what is '3d' ? - 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 4 … 37 38 end

Archive 2009 · what is '3d' ?

JimU
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #1 · what is '3d' ?

is it not bad practice to photograph monks?

Oct 29, 2009 at 03:08 PM

Tariq Gibran
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.3 #2 · what is '3d' ?

Lotusm50 wrote:
carstenw wrote:
I hate to say it, but neither do I. There is some in the babyshot, but the flash is too flat (frontal) for more 3D I think.

I think that's the point. Even when the light is far from ideal, the right lens can still convey convey some convincing dimensionality. The ability to create 3-D images is not really about lighting, etc. (though it can certainly assist).

I guess I would have to disagree with that statement in a major way. LIghting is to photography what air is to breathing! I do agree the lens plays a part but not necessarily more so than lighting and color.

Oct 29, 2009 at 03:10 PM

Lotusm50
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #3 · what is '3d' ?

Tariq Gibran wrote:
Lotusm50 wrote:
I think that's the point. Even when the light is far from ideal, the right lens can still convey convey some convincing dimensionality. The ability to create 3-D images is not really about lighting, etc. (though it can certainly assist).

I guess I would have to disagree with that statement in a major way. LIghting is to photography what air is to breathing! I do agree the lens plays a part but not necessarily more so than lighting and color.

Clearly good lighting can help effectively model a 3-dimensional form so that it doesn't look flat. it will give you the shadows and edges necessary for the eye to determine that the object pictured is 3-dimensional and not flat. No question about that.

But I think we are talking about something beyond simple modeling of a form to convey its form. We are talking about the quality in an image that make it look like it is now bound by the 2 dimensions of the paper (or screen). Like it is coming out of the page or that you can almost reach out and touch. A good lens can make a significant contribution to producing that illusion in a way that lighting alone can not. Some suggest the way Zeiss lenses differentiate color, texture, volume, spatial position, macro and mIcro contrast, etc contribute to this illusion. Honestly, I don't know how they do it, just that it is palpably visible to the eye. Like I said previously, good lighting can help with this, but ultimately is not responsible for it and will have a difficult time producing the illusion without a lens that can do it. In the multiple recent threads dealing with this issue, we have seen this illusion of palpable dimensionality produce under a wide range or lighting conditions -- good, bad and indifferent, artificial, natural and mixed. This just leads me to conclude that lighting is not the responsible factor for this 3-D-ness, merely a contributing or assisting one.

Oct 29, 2009 at 03:27 PM

Cableaddict
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.3 #4 · what is '3d' ?

cogitech wrote:
Alf Beharie wrote:

Heres a sample with really good 3D-ness taken with it...Its a reporter talking to the Mayor of Hanwell a Hanwell Carnival:

This image is copyrighted by the owner

This image is copyrighted by the owner

I see no 3D in this photo, Alf.

I was just going to post the same thing. That image is shockingly TWO-d.

Of curse, we may all have different mental images about what the term means, but I think most of us feel it's a sense of a CURVING of the subject. It doesn't just mean low apertures and tons of background separation.

I also don't think it demands, as someone said earlier, a super-low f-stop. The CZ Planar pic I posted earlier is at f/2.8, and has PLENTY of 3D, especially if you see the original.

Oct 29, 2009 at 04:31 PM

kidtexas
Online
Upload & Sell: On

p.3 #5 · what is '3d' ?

Cableaddict wrote:

Of curse, we may all have different mental images about what the term means, but I think most of us feel it's a sense of a CURVING of the subject. It doesn't just mean low apertures and tons of background separation.

From my reading, there are a significant number of people who think it is differential focus, with the subject in focus and the background not. There is also the camp that you describe. Let's call it a 50/50 split

Oct 29, 2009 at 04:38 PM

debuggerus
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #6 · what is '3d' ?

Am I the only one who doesn't see any 3D in any pics?
I must be 3D blind

Oct 29, 2009 at 04:50 PM

parsons
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #7 · what is '3d' ?

this is 3D
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/829531

s

Oct 29, 2009 at 04:55 PM

debuggerus
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #8 · what is '3d' ?

parsons wrote:
this is 3D
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/829531

s

holy crap, this is 3D. My 3D blindness is cured! Now my eyes hurt ... from crossing too much but it's worth it.

Oct 29, 2009 at 05:10 PM

parsons
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #9 · what is '3d' ?

check out johns other posts, they are most excellent

Oct 29, 2009 at 05:12 PM

edwardkaraa
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.3 #10 · what is '3d' ?

Lotusm50 wrote:
edwardkaraa wrote:
Some lenses are designed to have a 3D effect. Zeiss is notably known for trying to enhance the 3D in all its lenses, at the expense of making some other compromises to the image quality. In wide angles for instance, I notice more field curvature in 3D lenses than others, which affects the corner sharpness.

