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 … 6
7
8 … 37 38 end
   

Archive 2009 · what is '3d' ?
  
 
trumpet_guy
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On
p.7 #1 · what is '3d' ?


helimat wrote:
50/1.7?

Bingo!

The lowly 50/1.7 on a Canon 30D. It is a very fine lens, and actually seems
sharper for close-in subjects than the CZ 50/1.4 I had.

Nov 14, 2009 at 05:33 AM
helimat
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On
p.7 #2 · what is '3d' ?


Yea, the image looked 50ish in perspective to me, and then I cheated and checked your gear list. I recently picked one up too, more so for stopped down type stuff though.

Nov 14, 2009 at 05:43 AM
trumpet_guy
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On
p.7 #3 · what is '3d' ?


Yes, it excels when stopped down. An excellent landscape lens.

Nov 14, 2009 at 05:46 AM
Lotusm50
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: Off
p.7 #4 · what is '3d' ?


Alf Beharie wrote:
Lotusm50 wrote:
RustyBug wrote:
Which has more 3d ??

135mm 3.5 f8

135mm 3.5 f3.5


The one at f8.



Actually I think the f3.5 one has better 3D because the watering can spout stands out more against the more blurred background than in the f8 shot. However for the best effect you should copy the f8 watering can spout onto the f3.5 watering can spout with photoshop. This will give an even sharper spout standing out against a more blurred background and thus it will look more 3D.



This is crux of the what people consider to be "3-D". To me, "3-D" is not the illusion of space between objects -- which is easily done by opening up the lens to increase differential focus. To me, and I believe many others, "3-D" is the ability to create a compelling illusion of a form in 3 dimensions. In this image, 3-D is about the watering can and how the watering can appears to the viewer. It's not about the separation between the watering can and the background.
Nov 14, 2009 at 12:41 PM
RustyBug
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On
p.7 #5 · what is '3d' ?


In this image, 3-D is about the watering can and how the watering can appears to the viewer. It's not about the separation between the watering can and the background.



+1 @ what I'm trying to achieve ... how'd I do ??
Nov 14, 2009 at 02:29 PM
RustyBug
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On
p.7 #6 · what is '3d' ?


trumpet_guy ... quit that ... at least until after I get my 50 1.7

Nov 14, 2009 at 02:30 PM
Alf Beharie
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
p.7 #7 · what is '3d' ?


Lotusm50 wrote:
Alf Beharie wrote:
Lotusm50 wrote:
RustyBug wrote:
Which has more 3d ??

135mm 3.5 f8

135mm 3.5 f3.5


The one at f8.



Actually I think the f3.5 one has better 3D because the watering can spout stands out more against the more blurred background than in the f8 shot. However for the best effect you should copy the f8 watering can spout onto the f3.5 watering can spout with photoshop. This will give an even sharper spout standing out against a more blurred background and thus it will look more 3D.



This is crux of the what people consider to be "3-D". To me, "3-D" is not the illusion of space between objects -- which is easily done by opening up the lens to increase differential focus. To me, and I believe many others, "3-D" is the ability to create a compelling illusion of a form in 3 dimensions. In this image, 3-D is about the watering can and how the watering can appears to the viewer. It's not about the separation between the watering can and the background.



But the separation between the watering can and the background is very important in giving a 3D effect...The sharper you make the watering can in relation to the background the greater the 3D effect.
Nov 14, 2009 at 07:56 PM
Alf Beharie
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
p.7 #8 · what is '3d' ?


RustyBug wrote:
trumpet_guy ... quit that ... at least until after I get my 50 1.7

You dont want the 50/1.7, trust me. My Canon FL 55mm f1.2 leaves it for dust.
Nov 14, 2009 at 07:57 PM
Lotusm50
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: Off
p.7 #9 · what is '3d' ?


Alf Beharie wrote:
Lotusm50 wrote:
Alf Beharie wrote:
Lotusm50 wrote:
RustyBug wrote:
Which has more 3d ??

