This topic is in the 2016 archive. You can read it and like its posts here. It is read only.
Archive 2016The mystery of the Zeiss look?
p.18 #1The mystery of the Zeiss look?
zhangyue wrote:
No, I don't think so.
As I have pointed out in early post, the difference get smaller. since 5~6 years ago, Nikon got full line of 1.8G, and 35f1.4, 85f1.4G. And Canon have 24-70MKII, 35LII, 70-200II, 16-35f4 etc... It will be stressed for me to detect difference at those small aperture. but could be just me. I am open minded here
The same thing happen to Leica M glass compare to modern Sigma, Tamron, Canikony. But Leica still offer size advantage and Zeiss still offer lens with monster performance like OTUS.
+ 1. I think the look between manufactures does appear to be converging. Many of those lenses mentioned are a lot Zeissier looking than their predecessors to me (I noted this with the Canons).
The perceived delta may be bigger if you switched to Zeiss several years back.
Phillip Reeve wrote
Do you think that it would be as clear if those Zeiss lenses were compared to the more modern designs like the EF 4/16-35 L, 2/35 IS, Sigma 1.4/50 A?As I have pointed out in early post, the difference get smaller. since 5~6 years ago, Nikon got full line of 1.8G, and 35f1.4, 85f1.4G. And Canon have 24-70MKII, 35LII, 70-200II, 16-35f4 etc... It will be stressed for me to detect difference at those small aperture. but could be just me. I am open minded here
The same thing happen to Leica M glass compare to modern Sigma, Tamron, Canikony. But Leica still offer size advantage and Zeiss still offer lens with monster performance like OTUS.
+ 1. I think the look between manufactures does appear to be converging. Many of those lenses mentioned are a lot Zeissier looking than their predecessors to me (I noted this with the Canons).
The perceived delta may be bigger if you switched to Zeiss several years back.
Mar 07, 2016 at 04:33 PM
p.18 #2The mystery of the Zeiss look?
henry albert wrote:
Now you might not see these things in the images...that's a different issue which has been discussed in this thread. Not everyone is in tune to picking up subtle differences in images, just like not everyone can pick up the blackberry fruit as they guzzle their wine.Wow. Condescend much? I remember you now.
I want hard data. I want to see it with my own eyes. I want someone to show me the image and provide an analysis that supports the theory of Zeiss-ness. Ain't saying no such animal exists, but don't count me among the believers until I see Sasquatch's footprint.
Now why do I want to waste my time in making you a believer. Just like Yoda said, Do...Do not, there is no try. For you..,Do not seems the case.
chez wrote
You obviously haven't read to thoroughly. I've seen discussions of wide open sharpness, great overall contrasts, micro-contrast that leads to sharpness, great colors, nice gradual tonal ranges etc...Now you might not see these things in the images...that's a different issue which has been discussed in this thread. Not everyone is in tune to picking up subtle differences in images, just like not everyone can pick up the blackberry fruit as they guzzle their wine.
I want hard data. I want to see it with my own eyes. I want someone to show me the image and provide an analysis that supports the theory of Zeiss-ness. Ain't saying no such animal exists, but don't count me among the believers until I see Sasquatch's footprint.
Now why do I want to waste my time in making you a believer. Just like Yoda said, Do...Do not, there is no try. For you..,Do not seems the case.
Mar 07, 2016 at 04:35 PM
p.18 #3The mystery of the Zeiss look?
SKumar25 wrote:
No, I don't think so.
As I have pointed out in early post, the difference get smaller. since 5~6 years ago, Nikon got full line of 1.8G, and 35f1.4, 85f1.4G. And Canon have 24-70MKII, 35LII, 70-200II, 16-35f4 etc... It will be stressed for me to detect difference at those small aperture. but could be just me. I am open minded here
The same thing happen to Leica M glass compare to modern Sigma, Tamron, Canikony. But Leica still offer size advantage and Zeiss still offer lens with monster performance like OTUS.+ 1. I think the look between manufactures does appear to be converging. Many of those lenses mentioned are a lot Zeissier looking than their predecessors to me (I noted this with the Canons).
The perceived delta may be bigger if you switched to Zeiss several years back.
That's not surprising as computer modeling is allowing lens designers to correct more and more aberrations and automated manufacturing techniques with modern materials are able to produce those lenses.
