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.27 #1The mystery of the Zeiss look?
My God, it's still alive (in contrast to "full of stars,"in a similar vain (sp.) to 2001). 
FWIW (if anything), I loved 2001.
FWIW (if anything), I loved 2001.
Mar 11, 2016 at 01:38 PM
p.27 #2The mystery of the Zeiss look?
arduluth wrote:
there is a reason i have very few pictures of my kids with the g45:
https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1588/24251740279_44e2a0588d_b.jpgWould you be willing to explain what you don't like about what's going on that you don't like in the photo of your son?
This is the kind of look I personally really like, which is why the G45 is the lens that spends the most time on my camera. Really goes to show how big of a role personal taste plays in the lenses we like.
My main beef with wide open G45 bokeh is when focus is further out, 2+ meters or so (?), and you get green/magenta bokeh. Haven't been able to find a good example of...Show more →
i like that shot, the background is far enough away that the bokeh isn't objectionable. i was just saying i don't have many like it because i most available light portraits turned out terribly compared to what i would get with the average nifty fifty. i don't think i really have any images online that show what i don't like because i threw those pictures out when i looked at them and i try to avoid taking those kinds of shots with the g45 now. if the background is not well away from the subject and there is any kind of contrast in the background you get very ugly things happening at large aperture. for the types of shots where i can stop down to f/4 the bokeh is excellent unless there are specular highlights that will provoke hexagons.
when i can control the background and make sure there isn't anything that's going to cause problems i actually like shooting it at f/2.5 or even wide open because the lens has tremendous pop and can create a nice 3D effect
. stopped down it's produces better high frequency contrast across the frame than any other lens i have. i did a comparison with most of my other normals and even at f/8 the g45 was noticeably superior.
i looked through my flickr stream and this is the worst example i could find btw: http://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7100/13526994435_45494daf52_o.jpg
i thought i had enough subject to background distance, but apparently not. bokeh is ugliest in the corners but not pretty anywhere.
sebboh wrote
the g45 has pretty good bokeh stopped down a bit (especially at long distance) if you ignore the hexagons (which i can't), but it has horrendous bokeh where most people these days care about it: near wide open at short to mid distance. if you like to take portraits with your normal in available light this is not a good lens unless you can carefully choose your background. the g45 is also pretty much the worst lens ever to shoot flowers with imo (of the 30 or so normals i've used), i realize this is the exact opposite thing you care about.there is a reason i have very few pictures of my kids with the g45:
https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1588/24251740279_44e2a0588d_b.jpg
This is the kind of look I personally really like, which is why the G45 is the lens that spends the most time on my camera. Really goes to show how big of a role personal taste plays in the lenses we like.
My main beef with wide open G45 bokeh is when focus is further out, 2+ meters or so (?), and you get green/magenta bokeh. Haven't been able to find a good example of...Show more →
i like that shot, the background is far enough away that the bokeh isn't objectionable. i was just saying i don't have many like it because i most available light portraits turned out terribly compared to what i would get with the average nifty fifty. i don't think i really have any images online that show what i don't like because i threw those pictures out when i looked at them and i try to avoid taking those kinds of shots with the g45 now. if the background is not well away from the subject and there is any kind of contrast in the background you get very ugly things happening at large aperture. for the types of shots where i can stop down to f/4 the bokeh is excellent unless there are specular highlights that will provoke hexagons.
when i can control the background and make sure there isn't anything that's going to cause problems i actually like shooting it at f/2.5 or even wide open because the lens has tremendous pop and can create a nice 3D effect
. stopped down it's produces better high frequency contrast across the frame than any other lens i have. i did a comparison with most of my other normals and even at f/8 the g45 was noticeably superior.i looked through my flickr stream and this is the worst example i could find btw: http://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7100/13526994435_45494daf52_o.jpg
i thought i had enough subject to background distance, but apparently not. bokeh is ugliest in the corners but not pretty anywhere.