Do you see field curvature in the ZA 135? It's got nice 3-D qualities as shown in your own images, yet from what I understand (and see in its MTF's) its got a pretty flat field.

You are absolutely right regarding the 135. But I have got some really good 3D shots taken with Zeiss wide angles where field curvature seems to play a role in this effect. No body knows exactly what is the "trick", it could be the other way around: Whatever Zeiss is doing to improve 3D may be worsening the field curvature in wide angle lenses. This is of course pure speculation from a clueless user

Oct 29, 2009 at 06:01 PM

edwardkaraa
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.3 #11 · what is '3d' ?

JimU wrote:
is it not bad practice to photograph monks?

I don't think so. Where I live people (both Thais and foreigners) photograph monks all the time.

Oct 29, 2009 at 06:03 PM

Alf Beharie
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #12 · what is '3d' ?

edwardkaraa wrote:

This image is copyrighted by the owner

This image is copyrighted by the owner

This image is copyrighted by the owner

Great 3D samples!

Oct 29, 2009 at 08:10 PM

Alf Beharie
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #13 · what is '3d' ?

Cableaddict wrote:
cogitech wrote:
Alf Beharie wrote:

Heres a sample with really good 3D-ness taken with it...Its a reporter talking to the Mayor of Hanwell a Hanwell Carnival:

This image is copyrighted by the owner

This image is copyrighted by the owner

I see no 3D in this photo, Alf.

I was just going to post the same thing. That image is shockingly TWO-d.

Then I'd have to disagree.

Oct 29, 2009 at 08:16 PM

Uncle Mike
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #14 · what is '3d' ?

Only expensive German lenses produce a 3D effect. If you think you see it in a photo taken with a cheap Japanese lens, it's only your imagination.

Oct 29, 2009 at 09:15 PM

Alf Beharie
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #15 · what is '3d' ?

The Olympic Sonnar is an expensive German lens!

Oct 29, 2009 at 10:46 PM

Spyro P.
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #16 · what is '3d' ?

Lotusm50 wrote:
+1 The 2 people actually look more like flat cardboard cut-outs positioned in front of a background.

There's nothing more 2D than a tele shot from a few metres away. It flattens everything, and it doesnt matter if its a $50k lens straight out of the *ss of the Konig of Bavaria. Its a simple matter of perspective.

Oct 29, 2009 at 11:03 PM

brainiac
Offline
Dedicated FM
Account Locked

p.3 #17 · what is '3d' ?

Spyro P. wrote:
Lotusm50 wrote:
+1 The 2 people actually look more like flat cardboard cut-outs positioned in front of a background.

There's nothing more 2D than a tele shot from a few metres away. It flattens everything, and it doesnt matter if its a $50k lens straight out of the *ss of the Konig of Bavaria. Its a simple matter of perspective.

Really? My 200 f1.8 always delivers a great 3D look:

This image is copyrighted by the owner

This image is copyrighted by the owner

Oct 30, 2009 at 03:53 AM

Spyro P.
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #18 · what is '3d' ?

brainiac wrote:
Really? My 200 f1.8 always delivers a great 3D look:

Yeah I know you call this 3D but we're talking about different things. To me this is flat with bokeh, same as the other photo above. Yours is sharper, has better light and subject and no jpeg artifacts, so its a much better photo overall, but I still cant tell from looking at the photo if the hand or the nose is closer to the camera.

When I said 2D above I mean looking at a photo and not being able to tell what is close and what is far, which happens the more you move away from your subject. Example:

Right photo taken with 24mm lens, left photo taken with 50mm lens from 2-3 steps back. If I moved a few more steps back and used a 200mm lens the cd cases would appear same size and next to each other, which is false, and what I call flat and 2D. Thats what I was talking about and its obviously not a property of specific lenses but a property of focal length (or to put it more accurately, the distance from subject that it commands). I still think it is relevant to the discussion though, as because of this tele lenses start with a disadvantage in rendering a photo with depth.

Didnt you have a photo of a guy from really close with a 35mm zeiss lens? That was 3D (because of the distance), but it was also unflattering because the guy's nose looked like it was going to pop out of the screen. Some things are better left 2D

Oct 30, 2009 at 04:28 AM

Cableaddict
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.3 #19 · what is '3d' ?

Brainiac's pic, above, definitely meets my description of great "3D" effect.

I don't know why, but there it is.

Oct 30, 2009 at 05:05 AM

hfillmore
Offline
Upload & Sell: On

p.3 #20 · what is '3d' ?

