03-07-2011, 11:59 AM
[quote name='PuxaVida' timestamp='1299497127' post='6568']
It's strange that, we get away from the content and focus on language problems. I'm not sure if I used wrong expressions (within the context) and sorry for any inconveince. But apart from language issues, there's still no "I did not understant what you are saying" coming to me. And to complete my knowledge regarding bokeh, I will insist on the verification of my following statement:
To my knowledge, the amount of blur is different at a particular image within the distance from subject to background. Consider an image taken @ f/1.4. The amount of blur in 10cm distance from subject will be different than the amount of blur in 40m distance (given that both are OOF). If we close the aperture, the blurred range mentioned will be changing (will be shifted towards infinity) but the difference in the amount of blur will still be there (though, will be very less, almost not visible in the resulting image). In other words, the blur in nearer OOF area is less than the blur in distant OOF area. And this has an effect on smoothness of the color transitions (in near vs. distant OOF planes). Because closing or opening the aperture has an effect on results of the spherical aberrations.
So, I was asking to BC and now to you to explain me if I'm wrong. Then maybe I can have the opportunity to correct myself. But, please do not change the subject by pointing out linguistic problems concerning technical explanations. Language is a tool for communication, and every tool can be fixed, but the content is essential.
Serkan
[/quote]
Hi Serkan,
Like I said, sorry to drift off on a tangent, but I wrote that long boring post to describe the precise problem of such terms as "bokeh". Also, the difference between a noun and an adjective is extremely important in any language, so I would like to know which of these "bokeh" is.
In short - I do not use the term "bokeh" in real life and I don't know anyone who does. I just use "background blur" or "rendering", which is perfectly adequate.
I guess the word has a use for technicians and lens testers.
It's strange that, we get away from the content and focus on language problems. I'm not sure if I used wrong expressions (within the context) and sorry for any inconveince. But apart from language issues, there's still no "I did not understant what you are saying" coming to me. And to complete my knowledge regarding bokeh, I will insist on the verification of my following statement:
To my knowledge, the amount of blur is different at a particular image within the distance from subject to background. Consider an image taken @ f/1.4. The amount of blur in 10cm distance from subject will be different than the amount of blur in 40m distance (given that both are OOF). If we close the aperture, the blurred range mentioned will be changing (will be shifted towards infinity) but the difference in the amount of blur will still be there (though, will be very less, almost not visible in the resulting image). In other words, the blur in nearer OOF area is less than the blur in distant OOF area. And this has an effect on smoothness of the color transitions (in near vs. distant OOF planes). Because closing or opening the aperture has an effect on results of the spherical aberrations.
So, I was asking to BC and now to you to explain me if I'm wrong. Then maybe I can have the opportunity to correct myself. But, please do not change the subject by pointing out linguistic problems concerning technical explanations. Language is a tool for communication, and every tool can be fixed, but the content is essential.
Serkan
[/quote]
Hi Serkan,
Like I said, sorry to drift off on a tangent, but I wrote that long boring post to describe the precise problem of such terms as "bokeh". Also, the difference between a noun and an adjective is extremely important in any language, so I would like to know which of these "bokeh" is.
In short - I do not use the term "bokeh" in real life and I don't know anyone who does. I just use "background blur" or "rendering", which is perfectly adequate.
I guess the word has a use for technicians and lens testers.