RustyBug
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
|
 p.3 #9 · which lens has the least 3D POP? | |
philip_pj wrote:
The reason for its growing prominence and level of interest is the undesirable direction taken in modern lens design, something that has contributed significantly to the dramatic reduction of cinema popularity. It must be strange to find yourself at odds with the entire cine industry and not even be aware of it.
These master designers value dimensionality ('3D Pop', image depth) very highly indeed. Here a few snippets from a research exercise I did on the topic last year:
"The following list of lens attributes from the dominant participants’ imagery provides us with valuable input to the identification and evaluation of the factors responsible for dimensionality in our lenses.
Cooke (general and SP3): ‘a sharp subtle, smooth rendering that provides dimensionality, high contrast.’
‘when a sharp edge of an image goes out-of-focus, these lenses ensure the blend is smooth and rounded.’ ‘Cooke lenses strive for natural looking images – there is no artificial effect to spoil the transition.’ ‘warm, smooth look for seamless transitions.’ ‘spherical focus plane that gives the focus plane more ‘3D Pop.’ ‘subtle, geometric barrel distortion.’
Leitz 0.8 M: ‘The Leitz 0.8 M bokeh allows me to create separation and a dimensional feeling without shooting at an excessively shallow depth of field. Henry Braham, Bsc.' ‘their classic field curvature pulls the image toward the viewer.’ ‘the viewer’s eye naturally gravitates toward the centre with a pop of focus.’ ‘the surrealist bokeh blends the structure of out-of-focus features in a textured way that creates separation without feeling like a flat backdrop.’ ‘curving focus roll-off creates a dimensionality that has always set M lenses apart from more advanced optics that can be precise to the point of boring.’
‘modern lenses pop into focus in a flat and layered manner that appears unrealistic by drawing attention to themselves.’ ‘the M 0.8 lenses roll into focus on a curve that more accurately recreates natural perception.’ ‘this creates images that feel different and dimensional, that appear satisfying on a subconscious level.’
Leitz Summilux-C (Super 35): ‘rich, warm skin tones’ ‘gentle focus roll-off’ ‘talent always looks natural instead of clinical.’ ‘as the lenses stretch to the edges of full frame more character is introduced to the image.’
CW Sonderoptic (Leica Affiliate) Thalia: ‘they exhibit a gradual focus fall-off, creating a sense of depth and dimension, with a sharp centre and pleasing fall-off towards the edge.’ ‘a combination of modern lens technology and the desirable characteristics of vintage lenses.’ ’15-blade iris design maintains a circular aperture at all stops, resulting in a smooth and cinematic bokeh.’ ‘they are designed to emulate the look of older lenses, offering a look that is clear but not overly sharp, with a smooth and forgiving focus.’ ‘out-of-focus elements maintain their structure, which further adds to the sense of dimensionality in the image.’
DZOfilm Arles: ‘T1.4 aperture and unique field curvature design offer exceptional focus control, creating a three-dimensional visual experience with smooth transitions between in-focus and out-of-focus areas.’ "...Show more →
The perspective that Phillip is presenting in these references is similar to the ethos that has been sought after by a variety of different designers over the years. Whether these optical design efforts are recent iterations from China or historical efforts from Germanic ethos is still speaking to the optical engineering efforts involved with the intent to influence the human physiological response of dimensionality / depth in our beloved 2-D medium.
Personally, the continuum of sophomoric responses ... including from some individuals that live within a stone's throw of optical engineering libraries, yet refuse to consider researching or visiting their vastness of insight into the intersection of optical engineering and human perception response ... is beyond tiring.
Bottom line ... if you really don't want to talk about optical engineering ... just go away and leave those who do alone. I understand this thread was started as sarcasm, but ... as it turns out ... the reference to the OM Zuiko's (being less 3D) is in line with the very thing I wrote about of the shootout / my experience with Zuiko vs. Zeiss in the sliding scale paradigm of such design choices.
It strikes me additionally, that the matter of design includes a variety of aspects, such as field curvature, use of ASPH elements, etc. If we take a look at the Zuiko's and their use of ASPH elements and their optical design ... we can see some patterns in the "opposite" direction vs. the 3D direction.
I am quite certain that we will never come to a consensus among members regarding the magnitude of most or least or a host of variety of aspects in the optical / human perception aspect of this matter.
HOWEVER ... the camps are VERY DISTINCT as to whether folks are ardent naysayers, or students of optical design influence(s).
And, here's the thing ... EVERYONE knows which camp they are in. This is a very Binary Subject in that regard. Sure, there are some folks who are genuinely interested to see what can be delved into, but the agitators and instigators and interlopers ... you guys know that your only mission for participating in this discussion is to be sophomoric agitators. And, everyone who watches your sophomoric, interloping responses can see it for perpetuity.
BOTTOM LINE ... if you don't want to discuss optics, and your mission is to ridicule those who do ... I'd suggest that is reason for Fred to consider your intentional rudeness to your fellow members as automatic rationale for moderation. I know that Fred has a VERY, VERY STRONG opinion / perspective of "Free Speech". I respect and regard Fred and his perspective highly, as it serves as a basis for FM being the "Gold Standard". BUT, in context with that the continued interloping of rude and disrespectful (even if being feigned via borderline methods) incessant ridicule of others, Fred has a challenging position to maintain the integrity of his wonderful site.
Do Fred a favor ... if you aren't wanting to intelligently discuss the optical engineering aspects of this topic, then simply DO NOT engage the subject with your sophomoric ridicule. That said, we do have a long history that includes poking barbs at one another in good faith fun. But, the ridicule and accusatory stance that some members persistently cast toward PJ is (imo) far from the "Gold Standard" of Fred's expectations.
Again, if you aren't interested in discussing the engineering optics ... which is what these threads are about ... then, don't. If you want to discuss the broader aspects beyond engineering optics, go start a different thread that expands the discussion more broadly. I offered numerous times to expand certain aspects and had no takers in the other thread. And, so now ... here we are again with TWO CAMPs of folks who want to discuss the optical influences and those who want to continue the mockery of them.
Bottom line ... mockers, stay home. That, or pack your bags, go to Germany (or China) and have the guts to go mock Karbe or other designers to their face, who are (nuanced and intricate, as it is) striving in this intersection of optical engineering / human perception arena. The incessant mockery and interloping is old, tiresome and sophomoric ... anything but, the "Gold Standard" ideology of Fred's goals for our beloved FM site.
You might think PJ, myself or others are whack ... good for you. But, please for the love of our beloved site and our love for all Fred has done for us, cease the incessant power trip of mockery and interloping with the sophomoric rude and disrespect / disregard for those who are actually trying to attend to the subject / topic in its specific regard to optical engineering / design influence. Personally, I find it intriguing ... not unlike the nuance of wine making ... finding the best / worst wine is a fool's errand. However, discussing the things that render wines with varied characteristics is a deep study. Ours, is also / can be a deep study. Yet, the sophomoric interruptions are highly deterrent to deepening such a study.
Again, this is an appeal to consider Fred's "Gold Standard" and what that means for what you are showing the world with such sophomoric responses, from our membership, toward our membership.
Bottom line ... FM ROCKS !!! 
Thanks Fred. You ROCK !!! 
|