Alf Beharie wrote:
To make a shot with good 3D-ness there are several variables:
1) You need a sharp lens...This is essential or the edges of your subject will simply blend into the background.
2) You need to use the right aperture...Stop down to much and you will lose 3D-ness as all the focal planes blend together.
3) You need to be a certain distance from your subject. This will vary on the focal length of the lens being used.
4) If possible you should ensure that the background is a good distance away behind your subject so allowing it to be thrown out of focus.
Simply resorting to using a fast lens and/or aperture will not guarentee 3D-ness as some of your subject may be out of focus and this will ruin the effect (your tea tree donut pic shows this problem).
One of the best lenses for 3D-ness IMO is the Carl Zeiss 180mm f2.8 "Olympic" Sonnar.
Heres a sample with really good 3D-ness taken with it...Its a reporter talking to the Mayor of Hanwell a Hanwell Carnival:

This image is copyrighted by the owner

This image is copyrighted by the owner

Have to go against the tide here, and say that to my eye, this picture definitely DOES have a three D effect. The faces perse, DO NOT themselves exhibit much dimensionality, but the picture taken as a whole definitely does. I see three very different levels of separation here, provided by, what I think, are three primary factors in creating the effect ......... color, brightness, and focus.

The two figures are clearly and crisply separated from the background spatially. Both color and DOF are at play here. Bright colors attract the eye, dark one's don't. The background is much darker than either of the figures, in effect, pushing the background farther back, and bringing the figures farther forware. The DOF provides additional spatial layer separation

Both foreground figures are brighter than the background, but the figure on the right is wearing a white collar, the brightest part in the picture, which pulls the eye and visually separates him from the center figure, in addition to the fact that he gives the impression of being slightly closer.

Yes, the lighting seems flat, dulling any three D modeling effect on the faces themselves, and other parts of the shot. But I definitely see three very separate spatially different layers in the photo ......... background, center figure, and rights rigure, which definitely give a sense of dimension to my eye.

Harvey

Oct 30, 2009 at 05:19 AM

Alf Beharie
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #21 · what is '3d' ?

brainiac wrote:
Spyro P. wrote:
Lotusm50 wrote:
+1 The 2 people actually look more like flat cardboard cut-outs positioned in front of a background.

There's nothing more 2D than a tele shot from a few metres away. It flattens everything, and it doesnt matter if its a $50k lens straight out of the *ss of the Konig of Bavaria. Its a simple matter of perspective.

Really? My 200 f1.8 always delivers a great 3D look:

This image is copyrighted by the owner

This image is copyrighted by the owner

That looks completely non 3D to me...not all of the subject is in focus and this blends the edges and background together reducing the 3D effect.

Oct 30, 2009 at 06:49 AM

pdmphoto
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.3 #22 · what is '3d' ?

Sorry, but I have to agree on this one. I have seen some good 3d shots from the Canon 200/1.8's, but this isn't one of them.

Oct 30, 2009 at 08:23 AM

Cableaddict
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.3 #23 · what is '3d' ?

You guys are nuts!

Amazing how we all have a different opinion on this.

Oct 30, 2009 at 09:42 AM

carstenw
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.3 #24 · what is '3d' ?

hfillmore wrote:
Have to go against the tide here, and say that to my eye, this picture definitely DOES have a three D effect. The faces perse, DO NOT themselves exhibit much dimensionality, but the picture taken as a whole definitely does. I see three very different levels of separation here, provided by, what I think, are three primary factors in creating the effect ......... color, brightness, and focus.

The two figures are clearly and crisply separated from the background spatially. Both color and DOF are at play here. Bright colors attract the eye, dark one's don't. The background is much darker than either of the figures, in effect, pushing the background farther back, and bringing the figures farther forware. The DOF provides additional spatial layer separation

Both foreground figures are brighter than the background, but the figure on the right is wearing a white collar, the brightest part in the picture, which pulls the eye and visually separates him from the center figure, in addition to the fact that he gives the impression of being slightly closer.

Yes, the lighting seems flat, dulling any three D modeling effect on the faces themselves, and other parts of the shot. But I definitely see three very separate spatially different layers in the photo ......... background, center figure, and rights rigure, which definitely give a sense of dimension to my eye.

I think we aren't disagreeing here, just use the terms somewhat differently. I use the term '3D' only when I get a real sense of being able to "feel" the shape of the objects or some object in the photo. In this photo, I get a sense of depth, but I don't get the feel of any shape. Everything in the photo could be a cutout. In fact, the two gentlemen in the photo don't even have a clear depth-relationship. The guy on the left could easily be talking to someone standing in front of the guy on the right, but outside the photo.

Oct 30, 2009 at 10:12 AM

carstenw
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.3 #25 · what is '3d' ?

pdmphoto wrote:
Sorry, but I have to agree on this one. I have seen some good 3d shots from the Canon 200/1.8's, but this isn't one of them.

I also agree. I don't feel any shape in this photo. In fact, in the comparison photos of the same girl (your girlfriend, Richard?), one with the 50L, one with the 200/1,8, I also don't really see any 3D in the 200/1,8 shot. Maybe it is just because of the small size of the image on my screen.

Oct 30, 2009 at 10:13 AM


FM Forums \| Alternative Gear & Lenses \| Join Upload & Sell 1 2 3 4 … 37 38 end