Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Behoooold ... ;-)
#1
Our new bokeh highlight test chart (attachment)

Albeit the sample didn't work out here with that ultra-wide lens - the focus spread must be much bigger.


Attached Files
.jpg   highlights.jpg (Size: 54.47 KB / Downloads: 27)
Chief Editor - opticallimits.com

Doing all things Canon, MFT, Sony and Fuji
#2
Huh

How on Earth would someone use a flat chart to test the behaviour of threedimensional effects? And how related is the distance to the bokeh? So, you test a various distances with various apertures? And what do you do with the rest of the year? I amgine this a very time-consuming procedure. 

The way I see bokeh is aperture related to distance difference of the main subject to highlights. Also, highlights is one think, bokeh and the behaviour with light to dark contrast another.
#3
Is that a flat chart.........or the results of a tested lens?

Is this to show the cat's eyes effect...............explanations please Klaus?
Dave's clichés
#4
Specular highlights don't really have 3D-properties. This test just makes clear how mechanical vignetting affects bokeh "ball" shapes ("cats eye", mirrorbox mechanical vignetting even), and that can also give a clue to the tendency of a lens to cause "swirly bokeh".
#5
I think it'll be more clear with a proper sample ;-)
Chief Editor - opticallimits.com

Doing all things Canon, MFT, Sony and Fuji
#6
(10-26-2018, 11:05 AM)Brightcolours Wrote: Specular highlights don't really have 3D-properties. This test just makes clear how mechanical vignetting affects bokeh "ball" shapes ("cats eye", mirrorbox mechanical vignetting even), and that can also give a clue to the tendency of a lens to cause "swirly bokeh".

I think it makes a difference wether a highlight is close or far in relation to the focal pane, in size and in gradient. That's what I meant with 3d situation.
#7
(10-26-2018, 11:46 AM)JJ_SO Wrote:
(10-26-2018, 11:05 AM)Brightcolours Wrote: Specular highlights don't really have 3D-properties. This test just makes clear how mechanical vignetting affects bokeh "ball" shapes ("cats eye", mirrorbox mechanical vignetting even), and that can also give a clue to the tendency of a lens to cause "swirly bokeh".

I think it makes a difference wether a highlight is close or far in relation to the focal pane, in size and in gradient. That's what I meant with 3d situation.

That is true for every bokeh related thing, for sure. And for sharpness measurements, LoCA, astigmatism, coma, and so on. And most probably also for vignetting. And LaCA.
#8
For those lenses where bokeh matters the test distance will not be an issue.
Chief Editor - opticallimits.com

Doing all things Canon, MFT, Sony and Fuji
#9
(10-27-2018, 09:18 PM)Klaus Wrote: For those lenses where bokeh matters the test distance will not be an issue.

I think you may be wrong here. Test distance does matter for bokeh balls / highlights, even more so in relation to FL, and whether they are in the foreground and background also matters.

I am assuming that the old bokeh test will still be used too?

Kind regards, Wim
Gear: a gaggle of Canon primes, a lone Canon zoom (sold 5D II recently Smile), an accessory plague, and an Olympus OM-D 1 Mk II, Pen F and Panasonic GM5 with 14 primes, 8 zooms, and 3 Metabones EF-MFT adapters ....
#10
Would that be used for comma too?
  


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)