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 … 18 19 20 … 22 23 end

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

DrPablo
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.19 #1 · Where does the 3D look come from?

The problem here is no one is defining a 3D effect (I proposed a definition, but it got lost in the shuffle 85 pages ago), and people are posting a lot of their own examples without any critical discussion of whether it meets our collective standards for 3D. I posted some Canon kit lens shots that I thought had a 3D effect. And yet people who post shots with a lens that has a 3D "reputation" will claim that as a universal feature of all shots taken with the lens. And yet a critical discussion of individual shots doesn't happen and this reverential 3D effect of CZ and Leica lenses is accepted uncritically -- and it becomes self-fulfilling. I for one can show you shots with my $100 1919 single element uncoated Wollensak triple convertible lens that have a 3D effect that rivals anything posted in this thread -- and it's largely by virtue of the format size that this is the case. It's as cheap and uncorrected a lens as exists in photography, and yet its 3D effect is flabbergasting. There's clearly a lot to this discussion.

I don't say any of this with specific reference to Richard's portrait. I just wish we would stop saying things like "this lens gives 3D effect without fail", rather than deconstructing a so-called 3D-effect to find out what actually makes it so. Yes, we all accept some lenses are better than others at creating a 3D effect, some markedly so. But if you take a CZ21 lens and take a shot with the lenscap on it won't have a 3D effect -- so there are some factors like composition, lighting, and exposure that are extrinsic to the lens and vital to the effect.

So instead of a yes vs no 3D effect vote about posted images, we really need to be very critical, very analytical if this conversation will be informative, as opposed to a mere homage to our legendary lenses.

Edited by DrPablo on May 28, 2007 at 09:15 AM GMT

May 28, 2007 at 02:09 PM

brainiac
Offline
Dedicated FM
Account Locked

p.19 #2 · Where does the 3D look come from?

I take DrPablo pretty seriously - so I was wondering if I'm going mad. Pondria thanks for reassuring me - at least I've got someone to be going mad with! :)

May 28, 2007 at 02:09 PM

DrPablo
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

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

Hehe, see above

We're seeing the same image. We are just describing it using different words.

If we're to get to the bottom of a 3D effect, we need to break it down to its parts and be more precise about how we're using terminology.

It's a great portrait, no doubt. But the discussion isn't about great images, it's about this mysterious 3D effect

May 28, 2007 at 02:11 PM

Pondria
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: Off

p.19 #4 · Where does the 3D look come from?

We don't have any metric to define 3D-ness. We are just talking about the subjective impressions. I don't think we need to be taught what 3D-look should mean. I see 3D-ness with my own eyes or not.
And although I don't buy in the 3D reputation of certain brands either, I am not strongly against such claims either. When you like your lens very much and get emotionally attached, you start seeing what's not really there

- things like subtle mid tones, micro-contrasts, cool color tint, zeiss glow, 3D look etc. Let them have it and enjoy it !

May 28, 2007 at 02:21 PM

brainiac
Offline
Dedicated FM
Account Locked

p.19 #5 · Where does the 3D look come from?

> If we're to get to the bottom of a 3D effect, we need to break it down to its parts and be more precise about how we're using terminology.

That's proved very hard to do. Everyone has contributed interesting answers, but still there doesn't seem to be an obvious consensus. This picture of Michael, the black guy which I just posted, casually taken in a restaurant, has to my eyes fantastic 3D, so that the subject comes alive. I expect that particular lens to have that effect pretty much every time I press the button. Other lenses don't.

You, Pablo, think it's mostly about detail. I think it's more about contrast, light and shade, and how that generates the sensation that the subject is a solid object or empty space. That's why we have to go back to saying "I think this one has it, and this one doesn't".

With all the gear I have used over more than 20 years, I have reached the conclusion that some lenses have this quality of making the subject come alive in 3D space, and others tend to lack it.

