Beginner Hyperfocal APP

[Clonetrooper]

Hi,

What the best IOS app hyperfocal calculation. I always used the dofmaster but that app has never been updated and doesn't work with my phone. I know Hoppy swears by his lens cap chart but I like to keep all my stuff on my phone.

Thanks

 

[russellsnr]

http://www.georgedouvos.com/douvos/OptimumCS-Pro;_TrueDoF-Pro;_Focus_Stacker.html

 

[Craig_85]

The best app for hyperfocal focus is not to use it!

What camera do you have? In live view mirrorless and Nikon show you a stopped down scene anyway so you can easily change your aperture and check front to back focus at 100%. With canon you press the dof preview button.

Job done, quickly and assuredly accurately.

 

[HoppyUK]

The best app for hyperfocal focus is not to use it!

What camera do you have? In live view mirrorless and Nikon show you a stopped down scene anyway so you can easily change your aperture and check front to back focus at 100%. With canon you press the dof preview button.

Job done, quickly and assuredly accurately.

Not really, and not accurately. You can do it by trial and error, but need to take a test shot and scroll around the image in magnified view for a proper check. Other HFD methods often suggested, like 'a third in' or 'a third up the frame' are nonsense. It doesn't work like that and, apart from being hoplessly vague, that'll usually result in a lot of potential foreground sharpness being wasted.

The easiest and most accurate way is to choose the nearest object you want sharp. Then estimate what that distance is, using centre-point AF, focus on something at double that distance. The hyperfocal focusing point is always exactly double the nearest object you want sharp. This is usually quite easy, as the distances involved are quite short, like just a few feet or yards. HFD technique usually applies to landscapes with wider lenses; it's not practical with longer focal lengths as you'd need very high f/numbers like f/45.

Now take the distance focused on - this is your hyperfocal distance point. From the HFD app, select the aperture for that and you're done

 

[woof woof]

Or use Merklinger method and you don't need a DoF table at all and instead you just do a simple bit of mental arithmetic.

http://www.trenholm.org/hmmerk/DOFR.html

In the final example a 90mm lens is used at f8.

Note that these methods may not stand up to pixel peeping but for whole images viewed normally they may be fine

 

[TimHughes]

I’m using SetMyCamPro app

 

[GaryLaird]

Hyperfocal Pro

 

[sk66]

The best app for hyperfocal focus is not to use it!

What camera do you have? In live view mirrorless and Nikon show you a stopped down scene anyway so you can easily change your aperture and check front to back focus at 100%. With canon you press the dof preview button.

Job done, quickly and assuredly accurately.

It's a nice idea but I don't think it works for hyper-focus. It doesn't tell you about where to focus for maximum DOF, but I guess it works ok for checking if you have enough DOF.... IMO, it sounds like a lot like trying to optimize focus with a tilt lens (a major PITA).
Additionally, sharpness/acceptable sharpness/DOF are significantly affected by display size (i.e. screen resolution) and many/most LCDs are low resolution.

 

[sk66]

The hyperfocal focusing point is always exactly double the nearest object you want sharp.

???
When using HFD the nearest thing that will be acceptably sharp is at 1/2 the HFD... but the HFD is strictly a function of *aperture and FL; it doesn't change with point of focus (DOF does).
With a 50mm lens on an APS camera set to f/16 the HFD is ~ 25ft. When focused at 25ft the DOF will extend from 12ft to infinity. If the nearest thing I want in focus is at 10 ft, focusing at 20ft would shift the DOF forward with a great loss of DOF at the far end, but it will still start beyond 10ft. (11.3-88.5 ft using a calculator and Nikon 1.5 crop).

*aperture is "effective aperture" adjusted for sensor size.


The easiest way I know to SWAG HFD is to start at either f/16 ( APS) or f/11 (FF). From there, the HFD is the FL as a percentage of itself... i.e. 50% of 50ft for a 50mm lens, or 10% of 10ft for a 10mm lens. Even easier is to take the first number and multiply it by itself. I.e. 5x5 for a 50mm = 25ft, or 1x1= 1ft for a 10mm, or 2x3=6ft for a 25mm. Then if you change the aperture by 2 stops (i.e. f/8) the HFD is doubled. (1 stop is in-between).

Granted, this is just a SWAG and there is a bit of error in it. But IMO, since everything else is also a best guess (i.e. actual focus distance) it's close enough... estimate the focus distance a little long.

That said. Unless there is something very near that you want in focus, the better idea is to just focus on whatever is most important. The near DOF will never be less than the HFD regardless of how far out you focus. I would much rather have the primary point of interest actually in focus and sharp rather than just within the DOF.

