The Pinhole Camera - Optimal Pinhole Design - Episode 2.0

[@tjmozdzen]

Best comprehensive description of pinhole cameras and setting the size of the pinhole that I've seen to date.

[@andrewstephen8840]

Wonderful presentation, so clear and well delivered. Love refreshing on some trig.

[@robbiehattaway5765]

Nothing like making things complicated. To calculate the size of the pinhole using Abney's rule Divide the square root of the focal length by 120. MUch simpler and it works well I learned this from Professor Wiley Sanderson at UGA. Wiley is mentioned in Renner's book on pinhole photography. He was one of the first people to use pinhole photography as a serious teaching tool in college level classes.

[@c.augustin]

This was much more useful than I thought! Very well explained math, and having a formula including object distance is great - since I already have interchangeable pinholes for my 4x5 camera so that I can optimize for close-"focus" shots.

[@artemiofava5754]

Great video and explanation !!! This is the first time I found a matematicaly justified explanation about optimal pinhole size selection. I loved you have included an explanation about the diference between blure due to geometrical issues and blure caused by difraction and how both afect the image resolution depending on the subject distance (landscape or first plane). I think you have covered every subject needed in order one can self calculate the right pinhole size without needing to use and trust in (doubt) web sites pinhole calcuators which give differents results from the same application. God job, Congratulations !!!

[@TheScienceofPhotography]

Thank you very much!

[@NoSomosAmigos]

This is the video I was looking for. Thank you.

[@TheScienceofPhotography]

You're welcome!

[@mariuszkedziora5729]

It's amazing how smart guy you are and how simple (except the advanced math :P) you can explain a lot of things that are veery needed! Your content is so unique! Can't wait new video about pinhole/large format cameras in 2021, I'm thinking about building my own darkroom and lf. camera in near future :) Yeah... maybe something about making pictures using large format camera maybe even with pinhole idk. :) But till now... Merry Christmas & Happy New Year Arthur!

[@mike747436]

Just getting in to this type of photography and your presentation is very useful. Thanks.

[@mikebing9589]

This is absolutely awesome!

[@rngr900]

very cool analysis. Thank you. I now have a small clue of what to do with my pin hole camera.

[@PiratePhD]

Very informative video. Thank you. I already have a pre-made pinhole camera and its pinhole size fits the formula. I might start building my own cameras now :)

[@danko6582]

I'm sure that I'll come across this video next time I'm making a pinhole and just want to remind myself of this formula: d = 2√(fλ) , i.e. optimal pinhole diameter is twice the square root of focal length multiplied by the wavelength of light, and a green-yellow light is around 550nm.

[@alebenages745]

Wonderfull explanation! Thank you so much.

[@martinglader4681]

A very good video, very instructive and so are the rest in your series of pinhole photography. I have ordered a 0,4 mm pinhole and I am going to build a 4x5" (as I have 4x5" film holders) f110 mm camera. A practical question: Where did you get the treads for the tripod?

[@TheScienceofPhotography]

amzn.to/2Sq8a7t They are commonly called threaded inserts. The most standard tripod mounting plates use a 1/4" by 20 size screw. Available many places online or at the hardware store.

[@keeszondervrees8787]

If there is an optimal pinhole for a certain focal length, then there is also an optimal focal length for a certain pinhole... I have a 4x5 view camera, so variable focal lengths, and a pinhole of 0.5 mm. How do I calculate that optimal focal length... Or rather, what is my ideal focal length for landscapes? Please, please...

[@TheScienceofPhotography]

True, we just have to solve the equation for f (focal length). so for d = 0.5 you would get: 0.5^2 / (2.44 * 0.00055) = 186.289mm focal length assuming focusing at infinity. on 4x5 this is close to the angle of view of a normal lens, so maybe not ideal for wide angle landscape photography. Something like a 0.3mm pinhole would be a better choice. I have another video on my channel that shows the effects of blur (from pinhole too big) and diffraction (pinhole too small). It turns out that the effects of diffraction have a much less significant impact on image quality. So for any given pinhole, use the optimal focal length OR GREATER So your 0.5mm is optimal at 186mm, but can be used past that. A 0.3mm is optimal at 67mm, but even using it at 90mm (standard wide on 4x5) will give good results. For any focal length you will need to calculate the F-Stop as focal length/diameter for proper exposures. Hope this helps!

[@hiuyuc24]

Does pinhole camera has the Closest Focusing Distance? If yes, how to know?

[@hiuyuc24]

Sometimes, images blur if too close to the subject ….

