which lens has the most 3D POP?
/forum/topic/983034/2

1       2      
3
       4              7       8       end

ZoneV
Registered: Nov 20, 2008
Total Posts: 890
Country: Germany

3D without small DOF - Zeiss 85/1.4 (C/Y) AEJ @ ~ 5.6
Canon EOS 5D



dasrocket
Registered: Jul 13, 2006
Total Posts: 2015
Country: Canada

AhamB wrote:
^^^ Nice! Except for the sheep cut off at the left border (perhaps better to clone out).


"clone out the sheep" haha good one



AhamB
Registered: Jul 11, 2008
Total Posts: 4964
Country: Germany

Haha, I didn't intend any pun there.



RustyBug
Registered: Feb 02, 2009
Total Posts: 12880
Country: United States

dasrocket wrote:
"clone out the sheep" haha good one


Very clever ...



CampX
Registered: Dec 21, 2005
Total Posts: 811
Country: Canada

To my un-trained eye, I am finding that my Helios 44M-6 has a certain POP to it. It is razor sharp. When my 400mm F5.6L isn't on my 7D, there is a very good chance the Helios is there for everything else......













Anden
Registered: Jun 22, 2004
Total Posts: 6471
Country: Sweden

This is a good example of 3D without blur.



denoir
Registered: Feb 11, 2010
Total Posts: 4209
Country: Sweden

This is rather typical - there is a broad agreement on what '3D' is in principle but when it comes to actual pictures there is usually total disagreement. There are two images in this thread that I personally think show 3D rendering - and it's Anden's shot above and Makten's second shot on the previous page. Possible candidates are also Ataboy's portrait and Makten's first shot.

Here are two shots with the Zeiss 50/1.4 Planar explicitly taken with the purpose of testing the 3D effect. The first one was shot at f/1.4 and the second one at f/5.6.















ken.vs.ryu
Registered: Apr 24, 2005
Total Posts: 3466
Country: N/A

edk should post his zeiss135/1.8 pics.



cputeq
Registered: Jun 25, 2008
Total Posts: 4703
Country: United States

I haven't done any case studies on the matter or scientific mumbo jumbo, but to me, on 3-D-ness, it's pretty easy.

1) You need an appropriate subject, subject-to-camera distance, etc. I believe the whole 3-D aspect of an image is because it roughly estimates what our eyes and brain would 'render' were we that close (or far away) from the scene.

2) The proper amount of background blur. Too much and it's going to look fake, look digital, look like something we wouldn't see. Not enough, and you're not going to get a good sense of depth. Plus, it's got to be good blur - lots of rough bokeh edges, cat eye effects, etc. are going to jar the viewer and remind them it's not real.

3) Micro-contrast - specifically, good contrast (including edge contrast) in the subject, because our eyes naturally see more detail and contrast up close than far away. This is also going to help separate the foreground objects from things behind it.

4) The right photo to begin with - some just work more than others. For instance, I've not yet ever seen a strongly backlit 3-D looking photo. Most everything that I see as 3-Dy is side-lit or with diffused light.



espressogeek
Registered: Jul 17, 2006
Total Posts: 556
Country: United States

I've used a Zeiss 60/3.5 and 180/4 on a Hasselblad with a P21 and that setup had some crazy 3d pop to it.



Tariq Gibran
Registered: Oct 01, 2006
Total Posts: 10475
Country: United States

I don't know about the most, but after recently testing a Leica R Summicron 50, I was surprised at the level of 3D quality that lens exhibits around F4. It seems to have high micro-contrast yet at the same time exhibits tonal and color subtlety. I think the complexity of this combination contributes to the 3D effect. Anyway, surprised by the performance of this lens at F4 -and beyond - though I don't find it that impressive wide open.



j.liam
Registered: Dec 13, 2009
Total Posts: 2286
Country: United States

Tariq Gibran wrote:
.... I was surprised at the level of 3D quality that lens exhibits around F4. It seems to have high micro-contrast yet at the same time exhibits tonal and color subtlety. I think the complexity of this combination contributes to the 3D effect....


