DOF in new version

[lius86]

it is actually correct - you can see the same behavior in real world

yes actually i am thinking about that since 1 hour, and i am not sure about the answer..i am gonna test it!!! :)

[maru]

The easiest example to imagine for me is when you are looking into a viewfinder of a DSLR - the mirror is very close to your eye, yet you see a sharp image. Or you can just use some ordinary mirror. If you place non-reflective object close to your eye, it would get blurry.

[Rimas]

It is correct. Imagine a mirror surface as being a 'window' that extends to your reflected objects. That creates distance, which is now out of focus.

As for the '35mm' defaults - width-wise the number is incorrect and should be 36mm. I'd expect to punch in 36mm width if I was matching a rendering to a photograph/video from my EOS 5D Mark III (or 22.2mm for EOS 60D) just like a cinema professional would expect to punch in 70mm width to simulate an IMAX frame.
It says 'frame WIDTH', not 'film standard', in which case 35mm could mean Cinema 35mm standard (3-perf), which is actually only 24.9mm wide!
That is confusing right there!

Which brings me to another question... Does the current DoF scale measure correct for 36mm (36mm in the setting calculates 36mm) width or is the default 35mm actually calculated as 36mm?

[Ondra]

yes, it should be 36. Corona uses that number directly (well.. converts it to scene units first). So by default it uses 36mm. There are some approximations involved in the model of ideal thin lens camera, so I dont know how well it matches real camera DOF (if the ~3% difference is not actually lower than some other error produced here)

[Rimas]

Sorry, I got confused a bit by the answer :/
So do I leave 35mm setting to get 36mm DoF or do I do as I do usually and input 36mm myself?

Thanks!

[Ondra]

input 36mm by hand

[Rimas]

Got it, thanks! :)