discs" in the backdrops of focused subjects. The bubbly round ones that seems to float endlessly... the "Donuts/discs/glowy centers" as some would put it?

 

[Rashkae]

Sorry, I maybe new to the terminologies and to the word "bokeh" in general, as such may have been confused with what I was asking.

Let me elaborate further. I wasn't refering to the out of focus (blurred - de-focused) backgrounds in general but rather I was targetting directly at capture of those visual "discs" in the backdrops of focused subjects. The bubbly round ones that seems to float endlessly... the "Donuts" as some would put it?

In all cases, you are talking about background blur. In your case, you are specifically looking for background blur with poor bokeh, which should be normal for PnS cameras.

 

[cabbySHE]

Out of focus floating " donuts " were the " in thing " during the 70s.
They were the signature effect of some photographers.
The " disc " effect were result using " mirrorr lenses " of 500mm ~ 1000 mm and with a fixed aperture of either f/8 or f/11.
B'coz of the lens design, the light path is being folded and therefore the physical size is smaller. Many of the foreign photographers are able to hand hold them steadily without resorting to using a tripod.

then, the PnS definitely cannot, and also the normal tele zoom lens also cannot achieve this result of what you are looking for.

Not too sure about the current trend, perhaps there are something new on the market, or it could be the revival of the retro.

 

[kriegsketten]

In all cases, you are talking about background blur. In your case, you are specifically looking for background blur with poor bokeh, which should be normal for PnS cameras.

So do all blurry background comes with bokehs? (And please don't bring up "bad" or "good", that I already know).

And if I wanted to talk about general background blurs I'd have mentioned just that, I wouldn't have brought up the term "bokeh", unless I'm specifically targetting that.

 

[ortega]

first we need to define the word "bokeh"

to my knowledge "bokeh" is the quality of the blur and not the blur itself

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

 

[Rashkae]

So do all blurry background comes with bokehs? (And please don't bring up "bad" or "good", that I already know).

It's like asking... "So does everything in the world measure a certain temperature?" or "do all t-shirts have a level of quality (poor to good)?"

By definition, any background blur can be measured for the quality. This is the bokeh of that background blur. It doesn't "come with bokeh".

And if I wanted to talk about general background blurs I'd have mentioned just that, I wouldn't have brought up the term "bokeh", unless I'm specifically targetting that.

But you are using the word "bokeh" all wrong. So please don't bring up a term if you don't even know what it means. Even "general background blurs" have a measurable bokeh.

Bokeh IS NOT "those circles of light". That's not what "a bokeh" is. Understand that first and you'll be able to learn more.

 

[kriegsketten]

first we need to define the word "bokeh"

to my knowledge "bokeh" is the quality of the blur and not the blur itself

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

"A catadioptric telephoto lens displays bokehs resembling doughnuts, because its secondary mirror blocks the central part of the aperture opening. Recently, photographers have found how to exploit the shape of the bokehs by creating a simple mask out of card with the shape that the photographer wishes the bokeh to be, and placing it over the lens. Common shapes are stars and hearts, but it is possible to create it with almost any shape imagined."

A sentence taken from the website you've suggested. Is it implying that the bokehs resembles "doughnuts"?

 

[ortega]

"A catadioptric telephoto lens displays bokehs resembling doughnuts, because its secondary mirror blocks the central part of the aperture opening. Recently, photographers have found how to exploit the shape of the bokehs by creating a simple mask out of card with the shape that the photographer wishes the bokeh to be, and placing it over the lens. Common shapes are stars and hearts, but it is possible to create it with almost any shape imagined."

A sentence taken from the website you've suggested. Is it implying that the bokehs resembles "doughnuts"?

they are describing the bokeh from a mirror lens
not all defocused highlights are doughnuts
only the mirror lens have this kind of bokeh

 

[cabbySHE]

Bcoz by using the word..bokeh, sounds in and knowledgeable about photography.

I felt that it is a mixture of " out of focus " and " depth of field " rolled into one.

Just my thought, but actually...they are different.

 

[Rashkae]

"A catadioptric telephoto lens displays bokehs resembling doughnuts, because its secondary mirror blocks the central part of the aperture opening. Recently, photographers have found how to exploit the shape of the bokehs by creating a simple mask out of card with the shape that the photographer wishes the bokeh to be, and placing it over the lens. Common shapes are stars and hearts, but it is possible to create it with almost any shape imagined."

A sentence taken from the website you've suggested. Is it implying that the bokehs resembles "doughnuts"?

