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

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

Haha, I didn't intend any pun there.

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

Very clever ...

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......

This is a good example of 3D without blur.

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.

edk should post his zeiss135/1.8 pics.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

You're looking for accutance and resolution.

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.

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

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...

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!).

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.