Noticed the identical qualities in the 28 R Elmarit v.2 but @ f/2.8 as well.



wfrank
Registered: Feb 09, 2011
Total Posts: 2890
Country: Sweden

So, reading through this thread and admiring the images - I think I understand that 3D is a function of super-sharpness and super-micro contrast (which is delivered via good PP technique into web-sized images found here).

Background blur (preferably of the gaussian type) together with a short DOF helps, but is not the key.

So, being an engineer-type-of-person and a believer in the natural sciences I also think I understand that the first factor (sharpness) is reasonably measured by/via MTF-curves - ie a function of resolution. But the second one, micro contrast, is there a measure for that?



j.liam
Registered: Dec 13, 2009
Total Posts: 2286
Country: United States

It's also a function, I believe, of the transition from in-focus to OOF. If its quick and the OOF objects in the immediate vicinity are rendered with varying degrees of blur, the 3D illusion is enhanced.



Sp12
Registered: Apr 08, 2011
Total Posts: 741
Country: United States

You're looking for accutance and resolution.



Tariq Gibran
Registered: Oct 01, 2006
Total Posts: 10475
Country: United States

j.liam wrote:
Tariq Gibran wrote:
.... I was surprised at the level of 3D quality that lens exhibits around F4. It seems to have high micro-contrast yet at the same time exhibits tonal and color subtlety. I think the complexity of this combination contributes to the 3D effect....


Noticed the identical qualities in the 28 R Elmarit v.2 but @ f/2.8 as well.


Yep, I also saw it with that lens in the brief time I owned it.



cputeq
Registered: Jun 25, 2008
Total Posts: 4703
Country: United States

wfrank wrote... I also think I understand that the first factor (sharpness) is reasonably measured by/via MTF-curves - ie a function of resolution.

MTF is part of the equation, but start throwing in field curvature in lenses and then the nature of the subject, and MTF might as well go out the window.

MTF is good for planar subjects and can get you in the ballpark of "sharpness" but is by no means the whole story.




---- Sheesh, I'm starting to sound like a Zeiss zealot and I don't even have my 35/2 in yet



j.liam
Registered: Dec 13, 2009
Total Posts: 2286
Country: United States

Tariq Gibran wrote:
j.liam wrote:
Tariq Gibran wrote:
.... I was surprised at the level of 3D quality that lens exhibits around F4. It seems to have high micro-contrast yet at the same time exhibits tonal and color subtlety. I think the complexity of this combination contributes to the 3D effect....


Noticed the identical qualities in the 28 R Elmarit v.2 but @ f/2.8 as well.


Yep, I also saw it with that lens in the brief time I owned it.


In this characteristic, it is very different than the Nikkor 28/2 I own. I also prefer it to the ZF 28/2 I briefly owned. Shame that you sold yours...



Tariq Gibran
Registered: Oct 01, 2006
Total Posts: 10475
Country: United States

j.liam wrote:
Tariq Gibran wrote:
j.liam wrote:
Tariq Gibran wrote:
.... I was surprised at the level of 3D quality that lens exhibits around F4. It seems to have high micro-contrast yet at the same time exhibits tonal and color subtlety. I think the complexity of this combination contributes to the 3D effect....


Noticed the identical qualities in the 28 R Elmarit v.2 but @ f/2.8 as well.


Yep, I also saw it with that lens in the brief time I owned it.


In this characteristic, it is very different than the Nikkor 28/2 I own. I also prefer it to the ZF 28/2 I briefly owned. Shame that you sold yours...


The one I received had a very rough spot in the focusing just before infinity so I had to return it for a refund. At the moment I'm "making do" with a CY 28 2.8 which performs extremely well stopped down but I know the Leica is a better lens (as it should be for what they go for!).



j.liam
Registered: Dec 13, 2009
Total Posts: 2286
Country: United States

Tariq Gibran wrote:
The one I received had a very rough spot in the focusing just before infinity so I had to return it for a refund. At the moment I'm "making do" with a CY 28 2.8 which performs extremely well stopped down but I know the Leica is a better lens (as it should be for what they go for!).


I am told by a local Leica dealer in NYC that of late, videographers and cinematographers have been snapping up the very best of Leica R's, hence the recent rarity and astronomical prices. And to no small extent, because of the 3D-rendering characteristics.



1       2      
3
       4              7       8       end