Mar 11, 2016 at 02:36 PM
p.27 #3The mystery of the Zeiss look?
sebboh wrote:
there is a reason i have very few pictures of my kids with the g45:
https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1588/24251740279_44e2a0588d_b.jpgWould you be willing to explain what you don't like about what's going on that you don't like in the photo of your son?
This is the kind of look I personally really like, which is why the G45 is the lens that spends the most time on my camera. Really goes to show how big of a role personal taste plays in the lenses we like.
My main beef with wide open G45 bokeh is when focus is further out, 2+ meters or so (?), and you get green/magenta bokeh. Haven't been able to find a good example of this - if I notice it, I usually end up stopping down to get rid of it or modify the composition to make it less of an issue.i like that shot, the background is far enough away that the bokeh isn't objectionable. i was just saying i don't have many like it because i most available light portraits turned out terribly compared to what i would get with the average nifty fifty. i don't think i really have any images online that show what i don't like because i threw those pictures out when i looked at them and i try to avoid taking those kinds of shots with the g45 now. if the background is not well away from the subject and there is any kind...Show more →
Ah, gotcha!
I can see why someone wouldn't like the bokeh in your duck photo, though it doesn't bother me. I'll take a somewhat textured bokeh like that over onion bokeh, edge discs, or LoCA. The G45 isn't free of LoCA, but most/all of the ~50mms I've used are worse.
Also, the less appealing bokeh of the far background almost seems to come as a result of the design choices that gives you the look in transition right behind the focal plane, which always seemed to be what was responsible for the pop, like the hen in your shot.
arduluth wrote
sebboh wrote
the g45 has pretty good bokeh stopped down a bit (especially at long distance) if you ignore the hexagons (which i can't), but it has horrendous bokeh where most people these days care about it: near wide open at short to mid distance. if you like to take portraits with your normal in available light this is not a good lens unless you can carefully choose your background. the g45 is also pretty much the worst lens ever to shoot flowers with imo (of the 30 or so normals i've used), i realize this is the exact opposite thing you care about.there is a reason i have very few pictures of my kids with the g45:
https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1588/24251740279_44e2a0588d_b.jpg
This is the kind of look I personally really like, which is why the G45 is the lens that spends the most time on my camera. Really goes to show how big of a role personal taste plays in the lenses we like.
My main beef with wide open G45 bokeh is when focus is further out, 2+ meters or so (?), and you get green/magenta bokeh. Haven't been able to find a good example of this - if I notice it, I usually end up stopping down to get rid of it or modify the composition to make it less of an issue.
Ah, gotcha!
I can see why someone wouldn't like the bokeh in your duck photo, though it doesn't bother me. I'll take a somewhat textured bokeh like that over onion bokeh, edge discs, or LoCA. The G45 isn't free of LoCA, but most/all of the ~50mms I've used are worse.
Also, the less appealing bokeh of the far background almost seems to come as a result of the design choices that gives you the look in transition right behind the focal plane, which always seemed to be what was responsible for the pop, like the hen in your shot.
Mar 11, 2016 at 03:16 PM
p.27 #4The mystery of the Zeiss look?
That poor duck, he's living in a Zeiss cartoon
Mar 11, 2016 at 03:36 PM
p.27 #5The mystery of the Zeiss look?
jancohen wrote:
My God, it's still alive (in contrast to "full of stars,"in a similar vain (sp.) to 2001).
FWIW (if anything), I loved 2001.
no, its not in the same vain. this looks like a case of neurotic Zeiss squatters.
Edited on Mar 11, 2016 at 04:03 PM · View previous versions
My God, it's still alive (in contrast to "full of stars,"in a similar vain (sp.) to 2001).
FWIW (if anything), I loved 2001.
no, its not in the same vain. this looks like a case of neurotic Zeiss squatters.