135mm 3.5 f8

135mm 3.5 f3.5


The one at f8.



Actually I think the f3.5 one has better 3D because the watering can spout stands out more against the more blurred background than in the f8 shot. However for the best effect you should copy the f8 watering can spout onto the f3.5 watering can spout with photoshop. This will give an even sharper spout standing out against a more blurred background and thus it will look more 3D.



This is crux of the what people consider to be "3-D". To me, "3-D" is not the illusion of space between objects -- which is easily done by opening up the lens to increase differential focus. To me, and I believe many others, "3-D" is the ability to create a compelling illusion of a form in 3 dimensions. In this image, 3-D is about the watering can and how the watering can appears to the viewer. It's not about the separation between the watering can and the background.



But the separation between the watering can and the background is very important in giving a 3D effect...The sharper you make the watering can in relation to the background the greater the 3D effect.



I guess we'll have to essentially disagree about that -- basically I think we are talking about 2 different things.
Nov 14, 2009 at 08:09 PM
carstenw
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On
p.7 #10 · what is '3d' ?


Yes, Alf is talking about a sense of depth, which is separate from the 3D effect, which is the sense of form.

Nov 14, 2009 at 09:32 PM
RustyBug
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On
p.7 #11 · what is '3d' ?


carstenw ... that's a VERY good way of explaining the diff, makes sense. Of course, having both can be a good thing



Nov 15, 2009 at 12:34 AM
davidearls
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On
p.7 #12 · what is '3d' ?


Interesting thread.

I think we all wish there was a magic formula consisting of camea body, lens, f-stop, shooting distance and light conditions that produces 3D, but I think that overlooks the skill of the photographer in producing the image - which includes a lot of things that happen both before and after the shutter is pressed.

To my eye, the first of these images has, at best, a "little 3D", but the second has "big 3D", and guess what!!!??

They are the same image. The first image was processed to produce the second. It had some color contrast enhancement and sharpening applied. To my eye, the second image reveals the tiny spaces that make up texture; the first does not. It's the presence of the "tiny spaces" that make 3D to me. Large subjects in shallow depth of field do not make 3D, to me.

Obviously the lens used (a Zuiko 55 f1.2, stopped down) captured all the "3D parts" but they didn't just appear, they had to be revealed - "dusted off", if you will, in PP. I'm not going to say that A) the Zuiko 55 f1.2 is the consummate 3D lens or B) every image ever captured by any lens can be processed to get the 3D effect.

So whether 3D "exists" in an image is, in large part, the answer to the questions the photographer poses to himself: does this image contain 3D? How do I get it?

JMO















Nov 15, 2009 at 06:30 PM
philber
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On
p.7 #13 · what is '3d' ?


David, thanks for a truly lovely shot. But, to my eye, your explanation does not fit. To me (this thread shows divergence on what is "3D"), both your shots have more or less the same 3D. The second one is only sharper, which makes it more obvious. To me 3D is not a form of sharpness. Zeiss lenses which seem to shine more often than most in this area are not, IMHO, sharper than Leica lenses which are not renowned for 3D. Just my 2 cents.

Nov 15, 2009 at 06:36 PM
 



carstenw
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On
p.7 #14 · what is '3d' ?


I would go a bit further and say that the first shot looks soft and the second one over-sharpened.

Nov 15, 2009 at 07:26 PM
edwardkaraa
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On
p.7 #15 · what is '3d' ?


What do you think about this one? Any 3D?

Zeiss Alpha 16-35/2.8 at 35mm f/2.8



This image is copyrighted by the owner
Nov 16, 2009 at 05:51 PM
Alf Beharie
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
p.7 #16 · what is '3d' ?


carstenw wrote:
I would go a bit further and say that the first shot looks soft and the second one over-sharpened.

+1

Nov 16, 2009 at 06:00 PM
Alf Beharie
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
p.7 #17 · what is '3d' ?


edwardkaraa wrote:
What do you think about this one? Any 3D?