 

[HoppyUK]

Not really, and not accurately. You can do it by trial and error, but need to take a test shot and scroll around the image in magnified view for a proper check. Other HFD methods often suggested, like 'a third in' or 'a third up the frame' are nonsense. It doesn't work like that and, apart from being hoplessly vague, that'll usually result in a lot of potential foreground sharpness being wasted.

The easiest and most accurate way is to choose the nearest object you want sharp. Then estimate what that distance is, using centre-point AF, focus on something at double that distance. The hyperfocal focusing point is always exactly double the nearest object you want sharp. This is usually quite easy, as the distances involved are quite short, like just a few feet or yards. HFD technique usually applies to landscapes with wider lenses; it's not practical with longer focal lengths as you'd need very high f/numbers like f/45.

Now take the distance focused on - this is your hyperfocal distance point. From the HFD app, select the aperture for that and you're done

On the other hand, it's worth noting that if you shoot on APS-C format with a 15mm lens (24mm FF equiv) at say f/8 - quite a typical landscape scenario - then potentially DoF extends from 2.5ft to infinity. In other words, it doesn't really matter where you focus exactly, there's a very good chance everything will be sharp anyway.

That, I often think, is why folks that use inaccurate methods like 'a third up the frame' confidently say 'it works for me'. Well yes, pretty much anything would

 

[HoppyUK]

???
When using HFD the nearest thing that will be acceptably sharp is at 1/2 the HFD... but the HFD is strictly a function of *aperture and FL; it doesn't change with point of focus (DOF does).
With a 50mm lens on an APS camera set to f/16 the HFD is ~ 25ft. When focused at 25ft the DOF will extend from 12ft to infinity. If the nearest thing I want in focus is at 10 ft, focusing at 20ft would shift the DOF forward with a great loss of DOF at the far end, but it will still start beyond 10ft. (11.3-88.5 ft using a calculator and Nikon 1.5 crop).

*aperture is "effective aperture" adjusted for sensor size.


The easiest way I know to SWAG HFD is to start at either f/16 ( APS) or f/11 (FF). From there, the HFD is the FL as a percentage of itself... i.e. 50% of 50ft for a 50mm lens, or 10% of 10ft for a 10mm lens. Even easier is to take the first number and multiply it by itself. I.e. 5x5 for a 50mm = 25ft, or 1x1= 1ft for a 10mm, or 2x3=6ft for a 25mm. Then if you change the aperture by 2 stops (i.e. f/8) the HFD is doubled. (1 stop is in-between).

Granted, this is just a SWAG and there is a bit of error in it. But IMO, since everything else is also a best guess (i.e. actual focus distance) it's close enough... estimate the focus distance a little long.

That said. Unless there is something very near that you want in focus, the better idea is to just focus on whatever is most important. The near DOF will never be less than the HFD regardless of how far out you focus. I would much rather have the primary point of interest actually in focus and sharp rather than just within the DOF.

I don't follow Steven. If the DoF you need is 10ft to infinity, then in your scenario f/16 won't do it - you need f/20, focused at 20ft.

I've tried your SWAG, but too much mental arithmetic for me in the heat of the moment. Which is why I have a handful of key/common settings noted down on a bit of paper stuck inside the lens cap. But now that I've (finally!) entered the world of the smartphone, I'm gonna get me one of those app thingies

 

[Craig_85]

It's a nice idea but I don't think it works for hyper-focus. It doesn't tell you about where to focus for maximum DOF, but I guess it works ok for checking if you have enough DOF.... IMO, it sounds like a lot like trying to optimize focus with a tilt lens (a major PITA).
Additionally, sharpness/acceptable sharpness/DOF are significantly affected by display size (i.e. screen resolution) and many/most LCDs are low resolution.

Hi Stephen, I respect you as one of the most technically knowledgable guys on here so I'm not looking to argue for the sake of it.

My real world experience of focussing, particularly for landscape application off a tripod is that my method is fast and accurate, producing very sharp large prints. It identifies the smallest aperture required, without being excessively so and as such avoids excessive diffraction too.

My argument with hyperfocal is unless you carry a laser measure around with you it will never be bang in anyway, because how are you setting the focus? By guessing distances and the distance scale? I'd hate to do that and find what a chart had told me was acceptably sharp, was in fact not when I got home.

By using liveview, zooming in to 100%, and looking at the closest item that you need to be critically sharp then rocking the manual focus forward and back until you get it in focus on the edge, pushing the depth of field towards infinity gives you a visual confirmation it's going to be sharp. Then zip up to the horizon and check that is sharp. In the unlikely event I've got the wrong aperture, stop it down and re check. It honestly takes seconds, and then when you take the shot you know it's sharp.