Edited on Mar 11, 2016 at 04:03 PM · View previous versions
Mar 11, 2016 at 03:38 PM
p.27 #6The mystery of the Zeiss look?
sjms wrote:
no, its not in the same vein. this looks like a case of neurotic Zeiss squatters.
That was vain, not vein. Doesn't matter whether you're a Zeiss, Leica, Nikon, or any other kind of squatter.
The bottom line is defined by whether or not you're happy with what you've got.
no, its not in the same vein. this looks like a case of neurotic Zeiss squatters.
That was vain, not vein. Doesn't matter whether you're a Zeiss, Leica, Nikon, or any other kind of squatter.
The bottom line is defined by whether or not you're happy with what you've got.
Mar 11, 2016 at 03:48 PM
p.27 #7The mystery of the Zeiss look?
oops! these fingers have a mind of their own and don't do spelling all that well it seems on their own.
Mar 11, 2016 at 04:02 PM
p.27 #8The mystery of the Zeiss look?
sjms wrote:
FWIW (if anything), I loved 2001.no, its not in the same vain...
Another of those unintentional puns... ;-)
jancohen wrote
My God, it's still alive (in contrast to "full of stars,"in a similar vain (sp.) to 2001). FWIW (if anything), I loved 2001.
Another of those unintentional puns... ;-)
Mar 11, 2016 at 04:55 PM
p.27 #9The mystery of the Zeiss look?
uhoh7 wrote:
Wait, I thought the quiz was it is the longest, basic formula and aslo sold in multiple mounts, right ?? So something that started in S or Leica mount and survived the F mount ? Or did I misunderstand the question ?see above 
Very possible I botched the questions, 
Longest production forumla, last Sonnar and 5 mounts. (maybe not the only one in 5 mounts--but I don't think any others made it to the AIS)
The 135/3.5 was truly a "zeiss killer". It was better than the contemporary zeiss lens, made to higher quality standards, and facilitated (with DDDs help) the entry of Nikon to the American market, setting the stage for the F revolution, which made Zeiss basically irrelevant as a camera maker, though of course their lenses did continue to have an impact.
Anyone, feel free to check and school...Show more →
Wait ! I aske you two pages ago if it was 135 Sonnar. Well, may be you didn't see it. Actually I could not confirm whether f mount version was still the same formula or not.
Anyway, why do people not like double Gauss? I love planar rendering.
Luka
akul wrote
uhoh7 wrote
and I can't believe nobody has figured out, or already knew the Nikkor with the longest production run of the same basic formula..... Very possible I botched the questions, Longest production forumla, last Sonnar and 5 mounts. (maybe not the only one in 5 mounts--but I don't think any others made it to the AIS)
The 135/3.5 was truly a "zeiss killer". It was better than the contemporary zeiss lens, made to higher quality standards, and facilitated (with DDDs help) the entry of Nikon to the American market, setting the stage for the F revolution, which made Zeiss basically irrelevant as a camera maker, though of course their lenses did continue to have an impact.
Anyone, feel free to check and school...Show more →
Wait ! I aske you two pages ago if it was 135 Sonnar. Well, may be you didn't see it. Actually I could not confirm whether f mount version was still the same formula or not.
Anyway, why do people not like double Gauss? I love planar rendering.
Luka
Mar 11, 2016 at 05:08 PM
p.27 #10The mystery of the Zeiss look?
gdanmitchell wrote:
FWIW (if anything), I loved 2001.no, its not in the same vain...Another of those unintentional puns... ;-)
Chortle... not implying anyone around here is vain ;-) :
gdanmitchell wrote:
Dan,
who has been stalling too long on the 'net today, and now really needs to make a couple of large prints for clients so that he can ship them tomorrow...
sjms wrote
jancohen wrote
My God, it's still alive (in contrast to "full of stars,"in a similar vain (sp.) to 2001). FWIW (if anything), I loved 2001.
Chortle... not implying anyone around here is vain ;-) :
gdanmitchell wrote:
Dan,
who has been stalling too long on the 'net today, and now really needs to make a couple of large prints for clients so that he can ship them tomorrow...
