Field of view: Understanding the Basics

AI Thread Summary
Field of view (FOV) is defined as the angle that encompasses the area a camera can capture, often visualized as a triangle where the base represents the subject size and the height is the distance from the camera. The user conducted an experiment to calculate FOV by photographing a wall and measuring the number of bricks, which they used to determine the triangle's angles. While they initially described the triangle as equilateral, it was clarified that it should be isosceles. An alternative method for calculating FOV involves using the camera lens to focus sunlight onto a point, allowing for measurement of the focal length, though caution is advised due to the risk of fire. Understanding these concepts is essential for accurate photography and camera operation.
asa!!
Messages
32
Reaction score
0
Hi.i have a question about Field of view. I know that it is an angle showing on a triangle.inside the area of the triangle any object can be photographed .am i right?i know tha it is not a scientific explanation, i am just saying what i have understood.

i have a camera. I do not know the focal length nor the frame size.i want to calculate the FOV.listen to what i thought.i did an experiment.i was taking photos of a wall with bricks so as to be able to calculate the size of the wall i was phtographing each time (by measuring the number of bricks and multiplying with the length of the brick).at each photo i was changing the distance between the camera and the wall. i imagined a equilateral triangle.the base is the size of the wall.the height is the distance between the camera and the wall. from there i calculated the tangent of the half angle of the triangle.then i found the half angle , multiplied it by two and i found the whole angle of the triangle. i think this is the FOV.am i right or i have done silly things?thank you very much
 
Physics news on Phys.org
What you did sounds right to me, but I think you meant isoscelese, rather than "equilateral".
 
Didn't you post this the other day?
 
yes i did but you confused me a little bit with the number of pints.and since i did not get any other replies i post it again!thanks
 
How come u don't know the frame size??

Anyway it's right what u do, there's another way..U can unmount the lens put it in direct sun light and try to gather the rays in a point on the surface, since direct sun light is in infinity and the rays will be gathered at the focal point u can measure the distance between the lens and the distance..Of course u've to move the lens back and forth to get the result...

But be carefull they say that such an act would create a burning fire, because the lens gathers heat on the surface..
 
Thread 'Gauss' law seems to imply instantaneous electric field propagation'

Thread 'Gauss' law seems to imply instantaneous electric field propagation'

Imagine a charged sphere at the origin connected through an open switch to a vertical grounded wire. We wish to find an expression for the horizontal component of the electric field at a distance ##\mathbf{r}## from the sphere as it discharges. By using the Lorenz gauge condition: $$\nabla \cdot \mathbf{A} + \frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial \phi}{\partial t}=0\tag{1}$$ we find the following retarded solutions to the Maxwell equations If we assume that...
View full post »

Thread 'Do electron density waves accompany EM waves in coaxial cables?'

Maxwell’s equations imply the following wave equation for the electric field $$\nabla^2\mathbf{E}-\frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial^2\mathbf{E}}{\partial t^2} = \frac{1}{\varepsilon_0}\nabla\rho+\mu_0\frac{\partial\mathbf J}{\partial t}.\tag{1}$$ I wonder if eqn.##(1)## can be split into the following transverse part $$\nabla^2\mathbf{E}_T-\frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial^2\mathbf{E}_T}{\partial t^2} = \mu_0\frac{\partial\mathbf{J}_T}{\partial t}\tag{2}$$ and longitudinal part...
View full post »
Thread 'Recovering Hamilton's Equations from Poisson brackets'

Thread 'Recovering Hamilton's Equations from Poisson brackets'

The issue : Let me start by copying and pasting the relevant passage from the text, thanks to modern day methods of computing. The trouble is, in equation (4.79), it completely ignores the partial derivative of ##q_i## with respect to time, i.e. it puts ##\partial q_i/\partial t=0##. But ##q_i## is a dynamical variable of ##t##, or ##q_i(t)##. In the derivation of Hamilton's equations from the Hamiltonian, viz. ##H = p_i \dot q_i-L##, nowhere did we assume that ##\partial q_i/\partial...
View full post »

Similar threads

Calculate Field of View (FOV): Step-by-Step Guide
Replies
2
Views
3K
Optical Measurements of the Sun's radiance and ray tracing
Replies
3
Views
2K
Archived (Optics) Vignetting and field of view
Replies
1
Views
4K
I Trouble understanding the idea of a cavity radiator being a Black Body
Replies
9
Views
3K
Electric forces and electric fields
Replies
2
Views
3K
Big Bang Big Schmang, astronomical redshift is an artifact of distance
Replies
1
Views
3K
Mathematica This Week's Finds in Mathematical Physics (Week 267)
Replies
1
Views
3K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top