# Reikan target focus.



## Valvebounce (Sep 9, 2015)

Hi Folks. 
I have just been doing AFMA using Reikan Fo Cal Pro 2. 
I just wondered if anyone knows why despite having what appears to be real crisp focus on the target setup the QoF images, the ones in the boxes with the numbers like 1532, the ones where it says ensure the after AFMA shot is sharper than the before, always look so bloody fuzzy? I mean how the heck am I supposed to tell the difference between two fuzzy images, is it sufficient to just compare the numbers, or should these images actually look as sharp as the target setup image? 

Thanks in advance for help here. 

Cheers, Graham.


----------



## kaihp (Sep 9, 2015)

Valvebounce said:


> Hi Folks.
> I have just been doing AFMA using Reikan Fo Cal Pro 2.
> I just wondered if anyone knows why despite having what appears to be real crisp focus on the target setup the QoF images, the ones in the boxes with the numbers like 1532, the ones where it says ensure the after AFMA shot is sharper than the before, always look so bloody fuzzy? I mean how the heck am I supposed to tell the difference between two fuzzy images, is it sufficient to just compare the numbers, or should these images actually look as sharp as the target setup image?



Hi Graham,

What you describe sounds odd to me. I can (almost) always see a marked difference between the High and Low QoF images. I don't have my camera at the computer to test, but I need to click on the individual points to see the "focus peek" images change and the QoF change. Doesn't that happen to you?
Also, which TR version are you using?


----------



## Valvebounce (Sep 10, 2015)

Hi Kai. 
Using the FoCal 2.??.?? whatever, latest version I just got notified about fixes, downloaded and installed If I pick worst and best then yes I see a marked difference, but between the previous best 0, and new best +1 scores differ by ten to fifty points, I see no discernible difference, might be down to laptop screen perhaps. 
My main query is the difference in the target setup image clarity and the relative fuzziness of both of the QoF images. 
I really should have done a screen capture to illustrate my point. 

Cheers, Graham.


----------



## kaihp (Sep 10, 2015)

Valvebounce said:


> Using the FoCal 2.??.?? whatever, latest version I just got notified about fixes, downloaded and installed If I pick worst and best then yes I see a marked difference, but between the previous best 0, and new best +1 scores differ by ten to fifty points, I see no discernible difference, might be down to laptop screen perhaps.


Right, I don't see a discernible difference there either. I just put it down to why we ask the computer to do the QoF evaluation and not use our subjective evaluation 



Valvebounce said:


> My main query is the difference in the target setup image clarity and the relative fuzziness of both of the QoF images.
> I really should have done a screen capture to illustrate my point.


I think I understand what you're getting at. I have always assumed that that was due to watching either a 100% crop vs a "full-frame" picture. The latter will obviously look sharper than the first, due to effective watching distance.


----------



## Valvebounce (Sep 11, 2015)

Hi Kai. 
Thanks for that, it seems like a reasonable explanation, providing it's not just my gear causing it somehow, ie others are seeing the same I'm not too worried. 

Cheers, Graham.


----------



## sedwards (Sep 11, 2015)

Graham , i have noticed the same thing .i was thinking it was the quality of the target i printed. i used heavy card stock and figured the ink was leaching causing not so crisp edges. it looks good to the naked eye but when zoomed in on the computer it isnt so nice. just a theory i have no proof.


----------



## Valvebounce (Sep 13, 2015)

Hi Sedwards. 
This was a path I took, printed own targets, saw the images on the screen, bought Reikan printed targets, still looks the same, although the numbers went up a few from the previous test, but this test was with the new version 2.x and the last was with 1.x, so that could be a comparing apples to oranges error. 

Cheers, Graham. 



sedwards said:


> Graham , i have noticed the same thing .i was thinking it was the quality of the target i printed. i used heavy card stock and figured the ink was leaching causing not so crisp edges. it looks good to the naked eye but when zoomed in on the computer it isnt so nice. just a theory i have no proof.


----------

