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

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username   Password

FM Forum Rules
FM Forums | Alternative Gear & Lenses | Join Upload & Sell   
Search Used
1   2   3  
4
   5   …   46   47   end
   

Archive 2009 · what is '3d' ?
  
 
edwardkaraa
Online
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On
p.4 #1 · 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.4 #2 · what is '3d' ?


edwardkaraa wrote:


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.4 #3 · 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

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.4 #4 · 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.4 #5 · 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.4 #6 · 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.4 #7 · 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
Oct 30, 2009 at 03:53 AM
Spyro P.
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
p.4 #8 · 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:

This image is copyrighted by the owner


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.4 #9 · 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.4 #10 · 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

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.4 #11 · 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




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.4 #12 · 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.4 #13 · 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.4 #14 · 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.4 #15 · 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
Lotusm50
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On
p.4 #16 · what is '3d' ?


carstenw wrote:
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.


Yes. I agree with Carsten completely. There is "depth" separating the figures from the background but there are no 3-D qualities as I use the term. 3-D in this context means the ability to convincingly and palpably convey the illusion of 3-D dimensional form in the 2-D image. The 2 figures here are very flat and do not give the impression of 3-Dimensional form, shape or mass.



Oct 30, 2009 at 11:13 AM
Tariq Gibran
Online
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On
p.4 #17 · 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, to me, epitomizes a very flat, 2D look. Some of the images you have shown with in the previous thread are much better "3D" examples. I'm thinking of the close shot of a man taken with your 35 1.4 and the girl jumping on the trampoline.
Oct 30, 2009 at 11:14 AM
WT21
Offline
Upload & Sell: On
p.4 #18 · what is '3d' ?


weezintrumpete wrote:
I am under the strict opinion that it really doesn't have much to do with the lens, but all to do with the situation as mentioned above (distance to subject, distance from subject to background, etc).

For example, here are (IMO) some VERY 3D-like shots (look how she "pops" off the screen) with a lens that is not known for it's "3D rendering" abilities.



This image is copyrighted by the owner






That first pic. How do you get that? Is it technique, pp or equipment? I take nice shots, but this kind of "3D effect" definitely eludes me.
Oct 30, 2009 at 04:59 PM
Alf Beharie
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
p.4 #19 · what is '3d' ?


WT21 wrote:
weezintrumpete wrote:
I am under the strict opinion that it really doesn't have much to do with the lens, but all to do with the situation as mentioned above (distance to subject, distance from subject to background, etc).

For example, here are (IMO) some VERY 3D-like shots (look how she "pops" off the screen) with a lens that is not known for it's "3D rendering" abilities.



This image is copyrighted by the owner






That first pic. How do you get that? Is it technique, pp or equipment? I take nice shots, but this kind of "3D effect" definitely eludes me.


I dont see any 3D effect with the above image...Looks totally 2D to me as it has no depth.

Oct 30, 2009 at 05:58 PM
Leon Noel
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
p.4 #20 · what is '3d' ?


We all should shoot fisheyes at close range if 3D is what we are after..

Popping (read: in your face) distorted perspective (to the extreme) and lots of apparent depth.

Oct 30, 2009 at 06:06 PM
1   2   3  
4
   5   …   46   47   end
FM Forums | Alternative Gear & Lenses | Join Upload & Sell

1   2   3  
4
   5   …   46   47   end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

  Username   Password  
Lost your password?