What is “focus distance lower/upper” and how is it different from depth of field?How to estimate depth of field?Why do depth of field calculators show *more* DOF for larger formats with the same lens parameters?How to calculate depth of field by using extension tubesdoes depth of field travel with the focal plane?Invariants in subject size and depth of field?How do depth of field and the circle of confusion relate to pixel size on the sensor?Why I am getting different values for depth of field from calculators vs in-camera DoF preview?How do I calculate the depth of field of cameras on mobile phones with auto focus?depth of field and f-stopAre all prime lenses designed so that the same DoF scale applies at any focusing distance? If so, why?

A diagram about partial derivatives of f(x,y)

Are all passive ability checks floors for active ability checks?

What is a ^ b and (a & b) << 1?

Is it normal that my co-workers at a fitness company criticize my food choices?

Shortcut for setting origin to vertex

How to plot polar formed complex numbers?

Min function accepting varying number of arguments in C++17

What do you call the act of removing a part of a word and replacing it with an apostrophe

What are substitutions for coconut in curry?

What is the significance behind "40 days" that often appears in the Bible?

How to explain that I do not want to visit a country due to personal safety concern?

What is "focus distance lower/upper" and how is it different from depth of field?

How to make healing in an exploration game interesting

Does this sum go infinity?

Why do tuner card drivers fail to build after kernel update to 4.4.0-143-generic?

Is there a hypothetical scenario that would make Earth uninhabitable for humans, but not for (the majority of) other animals?

A single argument pattern definition applies to multiple-argument patterns?

Is it possible to upcast ritual spells?

New passport but visa is in old (lost) passport

How do I change two letters closest to a string and one letter immediately after a string using Notepad++?

If I can solve Sudoku, can I solve the Travelling Salesman Problem (TSP)? If so, how?

My adviser wants to be the first author

What is the Japanese sound word for the clinking of money?

As a new Ubuntu desktop 18.04 LTS user, do I need to use ufw for a firewall or is iptables sufficient?



What is “focus distance lower/upper” and how is it different from depth of field?


How to estimate depth of field?Why do depth of field calculators show *more* DOF for larger formats with the same lens parameters?How to calculate depth of field by using extension tubesdoes depth of field travel with the focal plane?Invariants in subject size and depth of field?How do depth of field and the circle of confusion relate to pixel size on the sensor?Why I am getting different values for depth of field from calculators vs in-camera DoF preview?How do I calculate the depth of field of cameras on mobile phones with auto focus?depth of field and f-stopAre all prime lenses designed so that the same DoF scale applies at any focusing distance? If so, why?













3















I have taken two photographs on a Canon crop sensor camera: 18mm f/9 with the following exiftool output (the focus was approximately at 3.5 meters):



Focus Distance Upper : 5.27 m
Focus Distance Lower : 1.82 m
Depth Of Field : inf (1.24 m - inf)


And 50mm f/1.8 with the following exiftool output:



Focus Distance Upper : 1.99 m
Focus Distance Lower : 1.41 m
Depth Of Field : 0.08 m (1.66 - 1.74 m)


Now, I assume I know what depth of field means. It's the same thing as the one that will be given by a depth of field calculator such as http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html



But what are Focus Distance Upper and Focus Distance Lower?



Why in one of the pictures (shallow DoF) is the difference between focus distances higher than the DoF, and in the other picture (deep DoF) is the difference between focus distances lower than the DoF?










share|improve this question




























    3















    I have taken two photographs on a Canon crop sensor camera: 18mm f/9 with the following exiftool output (the focus was approximately at 3.5 meters):



    Focus Distance Upper : 5.27 m
    Focus Distance Lower : 1.82 m
    Depth Of Field : inf (1.24 m - inf)


    And 50mm f/1.8 with the following exiftool output:



    Focus Distance Upper : 1.99 m
    Focus Distance Lower : 1.41 m
    Depth Of Field : 0.08 m (1.66 - 1.74 m)


    Now, I assume I know what depth of field means. It's the same thing as the one that will be given by a depth of field calculator such as http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html



    But what are Focus Distance Upper and Focus Distance Lower?



