fredmiranda.com
Login

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Leica & Alternative Gear | Join Upload & Sell

1       2       3              14              16              46       47       end
  

Archive 2009 · what is '3d' ?

  
 
Bifurcator
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.15 #1 · what is '3d' ?


Samuli Vahonen wrote:
However I think that I'll better back off from your definition discussion since I don't have the skills for the definition of the "thing" And the more I think about this the less I care about the scientifical/theoretical definition as long as I can get it to my photos.


Yeah, probably a good idea for me too. At this point every native English speaker knows what I mean and is probably getting tired of reading my redundant explanations. I only care about terminology because it enables me to communicate and be understood better - like the phrase "just so we're all on the same page".



I'm not taking this wrong, we are cool

Cool!



Jan 17, 2010 at 10:06 AM
siriusdogstar
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.15 #2 · what is '3d' ?


Nothing wrong with anybody's English here; in fact, better English here than many native speakers!

Everything scientific to know about The Human Eye, the entire chapter from Handbook of Optical Systems: http://media.wiley.com/product_data/excerpt/09/35274038/3527403809.pdf includes eye "specifications" an a wealth of other information about the eye and eyesight.

What I am after in this discussion is how to produce "3d" photos; techniques, what to look for, optimal conditions, etc.. If those factors, conditions, and effects can be named and quantified, then 3d production becomes a science, with reproducable results. From this discussion we have the beginnings. (I'm not confident enough yet to attempt a list)


(also "Aberrations": http://media.wiley.com/product_data/excerpt/95/35274037/3527403795.pdf )



Jan 17, 2010 at 12:46 PM
biotar
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.15 #3 · what is '3d' ?


Yes, it would be nice to produce some kind of toolkit wouldn't it? What to look for in terms of lighting, focal length, composition, GEAR (). There must be a basic set we can agree on. Right? This way we could actually make use of this discussion. If only I had time to make an elaborate start with this...


Jan 17, 2010 at 03:35 PM
brainiac
Offline
[X]
p.15 #4 · what is '3d' ?


Two different lenses of the same focal length shoot exactly the same scene. One makes it look 3D and the other doesn't. In this sense, some lenses make everything seem 3D, and some make nothing seem 3D. Cut the crap. This is a gear forum, and we're talking about the 3D effect that some lenses seem to produce effortlessly, regardless of the scene that is portrayed.

Cogitech's castle shot illustrates the phenomenon perfectly. No bokeh, no planes of focus, just an intensely credible portrayal of the scene, including the Z axis. You either see it or you don't.



Jan 17, 2010 at 07:05 PM
RustyBug
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.15 #5 · what is '3d' ?


Where's that motorcycle shot in front of the church ... that wooed me towards 3D?
Any guesses who shot it?

https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/597185/79

Can someone show me a better 3D shot with a DIFFERENT 19-21mm lens?

Friendly gauntlet thrown with no expectations that anyone can do it ... proving Richard's point that some lenses do it better than others ... I'm inclined to agree.

The Zeiss 21mm is out of my league $$$ wise, so I'm looking for the second best 3D producing lens in this focal length ... any recommendations for 2nd place ... or can someone show something better??



Jan 17, 2010 at 07:21 PM
Bifurcator
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.15 #6 · what is '3d' ?


siriusdogstar wrote:
What I am after in this discussion is how to produce "3d" photos; techniques, what to look for, optimal conditions, etc.. If those factors, conditions, and effects can be named and quantified, then 3d production becomes a science, with reproducable results. From this discussion we have the beginnings. (I'm not confident enough yet to attempt a list)



I think it's mostly just all the same "good" photography knowledge.

Good to excellent subject lighting and/or highlighting,
Knowing the sweet spot of the lens's aperture and using that or near that,
Getting the focus perfect,
Choosing an interesting subject with lots of good and interesting texture,
Consider the FG and BG elements with DOF previews,
Consider the color contrast in the scene,
Choosing a camera angle that is interesting yet fairly common to the human head,
Choosing a camera angle that appropriates convergence,
Choosing a camera placement that accentuates subject contour via lines, textures, and shading,
Shoot RAW and process for texture detail - don't use Camera jpegs,
The lens itself may help a little but I highly doubt it - unless it's a really crappy lens,
Use a tripod to eliminate any camera shake,
Use a fast-ish shutter speed if you can,
Avoid situations than can cause bloom, glare, light fogging, or lens reflections,
Practice, practice, practice!

You know, all the things we normally do when taking a photograph.




Jan 18, 2010 at 04:27 AM
brainiac
Offline
[X]
p.15 #7 · what is '3d' ?


Bifurcator wrote:
I think it's mostly just all the same "good" photography knowledge.

Good to excellent subject lighting and/or highlighting,
Knowing the sweet spot of the lens's aperture and using that or near that,
Getting the focus perfect,
Choosing an interesting subject with lots of good and interesting texture,
Consider the FG and BG elements with DOF previews,
Consider the color contrast in the scene,
Choosing a camera angle that is interesting yet fairly common to the human head,
Choosing a camera angle that appropriates convergence,
Choosing a camera placement that accentuates subject contour via lines, textures, and shading,
Shoot RAW and process for texture detail - don't use Camera jpegs,
The
...Show more

-1 In my experience this is false. All of those things are a given. Some lenses have a 3D look, and some really expensive and otherwise excellent lenses don't.

