On Sun, 23 Dec 2001 01:11:47 +0000, Tony Morgan wrote:

>In article , Seattle Eric
> writes
>> At a more fundamental level, purchase cameras with the biggest chips
>>you can. With the way the optics work, 35mm has less DOF than 16mm,
>>16mm has less DOF than 8mm. IOW, the imaging area has a relationship to
>>DOF.

>I'm not sure if this is true, since the circle of confusion is the
>physical size on one pixel on the CCD. Add to this the trend of modern
>1/4" CCDs to have very high pixel densities - so the circle of confusion
>is physically smaller.

(I trust a cold allows me to be coherent...;-)
I just went to your web page, and I immediately saw
an explanation for the (correct) lesser DOFocus with a
WA compared with a tele explained incorrectly...
(One can assume a flat focus plane for all lenses
in these discussions - though it is rarely true...).
And the specifications for DOField are WAY too
limited (see my post, above...).
Also, for a given angle of view on a video camera
vs., say, 4x5, the difference in DOF is ***quite***
large, indicating that format size does affect
DOF... You also mis-define how the aperture value is
arrived at (assuming I read what you wrote correctly
through this snot haze I'm dealing with...;-)