    Why in one of the pictures (shallow DoF) is the difference between focus distances higher than the DoF, and in the other picture (deep DoF) is the difference between focus distances lower than the DoF?










    share|improve this question


























      3












      3








      3


      1






      I have taken two photographs on a Canon crop sensor camera: 18mm f/9 with the following exiftool output (the focus was approximately at 3.5 meters):



      Focus Distance Upper : 5.27 m
      Focus Distance Lower : 1.82 m
      Depth Of Field : inf (1.24 m - inf)


      And 50mm f/1.8 with the following exiftool output:



      Focus Distance Upper : 1.99 m
      Focus Distance Lower : 1.41 m
      Depth Of Field : 0.08 m (1.66 - 1.74 m)


      Now, I assume I know what depth of field means. It's the same thing as the one that will be given by a depth of field calculator such as http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html



      But what are Focus Distance Upper and Focus Distance Lower?



      Why in one of the pictures (shallow DoF) is the difference between focus distances higher than the DoF, and in the other picture (deep DoF) is the difference between focus distances lower than the DoF?










      share|improve this question
















      I have taken two photographs on a Canon crop sensor camera: 18mm f/9 with the following exiftool output (the focus was approximately at 3.5 meters):



      Focus Distance Upper : 5.27 m
      Focus Distance Lower : 1.82 m
      Depth Of Field : inf (1.24 m - inf)


      And 50mm f/1.8 with the following exiftool output:



      Focus Distance Upper : 1.99 m
      Focus Distance Lower : 1.41 m
      Depth Of Field : 0.08 m (1.66 - 1.74 m)


      Now, I assume I know what depth of field means. It's the same thing as the one that will be given by a depth of field calculator such as http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html



      But what are Focus Distance Upper and Focus Distance Lower?



      Why in one of the pictures (shallow DoF) is the difference between focus distances higher than the DoF, and in the other picture (deep DoF) is the difference between focus distances lower than the DoF?







      autofocus focus metadata depth-of-field






      share|improve this question















      share|improve this question













      share|improve this question




      share|improve this question








      edited 12 hours ago









      mattdm

      122k40357653




      122k40357653










      asked 13 hours ago









      juhistjuhist

      591112




      591112




















          2 Answers
          2






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          6














          The Focus Distance Upper and Focus Distance Lower tags are in the Canon-proprietary "maker notes" and aren't part of standard EXIF, so documentation is scarce. However, it appears that these (together) represent the distance at which the lens's focus is set. That is, it's somewhere between the two bounds.



          Why Canon does it this way rather than providing a single value (perhaps with second uncertainty or error value) is a mystery only Canon could resolve, and they don't seem to have publicly. Here's a forum post with some investigation: Re: Distance in EXIF.



          Note also that Depth of Field is an exiftool composite tag. The information there is not set directly by the camera — instead, Exiftool generates this from other data, including whatever hint it gets as to focus distance. From the docs, it looks like it uses the Upper and Lower values, but also other info, which may explain the disparity you note.



          In any case these values are approximate and should be taken as hints, rather than as gospel. Their original purpose is probably to hint at subject distance to aid the camera in making TTL flash power computations. They're not meant to be scientific measurements, or even photographic scene information (like GPS location tags or something).






          share|improve this answer

























          • Probably "approximate"; the Suggest Edit counts that as under 6 characters.

            – chrylis
            2 hours ago











          • @chrylis yes, thanks. perils of answering on one's phone and all that.

            – mattdm
            2 hours ago











          • I have no clue what the meaning of two focus distances might be, but just thinking about how it might originate..The camera can only obtain the distance from the lens rotation. Which cannot be a continuous value, it has to be reported as steps of rotation. It seems reasonable to assume these two adjacent values are the possible steps that can be reported. My guess is that true value is not the mean, it's just between these two. Look at the lens distance scale, how close together these two have to be. I think Nikon simply reports the one that is reported, so not very precise either.

            – WayneF
            8 mins ago



















          3














          As @mattdm found out, the FocusDistanceLower and FocusDistanceUpper, whatever they exactly mean, together denote the approximate focus distance. ExifTool then calculates depth of field based on these.



          I took a look at the ExifTool source code, and the DoF calculation desires:



          Desire => 
          3 => 'FocusDistance', # focus distance in metres (0 is infinity)
          4 => 'SubjectDistance',
          5 => 'ObjectDistance',
          6 => 'ApproximateFocusDistance ',
          7 => 'FocusDistanceLower',
          8 => 'FocusDistanceUpper',
          ,


          And if focus distance is not defined (all of 3, 4, 5 and 6 are undefined), it is calculated as follows:



          $d = ($val[7] + $val[8]) / 2;


          So, ExifTool is simply using the arithmetic mean of the two focus distances. Not sure if that's correct or if it's just an educated guess.