If you want routinely to achieve 3D, get a Zeiss.



Jan 18, 2010 at 05:11 AM
Lotusm50
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.15 #8 · what is '3d' ?


Bifurcator wrote:
I think it's mostly just all the same "good" photography knowledge.

Good to excellent subject lighting and/or highlighting,
Knowing the sweet spot of the lens's aperture and using that or near that,
Getting the focus perfect,
Choosing an interesting subject with lots of good and interesting texture,
Consider the FG and BG elements with DOF previews,
Consider the color contrast in the scene,
Choosing a camera angle that is interesting yet fairly common to the human head,
Choosing a camera angle that appropriates convergence,
Choosing a camera placement that accentuates subject contour via lines, textures, and shading,
Shoot RAW and process for texture detail - don't use Camera jpegs,
The
...Show more


brainiac, in response, wrote:
-1 In my experience this is false. All of those things are a given. Some lenses have a 3D look, and some really expensive and otherwise excellent lenses don't.

If you want routinely to achieve 3D, get a Zeiss.



Brainiac is quite right. You can do all those things listed and still get flat images. The rendering capabilities of the lens is critical. And in my experience, Zeiss lenses are the only ones that can consistently (regardless of focal length, speed, or working aperture) deliver palpable 3-dimensionality (separate from "depth") in an image.




Jan 18, 2010 at 07:59 AM
Bifurcator
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.15 #9 · what is '3d' ?


I buy that those things are a given.
I also buy that you can do all those things and still mess up the shot.
I don't buy the rest though. It sounds like elitist hogwash to be frank and I think this thread has shown that beyond any question.

Of course, I could always be wrong... I don't think so tho.




Jan 18, 2010 at 08:19 AM
brainiac
Offline
[X]
p.15 #10 · what is '3d' ?


Bifurcator wrote:
I buy that those things are a given.
I also buy that you can do all those things and still mess up the shot.
I don't buy the rest though. It sounds like elitist hogwash to be frank and I think this thread has shown that beyond any question.

Of course, I could always be wrong... I don't think so tho.


Do you have much experience of working with a range of Zeiss and other glass, including Leica, Schneider, Mamiya, Canon, Nikon, Pentax, Olympus, Minolta and the rest? Lots of people in this forum have used a lot of glass in anger, and a significant number do think that Zeiss lenses have this tendency. To some it's not a quality that matters, and to others it is. Of course there are many lenses from other manufacturers which can produce this 3D quality in images, and there are many lenses which exceed Zeiss lenses in other ways.

The fact is that lenses perform differently in lots of ways, and lens designers favour certain qualities and features. If you don't see this quality, you don't, and that's fine, but calling the perceptions of others "elitist hogwash" won't win you friends. If you look through the alt image thread you will notice Zeiss lenses pulling off the trick of making a scene look 3D over and over again, and at the same time you will more often than not see non-Zeiss lenses producing great images but failing in that regard. Like I said, if you don't see it, great, but don't insult those of us who think we do.
http://cyberphotographer.com/5D/CZ351.4/0805lowrez.jpg
http://www.lightandpictures.com/Stuff/5DII_4367.jpg



Jan 18, 2010 at 08:58 AM
blackpill
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.15 #11 · what is '3d' ?


brainiac wrote:
Do you have much experience of working with a range of Zeiss and other glass, including Leica, Schneider, Mamiya, Canon, Nikon, Pentax, Olympus, Minolta and the rest? Lots of people in this forum have used a lot of glass in anger, and a significant number do think that Zeiss lenses have this tendency. To some it's not a quality that matters, and to others it is. Of course there are many lenses from other manufacturers which can produce this 3D quality in images, and there are many lenses which exceed Zeiss lenses in other ways.

The fact is that lenses perform
...Show more

The image of that man is certainly 3D. Do you mind sharing what lens/camera and settings you used for this. Thanks.



Jan 18, 2010 at 09:08 AM
RustyBug
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.15 #12 · what is '3d' ?


Bifurcator wrote:
It sounds like elitist hogwash to be frank and I think this thread has shown that beyond any question.


Bifurcator ...

CHALLENGE: PUT UP THE PICS ... that have more 3D than the Zeiss 21 with another 21.

Or, if you prefer ... go head to head against 100/2 with another 100mm.

Since my budget doesn't provide for owning BOTH of these lenses, I'll gladly welcome anything that comes close as an option to put in my bag.

Richard & others have gone to GREAT LENGTHS with significant investment of TIME & $$$ into this area. For those of us who have tremendous appreciation for their efforts ... you'll have to PROVE it before we will subscribe to rhetoric folly. We are inclined to be highly receptive to more alternative options for producing the 3D-ish effect that we desire, so here's your chance ... GO FOR IT


The lens itself may help a little but I highly doubt it - unless it's a really crappy lens,


If you were to compare the OM 100/2 against the Zeiss 100/2 you would no longer have this viewpoint. LENSES HAVE DRAWING STYLES ... and it would be VERY OBVIOUS of the differences between these two lenses ... neither of which is 'crappy' by a longshot, just different.


