What is “focus distance lower/upper” and how is it different from depth of field?
I have taken two photographs on a Canon crop sensor camera: 18mm f/9 with the following exiftool
output (the focus was approximately at 3.5 meters):
Focus Distance Upper : 5.27 m
Focus Distance Lower : 1.82 m
Depth Of Field : inf (1.24 m - inf)
And 50mm f/1.8 with the following exiftool
output:
Focus Distance Upper : 1.99 m
Focus Distance Lower : 1.41 m
Depth Of Field : 0.08 m (1.66 - 1.74 m)
Now, I assume I know what depth of field means. It's the same thing as the one that will be given by a depth of field calculator such as http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html
But what are Focus Distance Upper
and Focus Distance Lower
?
Why in one of the pictures (shallow DoF) is the difference between focus distances higher than the DoF, and in the other picture (deep DoF) is the difference between focus distances lower than the DoF?
autofocus focus metadata depth-of-field
add a comment |
I have taken two photographs on a Canon crop sensor camera: 18mm f/9 with the following exiftool
output (the focus was approximately at 3.5 meters):
Focus Distance Upper : 5.27 m
Focus Distance Lower : 1.82 m
Depth Of Field : inf (1.24 m - inf)
And 50mm f/1.8 with the following exiftool
output:
Focus Distance Upper : 1.99 m
Focus Distance Lower : 1.41 m
Depth Of Field : 0.08 m (1.66 - 1.74 m)
Now, I assume I know what depth of field means. It's the same thing as the one that will be given by a depth of field calculator such as http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html
But what are Focus Distance Upper
and Focus Distance Lower
?
Why in one of the pictures (shallow DoF) is the difference between focus distances higher than the DoF, and in the other picture (deep DoF) is the difference between focus distances lower than the DoF?
autofocus focus metadata depth-of-field
add a comment |
I have taken two photographs on a Canon crop sensor camera: 18mm f/9 with the following exiftool
output (the focus was approximately at 3.5 meters):
Focus Distance Upper : 5.27 m
Focus Distance Lower : 1.82 m
Depth Of Field : inf (1.24 m - inf)
And 50mm f/1.8 with the following exiftool
output:
Focus Distance Upper : 1.99 m
Focus Distance Lower : 1.41 m
Depth Of Field : 0.08 m (1.66 - 1.74 m)
Now, I assume I know what depth of field means. It's the same thing as the one that will be given by a depth of field calculator such as http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html
But what are Focus Distance Upper
and Focus Distance Lower
?
Why in one of the pictures (shallow DoF) is the difference between focus distances higher than the DoF, and in the other picture (deep DoF) is the difference between focus distances lower than the DoF?
autofocus focus metadata depth-of-field
I have taken two photographs on a Canon crop sensor camera: 18mm f/9 with the following exiftool
output (the focus was approximately at 3.5 meters):
Focus Distance Upper : 5.27 m
Focus Distance Lower : 1.82 m
Depth Of Field : inf (1.24 m - inf)
And 50mm f/1.8 with the following exiftool
output:
Focus Distance Upper : 1.99 m
Focus Distance Lower : 1.41 m
Depth Of Field : 0.08 m (1.66 - 1.74 m)
Now, I assume I know what depth of field means. It's the same thing as the one that will be given by a depth of field calculator such as http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html
But what are Focus Distance Upper
and Focus Distance Lower
?
Why in one of the pictures (shallow DoF) is the difference between focus distances higher than the DoF, and in the other picture (deep DoF) is the difference between focus distances lower than the DoF?
autofocus focus metadata depth-of-field
autofocus focus metadata depth-of-field
edited 16 hours ago
mattdm
122k40357653
122k40357653
asked 16 hours ago
juhistjuhist
591112
591112
add a comment |
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
The Focus Distance Upper
and Focus Distance Lower
tags are in the Canon-proprietary "maker notes" and aren't part of standard EXIF, so documentation is scarce. However, it appears that these (together) represent the distance at which the lens's focus is set. That is, it's somewhere between the two bounds.
Why Canon does it this way rather than providing a single value (perhaps with second uncertainty or error value) is a mystery only Canon could resolve, and they don't seem to have publicly. Here's a forum post with some investigation: Re: Distance in EXIF.
Note also that Depth of Field
is an exiftool composite tag. The information there is not set directly by the camera — instead, Exiftool generates this from other data, including whatever hint it gets as to focus distance. From the docs, it looks like it uses the Upper and Lower values, but also other info, which may explain the disparity you note.
In any case these values are approximate and should be taken as hints, rather than as gospel. Their original purpose is probably to hint at subject distance to aid the camera in making TTL flash power computations. They're not meant to be scientific measurements, or even photographic scene information (like GPS location tags or something).