          Anyway, this probably doesn't matter as I don't trust in the accuracy of focus distance fields more than I would trust in the focus distance meter on a lens that happens to have one.






          share|improve this answer






















            Your Answer








            StackExchange.ready(function()
            var channelOptions =
            tags: "".split(" "),
            id: "61"
            ;
            initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

            StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
            // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
            if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
            StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
            createEditor();
            );

            else
            createEditor();

            );

            function createEditor()
            StackExchange.prepareEditor(
            heartbeatType: 'answer',
            autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
            convertImagesToLinks: false,
            noModals: true,
            showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
            reputationToPostImages: null,
            bindNavPrevention: true,
            postfix: "",
            imageUploader:
            brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
            contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
            allowUrls: true
            ,
            noCode: true, onDemand: true,
            discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
            ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
            );



            );













            draft saved

            draft discarded


















            StackExchange.ready(
            function ()
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphoto.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f105977%2fwhat-is-focus-distance-lower-upper-and-how-is-it-different-from-depth-of-field%23new-answer', 'question_page');

            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown

























            2 Answers
            2






            active

            oldest

            votes








            2 Answers
            2






            active

            oldest

            votes









            active

            oldest

            votes






            active

            oldest

            votes









            6














            The Focus Distance Upper and Focus Distance Lower tags are in the Canon-proprietary "maker notes" and aren't part of standard EXIF, so documentation is scarce. However, it appears that these (together) represent the distance at which the lens's focus is set. That is, it's somewhere between the two bounds.



            Why Canon does it this way rather than providing a single value (perhaps with second uncertainty or error value) is a mystery only Canon could resolve, and they don't seem to have publicly. Here's a forum post with some investigation: Re: Distance in EXIF.



            Note also that Depth of Field is an exiftool composite tag. The information there is not set directly by the camera — instead, Exiftool generates this from other data, including whatever hint it gets as to focus distance. From the docs, it looks like it uses the Upper and Lower values, but also other info, which may explain the disparity you note.



            In any case these values are approximate and should be taken as hints, rather than as gospel. Their original purpose is probably to hint at subject distance to aid the camera in making TTL flash power computations. They're not meant to be scientific measurements, or even photographic scene information (like GPS location tags or something).






            share|improve this answer

























            • Probably "approximate"; the Suggest Edit counts that as under 6 characters.

              – chrylis
              2 hours ago











            • @chrylis yes, thanks. perils of answering on one's phone and all that.

              – mattdm
              2 hours ago











            • I have no clue what the meaning of two focus distances might be, but just thinking about how it might originate..The camera can only obtain the distance from the lens rotation. Which cannot be a continuous value, it has to be reported as steps of rotation. It seems reasonable to assume these two adjacent values are the possible steps that can be reported. My guess is that true value is not the mean, it's just between these two. Look at the lens distance scale, how close together these two have to be. I think Nikon simply reports the one that is reported, so not very precise either.

              – WayneF
              8 mins ago
















            6














            The Focus Distance Upper and Focus Distance Lower tags are in the Canon-proprietary "maker notes" and aren't part of standard EXIF, so documentation is scarce. However, it appears that these (together) represent the distance at which the lens's focus is set. That is, it's somewhere between the two bounds.



            Why Canon does it this way rather than providing a single value (perhaps with second uncertainty or error value) is a mystery only Canon could resolve, and they don't seem to have publicly. Here's a forum post with some investigation: Re: Distance in EXIF.



            Note also that Depth of Field is an exiftool composite tag. The information there is not set directly by the camera — instead, Exiftool generates this from other data, including whatever hint it gets as to focus distance. From the docs, it looks like it uses the Upper and Lower values, but also other info, which may explain the disparity you note.



            In any case these values are approximate and should be taken as hints, rather than as gospel. Their original purpose is probably to hint at subject distance to aid the camera in making TTL flash power computations. They're not meant to be scientific measurements, or even photographic scene information (like GPS location tags or something).






            share|improve this answer

























            • Probably "approximate"; the Suggest Edit counts that as under 6 characters.

              – chrylis
              2 hours ago











            • @chrylis yes, thanks. perils of answering on one's phone and all that.

              – mattdm
              2 hours ago











            • I have no clue what the meaning of two focus distances might be, but just thinking about how it might originate..The camera can only obtain the distance from the lens rotation. Which cannot be a continuous value, it has to be reported as steps of rotation. It seems reasonable to assume these two adjacent values are the possible steps that can be reported. My guess is that true value is not the mean, it's just between these two. Look at the lens distance scale, how close together these two have to be. I think Nikon simply reports the one that is reported, so not very precise either.

