As a DP, I don't use charts to find out if something was sharp enough when shooting at a wider aperture and the focus distance was off a bit during the take, especially not with digital where I can see for myself if the shot was sharp or not.
The charts are more useful for me when I'm planning ahead for a true deep focus shot and need to know just how far I will have to stop down. They are also useful for comparing formats of different sizes, if only to explain to other people what the issues were.
A crude rule to remember is that the crop factor between formats is also roughly the difference in depth of field once you match distance and field of view, so VistaVision / Full Frame has roughly 1.5-stops less depth of field compared to Super-35 (36mm wide format versus a 24mm wide format is a 1.5X difference) at the same shooting stop once you match distance and field of view. It just works out that way because, for example, if you choose a format that is twice as large, then for the same size image presentation, you can use half as critical a circle of confusion figure for the larger format (since it will be enlarged less than the smaller format to fill the same sized screen.)
So if you look on a chart and compare the depth of field of a 50mm lens versus a 25mm lens, you find that you have to stop down the 50mm lens by 4-stops to match the depth of field of the 25mm lens focused at the same distance.
However, when using that 25mm lens on a 16mm camera to match the field of view of a 50mm lens on a 35mm camera (I'm rounding off to make the math simpler), that 4-stops difference in depth of field gets cut in half because the circle of confusion figure is twice as critical for the smaller format, so the 25mm (on the 16mm camera) then only has a 2-stop difference in depth of field with the 50mm (on the 35mm camera.) So a format that is 2X larger also has 2-stops less depth of field on average (again, when shooting at the same stop, same distance, with the same field of view for the two formats).
However, my explanation is somewhat of a layman's interpretation and is not technically correct.