@chrylis yes, thanks. perils of answering on one's phone and all that.
– mattdm
6 hours ago
1
I have no clue what the meaning of two focus distances might be, but just thinking about how it might originate..The camera can only obtain the distance from the lens rotation. Which cannot be a continuous value, it has to be reported as steps of rotation. It seems reasonable to assume these two adjacent values are the possible steps that can be reported. My guess is that true value is not the mean, it's just between these two. Look at the lens distance scale, how close together these two have to be. I think Nikon simply reports the one that is reported, so not very precise either.
– WayneF
3 hours ago
@WayneF yeah, the forum post exploration supports that guess.
– mattdm
59 mins ago
add a comment |
As @mattdm found out, the FocusDistanceLower and FocusDistanceUpper, whatever they exactly mean, together denote the approximate focus distance. ExifTool then calculates depth of field based on these.
I took a look at the ExifTool source code, and the DoF calculation desires:
Desire => {
3 => 'FocusDistance', # focus distance in metres (0 is infinity)
4 => 'SubjectDistance',
5 => 'ObjectDistance',
6 => 'ApproximateFocusDistance ',
7 => 'FocusDistanceLower',
8 => 'FocusDistanceUpper',
},
And if focus distance is not defined (all of 3, 4, 5 and 6 are undefined), it is calculated as follows:
$d = ($val[7] + $val[8]) / 2;
So, ExifTool is simply using the arithmetic mean of the two focus distances. Not sure if that's correct or if it's just an educated guess.
Anyway, this probably doesn't matter as I don't trust in the accuracy of focus distance fields more than I would trust in the focus distance meter on a lens that happens to have one.
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "61"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphoto.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f105977%2fwhat-is-focus-distance-lower-upper-and-how-is-it-different-from-depth-of-field%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
The Focus Distance Upper
and Focus Distance Lower
tags are in the Canon-proprietary "maker notes" and aren't part of standard EXIF, so documentation is scarce. However, it appears that these (together) represent the distance at which the lens's focus is set. That is, it's somewhere between the two bounds.
Why Canon does it this way rather than providing a single value (perhaps with second uncertainty or error value) is a mystery only Canon could resolve, and they don't seem to have publicly. Here's a forum post with some investigation: Re: Distance in EXIF.
Note also that Depth of Field
is an exiftool composite tag. The information there is not set directly by the camera — instead, Exiftool generates this from other data, including whatever hint it gets as to focus distance. From the docs, it looks like it uses the Upper and Lower values, but also other info, which may explain the disparity you note.
In any case these values are approximate and should be taken as hints, rather than as gospel. Their original purpose is probably to hint at subject distance to aid the camera in making TTL flash power computations. They're not meant to be scientific measurements, or even photographic scene information (like GPS location tags or something).
@chrylis yes, thanks. perils of answering on one's phone and all that.
– mattdm
6 hours ago
1
I have no clue what the meaning of two focus distances might be, but just thinking about how it might originate..The camera can only obtain the distance from the lens rotation. Which cannot be a continuous value, it has to be reported as steps of rotation. It seems reasonable to assume these two adjacent values are the possible steps that can be reported. My guess is that true value is not the mean, it's just between these two. Look at the lens distance scale, how close together these two have to be. I think Nikon simply reports the one that is reported, so not very precise either.
– WayneF
3 hours ago
@WayneF yeah, the forum post exploration supports that guess.
– mattdm
59 mins ago
add a comment |
The Focus Distance Upper
and Focus Distance Lower
tags are in the Canon-proprietary "maker notes" and aren't part of standard EXIF, so documentation is scarce. However, it appears that these (together) represent the distance at which the lens's focus is set. That is, it's somewhere between the two bounds.
Why Canon does it this way rather than providing a single value (perhaps with second uncertainty or error value) is a mystery only Canon could resolve, and they don't seem to have publicly. Here's a forum post with some investigation: Re: Distance in EXIF.
Note also that Depth of Field
is an exiftool composite tag. The information there is not set directly by the camera — instead, Exiftool generates this from other data, including whatever hint it gets as to focus distance. From the docs, it looks like it uses the Upper and Lower values, but also other info, which may explain the disparity you note.
In any case these values are approximate and should be taken as hints, rather than as gospel. Their original purpose is probably to hint at subject distance to aid the camera in making TTL flash power computations. They're not meant to be scientific measurements, or even photographic scene information (like GPS location tags or something).
@chrylis yes, thanks. perils of answering on one's phone and all that.