Here's an undetailed bad 3200 iso jpeg shot handheld at 1/60th with a heavy 200mm lens and manipulated to fix underexposure and a terrible colour cast, which I think still shows plenty of 3D:

This image is copyrighted by the owner

This image is copyrighted by the owner

Here's a skillfully taken sharp beautiful shot which I think lacks 3D even though by rights it ought to pop out at me:

This image is copyrighted by the owner

This image is copyrighted by the owner

both of those shots are taken with the same camera. What right has a 200mm lens from 3 meters to at least match for 3D a 90mm macro at less than half the distance? I know, I'm mad. :)

Edited by brainiac on May 28, 2007 at 02:37 PM GMT

May 28, 2007 at 02:27 PM

Pondria
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: Off

p.19 #6 · Where does the 3D look come from?

I see the 3D effect on the portrait but fail to see it on the Flower.

May 28, 2007 at 02:34 PM

DrPablo
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.19 #7 · Where does the 3D look come from?

You, Pablo, think it's mostly about detail

No, I absolutely don't think it's about detail, and if you look back at my posts in this thread you'll see that. In fact I think detail is a very small component. As I commented on your Michael portrait, I said specifically that I see detail but I don't see a 3D effect -- and I stand by that (this is in reference to the crop). As far as the overall photo goes, I think it has a lot of depth because of the smooth focus transition -- but I don't think enough texture is in focus for it to have vivid textural realism. Which of these is more important for 3D? Well, these photos AREN'T 3D -- they're 2-dimensional, so we're talking about optical effects that heighten a sense of realism.

I broke down 3D effect before into two components.

The first is suggestions of depth, and that is compositional. Leading lines, perspective convergence, depth cues, and DOF are what suggest depth in a photo. Shadows and lighting are extremely important to this as well.

The second is textural realism. And lighting and microcontrast are the most important components to this.

So I think lighting and contrast (and NOT detail) are THE predominant factors that produce a 3D effect when one is there. If the lighting is right, a photo will look like you can reach into it and touch it.

Of the two shots above, I think both have depth -- the first largely from DOF and the second because of the receding lighting. In the first her face really emerges from the blurry background, creating depth. In the second I think it would have more of a vivid, deep look if the entire flower were in focus. But neither has a striking textural 3D effect to me.

Here are a couple distinctions from my own shots. This first one was taken with the Tamron 28-70. I think it has a lot of depth, because the bug just leaps out of the blurry background, and this is made yet more dramatic by the color contrast. But there is very little texture other than the faint legs and antennae.

The second is a large format IR shot that shows 4 completely distinct textures. There is textural detail in the sky, textural detail in the tower's masonry, textural detail in the tree (including the little twigs and the trunk), and textural detail in the grass. It doesn't have a very 3D perspective, because I used a ton of front rise on the view camera and we're looking up a hill -- so there are no perspective or depth cues.

Are they 3D? Well, that's not really a measurable variable to me -- the first has depth, and the second has texture. Some great pictures have both. But these variables are neither necessary nor sufficient for a photo to be great.

This image is copyrighted by the owner

This image is copyrighted by the owner

This image is copyrighted by the owner

Paul

Edited by DrPablo on May 28, 2007 at 09:54 AM GMT

May 28, 2007 at 02:48 PM

brainiac
Offline
Dedicated FM
Account Locked

p.19 #8 · Where does the 3D look come from?

When I have time I will borrow my old Leica 180 f2 from the friend I sold it to, and test it against my new Canon in order to examine differences in 3D effect when taking the same picture. It may prove my hunches wrong, but the proof of the pudding...

May 28, 2007 at 02:51 PM

brainiac
Offline
Dedicated FM
Account Locked

p.19 #9 · Where does the 3D look come from?

DrP, I think both those shots have great 3D, especially the bug. Great shot.

I am sorry for misrepresenting your view on this. Should go back and re-read your posts. It's been quite a long thread.

Of course you are right that a 3D impression arises from visual clues which vary from image to image. Look at Escher. However, that doesn't alter the fact that some lenses present the scene in a way that seems effortlessly 3D, and other lenses seem to flatten. I am not talking about focal length perspective effects, but another kind of flattening, which I see in the red flower shot.