Choice is a good thing as competition keeps vendors honest and technology marching forward.
zhangyue wrote
Phillip Reeve wrote
Do you think that it would be as clear if those Zeiss lenses were compared to the more modern designs like the EF 4/16-35 L, 2/35 IS, Sigma 1.4/50 A?As I have pointed out in early post, the difference get smaller. since 5~6 years ago, Nikon got full line of 1.8G, and 35f1.4, 85f1.4G. And Canon have 24-70MKII, 35LII, 70-200II, 16-35f4 etc... It will be stressed for me to detect difference at those small aperture. but could be just me. I am open minded here
The same thing happen to Leica M glass compare to modern Sigma, Tamron, Canikony. But Leica still offer size advantage and Zeiss still offer lens with monster performance like OTUS.
The perceived delta may be bigger if you switched to Zeiss several years back.
That's not surprising as computer modeling is allowing lens designers to correct more and more aberrations and automated manufacturing techniques with modern materials are able to produce those lenses.
Choice is a good thing as competition keeps vendors honest and technology marching forward.
Mar 07, 2016 at 04:40 PM
p.18 #4The mystery of the Zeiss look?
Andre Labonte wrote:
No offense, but up to and including this thread I can't recall any Zeiss owners adequately explaining what they are seeing when they extol the virtues of their lenses.You obviously haven't read to thoroughly. I've seen discussions of wide open sharpness, great overall contrasts, micro-contrast that leads to sharpness, great colors, nice gradual tonal ranges etc...
Now you might not see these things in the images...that's a different issue which has been discussed in this thread. Not everyone is in tune to picking up subtle differences in images, just like not everyone can pick up the blackberry fruit as they guzzle their wine. You can't see it in the images but trust him, it's there!!!! That's comical.
Comical or hypocritical? This same thread he claims others are being insulting, yet he does exactly the same thing here. Comical is being generous :-)
chez wrote
henry albert wrote
snapsy wrote
As a Zeiss owner I don't recall ever posting in non-Zeiss lens threads to argue about how those lenses lack in any particular degree vs a Zeiss. I don't recall many other Zeiss owners doing it either, although I'm sure there are a few exceptions.Now you might not see these things in the images...that's a different issue which has been discussed in this thread. Not everyone is in tune to picking up subtle differences in images, just like not everyone can pick up the blackberry fruit as they guzzle their wine.
You can't see it in the images but trust him, it's there!!!! That's comical.Comical or hypocritical? This same thread he claims others are being insulting, yet he does exactly the same thing here. Comical is being generous :-)
Mar 07, 2016 at 04:50 PM
p.18 #5The mystery of the Zeiss look?
chez wrote:
Now you might not see these things in the images...that's a different issue which has been discussed in this thread. Not everyone is in tune to picking up subtle differences in images, just like not everyone can pick up the blackberry fruit as they guzzle their wine.Wow. Condescend much? I remember you now.
I want hard data. I want to see it with my own eyes. I want someone to show me the image and provide an analysis that supports the theory of Zeiss-ness. Ain't saying no such animal exists, but don't count me among the believers until I see Sasquatch's footprint.Now why do I want to waste my time in making you a believer. Just like Yoda said, Do...Do not, there is no try. For you..,Do not seems the case.
Yoda quotes and Zeiss magic. This may be coming clearer to me after all.
henry albert wrote
chez wrote
You obviously haven't read to thoroughly. I've seen discussions of wide open sharpness, great overall contrasts, micro-contrast that leads to sharpness, great colors, nice gradual tonal ranges etc...Now you might not see these things in the images...that's a different issue which has been discussed in this thread. Not everyone is in tune to picking up subtle differences in images, just like not everyone can pick up the blackberry fruit as they guzzle their wine.
I want hard data. I want to see it with my own eyes. I want someone to show me the image and provide an analysis that supports the theory of Zeiss-ness. Ain't saying no such animal exists, but don't count me among the believers until I see Sasquatch's footprint.
Yoda quotes and Zeiss magic. This may be coming clearer to me after all.
Mar 07, 2016 at 04:52 PM
p.18 #6The mystery of the Zeiss look?
ckcarr wrote:
A Ford guy posts in a Ford forum a question about a Chevy. Somehow that post gets cross posted into a Chevy forum. "Ford better!" "No, Chevy better!"
