[quote name='Klaus' timestamp='1333194329' post='17212']
This is difficult ... As you may have guessed ;-)
In theory the info could be extracted from the EXIF data.However, this assumes ...a) that the EXIF data has a sufficient granularity regarding the provided focus distance datab) that there is only a minimum centering defect ( which has an impact on the focus point )
[/quote]
Hi Klaus,
Thanks. I had to laugh when reading your answer. I feel as clued as before.
Just for an idea or another laugh: Would/could the difference in MTF between best boarder (what you publish now) and the boarder reading when the centre is best be a measure to indicate the quality of field flatness? I assume that could be reasonably easy derived from the data you take. Still the centring issues would remain ...
As I said: Thanks for replying and the above is an idea not a request.
Best wishes
Joachim
This is difficult ... As you may have guessed ;-)
In theory the info could be extracted from the EXIF data.However, this assumes ...a) that the EXIF data has a sufficient granularity regarding the provided focus distance datab) that there is only a minimum centering defect ( which has an impact on the focus point )
[/quote]
Hi Klaus,
Thanks. I had to laugh when reading your answer. I feel as clued as before.
Just for an idea or another laugh: Would/could the difference in MTF between best boarder (what you publish now) and the boarder reading when the centre is best be a measure to indicate the quality of field flatness? I assume that could be reasonably easy derived from the data you take. Still the centring issues would remain ...
As I said: Thanks for replying and the above is an idea not a request.
Best wishes
Joachim
enjoy