              – WayneF
              8 mins ago














            6












            6








            6







            The Focus Distance Upper and Focus Distance Lower tags are in the Canon-proprietary "maker notes" and aren't part of standard EXIF, so documentation is scarce. However, it appears that these (together) represent the distance at which the lens's focus is set. That is, it's somewhere between the two bounds.



            Why Canon does it this way rather than providing a single value (perhaps with second uncertainty or error value) is a mystery only Canon could resolve, and they don't seem to have publicly. Here's a forum post with some investigation: Re: Distance in EXIF.



            Note also that Depth of Field is an exiftool composite tag. The information there is not set directly by the camera — instead, Exiftool generates this from other data, including whatever hint it gets as to focus distance. From the docs, it looks like it uses the Upper and Lower values, but also other info, which may explain the disparity you note.



            In any case these values are approximate and should be taken as hints, rather than as gospel. Their original purpose is probably to hint at subject distance to aid the camera in making TTL flash power computations. They're not meant to be scientific measurements, or even photographic scene information (like GPS location tags or something).






            share|improve this answer















            The Focus Distance Upper and Focus Distance Lower tags are in the Canon-proprietary "maker notes" and aren't part of standard EXIF, so documentation is scarce. However, it appears that these (together) represent the distance at which the lens's focus is set. That is, it's somewhere between the two bounds.



            Why Canon does it this way rather than providing a single value (perhaps with second uncertainty or error value) is a mystery only Canon could resolve, and they don't seem to have publicly. Here's a forum post with some investigation: Re: Distance in EXIF.



            Note also that Depth of Field is an exiftool composite tag. The information there is not set directly by the camera — instead, Exiftool generates this from other data, including whatever hint it gets as to focus distance. From the docs, it looks like it uses the Upper and Lower values, but also other info, which may explain the disparity you note.



            In any case these values are approximate and should be taken as hints, rather than as gospel. Their original purpose is probably to hint at subject distance to aid the camera in making TTL flash power computations. They're not meant to be scientific measurements, or even photographic scene information (like GPS location tags or something).







            share|improve this answer














            share|improve this answer



            share|improve this answer








            edited 2 hours ago

























            answered 13 hours ago









            mattdmmattdm

            122k40357653




            122k40357653












            • Probably "approximate"; the Suggest Edit counts that as under 6 characters.

              – chrylis
              2 hours ago











            • @chrylis yes, thanks. perils of answering on one's phone and all that.

              – mattdm
              2 hours ago











            • I have no clue what the meaning of two focus distances might be, but just thinking about how it might originate..The camera can only obtain the distance from the lens rotation. Which cannot be a continuous value, it has to be reported as steps of rotation. It seems reasonable to assume these two adjacent values are the possible steps that can be reported. My guess is that true value is not the mean, it's just between these two. Look at the lens distance scale, how close together these two have to be. I think Nikon simply reports the one that is reported, so not very precise either.

              – WayneF
              8 mins ago


















            • Probably "approximate"; the Suggest Edit counts that as under 6 characters.

              – chrylis
              2 hours ago











            • @chrylis yes, thanks. perils of answering on one's phone and all that.

              – mattdm
              2 hours ago











            • I have no clue what the meaning of two focus distances might be, but just thinking about how it might originate..The camera can only obtain the distance from the lens rotation. Which cannot be a continuous value, it has to be reported as steps of rotation. It seems reasonable to assume these two adjacent values are the possible steps that can be reported. My guess is that true value is not the mean, it's just between these two. Look at the lens distance scale, how close together these two have to be. I think Nikon simply reports the one that is reported, so not very precise either.

              – WayneF
              8 mins ago

















            Probably "approximate"; the Suggest Edit counts that as under 6 characters.

            – chrylis
            2 hours ago





            Probably "approximate"; the Suggest Edit counts that as under 6 characters.

            – chrylis
            2 hours ago













            @chrylis yes, thanks. perils of answering on one's phone and all that.

            – mattdm
            2 hours ago





            @chrylis yes, thanks. perils of answering on one's phone and all that.

            – mattdm
            2 hours ago













            I have no clue what the meaning of two focus distances might be, but just thinking about how it might originate..The camera can only obtain the distance from the lens rotation. Which cannot be a continuous value, it has to be reported as steps of rotation. It seems reasonable to assume these two adjacent values are the possible steps that can be reported. My guess is that true value is not the mean, it's just between these two. Look at the lens distance scale, how close together these two have to be. I think Nikon simply reports the one that is reported, so not very precise either.

            – WayneF
            8 mins ago






            I have no clue what the meaning of two focus distances might be, but just thinking about how it might originate..The camera can only obtain the distance from the lens rotation. Which cannot be a continuous value, it has to be reported as steps of rotation. It seems reasonable to assume these two adjacent values are the possible steps that can be reported. My guess is that true value is not the mean, it's just between these two. Look at the lens distance scale, how close together these two have to be. I think Nikon simply reports the one that is reported, so not very precise either.

            – WayneF
            8 mins ago














            3














            As @mattdm found out, the FocusDistanceLower and FocusDistanceUpper, whatever they exactly mean, together denote the approximate focus distance. ExifTool then calculates depth of field based on these.



            I took a look at the ExifTool source code, and the DoF calculation desires:



            Desire => 
            3 => 'FocusDistance', # focus distance in metres (0 is infinity)
            4 => 'SubjectDistance',
            5 => 'ObjectDistance',
            6 => 'ApproximateFocusDistance ',
            7 => 'FocusDistanceLower',
            8 => 'FocusDistanceUpper',
            ,


            And if focus distance is not defined (all of 3, 4, 5 and 6 are undefined), it is calculated as follows:



            $d = ($val[7] + $val[8]) / 2;


            So, ExifTool is simply using the arithmetic mean of the two focus distances. Not sure if that's correct or if it's just an educated guess.



            Anyway, this probably doesn't matter as I don't trust in the accuracy of focus distance fields more than I would trust in the focus distance meter on a lens that happens to have one.






            share|improve this answer



























              3














              As @mattdm found out, the FocusDistanceLower and FocusDistanceUpper, whatever they exactly mean, together denote the approximate focus distance. ExifTool then calculates depth of field based on these.



              I took a look at the ExifTool source code, and the DoF calculation desires:



              Desire => 
              3 => 'FocusDistance', # focus distance in metres (0 is infinity)
              4 => 'SubjectDistance',
              5 => 'ObjectDistance',
              6 => 'ApproximateFocusDistance ',
              7 => 'FocusDistanceLower',
              8 => 'FocusDistanceUpper',
              ,


              And if focus distance is not defined (all of 3, 4, 5 and 6 are undefined), it is calculated as follows:



              $d = ($val[7] + $val[8]) / 2;


              So, ExifTool is simply using the arithmetic mean of the two focus distances. Not sure if that's correct or if it's just an educated guess.



              Anyway, this probably doesn't matter as I don't trust in the accuracy of focus distance fields more than I would trust in the focus distance meter on a lens that happens to have one.






              share|improve this answer

























                3












                3








                3







                As @mattdm found out, the FocusDistanceLower and FocusDistanceUpper, whatever they exactly mean, together denote the approximate focus distance. ExifTool then calculates depth of field based on these.



                I took a look at the ExifTool source code, and the DoF calculation desires:



                Desire => 
                3 => 'FocusDistance', # focus distance in metres (0 is infinity)
                4 => 'SubjectDistance',
                5 => 'ObjectDistance',
                6 => 'ApproximateFocusDistance ',
                7 => 'FocusDistanceLower',
                8 => 'FocusDistanceUpper',
                ,


                And if focus distance is not defined (all of 3, 4, 5 and 6 are undefined), it is calculated as follows:



                $d = ($val[7] + $val[8]) / 2;


                So, ExifTool is simply using the arithmetic mean of the two focus distances. Not sure if that's correct or if it's just an educated guess.



                Anyway, this probably doesn't matter as I don't trust in the accuracy of focus distance fields more than I would trust in the focus distance meter on a lens that happens to have one.






                share|improve this answer













                As @mattdm found out, the FocusDistanceLower and FocusDistanceUpper, whatever they exactly mean, together denote the approximate focus distance. ExifTool then calculates depth of field based on these.



                I took a look at the ExifTool source code, and the DoF calculation desires:



                Desire => 
                3 => 'FocusDistance', # focus distance in metres (0 is infinity)
                4 => 'SubjectDistance',
                5 => 'ObjectDistance',
                6 => 'ApproximateFocusDistance ',
                7 => 'FocusDistanceLower',
                8 => 'FocusDistanceUpper',
                ,


                And if focus distance is not defined (all of 3, 4, 5 and 6 are undefined), it is calculated as follows:



                $d = ($val[7] + $val[8]) / 2;


                So, ExifTool is simply using the arithmetic mean of the two focus distances. Not sure if that's correct or if it's just an educated guess.