The end.
Such fools! Everyone knows Datsun Roolz!
A Ford guy posts in a Ford forum a question about a Chevy. Somehow that post gets cross posted into a Chevy forum. "Ford better!" "No, Chevy better!"
The end.
Such fools! Everyone knows Datsun Roolz!
Mar 07, 2016 at 04:54 PM
p.18 #7The mystery of the Zeiss look?
It is all about priority. Do you value portability, AF or absolutely performance as the first priority?
Zeiss OTUS really give a medium format look given infocus behavor with no aberration(similar to larger format lens at f2.8). And it widely increase shooting envalop as you can shoot night sky or medium format look portrait and without worry anything to shoot landscape at f1.4 with 36M sensor if DOF covered your need.
The limitation is price and weight though. I won't claim it is a must for my work just as any other lens in my bag but there is no other options in such a full package offering sharpness, Color correction, zero FC and SA etc.
naturephoto1 wrote:
Thank God at this point that the only Full Frame Cameras that can use M mount lenses (Leica, Zeiss, etc.) are Leica and Sony A7 series cameras.
No offense, but up to and including this thread I can't recall any Zeiss owners adequately explaining what they are seeing when they extol the virtues of their lenses.here is the summary from the blind test: https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/983404/2&year=2011#9331028
basically the answer is greater local contrast and different colors.
disclaimer: i'm not claiming anything about 3D and i don't own any modern zeiss lenses.Do you think that it would be as clear if those Zeiss lenses were compared to the more modern designs like the EF 4/16-35 L, 2/35 IS, Sigma 1.4/50 A?No, I don't think so.
As I have pointed out in early post, the difference get smaller. since 5~6 years ago, Nikon got full line of 1.8G, and 35f1.4, 85f1.4G. And Canon have 24-70MKII, 35LII, 70-200II, 16-35f4 etc... It will be stressed for me to detect difference at those small aperture. but could be just me. I am open minded here
The same thing happen to Leica M glass compare to modern Sigma, Tamron, Canikony. But Leica still offer size advantage and Zeiss still offer lens with monster performance like OTUS.Michael,
The interesting thing is that I have absolutely no interest in any of the Otus lenses, but Leica R, Leica M, Zeiss ZM, and even the Zeiss Loxia lenses, those are of interest to me.
Rich
Zeiss OTUS really give a medium format look given infocus behavor with no aberration(similar to larger format lens at f2.8). And it widely increase shooting envalop as you can shoot night sky or medium format look portrait and without worry anything to shoot landscape at f1.4 with 36M sensor if DOF covered your need.
The limitation is price and weight though. I won't claim it is a must for my work just as any other lens in my bag but there is no other options in such a full package offering sharpness, Color correction, zero FC and SA etc.
naturephoto1 wrote:
Thank God at this point that the only Full Frame Cameras that can use M mount lenses (Leica, Zeiss, etc.) are Leica and Sony A7 series cameras.
zhangyue wrote
Phillip Reeve wrote
sebboh wrote
henry albert wrote
snapsy wrote
As a Zeiss owner I don't recall ever posting in non-Zeiss lens threads to argue about how those lenses lack in any particular degree vs a Zeiss. I don't recall many other Zeiss owners doing it either, although I'm sure there are a few exceptions.basically the answer is greater local contrast and different colors.
disclaimer: i'm not claiming anything about 3D and i don't own any modern zeiss lenses.
As I have pointed out in early post, the difference get smaller. since 5~6 years ago, Nikon got full line of 1.8G, and 35f1.4, 85f1.4G. And Canon have 24-70MKII, 35LII, 70-200II, 16-35f4 etc... It will be stressed for me to detect difference at those small aperture. but could be just me. I am open minded here
The same thing happen to Leica M glass compare to modern Sigma, Tamron, Canikony. But Leica still offer size advantage and Zeiss still offer lens with monster performance like OTUS.
The interesting thing is that I have absolutely no interest in any of the Otus lenses, but Leica R, Leica M, Zeiss ZM, and even the Zeiss Loxia lenses, those are of interest to me.
Rich
Mar 07, 2016 at 04:56 PM
p.18 #8The mystery of the Zeiss look?
