3D discussion in the canonforum

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

Moderated by: Fred Miranda

Pre-order new Rokinon 16mm f/2.0 ED AS UMC lens

Pre-order new Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 DC HSM lens

Bower 35mm f/1.4 price dropped to $379

FM Forums \| Alternative Gear & Lenses \| Join Upload & Sell
1 2 3 4 5 end

Archive 2009 · 3D discussion in the canonforum

Anden
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #1 · 3D discussion in the canonforum

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/838938

More about the body than lenses. Jordan made a comment and posted the only 3D photo in the thread (Sonnar 85/2.8...).
The rest of the photos are not 3D at all. A few with the 135L have good pop.
Anyone who can explain it to them? Brainiac? :-)

Nov 27, 2009 at 08:06 AM

jcolwell
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #2 · 3D discussion in the canonforum

Anden wrote:
Anyone who can explain it to them? Brainiac? :-)

This should be good...

Nov 27, 2009 at 12:05 PM

edwardkaraa
Online
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #3 · 3D discussion in the canonforum

Poor fellows. No one told them about the god of 3D, Zeus, or was it Zeiss?

Nov 27, 2009 at 12:30 PM

cogitech
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #4 · 3D discussion in the canonforum

Indeed. They are so far off the mark it makes me feel sorry for them.

Nov 27, 2009 at 12:52 PM

philber
Online
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #5 · 3D discussion in the canonforum

C'mon guys, we are so totally superior to these poor fellows, let's not be smug...

Nov 27, 2009 at 01:06 PM

Navyblue
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #6 · 3D discussion in the canonforum

I find it elitist, but I have to agree.

Disclaimer: I am more or less a "Canon guy" and obviously not one of you.

Nov 27, 2009 at 01:23 PM

philber
Online
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #7 · 3D discussion in the canonforum

Don't forget the

Navyblue, we were all noobs, once... come and join the fun...

Nov 27, 2009 at 01:37 PM

wickerprints
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #8 · 3D discussion in the canonforum

Anden wrote:
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/838938

More about the body than lenses. Jordan made a comment and posted the only 3D photo in the thread (Sonnar 85/2.8...).
The rest of the photos are not 3D at all. A few with the 135L have good pop.
Anyone who can explain it to them? Brainiac? :-)

The problem with your claim, as with all "3D" claims, is that you had the benefit of knowing the image was taken with a Zeiss lens.

If I presented to you a series of images taken with a variety of lenses, with all metadata removed, and asked you to pick out which of those images have that "3D" look, I believe the results would be far more credible.

I often see photographers claim to know that a particular image was taken with a particular lens, or has a particular "look." Yet not a single one of them has defined it, nor have they passed a blind test designed to verify their ability to do so. Now I should point out that there are very real optical differences between lenses of different manufacturers--but that is not the issue at hand. Rather, what I call into question is the existence of some kind of nebulous quality that, if it truly exists, should be able to be expressed in precise terms.

Nov 27, 2009 at 01:47 PM

ken.vs.ryu
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #9 · 3D discussion in the canonforum

there is some disturbing bokeh in that thread.

Nov 27, 2009 at 01:54 PM

cogitech
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #10 · 3D discussion in the canonforum

wickerprints wrote:
Rather, what I call into question is the existence of some kind of nebulous quality that, if it truly exists, should be able to be expressed in precise terms.

Despite some measure of disagreement, it has been expressed in fairly precise terms. Just not in that thread. Those shots in that thread only illustrate a misunderstanding of what the 3D effect looks like, or should look like. Most of them are decidedly flat and "un-3D".

We may not completely agree on what causes 3D-effect over here in the weird side of the forum, but most of us at least agree on what it looks like.

Edited on Nov 27, 2009 at 02:06 PM · View previous versions

Nov 27, 2009 at 02:04 PM

biotar
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #11 · 3D discussion in the canonforum

I agree that by doing a blind or double blind test you get far more accurate results. You are absolutely right.

Therefore it can be greatly unsatisfying that most of us are not interested in performing such tests since we all know which lenses will show those characteristics most.

Please look in our 3d lenses threads and just see for yourself. Or perform such blind tests yourself. Much has been said on this issue here and mostly Zeiss lenses show 3d characteristics. Other than that for instance the Canon 135L is also known to produce 3d qualities in some cases

Nov 27, 2009 at 02:05 PM

aoluain
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #12 · 3D discussion in the canonforum

I think there are a few samples on the canon thread that have some form of
3D'id ness but yea its a big ask to expect a 3D image from many of the canon lenses

Nov 27, 2009 at 02:34 PM

StevenPA
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #13 · 3D discussion in the canonforum

The very first pic in that thread (water guy) has nice 3D. Then on page 2 the guitarist and sax player in the park are almost there. The others not so much.

Nov 27, 2009 at 02:41 PM

aoluain
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #14 · 3D discussion in the canonforum

agree, that first one is a great pic !

Nov 27, 2009 at 03:51 PM

RustyBug
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #15 · 3D discussion in the canonforum

Jordan made a comment and posted the only 3D photo in the thread (Sonnar 85/2.8...).
The rest of the photos are not 3D at all. A few with the 135L have good pop.

+1

As I rapidly scrolled through them ... Jordan's pics made me stop & look, while a couple of the 135L shots only made me slow down. The rest, well you know the story.

Without the full agreement on how / why it is acheived, it does seem pretty obvious how NOT to achieve it ... and for the most part I think Canon's (current, i.e. not FD's) lenses designs have characteristics that help pull off the 'Canon look' ... but are counter to the 3D-look (135L mildly excepted).

Nov 27, 2009 at 03:59 PM

philber
Online
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #16 · 3D discussion in the canonforum

Canon EOS 5D Mark II 21 mm f/5.6 1/125 sec 100 ISO 0.0 EV

Nov 27, 2009 at 04:06 PM

wickerprints
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #17 · 3D discussion in the canonforum

No no no, you're doing it wrong...because people can see the EXIF and they'll say it's not "3D." You have to trick them!

I have half a mind to rent a Zeiss ZE 85/1.4 and set up my own test.

Nov 27, 2009 at 04:29 PM

philber
Online
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #18 · 3D discussion in the canonforum

So you are saying that the pic is not "3D", wickerprints? And how do you find that in the EXIF?

Nov 27, 2009 at 04:34 PM

I Am Luna
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #19 · 3D discussion in the canonforum

Even in the alt forum people had disagreements as to what "3D" was.

Nov 27, 2009 at 04:36 PM

philber
Online
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #20 · 3D discussion in the canonforum

I warned you that I was going to stir up trouble...

Nov 27, 2009 at 04:37 PM

1 2 3 4 5 end
FM Forums \| Alternative Gear & Lenses \| Join Upload & Sell 1 2 3 4 5 end