I haven't really followed along with the original question, but here are a few of my samples that may help. I have an adapted Contax Planar 100/2 and Planar 50/1.7, both on a Canon 5D. I've had them a month or so, and these are some of the best "3D" shots I've gotten...Pretty wide range of subject matter as well.
Sorry I don't have any of the others for comparison.
Bifurcator wrote:
All the "3D" images posted in this thread look "fake" to me. That's part of the allure IMO. BTW, there is an infinite number of levels of lens blur in that image between the in-focus and out-of-focus areas. Well not infinite as it's limited by the number of pixels in any one direction but you get the idea.
I'll disagree right away with that. With the narrow DOF and "3D" effect, the lens is acting just like the human eye. You can't get any more "real" than that.
In reference to the image you posted, I'll just say it doesn't give the effect of a small DOF. It's just been blurred in post, and I could have told you that right away before you told us. It looks like a fuzzy dream from a movie or something.
Philber, sorry, but I'm only getting a 3D feel caused by your very nice compositions. There is a very real difference to my eyes from the 3-dimensional feel caused by DOF control.
I don't feel like I could reach out and touch that horse in your second image. The perspective in 1 really forces the viewer to see the three dimensional aspect, but again only because of your composition. It certainly doesn't give me the same feel as the rest of the images in the thread. (Not that all of them have the right feel either, many posted in here do not.)
Now number 3 does give a sort of 3 dimensional feel caused by both composition and the DOF. The building in the background is not sharply focused, giving me a 3D feel. I am guessing #3 was not taken with any of the lenses in question. There really is a certain effect seen in the Contax or Zeiss images that I'm not getting from your shot. If it was one of the lenses in question, then I'm full of shit!
There may be more than one meaning to what 3D is. It seems that, to jcopelan, it means that the subject can be almost "reached out and touched". To me, it means that the subject is delineated in a way that the distance away from the background is clearly visible, rather than flat. No quite the same IMHO, though either could be perfectly valid. Different strokes for different folks.
jcopelan wrote:
Such is photography. Wouldn't be fun if everything was interpreted exactly the same way by everybody.
It is....in North Korea. Long live the Great Leader!
Not to me. I feel it works best when there is a single prominent subject, and plenty of distance between subject and background. Aperture needs to be wide enough to achieve quite a bit of OOF blur, but not so much that it is indistinguishable.
Philber, nice 3D effect on pics of the horse and the purple art.
Yes, they are certainly wonderful pictures. This thread though is about a specific type of effect created in the OOF areas by certain Zeiss lenses. Those shots don't have it. That is all.
Same goes for those posting pictures where there is tons of "bokeh," with no distinguishable background. Most of those don't get it either, even though they are fine shots.
BTW, the best lens amongst the ones I used for 3-D looking picture is C/Y Planar 100/2.0
There is something about that lens that produces 3-D like no other lens can...