May 28, 2007 at 02:58 PM

DrPablo
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.19 #10 · Where does the 3D look come from?

Thanks, Richard. I'm not denying that great lenses will go a long ways to producing magnificently vivid and realistic shots. I have the same reverential feelings about my Zeiss lenses for my Hasselblad and my Schneider lenses for my view cameras.

I also think that your portraits, including the one of Michael, are magnificent -- that one and the one above on this page are dreamy, luminous, and evocative. So I see a lot of greatness in them that I explain in terms independent of texture and depth.

With respect to the lens vs technique question, maybe it's a locus of control thing for me. I like to think that a 3D effect has as much to do with my choices as it does with some lens engineer in Germany

Interestingly, I had an 8x10 contact print taken under flat lighting, and the print was fairly drab. I then bleached the print in potassium ferricyanide, which lightened the highlights, and the thing absolutely leaped out of the paper and came to life. So just that simple variable on a print gave it much more textural realism -- with the picture already taken. Even this post-processing effect had a dramatic effect!

May 28, 2007 at 03:05 PM

pere marti
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.19 #11 · Where does the 3D look come from?

DrPablo, Nice photos of yours. That bug is fantastic.

I think detail contributes 3D indeed, it is just another depth clue. Especially if it imitates the way we see detail: we see more detail on nearer objects. That black boy's face has 3D indeed, and the crop aswell. It is not an exclussive lens issue. You could sharpen selectively to achieve this effect.

Richard, you are obsessed with lenses. Put your hand over the girls face so you mask the shadows at the neck and on the right side, and 3D vanishes. That red flower has two flaws regarding 3D: the uniform red lacks the shades of natural lighting (flat) and the upper part is softer due to focus when it is supposed to be nearer.

In my humble oppinion, Pere

May 28, 2007 at 05:57 PM

carstenw
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.19 #12 · Where does the 3D look come from?

brainiac wrote:
When I have time I will borrow my old Leica 180 f2 from the friend I sold it to, and test it against my new Canon in order to examine differences in 3D effect when taking the same picture. It may prove my hunches wrong, but the proof of the pudding...

Try not to prove the pudding. *In* the pudding look for the proof!

May 28, 2007 at 07:47 PM

brainiac
Offline
Dedicated FM
Account Locked

p.19 #13 · Where does the 3D look come from?

> Richard, you are obsessed with lenses.

I know! Somebody help me! DrPablo had a go with his excellent 3D kit lens shot. :)

Carsten, the expression is "the proof of the pudding is IN the EATING". In this case, proof means 'test', in the same way that you proof a gun to see if it is safe. If the gun doesn't fail its proof then it gets a proof certificate. I think 'probe', and probably 'proboscis', and even 'probably' all come from the same root as prove. They all concern testing, although provable and probable have diverged a lot.

May 29, 2007 at 10:50 AM

jshelly
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.19 #14 · Where does the 3D look come from?

I would like to pose a question.

What's the difference between the old standard television broadcast format and HDTV?

Is it resolution, sharpness, bokeh etc...? EDIT: Actually I can say Bokeh has nothing to do with it

I ask this question as a new HDTV owner. I have to say I'm amazed at the picture, it's like looking out a window. I never imagined an image could look so good.

It's the most compelling 3D look I've ever seen.

Just something to think about.

May 29, 2007 at 03:32 PM

cogitech
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.19 #15 · Where does the 3D look come from?

jshelley,

HDTV stands for High Definition TeleVision.

High Definition means higher overall resolution.

Standard NTSC television resolution is 352x240. HDTV has various resloutions, but all are much higher than standard definition.

Regardless of this, as has been discussed throughout this thread, lighting and lens qualities can dramatically increase this 3D effect. The overall resolution of the final media certainly helps *display* the 3D effect, but it certainly does not *create* it.

BTW, bokeh does have something to do with it. Just watch "Lost" and you'll see. (I bet they are using Zeiss).

May 29, 2007 at 03:42 PM

jshelly
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.19 #16 · Where does the 3D look come from?

cogitech wrote:
jshelley,

HDTV stands for High Definition TeleVision.

