even83 wrote:
Looks awesome, how did you do this 3d effect?
Thank you even83 for your feedback, much appreciated.
I shot a sequence of images at 30 FPS.
Then made an endless loop gif animation at half resolution.
A full cycle required only 5 images, spaced 0.04 seconds apart.
The wind was blowing just right to excite the eigenfrequency of the upper yellow band.
That caught my attention. So I shot a sequence of images of the upper band undamped oscillations.
[excited Eigen frequency- you just made it up K-H? ]
Thanks Vivek, how are you?
Actually no, it’s a technical term used in basic physics, mechanics 1.0.1.
Those German words are also used in English. Sorry.
k-h.a.w wrote:
Thanks Vivek, how are you?
Actually no, it’s a technical term used in basic physics, mechanics 1.0.1.
Those German words are also used in English. Sorry.
K-H.
Would resonant frequency be more appropriate?
(Excited eigenfrequency sounds like an oxymoron)
Thanks, K-H.
realVivek wrote:
Would resonant frequency be more appropriate?
(Excited eigenfrequency sounds like an oxymoron)
Thanks, K-H.
Thanks Vivek. Ah I see what you are focused on.
“Resonant” is probably better English indeed.
I simply translated the German word “angeregt”.
And resonant didn’t come to my mind this early in the morning.
K-H.
PS: Thinking about words to use now.
One could also say the resonant/eigen frequency was excited/stimulated/forced by the wind, or something like it.
Testing if there is any 3-D pop. I only see the shallow DOF, but not the 3D pop that I see on some Alt lenses.
Perhaps there is some processing technique I need to learn. hmmm.
saaketham wrote:
Testing if there is any 3-D pop. I only see the shallow DOF, but not the 3D pop that I see on some Alt lenses.
Perhaps there is some processing technique I need to learn. hmmm.
Well, it's a kinda controversial topic ... I'd say 35GM has some, but I wouldn't say it's the "poppiest" lens I've used (it has pretty mild sharpness falloff / broad DoF IMHO) . If you go through this thread, you will find at least a couple of pictures, where I see 3D pop. Whether you see it too is a different matter ...
j4nu wrote:
Well, it's a kinda controversial topic ... I'd say 35GM has some
Oh yeah - it's fun to read the usual 3-D pop threads that pop up every now and then
Half the samples posted have none (in my eyes), but the poster claims it is killer 3-D because the lens is
- Contax, Zeiss, Leica, some other ca.
I've tried to figure out what exactly they're talking about.
"3D Pop", "Color Science", "The King Has No Clothes". All conversations with similar characteristics. It is so often a combination of point of view, and bias.
saaketham wrote:
Oh yeah - it's fun to read the usual 3-D pop threads that pop up every now and then
Half the samples posted have none (in my eyes), but the poster claims it is killer 3-D because the lens is
- Contax, Zeiss, Leica, some other ca.
I've tried to figure out what exactly they're talking about.
I think it has more to do with the scene: the lightning, the distances, the subject itself, etc.
Having said that, I do believe the lens contributes somewhat.
If you're really after this, I'd say 50GM or the Bigma have more of a dramatic effect...
]
