Where does the 3D look come from? - FM Forums

Register · Search · Software · Join Upload & Sell · Hosting

Moderated by: Fred Miranda

FM Forums \| Alternative Gear & Lenses \| Join Upload & Sell	Search Used
1 2 3 … 17 18 19 … 22 23 end

Archive 2007 · Where does the 3D look come from?

DrPablo
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.18 #1 · Where does the 3D look come from?

I've only seen that when the DOF isn't shallow enough, which often happens when I use the 80/2.8 indoors. The 150/4 is always very smooth.

May 18, 2007 at 08:28 PM

carstenw
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.18 #2 · Where does the 3D look come from?

Hey Andi, well it looks like I put words in your mouth that weren't there. Oops. I guess I was extending your question in my head without realising it.

Richard, that sharpness differential surprises me a bit. Is the Zeiss as sharp when you nail it? In these images I don't really see any difference in the 3D effect, just the lower sharpness and harsher bokeh in the Zeiss shot. Am I imagining things or does the Canon have more CA?

It may be, as Andi mentioned, that the connection between foreground and background is very important for a 3D look, hence a wide open lens may not give the best 3D look. The Zeiss bokeh helps it here, because the background has the more defined appearance, whereas the Leica look loses out, given its typical sudden isolation effect.

May 19, 2007 at 09:23 AM

Pham Minh Son
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.18 #3 · Where does the 3D look come from?

The reason that the Zeiss lens for the Hasselblad V system has smoother bokeh over the Contax 645 and RTS 135 mm system is purely due to bigger image circle.
-Son

May 19, 2007 at 02:02 PM

Pham Minh Son
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.18 #4 · Where does the 3D look come from?

Zeiss 3-D characteristics is attributed to its micro-contrast.

May 19, 2007 at 02:07 PM

brainiac
Offline
Dedicated FM
Account Locked

p.18 #5 · Where does the 3D look come from?

> Richard, that sharpness differential surprises me a bit. Is the Zeiss as sharp when you nail it?

I think this is about as sharp as f2 gets on that lens. I think the Canon is indeed sharper wide open. By f4 the contest was much more even.

> In these images I don't really see any difference in the 3D effect, just the lower sharpness and harsher bokeh in the Zeiss shot.

I agree. But I would call the bokeh 'crystalline', not harsh :) I think it's quite interesting and dynamic.

> Am I imagining things or does the Canon have more CA?

Actually the sharp-edged highlights in the Zeiss bokeh show clear chromatic aberration. Their centres are pink and their edges are green. Equally the dark bars have greenish centres and red edges. There is noticably less CA in the Canon's bokeh.

> Zeiss bokeh helps it here, because the background has the more defined appearance, whereas the Leica look loses out, given its typical sudden isolation effect.

I think that's a good hunch. After all, if the blurred areas have a tendency to form these sharp artefacts around high contrast edges, then slightly blurred object edges will seem to sharpen up too, and voila, the object stands out from its surroundings more than else it might: greater depth of field, more 3D, and 'crystalline' bokeh may go hand in hand. That would explain why the beautiful Leica bokeh seems to come with less 3D.

Does this have any bearing on the dark line around the lighthouse?

May 19, 2007 at 04:58 PM

DrPablo
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.18 #6 · Where does the 3D look come from?

brainiac wrote:
Actually the sharp-edged highlights in the Zeiss bokeh show clear chromatic aberration. Their centres are pink and their edges are green. Equally the dark bars have greenish centres and red edges. There is noticably less CA in the Canon's bokeh.

Is it really CA when you're describing an out of focus area? Chromatic aberration arises when the lens doesn't focus different wavelengths on the same plane. Emphasis on focus, because the corrections are made specifically for the areas in focus. I don't think you can call it "chromatic aberration" when it's out of focus...

May 19, 2007 at 06:12 PM

carstenw
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.18 #7 · Where does the 3D look come from?

The CA I was referring to was some colour fringes around the pieces of the headlight, not in the background.

May 19, 2007 at 06:49 PM

PeterSalaj
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.18 #8 · Where does the 3D look come from?

I think this photo has 3D look: 10D, 85mm f2.8
This image is copyrighted by the owner

This image is copyrighted by the owner

May 20, 2007 at 11:00 AM

brainiac
Offline
Dedicated FM
Account Locked

p.18 #9 · Where does the 3D look come from?

BTW, I am quite happy with the 3D effect from my Canon 16-35 mk II. Seems better than the old one. The corners still aren't often sharp, but 98% of the image is great.

May 26, 2007 at 11:07 AM

brainiac
Offline
Dedicated FM
Account Locked

p.18 #10 · Where does the 3D look come from?

Zhang's beautiful red flower shot on this page:

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/385342/200

...is a great example of a shot that mysteriously lacks 3D where you would expect it to jump at you. It is taken with a Leica lens on a 5D, a camera that we know can do 3D superbly. More evidence for my theory that many Leica lenses, despite exceptional performance and qualities in all other respects, often dramatically lack 3D.

May 26, 2007 at 11:36 AM

s23chang
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.18 #11 · Where does the 3D look come from?

brainiac wrote:
Zhang's beautiful red flower shot on this page:

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/385342/200

...is a great example of a shot that mysteriously lacks 3D where you would expect it to jump at you. It is taken with a Leica lens on a 5D, a camera that we know can do 3D superbly. More evidence for my theory that many Leica lenses, despite exceptional performance and qualities in all other respects, often dramatically lack 3D.