High Definition means higher overall resolution.

Standard NTSC television resolution is 352x240. HDTV has various resloutions, but all are much higher than standard definition.

Regardless of this, as has been discussed throughout this thread, lighting and lens qualities can dramatically increase this 3D effect. The overall resolution of the final media certainly helps *display* the 3D effect, but it certainly does not *create* it.

BTW, bokeh does have something to do with it. Just watch "Lost" and you'll see. (I bet they are using Zeiss).

Don't watch Lost, but now I'll check it out. I'm currently addicted to Discovery HD

May 29, 2007 at 03:45 PM

Andi Dietrich
Offline
Dedicated FM
Account Locked

p.19 #17 · Where does the 3D look come from?

Movies have the benefit of the (wonder!) movement. The lighting staff in todays cinema also does a wonderful job

You can see 3D with one eye only by moving your head, the brain is capable to put together moving images, in fact it misses something when there is no movement. Photography is more an art of abstraction than reality

May 29, 2007 at 04:00 PM

DrPablo
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

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

cogitech wrote:
BTW, bokeh does have something to do with it. Just watch "Lost" and you'll see. (I bet they are using Zeiss).

They might be using Cooke. I don't know squat about movie camera lenses, but Cooke makes lenses for both movie cameras and for large format cameras -- and their LF lenses are astounding.

May 29, 2007 at 04:33 PM

J.A.F. Doorhof
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

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

Normal television is between 550-720x480 for DVD 720x480.
This is interlaced so actually you are seeing 720x320 per field.

HDTV is 1280x720 Progressive or 1920x1080 Interlaced and sometimes 1920x1080 Progressive.

The depth you see in HDTV is very easily explained.
The blackdetail is MUCH better in HD also there is much more microdetail, on DVD and TV there is often a filter used which introduces halos from sharpening, this will give you a very flat looking picture.
With HD this is much less the case resulting in a more 3D look.

The resolution also helps greatly when watching 50" and plus but the depth of a TV signal/DVD or HD is mainly due to:

Absolute blacklevel, grayscale perfomance, blacklevel detail, Ansi Contrast.

If you have an older generation plasma or LCD you will NOT see all the depth that is there with a new generation or CRT.
The ansicontrast is also very important, forget full on full off contrast often quoted by the manufactors, they all lie in some sort.

I have mentioned it earlier in this thread but the 3D look of a picture is according to me:"

CoC or if you like sensor size, the 5D will give more 3D than a 30D and a Hasselblad will give more than the 5D.
Microcontrast, this will give you the sense of real.
Contrast in the lens (blacklevel) or flare resistance.

AND light, without proper light there is no depth but only flat.

Especially the flareresistance of a lens is very important, try to get a perfect 3D looking picture and than use shadows to raise the shadow detail to 50% or higher and the depth will be gone.
Make the picture darker with levels/curves and the depth will be done due to blacklevel crunch.

Everything about the 3D likeness of a picture can be explained, the problem is:
Find the perfect lens, the perfect light and the perfect camera

I have found that my 85mm 1.8 Canon, 135mm f2.0L and 70-200 f2.8L IS in the studio give me the most depth (3D look) in a picture.
Aperture varies from f2.8 to f16 and has no real impact on the roundness of the shot, although big apertures (low numbers) will give you more sense of depth by the DOF. Longer lenses will compress the picture taking away alot of the roundness, a portret on 200mm has less depth/3D look than one on 135mm or 85 (which on the 5D seems to be somewhat of the sweetspot for great 3D looks).

Hope this helps a bit

Greetings,
Frank

May 29, 2007 at 04:42 PM

jshelly
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.19 #20 · Where does the 3D look come from?

Frank,

What an fantastic explanation! You've offered answers with examples.

Can't thank you enough - very nice

May 29, 2007 at 05:24 PM

1 2 3 … 18 19 20 … 22 23 end
FM Forums \| Alternative Gear & Lenses \| Join Upload & Sell 1 2 3 … 18 19 20 … 22 23 end