– mattdm
6 hours ago
1
I have no clue what the meaning of two focus distances might be, but just thinking about how it might originate..The camera can only obtain the distance from the lens rotation. Which cannot be a continuous value, it has to be reported as steps of rotation. It seems reasonable to assume these two adjacent values are the possible steps that can be reported. My guess is that true value is not the mean, it's just between these two. Look at the lens distance scale, how close together these two have to be. I think Nikon simply reports the one that is reported, so not very precise either.
– WayneF
3 hours ago
@WayneF yeah, the forum post exploration supports that guess.
– mattdm
59 mins ago
add a comment |
The Focus Distance Upper
and Focus Distance Lower
tags are in the Canon-proprietary "maker notes" and aren't part of standard EXIF, so documentation is scarce. However, it appears that these (together) represent the distance at which the lens's focus is set. That is, it's somewhere between the two bounds.
Why Canon does it this way rather than providing a single value (perhaps with second uncertainty or error value) is a mystery only Canon could resolve, and they don't seem to have publicly. Here's a forum post with some investigation: Re: Distance in EXIF.
Note also that Depth of Field
is an exiftool composite tag. The information there is not set directly by the camera — instead, Exiftool generates this from other data, including whatever hint it gets as to focus distance. From the docs, it looks like it uses the Upper and Lower values, but also other info, which may explain the disparity you note.
In any case these values are approximate and should be taken as hints, rather than as gospel. Their original purpose is probably to hint at subject distance to aid the camera in making TTL flash power computations. They're not meant to be scientific measurements, or even photographic scene information (like GPS location tags or something).
The Focus Distance Upper
and Focus Distance Lower
tags are in the Canon-proprietary "maker notes" and aren't part of standard EXIF, so documentation is scarce. However, it appears that these (together) represent the distance at which the lens's focus is set. That is, it's somewhere between the two bounds.
Why Canon does it this way rather than providing a single value (perhaps with second uncertainty or error value) is a mystery only Canon could resolve, and they don't seem to have publicly. Here's a forum post with some investigation: Re: Distance in EXIF.
Note also that Depth of Field
is an exiftool composite tag. The information there is not set directly by the camera — instead, Exiftool generates this from other data, including whatever hint it gets as to focus distance. From the docs, it looks like it uses the Upper and Lower values, but also other info, which may explain the disparity you note.
In any case these values are approximate and should be taken as hints, rather than as gospel. Their original purpose is probably to hint at subject distance to aid the camera in making TTL flash power computations. They're not meant to be scientific measurements, or even photographic scene information (like GPS location tags or something).
edited 6 hours ago
answered 16 hours ago
mattdmmattdm
122k40357653
122k40357653
@chrylis yes, thanks. perils of answering on one's phone and all that.
– mattdm
6 hours ago
1
I have no clue what the meaning of two focus distances might be, but just thinking about how it might originate..The camera can only obtain the distance from the lens rotation. Which cannot be a continuous value, it has to be reported as steps of rotation. It seems reasonable to assume these two adjacent values are the possible steps that can be reported. My guess is that true value is not the mean, it's just between these two. Look at the lens distance scale, how close together these two have to be. I think Nikon simply reports the one that is reported, so not very precise either.
– WayneF
3 hours ago
@WayneF yeah, the forum post exploration supports that guess.
– mattdm
59 mins ago
add a comment |
@chrylis yes, thanks. perils of answering on one's phone and all that.
– mattdm
6 hours ago
1
I have no clue what the meaning of two focus distances might be, but just thinking about how it might originate..The camera can only obtain the distance from the lens rotation. Which cannot be a continuous value, it has to be reported as steps of rotation. It seems reasonable to assume these two adjacent values are the possible steps that can be reported. My guess is that true value is not the mean, it's just between these two. Look at the lens distance scale, how close together these two have to be. I think Nikon simply reports the one that is reported, so not very precise either.
– WayneF
3 hours ago
@WayneF yeah, the forum post exploration supports that guess.
– mattdm
59 mins ago
@chrylis yes, thanks. perils of answering on one's phone and all that.
– mattdm
6 hours ago
@chrylis yes, thanks. perils of answering on one's phone and all that.
– mattdm
6 hours ago
1
1
I have no clue what the meaning of two focus distances might be, but just thinking about how it might originate..The camera can only obtain the distance from the lens rotation. Which cannot be a continuous value, it has to be reported as steps of rotation. It seems reasonable to assume these two adjacent values are the possible steps that can be reported. My guess is that true value is not the mean, it's just between these two. Look at the lens distance scale, how close together these two have to be. I think Nikon simply reports the one that is reported, so not very precise either.