Mar 11, 2016 at 06:10 PM
p.27 #11The mystery of the Zeiss look?
But it was unintentional, it really was -- I mean it, I can prove it!
If you give me 27 pages of posts to do so in.
If you give me 27 pages of posts to do so in.
Mar 11, 2016 at 06:54 PM
p.27 #12The mystery of the Zeiss look?
uhoh7 wrote:
Forumla intact from 1950 to 1983. Last production Sonnar by Nikon. S Mount, Contax Mount, Leica Mount, Exakta Mount, and F-Mount (made it all the way to AIS)
So, if that's 33 years, then the 20/2.8 AIS / AF / AF-D is pretty darn close since it started (iirc) in 1984 (i.e. made it all the way from AIS).
Forumla intact from 1950 to 1983. Last production Sonnar by Nikon. S Mount, Contax Mount, Leica Mount, Exakta Mount, and F-Mount (made it all the way to AIS)
So, if that's 33 years, then the 20/2.8 AIS / AF / AF-D is pretty darn close since it started (iirc) in 1984 (i.e. made it all the way from AIS).
Mar 11, 2016 at 07:02 PM
p.27 #13The mystery of the Zeiss look?
jancohen wrote:
...If you give me 27 pages of posts to do so in.
If this thread gets 10000 replies.... https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1011147/0&year=2011#9604296
I'm still waiting...
...If you give me 27 pages of posts to do so in.
If this thread gets 10000 replies.... https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1011147/0&year=2011#9604296
I'm still waiting...
 |
||
 |
||
|
Mar 11, 2016 at 07:07 PM
p.27 #14The mystery of the Zeiss look?
akul wrote:
Wait, I thought the quiz was it is the longest, basic formula and aslo sold in multiple mounts, right ?? So something that started in S or Leica mount and survived the F mount ? Or did I misunderstand the question ?see above Very possible I botched the questions,
Longest production forumla, last Sonnar and 5 mounts. (maybe not the only one in 5 mounts--but I don't think any others made it to the AIS)
The 135/3.5 was truly a "zeiss killer". It was better than the contemporary zeiss lens, made to higher quality standards, and facilitated (with DDDs help) the entry of Nikon to the American market, setting the stage for the F revolution, which made Zeiss basically irrelevant as a camera maker, though of course their lenses did continue to have an impact.
Anyone, feel free to check and school me on any of thisWait ! I aske you two pages ago if it was 135 Sonnar. Well, may be you didn't see it. Actually I could not confirm whether f mount version was still the same formula or not.
Anyway, why do people not like double Gauss? I love planar rendering.
Luka
Sry, Luka I did not see it
Did you say 135/3.5?
My bad if so
I have more D-Gauss than Sonnar, I like both. None of my very favorites are Sonnar: 28 cron (not even DG), 50 cron, 75 Lux, 135/2.8 Elmarit, and the two long nikkors: 300/2.8 EDIF and 500/4P
But I like the atmosphere of Sonnars alot:
Thinkin by unoh7, on Flickr
Cold Comfort by unoh7, on Flickr
K by unoh7, on Flickr
swing by unoh7, on Flickr
These all from the wild little Sonnetar 50/1.1 shown on the M9:
Sonnetar and fast friends by unoh7, on Flickr
In fact you could make a good case that fast 50 Sonnars from 1931 to 2014 (when my sonnetar was made), from quite a few makers, Zeiss, Nikon, Canon, MS optical, and many others, they really do have a "look" which is considerably more distinct over a huge time span than the Zeiss or Mandler "looks"
These four could also be used to show CCD vs CMOS, can you tell?
uhoh7 wrote
akul wrote
uhoh7 wrote
and I can't believe nobody has figured out, or already knew the Nikkor with the longest production run of the same basic formula..... Very possible I botched the questions, Longest production forumla, last Sonnar and 5 mounts. (maybe not the only one in 5 mounts--but I don't think any others made it to the AIS)
The 135/3.5 was truly a "zeiss killer". It was better than the contemporary zeiss lens, made to higher quality standards, and facilitated (with DDDs help) the entry of Nikon to the American market, setting the stage for the F revolution, which made Zeiss basically irrelevant as a camera maker, though of course their lenses did continue to have an impact.
