Tariq Gibran wrote:
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.
Yes, now that I look at it again, I think you, Paul, and Carsten are right - it's not up to the usual standard. I went back to look at the full rez on my monitor and it looks pretty good. I guess I somehow killed the 3D in processing. With that in mind I tried to work out what I did wrong. One thing that made a slight difference to my eye was setting more normal contrast and saturation settings in DPP - they were set on minimum. Here's another go, which I think is better, but perhaps still not as 3D as some images I get from this lens. It is iso 3200 after all... http://cyberphotographer.com/1ds3/200f1.8/reem390.jpg
It seems as though an accurate contrast scale is very important to the 3D illusion...
Well, to stir the pot a bit, here's a LEICA shot 50 Lux ASPH on the M8. Generally, I don't think the lens puts out much of 3D effect, but the lighting on this one helped -
I do think the lens plays a role in the 3D effect. I've taken 20,000+ images with the 24-105L over the years, and nothing has ever struck me as looking 3D from that lens. Whereas with the 100/2 Planar, something from the day will always have that 3D feel. It may not be every single image, but a portion of them will. I have not used a 58mm Rokkor, but from what I've seen here, it seems to belt out the 3D feel on a consistent basis as well.
carstenw wrote:
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.
I'm still seeing it in that photo. Her arm is way out in front of her head, and the edge of her hair seems to curve backwards nicely.
snowboarder wrote:
I posted this image as an example of Zeiss 21 sharpness, but it's a good one
for the "3D look". It's f13, no depth of field trick which has nothing to do
with 3D effect. It's more of a combination of contrast and color rendering.
I don't like getting into the semantics of this stuff, but that above image is absolutely popping out the screen at me. Nice shot.
cogitech wrote:
Anyone see 3D in these Rokinon shots?
...
...
I do. Especially viewed at 50% on my LCD at home (& on my HDTV), the 3D effect is just stunning.
It's funny that you say that as I have that lens and notice specifically that most images seem to lack that "3D" punch... it seems to render things very smooth but flat. I really like it, but never see much of that micro-contrast pop that I see in other lenses, like the ZF 100 Makro or even sometimes from my Nikkor 35/1.4.
I would say that it has some, but when you look closely, it is a little unsharp (probably the stated motion ), and I think this robs it of some 3D-ness. The shape also isn't really conducive to seeing 3D, consisting almost entirely of flat planes, but the tubes have some.
50 Lux ASPH on the M8. Generally, I don't think the lens puts out much of 3D effect, but the lighting on this one helped -