The focus drops off sharply, even at small apertures, although I appreciate it's harder in low light. (Although canon is better than Nikon in this regard) I also prioritise, and teach people to prioritise the foreground objects. The reason being in a 2d image, particularly wide angle foreground heavy, those objects are still larger and normally what the eye goes to first, so the foreground, in an image where you are trying to show front to back sharpness, must be sharp, or the viewer dismisses the shot as soft. (Of course artistic choice applies separately with selective focus etc).

Just my ramblings on how I focus. Your suggestion it's similar to tilt shift is probably fair, but with practice this method takes seconds and gives you a visual confirmation of achieved focus and sharpness, even taking into account screen resolution.

 

[TimHughes]

Personally I would do both. Hyperfocal calculator to set the lens then liveview on x10 to check and fine tune. Works the same with tilt shift and there is a good app to calculate how to set that up too and limit the iterations to find best focus.

 

[YoshiK1]

Apparently Photopills is good. It gives you augmented reality so when you look at your scene it shows you exactly where to focus. This was ages ago I'd seen this so double-check before buying. It also gives you more in the app than just hyperfocal stuff.

Personally I just focus a third of the way into the scene and then check it on 10x on the screen or I use focus peaking on my X-T2. You could also focus at the center of each third of the image and focus stack them in LR etc.

 

[sk66]

I don't follow Steven. If the DoF you need is 10ft to infinity, then in your scenario f/16 won't do it - you need f/20, focused at 20ft.

I've tried your SWAG, but too much mental arithmetic for me in the heat of the moment. Which is why I have a handful of key/common settings noted down on a bit of paper stuck inside the lens cap. But now that I've (finally!) entered the world of the smartphone, I'm gonna get me one of those app thingies

Depends on the lens... if the minimum distance required is 10ft, then the maximum FL usable at f/16 (1.5x APS) is approx 45mm (4x5=20ft HFD, Canon crop would be ~ 43mm).

On the other hand, it's worth noting that if you shoot on APS-C format with a 15mm lens (24mm FF equiv) at say f/8 - quite a typical landscape scenario - then potentially DoF extends from 2.5ft to infinity. In other words, it doesn't really matter where you focus exactly, there's a very good chance everything will be sharp anyway.

That, I often think, is why folks that use inaccurate methods like 'a third up the frame' confidently say 'it works for me'. Well yes, pretty much anything would

Yes, and no matter how far out you focus the near point will never be beyond the HFD, ~ 5ft in this scenario, and the far DOF will never be less than "infinity." Which is why I generally advise to focus on whatever is most important instead.

 

[sk66]

Hi Stephen, I respect you as one of the most technically knowledgable guys on here so I'm not looking to argue for the sake of it.
........
Just my ramblings on how I focus. Your suggestion it's similar to tilt shift is probably fair, but with practice this method takes seconds and gives you a visual confirmation of achieved focus and sharpness, even taking into account screen resolution.

Thanks. My correlation to tilt-shift isn't probably quite fair in that it includes adjustments to the tilt which "resets" everything each time you make an adjustment. I think your method is good for ensuring maximum sharpness is where you want/need it as opposed to maximum DOF (hyper focus). which is quite reasonable IMO. It's not often that one really needs "infinity" or something at 1ft to be critically sharp.

DOF/acceptable sharpness depends on viewing/relative size, but actual sharpness does not. I *think* that viewing at 100% on the LCD would correlate to a print/display size equivalent to the pixel pitch of the LCD. I.e. my D810 is VGA 640x480/~200PPI.

 

[GaryLaird]

Interesting discussion. Surely using an app/or other hyperfocal guide allows you to simply determine what IS going to be in focus....no need to check on the camera screen or do mental gymnastics.......you just know! The added benefit is it allows you to fine tune and select the 'best' f.stop for your lens.....the sweet spot. It's tempting to bump up the aperture to ensure good dof but this then may mean lower shutter speeds demanding use of a tripod where as you could achieve same result hand held with an overall sharper image. In reality you quickly learn your favourite landscape lens and what the hyperfocal distance is for the best aperture so checking an app is not that regular after a while. Just my thought!

 

[sk66]

Interesting discussion. Surely using an app/or other hyperfocal guide allows you to simply determine what IS going to be in focus....no need to check on the camera screen or do mental gymnastics.......you just know!

Unfortunately, no. The problem with all of them is determining the distance at which you are actually focused; the focus scale is about useless on most lenses these days.

Additionally, and I can't say this enough... DOF is not a fixed aspect of an image, but actual focus is.
Unless there is something closer than the HFD that you need acceptably sharp, the best answer is to focus on whatever is most important. And if what is very close is important but "infinity" is not, then focusing on what is close may also be the better answer.