Andre Labonte wrote:
The fundamentals are perspective and DOF. I agree good sharpness helps with the effect if the image is displayed large enough, otherwise it's a non-factor ... as for micro contrast, this article sums up my view of that:
http://www.dslrbodies.com/lenses/lens-articles/what-is-micro-contrast.html
The article uses a terrible example to explain micro contrast. No wonder it is meaningless to him.
Look at the image below.
https://pptcrafter.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/sphere1.png
Does one object look more 3D than the other? Are DOF and perspective involved? Micro contrast among other factors play a similar role in a photo to render objects with more pop.
Check out this article: https://luminous-landscape.com/understanding-lens-contrast/
Edited on Mar 07, 2016 at 05:07 PM · View previous versions
The fundamentals are perspective and DOF. I agree good sharpness helps with the effect if the image is displayed large enough, otherwise it's a non-factor ... as for micro contrast, this article sums up my view of that:
http://www.dslrbodies.com/lenses/lens-articles/what-is-micro-contrast.html
The article uses a terrible example to explain micro contrast. No wonder it is meaningless to him.
Look at the image below.
https://pptcrafter.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/sphere1.png
Does one object look more 3D than the other? Are DOF and perspective involved? Micro contrast among other factors play a similar role in a photo to render objects with more pop.
Check out this article: https://luminous-landscape.com/understanding-lens-contrast/
Edited on Mar 07, 2016 at 05:07 PM · View previous versions
Mar 07, 2016 at 05:00 PM
p.18 #9The mystery of the Zeiss look?
Phillip Reeve wrote:
sebboh wrote
henry albert wrote
snapsy wrote
As a Zeiss owner I don't recall ever posting in non-Zeiss lens threads to argue about how those lenses lack in any particular degree vs a Zeiss. I don't recall many other Zeiss owners doing it either, although I'm sure there are a few exceptions.basically the answer is greater local contrast and different colors.
disclaimer: i'm not claiming anything about 3D and i don't own any modern zeiss lenses.
no, definitely not as clear with other high end primes. there are definitely still distinctive color signatures for each brand though as well is signature optical trade offs different brands prefer. I'd be curious to see a similar test versus the art series.
Mar 07, 2016 at 05:03 PM
p.18 #10The mystery of the Zeiss look?
SKumar25 wrote:
http://www.dslrbodies.com/lenses/lens-articles/what-is-micro-contrast.htmlThe article uses a terrible example to explain micro contrast. No wonder it is meaningless to him.
Look at the image below.
https://pptcrafter.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/sphere1.png
Does one object look more 3D than the other? Are DOF and perspective involved? Micro contrast among other factors play a similar role in a photo to render objects with more pop.
Check out this article: https://luminous-landscape.com/understanding-lens-contrast/
***********************
Oh now, let's not misrepresent what he said. It's meaningful to him as it's meaningful to the images. His point is that micro contrast is inherent in the images due to the source of the light and thus the detector detecting it. The sensor and PP are more significant factors than the lens, which is why he does not talk about micro-contrast differences in his lens review. Parsing the miniscule contribution of the lens from more important factors is a red herring.
Andre Labonte wrote
The fundamentals are perspective and DOF. I agree good sharpness helps with the effect if the image is displayed large enough, otherwise it's a non-factor ... as for micro contrast, this article sums up my view of that:http://www.dslrbodies.com/lenses/lens-articles/what-is-micro-contrast.html
Look at the image below.
https://pptcrafter.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/sphere1.png
Does one object look more 3D than the other? Are DOF and perspective involved? Micro contrast among other factors play a similar role in a photo to render objects with more pop.
Check out this article: https://luminous-landscape.com/understanding-lens-contrast/
***********************
Oh now, let's not misrepresent what he said. It's meaningful to him as it's meaningful to the images. His point is that micro contrast is inherent in the images due to the source of the light and thus the detector detecting it. The sensor and PP are more significant factors than the lens, which is why he does not talk about micro-contrast differences in his lens review. Parsing the miniscule contribution of the lens from more important factors is a red herring.
Mar 07, 2016 at 05:16 PM
p.18 #11The mystery of the Zeiss look?
SKumar25 wrote:
You are correct ...with as single lens "3D" is a perception but not reality. To get true 3D you need two images of the same object from different angles projected into a single image using a stereoscope.To me, 3D in this context is the ability to sense depth or perceive something as real looking.