[@tobiasx8312]

Wow thanks for the great series :) At 20:22 the image looks really great, is there a video of how you edit your pinhole images? That would be very interesting. Greetings from Detuschland, Tobias.

[@TheScienceofPhotography]

I have not made a video on my editing process, but I definitely should. Thanks for commenting! Glad you like the videos.

[@ADiConsultores]

Great video!!! was what I needed for designing my pinhole cameras... I deviced another formula since I can not control the diameter of the pinhole, so instead of determining the diameter of the pinhole based on a projection distance, I inverted the concept and used the formula to get the F distance based on the diameter: [F=d2/0.001342] where 0.001342 is lambda (550nm) times 2.44... what do you think??

[@TheScienceofPhotography]

That will work. Your method assumes that M=0 which is true for most cameras (it basically means you're "focused" at infinity). If you plan on doing macro work you would need to calculate the magnification and then do [d^2 * (1+M)]/0.001342. Good luck with your build!

[@standvm]

Hi, how do I figure out the size of an image that would be created to cover the sensor perfectly so I get a full image? I guess how do you determine the size of the box vs size of the final image?

[@TheScienceofPhotography]

Exactly covering the sensor perfectly should not be your goal when designing a pinhole camera, you just need to make sure you have at least enough coverage to cover the entire sensor/film. The projected image will be a circle of light while your sensor is more than likely some kind of rectangle. You just need the image circle to be bigger than the sensor. I have another video on angle of coverage that should help, but in short, the thickness of material and the diameter of the pinhole will impact the size of the image circle.

[@joe-uq7qi]

Thank you

[@Michal025]

Great explanation

[@jasperdillberry4485]

You didn't give a justification for your use of 2.44 as a constant. My understanding is that this number is a bit contentious and is usually cited as 1.89 or 1.56

[@TheScienceofPhotography]

There should be no contention about the number used as the constant. It is mathematically and scientifically proven to be 2.44 as I illustrated in my discussion about Airy Disks. An optical system does not image a point to a point. An Airy disk is produced having a bright central core surrounded by diffraction rings. An image is considered resolved using the baseline criterion which requires that the plot of the spectrum return to baseline at some point between the two signals. Using the model for an Airy Disk the first zero of the function is at a radius of 1.22. So if you have the central bright spot at a radius of 1.22 then its diameter is 2.44. Now imagine two circles that are the same size and next to each other touching on the edge. The distance from the center of one circle to the other is twice the radius or 2.44. If that distance between the two circle centers was less than 2.44 then the circles would be overlapping (like in a Venn Diagram) and the image would not be able to be resolved.

[@wmwragg]

It's not quite as clear cut as that, as it depends what you are optimizing for. The value of 2.44 (1.562) optimizes for contrast, and as you say, it's not up for debate, it's physics. Photography is an art form though, and optimizing for contrast doesn't necessarily give the best aesthetically sharp image, this is why, while 1.562 is the optimal value for contrast, artists have chosen to use other, usually slightly larger values, usually between 1.7 and 1.8, as these values seem to sacrifice a little contrast, for an aesthetically sharper image. These larger constants are often obtained through trial and error testing, and use the artists aesthetic sensibilities to determine the value to use. Personally I chose to use 1.562 for small focal lengths up to about 30mm, and 1.7 for focal lengths larger than that. www.onlandscape.co.uk has a nice demonstration of this practical optimization process in their "The Science and Aesthetics of the Hole" article, and also shows the impact on the image that the method of pinhole creation has.

[@alimaleki9482]

Thanks a lot.

[@idmuoi]

Out of curiousity what would happen and the result you'll get if the value of of landa changes?

[@TheScienceofPhotography]

A higher lambda (like 700nm for the red part of the spectrum) would mean you could use a bigger pinhole whereas if you were shooting things in the blue part of the spectrum (~400nm) you would need a smaller pinhole to be optimal. The difference would be very small though, and you should always error on the side of making a smaller pinhole. The most important is to have as round a shape as possible.

[@wullieg7269]

So you can use Konica 750 nm,cool.

[@AClarke2007]

Could also hack an old Leaf Shutter?!

[@namesurename-fotografiaana3168]

Great!

[@arifkizilay]

Hi, I am not a mathematician, I appreciate what you did, but I wonder if you can explain it in a way that is intuitional, logical, and more physical to everyone. Thank you so much.

[@ThomRoelink]

I had maths in high school and the theory is understandable for me

[@my_negative_world]

At first the video looks like a usual one but everything goes into the area of crazy madness... I got a C from math this year

[@fedor1963]

в самом начале мог принять М = 0 и упростить выкладки

[@wullieg7269]

The circles of confusion,people think your mad if you mention.