Anyone, feel free to check and school me on any of this
Anyway, why do people not like double Gauss? I love planar rendering.
Luka
Sry, Luka I did not see it
Did you say 135/3.5?My bad if so
I have more D-Gauss than Sonnar, I like both. None of my very favorites are Sonnar: 28 cron (not even DG), 50 cron, 75 Lux, 135/2.8 Elmarit, and the two long nikkors: 300/2.8 EDIF and 500/4P
But I like the atmosphere of Sonnars alot:
Thinkin by unoh7, on Flickr
Cold Comfort by unoh7, on Flickr
K by unoh7, on Flickr
swing by unoh7, on Flickr
These all from the wild little Sonnetar 50/1.1 shown on the M9:
Sonnetar and fast friends by unoh7, on Flickr
In fact you could make a good case that fast 50 Sonnars from 1931 to 2014 (when my sonnetar was made), from quite a few makers, Zeiss, Nikon, Canon, MS optical, and many others, they really do have a "look" which is considerably more distinct over a huge time span than the Zeiss or Mandler "looks"
These four could also be used to show CCD vs CMOS, can you tell?
Mar 11, 2016 at 09:36 PM
p.27 #15The mystery of the Zeiss look?
I can't tell. My only CCD memory is D70. Which had a little more flat rendering compare to D700 / D800. Anyway, #2 and #3 seems to be from same family, #1 is separate. #4 also seems different but I can't tell it belongs to #1 or not, just more pronounced vignetting and interesting bokeh of chain. Ah, and #5 seems different too. May be #1 is beloging to a different sensor, and #2,3,4 are from same family, and I like that more.
May be #1 is beloging to a different sensor, and #2,3,4 are from same family, and I like that more.Mar 11, 2016 at 10:12 PM
p.27 #16The mystery of the Zeiss look?
Andre Labonte 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.
RobSense, 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.
Technically, what you say is true, but neurologically, it is not. Our brains have the capacity to convert a 2D image into a 3D rendering. Every time we see a 2D picture, that process is in action. And some 2D images produce more of a 3D effect than others.
Rob
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.
Technically, what you say is true, but neurologically, it is not. Our brains have the capacity to convert a 2D image into a 3D rendering. Every time we see a 2D picture, that process is in action. And some 2D images produce more of a 3D effect than others.
Rob
Mar 12, 2016 at 10:55 AM
p.27 #17The mystery of the Zeiss look?
|
||
| http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_VsW8rZbzmmI/TKXzRRtLXrI/AAAAAAAAACM/5VlST2CnKcE/s1600/School+of+athens+-+philosophy.jpg | ||
|
Yes, the mind is eternally interpreting what comes from the senses. In reality, that is the only way we know ANYTHING. And yes, the mind can interpret a two dimensional object to represent a third dimension. That was understood by artists centuries ago when they came to appreciate perspective. But finding the third dimension has nothing to do with how that two dimensional image is created, but rather whether within that image are the cues the mind will utilize to make its interpretation. So how the framing is done, how the focal plane is treated will become important.
The mind is always doing its thing and no doubt having the visual experience of two eyes meeting the world stereoscopically will affect its interpretation of a two dimensional subject.
Mar 12, 2016 at 11:10 AM
p.27 #18The mystery of the Zeiss look?
robgo2 wrote:
Technically, what you say is true, but neurologically, it is not. Our brains have the capacity to convert a 2D image into a 3D rendering. Every time we see a 2D picture, that process is in action. And some 2D images produce more of a 3D effect than others.
