> „bokeh-ness“ mano galva (neturiu citatos prieš akis) norėta dar labiau pabrėžti kokybinę dalį, kad tai yra savybė, ne matas, 
> maždaug „bokiškumas“. Šiaip kaip ir nesu matęs, kad tokį žodį naudotų, kaip ir „bokiškumas“ :)

Jauciu vel nesuvedziau..

http://web.archive.org/web/20131031041406/http://toothwalker.org/optics/bokeh.html
With increasing "bokeh-ness", this blur disk is characterized by
1) A size. => amount of blur => larger aperture comes = more blurred background
2) A shape.
3) The light distribution across the disk.

Bet dar paskaiciau - ir ten nesuveda i ta "absolute blur of backgroud".. tarsi sako ziurek relative blur...

http://web.archive.org/web/20131031052024/http://toothwalker.org/optics/dof.html
 100-mm image seems more blurred than the background in the 28-mm image.
This is true when we speak of the absolute blur. The absolute blur is given by the blur disk diameter
 of a point in the background, such as the highlight reflections off the cars in the street.
However, when we speak of the relative blur we must relate the
blur disk size to the "image magnification" of the background.

*********

Bandau risti diskusija.. reikia sakyti* "grazus fonas = fainas boke + fainai paplautas (blur'o kiekis)"..
t.y. fonas = kokybe (boke) + kiekybe (blur, tiek absoliutinis, tiek santykinis, tiek ...
 visa kita, kas vyksta uz DOF, ko necharakterizuoja boke)..

* - arba nesakyti savoku ir savaip apibudinti "kas ten ir kodel patinka"..