However, I cannot manage to make the circle itself blurry. What the shadowBlur property basically does is painting some blur effect after the regular circle has been drawn. What I've tried so far I've put on jsFiddle.
As can be seen, it's a solid filled circle with some blur effect around it - the two parts do not blend into each other at all. What I actually would like to achieve is that the circle itself is fully blurred like this:
Circle Blur Effect Download
Download File 🔥 https://blltly.com/2yGBos 🔥
So, with these three concepts, we know that whether you use a different camera format or just crop your image area within the same format is immaterial. Either way: if you are satisfied that your specific version of a smaller film-back has enough resolution and low enough noise for your purposes, then you can use the smaller film-back rather than a tighter aperture to increase your depth of field (or a larger film-back to reduce it).
I think that within the scope of the 2000-word canvas, the article could have not only been clearer about these basic concepts (and not misrepresented them as master-level) but also gone slighlty further into some deeper underlying concepts.
Moreover it could have included some of the actual practical mathematical relationships. The article tries to impress us by sounding mathematical and mentioning some depth-of field numbers and focal length numbers, but it ends up using them only anecdotally and not even mentioning (let alone explaining) any coherent or usable mathematical relationship. If the author has to leave out math for fear of losing audience and ad revenue, that's fine, but in that case using pseudo-math to sound authoritative is misleading.
In terms of perspective and framing only (not necessarily depth of field or resolution or grain/noise or optical aberation or anything else), any two images with the entrance pupil in the same position looking at the same scene will yield the same frame if they have the same Angle Of View, regardless of film-back size. This can be calculated simply and unambiguously:
Below is one image from an Alexa camera using an 18mm lens and another image from an IMAX camera with a 50mm lens. The same scene was photographed by each camera, and each camera had its entrance pupil in the same position. The results shown here are extracted from the frame areas mentioned above (24.0mm on the Alexa sensor and 66.7mm on the IMAX film plane) and the math works:
The Blur Circle, of diameter C, in the focused object plane at distance S1, is an unfocused virtual image of the object at distance S2 as shown in the diagram. It depends only on these distances and the aperture diameter A, via similar triangles, independent of the lens focal length:
But for our purposes, though, we don't need the formula from Wikipedia because we only need to know that our two images have the same size blur circles; we don't need to know what that size is. So, here's how we can figure that out easily:
Now we have it! In order to match Blur Circles, we need to change the diameter of the aperture proportionally with the change in magnification. We almost could have guessed it right off without all this rigmarole: it makes total sense that, since the iris diameter is what makes the blur, all we need to do is scale our iris diameter proportionally as we scale the image magnification (it's actually inverse proportion -- to counteract the effect instead of compounding it).
Here's how we actually do it: The f/stop numbers are already proportional to the aperture diameter by their very definition, so all we have to do is multiply the f/number by the ratio of film-back sizes.
The two images have Blur Circles whose sizes at all distances from the focus plane match exactly as well as we'd predict! I say it this way because they match incredibly well but not quite perfectly. But even the fact that the match isn't perfect is correct and predicted by the concepts. Here are two reasons why the Blur Circle matches should be ever so slightly off from perfect:
1. Blur Circles are calculated with f/stop numbers but the lenses are marked in t/stops. The difference between t/stop and f/stop is not the same for different lens models, and the two cameras used different lens models.
As stated above, "perspective" properly means "a ray-traced projection of the 3D world onto a 2D plane." And, as such, perspective is determined only by the positon of the entrance pupil in space.
However, there are other attributes that could falsely appear to alter the perspective. These occur when the already-2D image is warped or distorted. In other words: when the 3D projection onto a 2D plane remains unchanged but the 2D image is warped. This could give the false sense of a different perspective.
