Re: [OM] Bokeh question

[Ken Norton]

Can I patent that?


On Monday, January 17, 2011, Andrew Fildes <afildes@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Except that everything is not in focus - just apparently so. Which means that 
> the areas just off focus will be rendered in a particular way which may be 
> what gives a particular lens its character - so how about we invent the term 
> 'micro-bokeh' and start a whole new area of lensgeek discourse? :-)
> Andrew Fildes
> afildes@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
>
> On 17/01/2011, at 11:34 PM, Chuck Norcutt wrote:
>
>> Agreed.  The definition of bokeh relates to the appearance of
>> out-of-focus parts of the image.  If everything is in focus there is no
>> bokeh.
>
> --
> _________________________________________________________________
> Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
> Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
> Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
>
>

-- 
Ken Norton
ken@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.zone-10.com
-- 
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/