I have seen many Carsten's Leica 80mm 1.4 on 5D shots and they look very 3D to me even more so than Zeiss. I really think it is how you take the picture not based on lens since you are not there when zhangp took the shot.
Same goes to the Leica APO 180mm Summicron castle shots as well.

Here are two cropped shots taken from your old thread posted here with Zeiss 200 vs Leica 180. The Leica looked more 3D to me where the eye really catched my attention. I really don't know exactly what evidence you have by claiming that Leica is lack of 3D look. I have shot with 35 summicon vs the Zeiss 35mm as well. The Leica looks more 3D to me as well. In your Canon vs Zeiss, I would think the Canon looks more 3D due to more "in focus" look.

old thread zeiss vs Leica

May 26, 2007 at 12:27 PM

Andi Dietrich
Offline
Dedicated FM
Account Locked

p.18 #12 · Where does the 3D look come from?

Can't see why Leica lenses would lack 3D

May 26, 2007 at 12:50 PM

brainiac
Offline
Dedicated FM
Account Locked

p.18 #13 · Where does the 3D look come from?

Here are two cropped shots taken from your old thread posted here with Zeiss 200 vs Leica 180. The Leica looked more 3D to me where the eye really catched my attention.

The Leica shot is more detailed. In my opinion sharp detail is not necessary for a strong 3D look. I found that despite the Leica's remarkable performance, quite often pictures from it looked a bit 2D to me. As a result I stuck with the less sharp lens because it conveyed to me a slightly more convincing reality.

> I really don't know exactly what evidence you have by claiming that Leica is lack of 3D look.

Zhang's flower image fails to give me an impression of space. It seems flat to me. What I see with my eyes is all the evidence I have, as always. If you don't feel the same about this picture, that interests me too. I wonder if I am imagining it. But when I look at it again, there it is. It is a subtle thing, but I can see that it looks too flat, so I don't feel that I am looking at a flower. It becomes a picture, not a thing.

> In your Canon vs Zeiss, I would think the Canon looks more 3D due to more "in focus" look.

In the bike shots it seems to me that the Canon is sharper, but no more 3D. I think Carsten concurred with me on that. 3D with sharpness is better than 3D without it, so I kept the Canon. However, very sharp pictures, with or without depth of field effects, don't always exhibit a credible sense of 3D. It is very hard to say why, but I think Zhang's flower is an example of that. It has wonderful sharpness though.

May 26, 2007 at 12:58 PM

brainiac
Offline
Dedicated FM
Account Locked

p.18 #14 · Where does the 3D look come from?

...and BTW, I still see a more convincing sense of 3D, and reality in the left of the two face close-ups that you kindly dug up from the archive, even though it is less sharp. As a result, I think I prefer the effect as it is less about photography and more about the thing itself.

May 26, 2007 at 01:10 PM

s23chang
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.18 #15 · Where does the 3D look come from?

I would think it is a matter of opinion rather than how you can actually "measure" 3D effect. I would agree with you in the flower shot which I felt lack of dimension sense due to light effect and viewing angle ( it is how one takes the photo rather than the lens itself.) I just want to post my view that Leica lenses is definitely not lack of 3D as what you claimed. You can like the Zeiss 200 better as I personally prefer the Leica 180. Either way doesn't make either lens more 3D than the other.

May 26, 2007 at 02:16 PM

DrPablo
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.18 #16 · Where does the 3D look come from?

s23chang wrote:The Leica looks more 3D to me as well. In your Canon vs Zeiss, I would think the Canon looks more 3D due to more "in focus" look.

old thread zeiss vs Leica

In that example neither looks 3D, and the Zeiss is out of focus -- or the only part in focus is a 1 mm thick part of her left cheekbone.

The problem with showing tight crops (esp 100% crops) to illustrate a 3D effect is that it's the equivalent of shooting with a very long telephoto lens for that segment of the image. I.e. it's effectively applying a crop factor. So you end up with a lot of perspective compression in these severe crops that abrogates the 3D effect.

By the way, you all should read Ansel Adams' chapter on natural lighting in The Negative, he goes into detail about lighting to highlight texture.

May 26, 2007 at 02:33 PM

brainiac
Offline
Dedicated FM
Account Locked

p.18 #17 · Where does the 3D look come from?

Someone said you can't see 3D in a crop. I see it here:

This image is copyrighted by the owner

This image is copyrighted by the owner

May 27, 2007 at 11:46 PM

brainiac
Offline
Dedicated FM
Account Locked

p.18 #18 · Where does the 3D look come from?

This is a lens that gives 3D without fail:

This image is copyrighted by the owner

This image is copyrighted by the owner

here's the full rez JPEG straight outta the camera:

http://cyberphotographer.com/5D/michael.jpg

May 27, 2007 at 11:48 PM

DrPablo
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.18 #19 · Where does the 3D look come from?

brainiac wrote:
Someone said you can't see 3D in a crop. I see it here

I don't see it at all. I see detail, but I don't see 3D.

I also don't see it all that convincingly in the full shot. It has depth because of the progression of DOF, but on the other hand the DOF is so shallow that I don't see much of a textural 3D effect except in the very small window where it's in focus.

Again, as I've said with previous photos, that's not a knock on the photo or the lens. It looks great. It just doesn't look 3D to me.

May 28, 2007 at 12:16 AM

Pondria
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: Off

p.18 #20 · Where does the 3D look come from?

Ha ha ha, interesting discussion.
Richard, I do see the 3D effect.

May 28, 2007 at 01:57 PM

1 2 3 … 17 18 19 … 22 23 end
FM Forums \| Alternative Gear & Lenses \| Join Upload & Sell 1 2 3 … 17 18 19 … 22 23 end