Edited on Jan 18, 2010 at 01:27 PM · View previous versions



Jan 18, 2010 at 10:08 AM
philber
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.15 #13 · what is '3d' ?


No doubt about it, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. I am not only ready to change my lenses, but eager to do so, as long as pictures show me better lenses than my Zeiss. If you think, Bifurcator, that I am happy to fork over significant amounts of money, carry heavy lenses and lose AF to get what other, cheaper, lighter lenses can produce just as well (one of your earlier contentions was that Zeiss lenses and 3D could be emulated and reproduced in post), you are plain wrong. I would love to downsize, pull money and weight out, lighten my load and get the same results! Just, nobody seems to know how, and calling me an elitist hog doesn't show me the way.


Jan 18, 2010 at 10:29 AM
RustyBug
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.15 #14 · what is '3d' ?


philber ... + 1,000

Yes ... we sacrifice time, $$$, weight, space & covenience (AF), speed etc. to achieve our goals. No one is saying that a Zeiss lens is the ONLY lens that can achieve this ... just that there are some very specific lenses which have a much greater consistency in their ability to produce ... and Zeiss happens to make several of these.

But does Bifurcator really think that so many people would go to these efforts if it could be done with just any 'good' lens?

This is from a 'lowly' Zeiss 80-200 f4. It'll never take on a 100/2 ... it is a slow lens, yet I have a hard time parting with, so it takes up space in my bag. If I had the budget, I would replace it with a MORE 3D-ish producing lens, e.g. 100/2. If Bifurcator would like to use it to go head to head with the 100/2 ... I'd be glad to loan it to you, after you buy a 100/2 ...
then we could make an even trade

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2729/4284576477_a5b7a338c7_b.jpg
(Hey, even Rusty, old, blind dogs find a bone every now & then )

Edited on Jan 18, 2010 at 01:24 PM · View previous versions



Jan 18, 2010 at 10:43 AM
brainiac
Offline
[X]
p.15 #15 · what is '3d' ?


RustyBug wrote:
Richard ... could you post the motorycycle shot in this thread (vs. my link to it)?


Please feel free to embed any images I have embedded elsewhere. Here it is:
http://cyberphotographer.com/1ds3/damianbike_lowrez.jpg



Jan 18, 2010 at 01:05 PM
brainiac
Offline
[X]
p.15 #16 · what is '3d' ?


blackpill wrote:
The image of that man is certainly 3D. Do you mind sharing what lens/camera and settings you used for this. Thanks.


Canon 5D, Contax 35 f1.4. It was shot in JPEG.



Jan 18, 2010 at 01:09 PM
RustyBug
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.15 #17 · what is '3d' ?


Richard ... thanks.


Jan 18, 2010 at 01:25 PM
RustyBug
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.15 #18 · what is '3d' ?


Point is ...


Jan 18, 2010 at 01:46 PM
Joseph Marney
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.15 #19 · what is '3d' ?


That the appearance of 3D is certainly not solely dependent on the lens.

Zeiss glass may render higher contrast and saturation, all other things being equal. But reduction of those in processing removes, I think, the appearance of 3D from the image.

Likewise, adding those elements to an image shot with glass that is lower in contrast and saturation increases the perception of 3D.

When we are talking about shooting digitally, shooting raw, the rendering of the image determined just as heavily by the processing engine as by the glass in front of the sensor.

EDIT: To clarify, I'm suggesting that sharpness, contrast, saturation are the aspects that effect the illusion, and that some lenses, by their design, are well suited for this, but it is the characteristics of the resulting image itself that create the illusion, not a magic lens.

Edited on Jan 18, 2010 at 02:11 PM · View previous versions



Jan 18, 2010 at 01:55 PM
biotar
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.15 #20 · what is '3d' ?


That there is more to 3d than only gear of course, in this case pp.

While i believe and am convinced that your gear is a facilitating instrument, there is much more that comes into play than this. I myself am convinced that many (not all) zeiss lenses have characteristics that make it easier to produce pictures with this feel. I experience this myself.

I only have to disagree with Brainiac over the fact that this is a gear forum. I really learn much of the people and the discussions here, and I do see added value in a more concerted approach to such phenomena.

Whatever could be wrong in learning from each other and finding more techniques to enhance your photography? I think THAT is one of the main qualities of this great forum.

I want to add an old one btw: making sure the foreground colours are 'warmer' and more saturated than the background (another role for post-processing, but also composition). Consider Brainiacs portrait photo above for instance.

-edit: Sorry, I missed Jcmarney's last message



Jan 18, 2010 at 02:05 PM
1       2       3              14              16              46       47       end




FM Forums | Leica & Alternative Gear | Join Upload & Sell

1       2       3              14              16              46       47       end
    
 

Welcome back
Log in to your account