jcopelan wrote:
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.
Does my all in focus shot not qualify asa a 3D image?
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.
Seriously? Different strokes for different folks and all, but your image shows no scale of depth. The background is only blurred...not three dimensional. There should be a scale, where objects get more and more OOF as they get further away.
You're in the minority if you see no difference, but there are variations between people in how your sensory organs "see" the world. Same with high end stereo equipment...some people just can't pick up the nuances.
Bifurcator wrote:
I think you have to be smoking something to see otherwise. Mine has a different kind of bokeh but so do some of the other images here.
It's a different kind of bokeh, because it's not bokeh. It's a post blur, and it's completely uniform regardless of depth or distance.
Your OOF areas are completely arbitrary to the focal plane... half of the hood is in focus and the other half abruptly, and arbitrarily slides out of focus. same with the feet of guy. It has no relation to the focus plane, stands out as digital hokey pokey.
It's not a bad image, but it's why you don't need to be smoking something to see the difference.
jcopelan wrote:
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.
Actually, this thread is about 3-D rendering capabilities of certain Zeiss lenses. The OP speculated as to whether differences in OOF rendering might be responsible for possiblke differences in the lenses ability to produce this 3-D quality. As a number of these pictures show, this 3-D quality to the images produced from these Zeiss lenses is not necessarily associated with, or created in, OOF areas. It is evident in images without significant OOF areas. Accordingly, the extent of 3-D rendering capability is unlikely to be correlated with differences in OOF rendering and OOF transitions.
jcopelan wrote:
There's obviously something to this Zeiss 3D thing, otherwise we woulnt be talking about it!
Lotusm50 wrote:
Actually, this thread is about 3-D rendering capabilities of certain Zeiss lenses. The OP speculated as to whether differences in OOF rendering might be responsible for possiblke differences in the lenses ability to produce this 3-D quality. As a number of these pictures show, this 3-D quality to the images produced from these Zeiss lenses is not necessarily associated with, or created in, OOF areas. It is evident in images without significant OOF areas. Accordingly, the extent of 3-D rendering capability is unlikely to be correlated with differences in OOF rendering and OOF transitions.
Yes, indeed.
Maybe, but Ill say again that the three dimensional feel created by the shot of the horse as well as the shot of the city buildings above could have been created by ANY brand of optic, provided the focal length was correct for the composition. That's all it is...the composition of the shots created the phenomenon, not the lens. In this conversation, I believe we are talking about an effect created by the way the lens renders OOF area, thus creating a three dimensional feel.
I believe that a high micro-contrast (ability to render slightly different shades differently) is the major contribution to 3d'ness. Because of micro-contrast the shadows and highlights are distinguished on 3 dimensional objects providing what we see as 3d'ness. There has been some speculation that a large chunk of this has to do with the coating on ziess lens so that similar optical formulae with different coatings might not provided the same degree of 3d'ness. I'm not 100% sure if this is the case (mamiya 7 lenses were quite good); I'm also not too sure how this relates to contrast (perhaps there is a bit of a difference between 'contrast' and spectrum separation. Oh well; I never really tried to understand it; I just look at the images.
