RE: [Leica] Re: DOF, thanks Austin

["Austin Franklin" <austin@darkroom.com>]

> No, with respect, you're not addressing my point, Austin. DOF
> as commonly
> used (eg in published DOF tables, lens engravings and
> published formulae)
> refers to DOF of an image at a particular nominal
> magnification and has for
> fifty years. Your definition doesn't.

I believe DOF (ie, engraved on a lense) is referenced to the film, not to
any magnification.

> Therefore I think it needs to be
> distinguished in some way from the traditional definition or the mass
> confusion we have seen here results. I can't see that your
> definition of DOF
> can just be substituted for the traditional definition,
> whether or not it's
> more accurate or logical.

I don't disagree, but I still hold the effect (result) IS the same, and
therefore I don't have a problem calling it 'depth of field'.