It's like closing an eye, and looking at a real scene. With an eye closed, I can still sense depth using certain visual clues, in some cases almost the same with both eyes open.
It is the same thing for me on a 2D format like paper or a screen.
That is what I meant by 3D. It is more than the illusion of depth but also the sense that solid objects are modeled and have space surrounding them.
Rob
Andre Labonte wrote
akul wrote
IMHO 3D or not is all in lighting. Lens enhances but after all it is just 2d image messing with our perception.It's like closing an eye, and looking at a real scene. With an eye closed, I can still sense depth using certain visual clues, in some cases almost the same with both eyes open.
It is the same thing for me on a 2D format like paper or a screen.
That is what I meant by 3D. It is more than the illusion of depth but also the sense that solid objects are modeled and have space surrounding them.
Rob
Mar 07, 2016 at 05:21 PM
p.18 #12The mystery of the Zeiss look?
sebboh wrote:
No offense, but up to and including this thread I can't recall any Zeiss owners adequately explaining what they are seeing when they extol the virtues of their lenses.here is the summary from the blind test: https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/983404/2&year=2011#9331028
basically the answer is greater local contrast and different colors.
disclaimer: i'm not claiming anything about 3D and i don't own any modern zeiss lenses.Do you think that it would be as clear if those Zeiss lenses were compared to the more modern designs like the EF 4/16-35 L, 2/35 IS, Sigma 1.4/50 A?no, definitely not as clear with other high end primes. there are definitely still distinctive color signatures for each brand though as well is signature optical trade offs different brands prefer. I'd be curious to see a similar test versus the art series.
Certainly signature color cast/tint from brand to brand on average, though that can vary by lens as well. I've seen as much with my Tamron lenses rendering a little more orange than my Nikon lenses which are more color neutral.
Optical signatures are more varied by the specific lens design, but there is some truth to it there for lenses sharing similar designs.
Phillip Reeve wrote
sebboh wrote
henry albert wrote
snapsy wrote
As a Zeiss owner I don't recall ever posting in non-Zeiss lens threads to argue about how those lenses lack in any particular degree vs a Zeiss. I don't recall many other Zeiss owners doing it either, although I'm sure there are a few exceptions.basically the answer is greater local contrast and different colors.
disclaimer: i'm not claiming anything about 3D and i don't own any modern zeiss lenses.
Certainly signature color cast/tint from brand to brand on average, though that can vary by lens as well. I've seen as much with my Tamron lenses rendering a little more orange than my Nikon lenses which are more color neutral.
Optical signatures are more varied by the specific lens design, but there is some truth to it there for lenses sharing similar designs.
Mar 07, 2016 at 05:22 PM
p.18 #13The mystery of the Zeiss look?
robgo2 wrote:
You are correct ...with as single lens "3D" is a perception but not reality. To get true 3D you need two images of the same object from different angles projected into a single image using a stereoscope.To me, 3D in this context is the ability to sense depth or perceive something as real looking.
It's like closing an eye, and looking at a real scene. With an eye closed, I can still sense depth using certain visual clues, in some cases almost the same with both eyes open.
It is the same thing for me on a 2D format like paper or a screen.That is what I meant by 3D. It is more than the illusion of depth but also the sense that solid objects are modeled and have space surrounding them.
Rob
Sense, illusion, what the difference? It's still only a 2D image ... it may portray, give the sense, give the illusion of 3D, but it is a 2D image.
In order to have true 3D you need two or more perspectives ... single lens cameras do not collect that as such.
SKumar25 wrote
Andre Labonte wrote
akul wrote
IMHO 3D or not is all in lighting. Lens enhances but after all it is just 2d image messing with our perception.It's like closing an eye, and looking at a real scene. With an eye closed, I can still sense depth using certain visual clues, in some cases almost the same with both eyes open.
It is the same thing for me on a 2D format like paper or a screen.
Rob
Sense, illusion, what the difference? It's still only a 2D image ... it may portray, give the sense, give the illusion of 3D, but it is a 2D image.
In order to have true 3D you need two or more perspectives ... single lens cameras do not collect that as such.
Mar 07, 2016 at 05:25 PM
p.18 #14The mystery of the Zeiss look?
Andre Labonte wrote:
Parsing the miniscule contribution of the lens from more important factors is a red herring.