 

[HoppyUK]

Unfortunately, no. The problem with all of them is determining the distance at which you are actually focused; the focus scale is about useless on most lenses these days.

Additionally, and I can't say this enough... DOF is not a fixed aspect of an image, but actual focus is.
Unless there is something closer than the HFD that you need acceptably sharp, the best answer is to focus on whatever is most important. And if what is very close is important but "infinity" is not, then focusing on what is close may also be the better answer.

Focusing accurately on the HFD is not difficult if you use the 'double nearest object' method I outlined above. Of all the likely variables, most people should be able to estimate distances of 10ft or less and it'll surely be better than trying to read or set the correct distance on a mostly useless focusing scale. Then read the f/number you need from the app and you're done.

Whatever method you use, somewhere along the line there's judgement and estimating to be done, no avoiding that.

 

[GaryLaird]

Unfortunately, no. The problem with all of them is determining the distance at which you are actually focused; the focus scale is about useless on most lenses these days.

Additionally, and I can't say this enough... DOF is not a fixed aspect of an image, but actual focus is.
Unless there is something closer than the HFD that you need acceptably sharp, the best answer is to focus on whatever is most important. And if what is very close is important but "infinity" is not, then focusing on what is close may also be the better answer.

Right I get your point about determining actual distance. I would say that when I'm using wide lenses 20-30mm equivalent, arguably most used focal length for landscapes then for 'normal' apertures of f5.6 to f8.0 your minimum dof to infinity is usually between 1 to 2m, and a focus point is 2-3m which I think is relatively easy to judge. Focus within that range.....basically just in front of your feet and you will be OK. At least that was my practical theory [emoji3] Certainly when you start getting beyond 5m then you could be substantially off.

 

[HoppyUK]

Here's another method, that doesn't need any numbers at all - just a good eye for assessing sharpness when zoomed in on the LCD. Using the 'double closest object' thing again.

Decide on the nearest object you want sharp, double that distance visually and focus on something at that distance with centre-point AF. That is the hyperfocal distance set and it will not change, regardless.

Take a shot and check the foreground and background sharpness, see how it compares to whatever is at the HFD position. If it's not good enough, then use a higher f/number until it is (no need to adjust focus).

 

[GaryLaird]

Here's another method, that doesn't need any numbers at all - just a good eye for assessing sharpness when zoomed in on the LCD. Using the 'double closest object' thing again.

Decide on the nearest object you want sharp, double that distance visually and focus on something at that distance with centre-point AF. That is the hyperfocal distance set and it will not change, regardless.

Take a shot and check the foreground and background sharpness, see how it compares to whatever is at the HFD position. If it's not good enough, then use a higher f/number until it is (no need to adjust focus).

Tried your suggestion on my app.....while it would work with wide angle I think, if I understand your point correctly, it starts to fail at longer focal lengths! Certainly works well at 'normal' landscape parameters [emoji4]

 

[HoppyUK]

Tried your suggestion on my app.....while it would work with wide angle I think, if I understand your point correctly, it starts to fail at longer focal lengths! Certainly works well at 'normal' landscape parameters [emoji4]

As mentioned earlier, HFD focusing isn't really practical with longer focal lengths. The theory still holds, but quickly runs into very high f/numbers that we don't have available even if we wanted them. For example, with a 24mm wide-angle lens (on full-frame) if you want depth-of-field from 6ft to infinity, f/5.6 will get it for you. But switch to an 80mm lens and you'll need f/64.

 

[sk66]

Here's another method, that doesn't need any numbers at all - just a good eye for assessing sharpness when zoomed in on the LCD. Using the 'double closest object' thing again.

Decide on the nearest object you want sharp, double that distance visually and focus on something at that distance with centre-point AF. That is the hyperfocal distance set and it will not change, regardless.

Take a shot and check the foreground and background sharpness, see how it compares to whatever is at the HFD position. If it's not good enough, then use a higher f/number until it is (no need to adjust focus).

This is basically the same thing Craig suggested... and I just realized that what you are doing is looking for the aperture that makes that distance the HFD for the lens.
I.e. you want something at 2ft in focus so you focus on something at 4ft. Using a FF camera, w/ a 20mm lens 4ft is the HFD at f/11, with a 30mm lens 4ft would be the HFD at ~ f/26 (SWAG'd). The only issue I see is that it could quickly put you well into diffraction, not that it really matters a lot of the time.

 

[HoppyUK]

This is basically the same thing Craig suggested...