– WayneF
3 hours ago
I have no clue what the meaning of two focus distances might be, but just thinking about how it might originate..The camera can only obtain the distance from the lens rotation. Which cannot be a continuous value, it has to be reported as steps of rotation. It seems reasonable to assume these two adjacent values are the possible steps that can be reported. My guess is that true value is not the mean, it's just between these two. Look at the lens distance scale, how close together these two have to be. I think Nikon simply reports the one that is reported, so not very precise either.
– WayneF
3 hours ago
@WayneF yeah, the forum post exploration supports that guess.
– mattdm
59 mins ago
@WayneF yeah, the forum post exploration supports that guess.
– mattdm
59 mins ago
add a comment |
As @mattdm found out, the FocusDistanceLower and FocusDistanceUpper, whatever they exactly mean, together denote the approximate focus distance. ExifTool then calculates depth of field based on these.
I took a look at the ExifTool source code, and the DoF calculation desires:
Desire => {
3 => 'FocusDistance', # focus distance in metres (0 is infinity)
4 => 'SubjectDistance',
5 => 'ObjectDistance',
6 => 'ApproximateFocusDistance ',
7 => 'FocusDistanceLower',
8 => 'FocusDistanceUpper',
},
And if focus distance is not defined (all of 3, 4, 5 and 6 are undefined), it is calculated as follows:
$d = ($val[7] + $val[8]) / 2;
So, ExifTool is simply using the arithmetic mean of the two focus distances. Not sure if that's correct or if it's just an educated guess.
Anyway, this probably doesn't matter as I don't trust in the accuracy of focus distance fields more than I would trust in the focus distance meter on a lens that happens to have one.
add a comment |
As @mattdm found out, the FocusDistanceLower and FocusDistanceUpper, whatever they exactly mean, together denote the approximate focus distance. ExifTool then calculates depth of field based on these.
I took a look at the ExifTool source code, and the DoF calculation desires:
Desire => {
3 => 'FocusDistance', # focus distance in metres (0 is infinity)
4 => 'SubjectDistance',
5 => 'ObjectDistance',
6 => 'ApproximateFocusDistance ',
7 => 'FocusDistanceLower',
8 => 'FocusDistanceUpper',
},
And if focus distance is not defined (all of 3, 4, 5 and 6 are undefined), it is calculated as follows:
$d = ($val[7] + $val[8]) / 2;
So, ExifTool is simply using the arithmetic mean of the two focus distances. Not sure if that's correct or if it's just an educated guess.
Anyway, this probably doesn't matter as I don't trust in the accuracy of focus distance fields more than I would trust in the focus distance meter on a lens that happens to have one.
add a comment |
As @mattdm found out, the FocusDistanceLower and FocusDistanceUpper, whatever they exactly mean, together denote the approximate focus distance. ExifTool then calculates depth of field based on these.
I took a look at the ExifTool source code, and the DoF calculation desires:
Desire => {
3 => 'FocusDistance', # focus distance in metres (0 is infinity)
4 => 'SubjectDistance',
5 => 'ObjectDistance',
6 => 'ApproximateFocusDistance ',
7 => 'FocusDistanceLower',
8 => 'FocusDistanceUpper',
},
And if focus distance is not defined (all of 3, 4, 5 and 6 are undefined), it is calculated as follows:
$d = ($val[7] + $val[8]) / 2;
So, ExifTool is simply using the arithmetic mean of the two focus distances. Not sure if that's correct or if it's just an educated guess.
Anyway, this probably doesn't matter as I don't trust in the accuracy of focus distance fields more than I would trust in the focus distance meter on a lens that happens to have one.
As @mattdm found out, the FocusDistanceLower and FocusDistanceUpper, whatever they exactly mean, together denote the approximate focus distance. ExifTool then calculates depth of field based on these.
I took a look at the ExifTool source code, and the DoF calculation desires:
Desire => {
3 => 'FocusDistance', # focus distance in metres (0 is infinity)
4 => 'SubjectDistance',
5 => 'ObjectDistance',
6 => 'ApproximateFocusDistance ',
7 => 'FocusDistanceLower',
8 => 'FocusDistanceUpper',
},
And if focus distance is not defined (all of 3, 4, 5 and 6 are undefined), it is calculated as follows:
$d = ($val[7] + $val[8]) / 2;
So, ExifTool is simply using the arithmetic mean of the two focus distances. Not sure if that's correct or if it's just an educated guess.
Anyway, this probably doesn't matter as I don't trust in the accuracy of focus distance fields more than I would trust in the focus distance meter on a lens that happens to have one.
answered 14 hours ago
juhistjuhist
591112
591112
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Photography Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphoto.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f105977%2fwhat-is-focus-distance-lower-upper-and-how-is-it-different-from-depth-of-field%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown