edwardkaraa wrote:
Some lenses are designed to have a 3D effect. Zeiss is notably known for trying to enhance the 3D in all its lenses, at the expense of making some other compromises to the image quality. In wide angles for instance, I notice more field curvature in 3D lenses than others, which affects the corner sharpness.


Do you see field curvature in the ZA 135? It's got nice 3-D qualities as shown in your own images, yet from what I understand (and see in its MTF's) its got a pretty flat field.

I for one think the lenses are playing a large role. I have 2 Canon lenses (70-200 and 300/4) and just don't use them because they consistently look flat and uninvolving to me. A good lens can make simple snapshots pop out irrespective of lighting conditions.
Here is a snapshot from the weekend of a friend's baby with bounced, diffused on-camera flash. Zeiss 85/1.4 N-Planar stopped down to f4.0.

JimU wrote:
here's my 1 minute re-post processing job to try to create 3-d. i think i over did it with lowering the mid-tone levels.

before:


after:



Yep, looks more 3D to me.

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:



I see no 3D in this photo, Alf.

I hate to say it, but neither do I. There is some in the babyshot, but the flash is too flat (frontal) for more 3D I think.

Lotusm50 wrote:
I for one think the lenses are playing a large role. I have 2 Canon lenses (70-200 and 300/4) and just don't use them because they consistently look flat and uninvolving to me.

Yes - I sold my 70-200 f2.8 L IS because of this. It's a great lens, and I can see why people like it, but the results are too flat and I got bored with it and stopped using it.

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:



I see no 3D in this photo, Alf.

Me neither.

That pictures from ZA135 definitely has 3-D look....IMHO.
Really nice.....

carstenw wrote:
I hate to say it, but neither do I. There is some in the babyshot, but the flash is too flat (frontal) for more 3D I think.


I think that's the point. Even when the light is far from ideal, the right lens can still convey convey some convincing dimensionality. The ability to create 3-D images is not really about lighting, etc. (though it can certainly assist).

brainiac 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:

I see no 3D in this photo, Alf.

Me neither.


+1 The 2 people actually look more like flat cardboard cut-outs positioned in front of a background.

is it not bad practice to photograph monks?

Lotusm50 wrote:
carstenw wrote:
I hate to say it, but neither do I. There is some in the babyshot, but the flash is too flat (frontal) for more 3D I think.


I think that's the point. Even when the light is far from ideal, the right lens can still convey convey some convincing dimensionality. The ability to create 3-D images is not really about lighting, etc. (though it can certainly assist).





I guess I would have to disagree with that statement in a major way. LIghting is to photography what air is to breathing! I do agree the lens plays a part but not necessarily more so than lighting and color.

Tariq Gibran wrote:
Lotusm50 wrote:
I think that's the point. Even when the light is far from ideal, the right lens can still convey convey some convincing dimensionality. The ability to create 3-D images is not really about lighting, etc. (though it can certainly assist).



I guess I would have to disagree with that statement in a major way. LIghting is to photography what air is to breathing! I do agree the lens plays a part but not necessarily more so than lighting and color.



Clearly good lighting can help effectively model a 3-dimensional form so that it doesn't look flat. it will give you the shadows and edges necessary for the eye to determine that the object pictured is 3-dimensional and not flat. No question about that.

But I think we are talking about something beyond simple modeling of a form to convey its form. We are talking about the quality in an image that make it look like it is now bound by the 2 dimensions of the paper (or screen). Like it is coming out of the page or that you can almost reach out and touch. A good lens can make a significant contribution to producing that illusion in a way that lighting alone can not. Some suggest the way Zeiss lenses differentiate color, texture, volume, spatial position, macro and mIcro contrast, etc contribute to this illusion. Honestly, I don't know how they do it, just that it is palpably visible to the eye. Like I said previously, good lighting can help with this, but ultimately is not responsible for it and will have a difficult time producing the illusion without a lens that can do it. In the multiple recent threads dealing with this issue, we have seen this illusion of palpable dimensionality produce under a wide range or lighting conditions -- good, bad and indifferent, artificial, natural and mixed. This just leads me to conclude that lighting is not the responsible factor for this 3-D-ness, merely a contributing or assisting one.

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:



I see no 3D in this photo, Alf.

I was just going to post the same thing. That image is shockingly TWO-d.

Of curse, we may all have different mental images about what the term means, but I think most of us feel it's a sense of a CURVING of the subject. It doesn't just mean low apertures and tons of background separation.

I also don't think it demands, as someone said earlier, a super-low f-stop. The CZ Planar pic I posted earlier is at f/2.8, and has PLENTY of 3D, especially if you see the original.

Cableaddict wrote:

Of curse, we may all have different mental images about what the term means, but I think most of us feel it's a sense of a CURVING of the subject. It doesn't just mean low apertures and tons of background separation.



From my reading, there are a significant number of people who think it is differential focus, with the subject in focus and the background not. There is also the camp that you describe. Let's call it a 50/50 split

Am I the only one who doesn't see any 3D in any pics?
I must be 3D blind

this is 3D
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/829531

s

parsons wrote:
this is 3D
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/829531

s


holy crap, this is 3D. My 3D blindness is cured! Now my eyes hurt ... from crossing too much but it's worth it.

check out johns other posts, they are most excellent

Lotusm50 wrote:
edwardkaraa wrote:
Some lenses are designed to have a 3D effect. Zeiss is notably known for trying to enhance the 3D in all its lenses, at the expense of making some other compromises to the image quality. In wide angles for instance, I notice more field curvature in 3D lenses than others, which affects the corner sharpness.


Do you see field curvature in the ZA 135? It's got nice 3-D qualities as shown in your own images, yet from what I understand (and see in its MTF's) its got a pretty flat field.



You are absolutely right regarding the 135. But I have got some really good 3D shots taken with Zeiss wide angles where field curvature seems to play a role in this effect. No body knows exactly what is the "trick", it could be the other way around: Whatever Zeiss is doing to improve 3D may be worsening the field curvature in wide angle lenses. This is of course pure speculation from a clueless user