There are many subtle examples of this, but an exaggerated example is when photographers use a view camera or swing/shift lenses to distort vanishing lines. If I take a photo of a tall building with the camera pointed up from the ground, I could use the view camera's lens to warp the image so that the vanishing lines of the building are wider at the top and narrower at the bottom. Although this might give the false impression that the camera was above building, the photo will still show the undersides of the building's balconies and not the top surface of the roof of the building. The warped image has the same perspective of the real 3D world as non-warped image, despite the fact that the warping may subjectively invoke an imagination of a different perspective.
This distinction is important to understand when we are flooded with deceptive rhetoric about different formats having different "perspective," because, for example, many anamorphic lenses project the 3D world onto a 2D plane with a geometry that is approximately equisolid whereas many spherical lenses project the 3D world onto a 2D plane with a geometry that is approximately rectilinear. This does not change the image's perspectival information about the real 3D world. It's merely a 2D warping of the image. Such a 2D warping done with camera optics is literally (not just approximately) the same as doing the same warping in post, using image processing.
This example of the view camera is exaggerated and does not apply to most practical circumstances, but the distinction it exemplifies is a very practical one, because real 3D perspective cannot be changed in image processing (not easily, anyway; it can be changed as a time-consuming and complex visual effect by a talented artist), whereas it is trivially simple in post to distort or un-distort the type of 2D image-warping that differentiates various lens models.
Note that in the image examples on this page, I have not done any processing of the images to equalize the not-identical 2D warping of the various lens models used. This is significant because: look at how similar they already are without any such processing, and yet even the remaining minor variances could be equalized easily with a simple image processing step.
I am following a tutorial which is far too quick for me to see what is being done, I am trying to smooth a kind of blur effect, it looks like it's blur being used, but when I try something similar it doesn't seem to achieve the same effect, infact it looks pretty bad.
Create all the shapes, group the internal shapes that are to be blurred, then select the outer most shape, and Copy and Paste in Place. Select both outer shape and inner group, then click Object > Clip > Set.
Sometimes I want to apply a blur effect to a circle, but I would like it be "lose its strength" from the center to the borders. Like, at the very center it should be 100%, but at the very border, it should be 0, so that there would be no visible edge to the effect, it would appear as a continuous transition to the regular image. Is there any easy way of doing it? (It I could select the percentages at different distances from the center, it would be extra awesome.)
The usual way to pretend effects have a strength filter is to make a copy of the layer you want to edit, apply the effect to the copy, and use the erase tool, then merge the layers. Works for any effect/adjustment, but it's fairly primitive and there's no precision.
For precise or specific patterns, there's alpha mask plugins, which basically set the alpha (alpha=transparency) to the brightness of a black-and-white image. That's like using a strength map. Probably your best bet if you really want perfect continuity.
Then there's plugins that can edit channels, in particular inverting alpha. You can do the layer copy trick and instead of using erase tool, use the radial gradient in transparent mode (both colors must be transparent), click center of your circle and drag the gradient to the edge. This'll erase continuously from the center to the edges, then you can invert the alpha.
Let's say I have a portrait and I want to apply a Gaussian blur around the the edges of the image but leave the face un-blurred, how would I do this? Ideally i'm looking for something like the vignette tool where I can change the shape, size and intensity of the effect but instead of applying shadow it's applying the blur. Is there such a tool in AP?
Hi yeah I could create it "manually" but there's no easy way to change things with the selection as i'm experimenting. You could manually create a vignette as well using the same process but there's a dedicated tool for exactly this purpose that makes it very easy to adjust the exposure, hardness, scale and shape of the selection (as well as the split view\mirror previews). These are exactly the same parameters i'd like to change when applying a blur. I guess from your response there's no tool to do this?
If I make an oval selection around the subject, then tell it to invert the selection, I cannot get a feathered edge no matter how high I set the feathering (under Select) In fact, as I increase the Feather, it brings in the selection border from around the outside edge of the photograph, not wanted since it lightens the blur effect around the edge of the photo. 152ee80cbc
download online walkie talkie pro