Miniscule? Red herring? - it comes down to measurable differences, and a person's abilities to sense these and the significance they choose to place on the difference.
Parsing the miniscule contribution of the lens from more important factors is a red herring.
Miniscule? Red herring? - it comes down to measurable differences, and a person's abilities to sense these and the significance they choose to place on the difference.
Mar 07, 2016 at 05:53 PM
p.18 #15The mystery of the Zeiss look?
that is perceptual which really is quite difficult to define as measurable/quantifiable
Mar 07, 2016 at 06:15 PM
p.18 #16The mystery of the Zeiss look?
sjms wrote:
that is perceptual which really is quite difficult to define as measurable/quantifiable
Take a picture of a red snooker ball on a dark background with 2 lenses. Then check for the range of colours recorded on both files in the red range. What's hard about this?
that is perceptual which really is quite difficult to define as measurable/quantifiable
Take a picture of a red snooker ball on a dark background with 2 lenses. Then check for the range of colours recorded on both files in the red range. What's hard about this?
Mar 07, 2016 at 06:23 PM
p.18 #17The mystery of the Zeiss look?
They should run mtf charts with dark gray lines on a neutral gray background.
Mar 07, 2016 at 06:37 PM
p.18 #18The mystery of the Zeiss look?
jctriguy wrote:
No offense, but up to and including this thread I can't recall any Zeiss owners adequately explaining what they are seeing when they extol the virtues of their lenses.You obviously haven't read to thoroughly. I've seen discussions of wide open sharpness, great overall contrasts, micro-contrast that leads to sharpness, great colors, nice gradual tonal ranges etc...
Now you might not see these things in the images...that's a different issue which has been discussed in this thread. Not everyone is in tune to picking up subtle differences in images, just like not everyone can pick up the blackberry fruit as they guzzle their wine. You can't see it in the images but trust him, it's there!!!! That's comical.Comical or hypocritical? This same thread he claims others are being insulting, yet he does exactly the same thing here. Comical is being generous :-)
JC...good to see you are still alive and contributing as usual. Nothing else to add other than attacks? Thought so.
Andre Labonte wrote
chez wrote
henry albert wrote
snapsy wrote
As a Zeiss owner I don't recall ever posting in non-Zeiss lens threads to argue about how those lenses lack in any particular degree vs a Zeiss. I don't recall many other Zeiss owners doing it either, although I'm sure there are a few exceptions.Now you might not see these things in the images...that's a different issue which has been discussed in this thread. Not everyone is in tune to picking up subtle differences in images, just like not everyone can pick up the blackberry fruit as they guzzle their wine.
You can't see it in the images but trust him, it's there!!!! That's comical.JC...good to see you are still alive and contributing as usual. Nothing else to add other than attacks? Thought so.
Mar 07, 2016 at 06:45 PM
p.18 #19The mystery of the Zeiss look?
SKumar25 wrote:
Take a picture of a red snooker ball on a dark background with 2 lenses. Then check for the range of colours recorded on both files in the red range. What's hard about this?
now that also comes down to the imager and how both react together. yet another layer of confusion. it is highly possible that both accept the equivalent spectrum and then its down to the "pleasing factor" which will be subjective.
sjms wrote
that is perceptual which really is quite difficult to define as measurable/quantifiablenow that also comes down to the imager and how both react together. yet another layer of confusion. it is highly possible that both accept the equivalent spectrum and then its down to the "pleasing factor" which will be subjective.
Mar 07, 2016 at 07:04 PM
p.18 #20The mystery of the Zeiss look?
Andre Labonte wrote:
robgo2 wrote
SKumar25 wrote
Andre Labonte wrote
akul wrote
IMHO 3D or not is all in lighting. Lens enhances but after all it is just 2d image messing with our perception.It's like closing an eye, and looking at a real scene. With an eye closed, I can still sense depth using certain visual clues, in some cases almost the same with both eyes open.
It is the same thing for me on a 2D format like paper or a screen.
Rob
In order to have true 3D you need two or more perspectives ... single lens cameras do not collect that as such.
Christ, do we have to go through this pedantry every time someone uses the term "3D?"
Literally no one is claiming that a Zeiss lens can instantiate a 3D object from a single 2D photographic image. Yay, you win?
Mar 07, 2016 at 07:12 PM