Talk:Depth-of-field adapter

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Erroneous entry[edit]

The entire entry is based on a false premise and should be revised.

A 35mm adapter, merely can in some cases have the side effect of a shallow depth of field. In most cases however the 'DOF' 'effect' is not a given and 100% dependent on the lenses used.

It simply is a false statement and was not fact checked.

With one lens you get a very wide depth of field while with another you get a shallow depth of field. Have a look at the Depth_of_field article and you'll realize that a Depth of Field adapter based on the basic laws of physics cannot exist.

So basically a DOF adapter describes a camera being mounted onto an imaginary object in thin air, about 4 to 400 yards in front of the actual image plane of the camera. Don't you think it's a little silly to make a fairytale device an encyclopedic entry? That's like calling a highly refractive lens a 'bokeh adapter'.


If this is supposed to be an encyclopedia I suggest that this article is removed and the re-entry blocked. --xfrank (talk) 09:30, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The use of these adapters is for the sole purpose of "adapting" 35mm or other format lenses to a smaller image plane camera so the new image format's depth of field characteristsics can be utilized, thus it is called a "DOF" adapter. "DOF" is not an effect, and yes, is always a given (point me to a picture without it?); it is a characteristic of any image and like you mentioned, is variant. A more accurate name would be a "lens adapter" but since the very invention of the device stemmed from the need for alternate DOF characteristics it is thus named. I am very literate with the laws of physics and cannot find how you arrived at the conclusion that DOF adapters "cannot exist," especially because a large number of them are very real and in use right now. Your remark regarding just what you understand a DOF adapter to be is especially confusing (and completely wrong...4 to 400 yards, what?) and leads me to believe that your basic understanding of this concept is flawed. Perhaps the concept of two lenses in tandem is too much for you? Funkbomb (talk) 02:58, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Having designed lens systems before I think it's safe to assume that I know a little bit about the subject matter. What I was alluding to is that a DOF adapter indeed would be definition an impossible device. You cannot mount (adapt to) something to the DOF since the depth of field occurs at a point that is far off from the actual lens. So the only correct definition of this would be a 35mm adapter since you're using it to attach a 35mm lens to a camcorder. So you probably agree that no DOF adapters are on sale, only mislabeled 35mm adapters. --xfrank (talk) 08:38, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, you're a level 70 Optics Mage. But you're still missing the forest for the trees here. The unit is used to adapt the DOF characteristics of different lens systems to a smaller-chip camcorder. Since multiple lens systems have been known to be used--and theoretically can be used--the article uses a title that encompasses all of them. Regardless of the technical formality of the name, it is a name that is widely used and accepted by multiple optics and motion picture communities. It's a title, not a definition. The definition is what the article is for. If you have any technical knowledge you can contribute to improve it, your assistance would be very much appreciated. Funkbomb (talk) 20:04, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Citations[edit]

Citations are mandated in certain cases according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:CITE#When_to_cite_sources . There are five cases listed there. Three of them—When you quote someone; When adding material to the biography of a living person; Material that is, or is likely to be, challenged—do not currently apply to this article.

Two others—Say where you got it, & When you verify content—are more debatable. The former addresses the need to cite sources properly, e.g., not to list a source in the citation when the source itself was acquired from an intermediate source. There's nothing here in that connection. The latter addresses the need to give citations when one verifies content, but does not mandate verification of any particular piece of information. If content is to be verified, it needs to be cited.

The last said might give rise to the question of whether any material here needs to be verified. I'm not opposed to it, but there seems to be a potential problem with doing it. It's not altogether clear what sort of citation scheme or model Wikipedia wants its editors to use. The project at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Forum_for_Encyclopedic_Standards broaches an issue: in many cases, information is more readily, or even exclusively, available in non-academic, non-peer-reviewed literature. It's often the case that the sources of information reside in trade journals or for-profit entities.

I think this is a good example of this. 35mm adapters were created as commercial products to serve a demand in the filmmaking industry, then branched out into the DIY guerrilla filmmaking world. Sources in the first domain are all commercial, in the second, mostly special-interest discussion forums. Since both are frowned upon by Wikipedia standards (though not necessarily prohibited), it's difficult therefore to provide citations. The same editor who put the "doesn't cite sources' banner on this page also removed all of the commercial & forum links.

Aside from that, other material such as the underlying principles (depth of field, 35mm, vignetting, barrel distortion, etc.) are properly sourced by referring to the Wikipedia pages dealing with those topics.

In light of this, I don't feel the banner was justified, & I have removed it. RubyQ 03:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]



External Links is incomplete[edit]

I believe there is more to add to the external links / DOF Adapter list at the bottom of the article, like the Home Depot 35, or Go35. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.23.51.27 (talk • contribs) 19 June 2006.

External links removed?[edit]

Too bad some people remove all those valuable external links. Instead of doing another add/remove fight, I'm instead copying the links here, so that it is not forgotten by people in the future:

Have fun, keep on growing good info! Peter S. 21:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Depth of field pictures in article[edit]

Hey guys, good to see the article I created so long ago has blossomed :) hopefully it's been of some use in clarifying the jungle of information surrounding 35mm adapters. Originally when I created the article I put the two pictures of depth of field at the top of the article, thinking that newbies to the world of depth of field adapters would need clarification of what DOF is in the first place. However upon reconsideration I have determined that the understanding of DOF is what brings people to this page in the first place, and if someone doesn't know what DOF is they can go to wikipedia's article entry to learn more about it there. Instead, I think pictures of DOF adapters such as the redrock unit, or the brevis, or letus, etc. attached to cameras or being used in the field would be more helpful in understanding these things. So, photo-savvy wikipedians, rig up your units and take pictures! I think this would be a valuable addition to the article. Funkbomb 23:43, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

History[edit]

I would remove the second paragraph completely from the history section. It is quite odd that there is less information on who originally developed the technology and more information on some people that have made the same thing at their home after the initial invention. When was it first developed and by who? Someone in Germany? I don't think that the second paragraph counts as history since at that point the technology had already been invented and used commercially.

Rather I would just say that since the principle is so simple, many people have developed and made DoF-adapters themselves. Now the second paragraph seems just original research.84.250.50.59 23:28, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Depth-of-field_adapter&oldid=1201463887"