                Anyway, this probably doesn't matter as I don't trust in the accuracy of focus distance fields more than I would trust in the focus distance meter on a lens that happens to have one.







                share|improve this answer












                share|improve this answer



                share|improve this answer










                answered 10 hours ago









                juhistjuhist

                591112




                591112



























                    draft saved

                    draft discarded
















































                    Thanks for contributing an answer to Photography Stack Exchange!


                    • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                    But avoid


                    • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                    • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

                    To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                    draft saved


                    draft discarded














                    StackExchange.ready(
                    function ()
                    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphoto.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f105977%2fwhat-is-focus-distance-lower-upper-and-how-is-it-different-from-depth-of-field%23new-answer', 'question_page');

                    );

                    Post as a guest















                    Required, but never shown





















































                    Required, but never shown














                    Required, but never shown












                    Required, but never shown







                    Required, but never shown

































                    Required, but never shown














                    Required, but never shown












                    Required, but never shown







                    Required, but never shown







                    Popular posts from this blog

                    Bett Inhaltsverzeichnis Geschichte | Bettformen | Bettgrößen | Andere Bezeichnungen | Bettenmangel | Betten in der bildenden Kunst | Schlafmedizinische Gesichtspunkte | Siehe auch | Literatur | Weblinks | Einzelnachweise | NavigationsmenüBett, Bettstatt, BettstelleCommons: BettBabybetten: Anwendung, Ausstattungsmerkmale und VergleichskriterienWasserbetten. Vorurteile im TestHapfnNursch10.1007/s11818-012-0584-74006250-8AKS4329276-8

                    Luksemburg Sisukord Nimi | Asend | Loodus | Riigikord | Haldusjaotus | Rahvastik | Riigikaitse | Majandus | Taristu | Ajalugu | Eesti ja Luksemburgi suhted | Haridus | Kultuur | Vaata ka | Viited | Välislingid | Navigeerimismenüü50° N, 6° EÜlevaade Luksemburgi kaitsealadest.Luksemburgi rahvaarv. Statistikaamet.World Bank'i andmebaasÜlevaade Luksemburgi loodusest.Ülevaade Luksemburgi metsadest.Guy Colling. "Red List of the Vascular Plants of Luxembourg." Travaux scientifiques du Musée national d’histoire naturelle Luxembourg. 2005.Luxembourg’s biodiversity at risk.Maailma kahepaiksete andmebaas.Denis Lepage. "Luxembourg." Avibase.Ülevaade temperatuuridest. Luksemburgi meteoroloogiateenistus.Ülevaade Luksemburgist. Euroopa Liidu esinduse koduleht.Système politique. TerritoireÜlevaade Luksemburgi rahvastikust. Luksemburgi statistikaamet.Luksemburgi rahvastik. Luksemburgi statistikaamet.The World FactbookMonique Borsenberger, Paul Dickes. "Religions au Luxembourg. Quelle évolution entre 1999-2008". Luksemburgi statistikaamet. 2011.Luksemburgi peapiiskopkond. Catholic-Hierarchy.Luksemburgi armee koduleht.Luksemburgi armee relvastus.Eesti Välisministeerium.Luksemburgi rahvastik. Luksemburgi statistikaamet.Luksemburgi Eesti Seltsi koduleht.Helen Eelrand. "Raadio, mis muutis maailma." Eesti Päevaleht. 13. märts 2004.Ülevaade Luksemburgi haridussüsteemist.Ülevaade Luksemburgi keskkoolidest.Luksemburgr

                    Valle di Casies Indice Geografia fisica | Origini del nome | Storia | Società | Amministrazione | Sport | Note | Bibliografia | Voci correlate | Altri progetti | Collegamenti esterni | Menu di navigazione46°46′N 12°11′E / 46.766667°N 12.183333°E46.766667; 12.183333 (Valle di Casies)46°46′N 12°11′E / 46.766667°N 12.183333°E46.766667; 12.183333 (Valle di Casies)Sito istituzionaleAstat Censimento della popolazione 2011 - Determinazione della consistenza dei tre gruppi linguistici della Provincia Autonoma di Bolzano-Alto Adige - giugno 2012Numeri e fattiValle di CasiesDato IstatTabella dei gradi/giorno dei Comuni italiani raggruppati per Regione e Provincia26 agosto 1993, n. 412Heraldry of the World: GsiesStatistiche I.StatValCasies.comWikimedia CommonsWikimedia CommonsValle di CasiesSito ufficialeValle di CasiesMM14870458910042978-6