We use a range of cues to construct a three dimensional mental map of our world. Binary vision is certainly part of it, but we are also sensitive to a huge range of other visual cues including relative size, differences in light, effects of haze including color changes, perspective cues including converging lines, how the scene changes as we move our heads, prior knowledge of the subject, and more.
The cues are not limited to the visual, either. The nature of sound in a three dimensional space tells us a lot about its size and more, for example.
The overall complexity and sophistication of the things that provide us the cues that allow us to produce a multi-dimensional mental map of the world are astounding. If we look more closely at just the visual cues that work in photographs we find that color and light and size and saturation and selective focus and many others play a part.
That view may help some understand why many photographers are skeptical concerning the contribution of relatively small (by comparison to these other factors) differences among lenses to something called a "3D effect."
I know I won't convince some people, but perhaps they might at least acknowledge that a different opinion comes not necessary from a lack of intelligence or understanding or sensitivity, but perhaps from a larger context.
YMMV,
Dan
Edited on Mar 12, 2016 at 01:41 PM · View previous versions
Technically, what you say is true, but neurologically, it is not. Our brains have the capacity to convert a 2D image into a 3D rendering. Every time we see a 2D picture, that process is in action. And some 2D images produce more of a 3D effect than others.
We use a range of cues to construct a three dimensional mental map of our world. Binary vision is certainly part of it, but we are also sensitive to a huge range of other visual cues including relative size, differences in light, effects of haze including color changes, perspective cues including converging lines, how the scene changes as we move our heads, prior knowledge of the subject, and more.
The cues are not limited to the visual, either. The nature of sound in a three dimensional space tells us a lot about its size and more, for example.
The overall complexity and sophistication of the things that provide us the cues that allow us to produce a multi-dimensional mental map of the world are astounding. If we look more closely at just the visual cues that work in photographs we find that color and light and size and saturation and selective focus and many others play a part.
That view may help some understand why many photographers are skeptical concerning the contribution of relatively small (by comparison to these other factors) differences among lenses to something called a "3D effect."
I know I won't convince some people, but perhaps they might at least acknowledge that a different opinion comes not necessary from a lack of intelligence or understanding or sensitivity, but perhaps from a larger context.
YMMV,
Dan
Edited on Mar 12, 2016 at 01:41 PM · View previous versions
Mar 12, 2016 at 12:04 PM
p.27 #19The 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.
RobSense, 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.Technically, what you say is true, but neurologically, it is not. Our brains have the capacity to convert a 2D image into a 3D rendering. Every time we see a 2D picture, that process is in action. And some 2D images produce more of a 3D effect than others.
Rob
I agree with you on that ... what I said has to be understood in light of the larger context of the conversation at hand which is now several pages back and spread over several pages.
From a technical standpoint, there is a significant difference between a true three-dimensional image (a.k.a. 3D projection) and the three dimension perspective of a 2D image. People all too often get this confused and are incredibly loose with the language.
The primary factors in controlling 3D perspective in a 2D image are: perspective (i.e. location of the camera relative to the objects in the frame), DOF, plane of focus, field curvature/distortion, and shadows. With regards to shadows, photographers talk about both macroscopic and micro-contrast, to distinguish between shadows created by an object vs. shadows and tones due to its own morphology and/or changes in light intensity across its surface.
Of all the afore mentioned characteristics, the only ones impacted by the unique rendering of the lens are field curvature/distortion and shadows. Of course shift lenses change perspective and tilt lenses change plane of focus, but these are physical parameter shifts and not associated with the actual rendering of the glass.
A lens limits micro-contrast if it's transmission is poor and/or it has internal reflections that result in flare/haze. However, the transmission of most modern lenses are nowhere near the limiting factor; the camera sensor and interpretative software typically are the limiting factors. Flare in an image is usually pretty easy to spot and general caused by bright light sources in the frame or near its edge. So absent of flare, transmission dominates which means the sensor and firmware are the prime suspects when micro-contrast is missing.