No, it's much more 'focused' than that. If you just focus anywhere with the aim of chimping until it's right, then you'll soon find that when neither the foreground nor background are sufficiently sharp, you won't know whether to adjust the focus position, or the f/number, or both. With 'double the closest object' method, the focus is accurate and set, so all you have to do is adjust the f/number accordingly.

and I just realized that what you are doing is looking for the aperture that makes that distance the HFD for the lens.
I.e. you want something at 2ft in focus so you focus on something at 4ft. Using a FF camera, w/ a 20mm lens 4ft is the HFD at f/11, with a 30mm lens 4ft would be the HFD at ~ f/26 (SWAG'd). The only issue I see is that it could quickly put you well into diffraction, not that it really matters a lot of the time.

Yes, I assumed you were moving a different set of goalposts But with HFD technique, really the only thing you have available to adjust is the f/number. Changing anything else alters the image you originally wanted to capture in some way.

Diffraction is often mentioned in HFD debates, and it's certainly a factor, but if you want maximum overall sharpness then HFD technique is the best way. You will lose far more sharpness by mis-focusing than you will through diffraction. The main disadvantage of HFD technique is that, by definition (haha), it puts the nearest and furthest points of interest right at the limit of acceptable sharpness. That's not good enough for some serious landscaper and a quick workaround is to simply use a one-stop higher f/number than the app suggests (which effectively tightens the CoC value in the formula). And if that then puts you too far into diffraction territory, it's time for a tilt & shift lens.

 

[sk66]

Changing anything else alters the image you originally wanted to capture in some way.

I don't do much of this type of work, but my UWA's are zooms (12-24, 16-35) and my approach has always been to shift to a wider FOV rather than push the aperture really hard. My reasoning is that when doing this my main concern is near to far (DOF) and perspective more than FOV... and wider FL's gain you a lot more DOF (especially near) much more quickly than aperture does, but it does change the composition.

You can always crop it later.

 

[TimHughes]

This is what led me tilt-shift...I really like the look of extreme close up foreground to horizon sharpness.

 

[HoppyUK]

I don't do much of this type of work, but my UWA's are zooms (12-24, 16-35) and my approach has always been to shift to a wider FOV rather than push the aperture really hard. My reasoning is that when doing this my main concern is near to far (DOF) and perspective more than FOV... and wider FL's gain you a lot more DOF (especially near) much more quickly than aperture does, but it does change the composition.

That is, erm, unconventional. HFD technique isn't always about maximum DoF, it's about adequate DoF for the subject and composition, while also optimising shutter speed and ISO. But whatever works for you

You can always crop it later.

Cropping changes DoF. It's effectively a change in sensor format.

 

[sk66]

That is, erm, unconventional. HFD technique isn't always about maximum DoF, it's about adequate DoF for the subject and composition, while also optimising shutter speed and ISO. But whatever works for you

Yes, but using FL gives you more options for optimizing ISO/SS because you are not limited to restricting the aperture.

Cropping changes DoF. It's effectively a change in sensor format.

Of course, note the emoticons .
But so does display size/viewing conditions (often unknown), which is also directly related to display/print resolution (i.e. the camera LCD's dpi).

Which goes back to the OP question... what benefit is there to an app?

 

[sk66]

This is what led me tilt-shift...I really like the look of extreme close up foreground to horizon sharpness.

I usually don't like the "tunnel" effect that typically happens.

 

[HoppyUK]

Steven, you're just determined to make everything fit around your 'SWAG it at f/16' method!

There are other, better ways IMHO

 

[sk66]

Steven, you're just determined to make everything fit around your 'SWAG it at f/16' method!

There are other, better ways IMHO

Not really, it works for me and I find it easy enough. My point is that there isn't really any point to an app, there are just too many variables/unknowns IMO.

Craig's method works fine as I understand it, but could easily lead to smaller aperture settings than necessary if the initial point of focus is too far or the initial choice of aperture smaller than necessary.
Your method of 2x distance works well for a prime lens or for a specific composition, but also leads to smaller apertures.
My method works to keep ISO lower and away from diffraction if willing to compromise on the overall composition (I am usually willing to shoot wider)... and even my method still involves checking the results and shifting as necessary due to all of the variables/inaccuracies involved with everything. I don't know about others, but I can't really *see* an WA/UWA composition/scene until it is framed/focused (I have an idea of what I want/why, but that's about it).

If I had to choose one, I think I like your method the best (now that I understand it)... but with the caveat/understanding that changing aperture is rather ineffective in increasing the near DOF, and a shorter FL (looser composition) might be a more effective compromise; or a little of both (it takes ~ 4 stops, or 50% FL, to reduce the near DOF by 1/2).