"Sander" <san### [at] stolscom> wrote in message
news:MPG### [at] NEWSPOVRAYORG...
>
> I don't know about POV: this is not the same thing as PPB, is it?

Lost me.  I couldn't figure what PPB is.

> I have worked a great deal with electron optical systems, where the
> effective apertures  were in the order of .000001 radians. This had the
> peculiar effect that when you projected an image on a screen, it didn't
> matter anymore where you actually put the screen! Images were always
> sharp. This so-called depth of field ranged, for example, from 1 cm to
> 10000 cm!! It had to do with the enormous magnifications used, for one
> thing...

Interesting.  Very unlike optical microscopes then I guess (of course, no
kidding).
I was trying to remember if the post_process blurring of MegaPov had a range of
focus but it's been awhile since I used that.  Oh, hey, is that what you were
saying?  PPB= post process blur...?
Anyway, the singular planar(?) focus of focal blur certainly isn't like what is
seen in photographs but is a lot like what is seen in binoculars and such.  I
know you're right about the inability of photos to show a precision comparable
to a ray trace.  Still, always seems a focusable depth can be attained whereas
it's not in POV.

Bob H.

Post a reply to this message