Wiki is also written by "normal" people. Technically, the parts in red are wrong. If you read the article carefully, it's referring to mirror lenses. Here's an extreme example of what the background blur from a catadioptic lens looks like:

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/58/202731993_070890a7e8.jpg

 

[kriegsketten]

Wiki is also written by "normal" people. Technically, the parts in red are wrong. If you read the article carefully, it's referring to mirror lenses. Here's an extreme example of what the background blur from a catadioptic lens looks like:

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/58/202731993_070890a7e8.jpg

To simply put, what you're saying is "Bokehs" are technically the quality of blurred backgrounds. And the "rings" has nothing to do with it even though they can arise due to the use of mirror (catadiopic) lens.

So in all essence, my question should be rephrased to:
"Is it possible to create "doughnuts" with normal PnS...." without ever refering to Bokehs at all? If so, then okay I stand corrected with my poor understanding of "Bokehs"...

 

[ortega]

your questions should be

"Is it possible to create "doughnut" shaped bokeh with a normal PnS...."

 

[kriegsketten]

your questions should be

"Is it possible to create "doughnut" shaped bokeh with a normal PnS...."

This is just sooooooooooooooooo confusing.... Thanks for the suggestion, so is that agreable to all? Sorry, I am a bit flabbergasted with the fact that after all the reading and researching on the internet I still do not get a clear understanding of the term... People suggests that you should google and do a bit of research on your own instead of asking for what is considered as "spoon-fed" answers on the forum. And yet, whatever you read on the net may not always be correct or maybe misintepreted? Truly a classic catch-22!

 

[ZerocoolAstra]

This is just sooooooooooooooooo confusing.... Thanks for the suggestion, so is that agreable to all? Sorry, I am a bit flabbergasted with the fact that after all the reading and researching on the internet I still do not get a clear understanding of the term... People suggests that you should google and do a bit of research on your own instead of asking for what is considered as "spoon-fed" answers on the forum. And yet, whatever you read on the net may not always be correct or maybe misintepreted? Truly a classic catch-22!

hahahah yes it's kinda catch-22...
You have to be resourceful to find the RIGHT information amongst the vast space that is the internet.

After reading your subsequent replies, I think ortega's version of your question should be the appropriate one.

 

[ZerocoolAstra]

essentially, 'bokeh' is not something quantifiable. You cannot produce/create/achieve bokeh.
it is a property belonging to an image.

You can "produce an image with pleasing bokeh"....

hope that helps...

 

[kriegsketten]

hahahah yes it's kinda catch-22...
You have to be resourceful to find the RIGHT information amongst the vast space that is the internet.

After reading your subsequent replies, I think ortega's version of your question should be the appropriate one.

Ergo, it is NOT always a good idea to do researching on the internet on your own without others pointing the right direction for you. Then again, these "others" may not necessary be the ones "in-the-know" so you do have to check with other "others" for what they would think about these "others" - whether one should listen to their directions or not... But then, who's to say you can trust the words of the latter group of people?"... It is no wonder there are those ALWAYS in the state of confusion. (Not refering to anyone specifically here)

Ergo, it is a really stupid world we live in, where one would just go round and round endlessly... :bsmilie:

 

[ZerocoolAstra]

Ergo, it is NOT always a good idea to do researching on the internet on your own without others pointing the right direction for you. Then again, these "others" may not necessary be the ones "in-the-know" so you do have to check with other "others" for what they would think about these "others" - whether one should listen to their directions or not... But then, who's to say you can trust the words of the latter group of people?"... It is no wonder there are those ALWAYS in the state of confusion. (Not refering to anyone specifically here)

Ergo, it is a really stupid world we live in, where one would just go round and round endlessly... :bsmilie:

hahahah who's to say that we (especially myself) are correct as well? :bsmilie:

 

[kriegsketten]

essentially, 'bokeh' is not something quantifiable. You cannot produce/create/achieve bokeh.
it is a property belonging to an image.

You can "produce an image with pleasing bokeh"....

hope that helps...

Thanks for your help and to everyone who has chipped in as well, I hope I've understood everything (yeah, I only hope).

 

[Diavonex]

Had another go today to get a "shorter" DOF.

 

[ovaltinemilo]

Bokeh is like a measurement... distance uses Meter "m" etc...one doesn't achieve meter when measuring...but the quantity of the distance...

Whe refer to the Bokeh of the lens, it refers to the quality of the blur...quality is alr inherited in the lens, we can't achieve it...it's juz a measurement...

So we can say :"this lens has very nice bokeh...very creamy/smooth bokeh"...but we don't say "this lens can achieve bokeh" as it is the same as saying "this ruler can achieve meter?" (does it make sense?)

Trying to use an analogy to clarify...hope it helps...