Zeiss Alpha 16-35/2.8 at 35mm f/2.8



This image is copyrighted by the owner




Yes, I think it does, a bit.

Nov 16, 2009 at 06:01 PM
philber
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On
p.7 #18 · what is '3d' ?


Enough for my requirements...:-)

Nov 16, 2009 at 07:04 PM
synthesist
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
p.7 #19 · what is '3d' ?


Does this photo have this 3D effect?



This image is copyrighted by the owner




(NOTE: I did not take this photo. I decided to link it here to try to understand what this effect really is. For the sake of not plagiarizing, PM me for the actual source.)

Nov 18, 2009 at 04:54 AM
trumpet_guy
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On
p.7 #20 · what is '3d' ?


It's tough to detect such effects in a small image.
My first impression is that I don't notice much 3D in the image.
Where's the source?
Nov 18, 2009 at 05:09 AM
Alf Beharie
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
p.7 #21 · what is '3d' ?


I dont think so...The bokeh is highly distracting which really does'nt help and because its been taken at a wide apeture the forground is'nt that sharp and DOF is shallow enough thats theres poor seperation of forground from background.
I suspect its taken with a fast 50?, which, going by this thread, dont seem to be too good for producing 3D images and it seems that that most lenses that are able to give a 3D effect, in the right conditions, have focal lengths of at least 85mm or more, with 135mm being optimal for the effect...But thats just going by the pics in this thread. Is this because they have simply used very sharp 85-135mm lenses with really nice bokeh?...Probably. Is its essential to have very sharp 85-135mm lenses with really nice bokeh to produce the effect? No but it certainly seems to help.
Its strange that I dont recall anyone posting any pics from lenses of over 200mm in this thread that show the effect, although I think my 180mm pics did. (not everyone agreed though).

Nov 18, 2009 at 05:27 AM
thrice
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
p.7 #22 · what is '3d' ?


Is there any 3D in this shot? I find the hand on the right tends to separate from the torso quite well.



This image is copyrighted by the owner





or this shot? (taken on film mind you, the grain might blur the separation and lessen the effect)



This image is copyrighted by the owner
Nov 18, 2009 at 05:42 AM
synthesist
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
p.7 #23 · what is '3d' ?


I'm having a very hard time distinguishing between an image with short DOF and this 3d effect.

Would someone care to end this discussion once and for all.

If someone has two lenses at the same focal length, one with the 3d effect and one without:

Can you please take the same identical shot and show us?

Nov 18, 2009 at 06:05 AM
loudtiger
Offline
Upload & Sell: On
p.7 #24 · what is '3d' ?


after seeing the watering can here's my take on the subject.

what we perceive to be '3D' is what matches our vision the most. you experience "depth of field" all the time with your own eyes. right now reading this post, you're concentrating on the screen, and the other objects in your room are "blurred" by your eye's bokeh. whichever lens approximates that the most seems the most "3D", or "real", because that's what you're used to seeing with your eyes. does that make sense?

i used to shoot with the CZ 50/1.4 a lot, and it definitely had that effect, whether wide open with short DOF, or stopped down a little bit.

Nov 18, 2009 at 06:22 AM
synthesist
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
p.7 #25 · what is '3d' ?


@loudtiger
I understand that, and for the most part photos with just the right amount of DOF appear 3d to me.

Reading back into the previous pages, the only photo that really strikes me as 3d is the photo of the rocks on the beach.
Everything is in focus, yet the rocks seem three dimensional. They're almost bulging out of my screen. How is this possible? What makes one lens be able to do that and another lens not.

I've been researching alt lenses all day today, and I can honestly say that I'm not seeing MASSIVE differences between most lenses.
Other than CA and some sharpness and color differences, all these lenses are seeming extremely similar to me.
If I'm not detecting these differences, do they really matter?

Nov 18, 2009 at 07:16 AM




FM Forums | Alternative Gear & Lenses | Join Upload & Sell
1 2 3 … 6
7
8 … 37 38 end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

  Username   Password  
Lost your password?