Re: Large formad drawback?

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Thom) wrote:

> On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 23:00:51 -0800, Crownfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> [...]
> >not everyone agrees with you. for example,
> >http://www.isorainbow.com/tech/depth.html

> I went to the website and they are totally wrong.  I went thru Brooks
> and we were not only told the same thing we had an assignment to prove
> it.

This is getting more interesting. Where is the formula was wrong? In the
terms of the CoC perhaps?

> The only exception is that Australian designed movie lens where
> everything is in focus but it is so weird and far out of what we're
> talking about its not relivant.

I want to know more about that wierd lens. Optics is optics, right? How
can it follow different physical laws? Serious question. I'm not needling
you.