cogitech
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
I'm coming to the conclusion that there are certain controllable factors involved in achieving the 3D effect. Some of these have to do with technique, others to do with aspects of the lens itself, including both global and local contrast and of course plain old resolution.
Most importantly, the culmination of these factors must closely approximate how we see things with the naked eye, in order to be convincing. This means that objects at closer distances may seem 3D if the focal plane "wraps around" them, creating the necessary edge contrast to pull it away from the blurred background, but also maintaining sufficient DoF and necessary local contrast and/or resolution in the foreground to provide all the detail that we expect to see. It is unnatural for an object such as the bear honey bottle to have a blurry face and a sharp outline around the ears, so 3D doesn't happen.
But then we have "3D" scenes in which the DoF extends throughout the entire image. Images that appear to be a window looking into a "real scene". The feeling that we could "step right into it". This tells us that "3D" is not simply a matter of isolating a subject against a blurred background. The reason why these scenes still work is because that is how we see them with our naked eye. Here, it is simply a matter of providing the viewer with a very close approximation to what is seen by the naked eye. Resolution and local/global contrast are the important factors, but we must never forget the role of light/shadow, of course.
All of these factors, regardless of the type of scene, can be controlled to a certain extent. It just so happens that some Zeiss lenses provide optimization of many of these factors "out of the box". A clever shooter should be able to achieve a reasonable 3D effect by the right selection of aperture, lighting, subject-background distances, and post-processing techniques to optimize contrast (both types) and detail.
|