There is one thing I did leave out, and that is polarization ... which, by removing light, can allow the capture of underlying micro-contrast from the remaining light. Lenses are purposely made not to polarize light as this reduces transmission and would change rendering depending on the orientation of the lens.
So, outside of PC-E type lenses, the strongest impacts that a lens has on the 3D perspective of an image comes from field curvature/distortion and flare control.
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.
Rob
I agree with you on that ... what I said has to be understood in light of the larger context of the conversation at hand which is now several pages back and spread over several pages.
From a technical standpoint, there is a significant difference between a true three-dimensional image (a.k.a. 3D projection) and the three dimension perspective of a 2D image. People all too often get this confused and are incredibly loose with the language.
The primary factors in controlling 3D perspective in a 2D image are: perspective (i.e. location of the camera relative to the objects in the frame), DOF, plane of focus, field curvature/distortion, and shadows. With regards to shadows, photographers talk about both macroscopic and micro-contrast, to distinguish between shadows created by an object vs. shadows and tones due to its own morphology and/or changes in light intensity across its surface.
Of all the afore mentioned characteristics, the only ones impacted by the unique rendering of the lens are field curvature/distortion and shadows. Of course shift lenses change perspective and tilt lenses change plane of focus, but these are physical parameter shifts and not associated with the actual rendering of the glass.
A lens limits micro-contrast if it's transmission is poor and/or it has internal reflections that result in flare/haze. However, the transmission of most modern lenses are nowhere near the limiting factor; the camera sensor and interpretative software typically are the limiting factors. Flare in an image is usually pretty easy to spot and general caused by bright light sources in the frame or near its edge. So absent of flare, transmission dominates which means the sensor and firmware are the prime suspects when micro-contrast is missing.
There is one thing I did leave out, and that is polarization ... which, by removing light, can allow the capture of underlying micro-contrast from the remaining light. Lenses are purposely made not to polarize light as this reduces transmission and would change rendering depending on the orientation of the lens.
So, outside of PC-E type lenses, the strongest impacts that a lens has on the 3D perspective of an image comes from field curvature/distortion and flare control.
Mar 12, 2016 at 12:17 PM
p.27 #20The mystery of the Zeiss look?
gdanmitchell wrote:
We use a range of cues to construct a three dimensional mental map of our world. Binary vision is certainly part of it, but we are also sensitive to a huge range of other visual cues including relative size, differences in light, effects of haze including color changes, perspective cues including converging lines, how the scene changes as we move our heads, prior knowledge of the subject, and more.
The cues are not limited to the visual, either. The nature of sound in a three dimensional space tells us a lot about its size and more, for example.
The overall complexity...Show more →
***********************
Extremely well said sir. This link provides some great information (in concise form) of what allows us as humans to perceive 3D.
http://www.mediacollege.com/3d/intro.html
The thing to remember with photographs is they are in fact only 2D and thus loose phase information. This is only regained from 2D images when stereographic projections are used. This is a key difference between a one-eyed person perceiving 3D vs. the implied 3D of a 2D image.
robgo2 wrote
Technically, what you say is true, but neurologically, it is not. Our brains have the capacity to convert a 2D image into a 3D rendering. Every time we see a 2D picture, that process is in action. And some 2D images produce more of a 3D effect than others.The cues are not limited to the visual, either. The nature of sound in a three dimensional space tells us a lot about its size and more, for example.
The overall complexity...Show more →
***********************
Extremely well said sir. This link provides some great information (in concise form) of what allows us as humans to perceive 3D.
http://www.mediacollege.com/3d/intro.html
The thing to remember with photographs is they are in fact only 2D and thus loose phase information. This is only regained from 2D images when stereographic projections are used. This is a key difference between a one-eyed person perceiving 3D vs. the implied 3D of a 2D image.
Mar 12, 2016 at 12:26 PM