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       …       15      
16
       17       …       46       47       end
   

Archive 2009 · what is '3d' ?
  
 
Samuli Vahonen
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.16 #1 · what is '3d' ?


jcmarney wrote:
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.

Even with explanation I don't get what was the point of your comparison. Canon and Leica lenses have large contrast (for exampe blacks are more often clipping with Canon and Leica lenses using my standard black level, since I have set the level so that it won't typically won't clip with Zeiss when exposed correctly), and Leica typically has more saturation, and still they both lack this look. Is your assumption that contrast and saturation is the mechanism to cause 3D-ish look? Saturation at least has nothing to do with this since B&W photos can be 3D-ish as well.

While you modified the image you removed also microcontrast, sharpness and edge sharpness, not just contrast and saturation, which do contribute something as well...

Based on my experience, if I get the 3D-ish look to image, it's there when I open the RAW file first time using quick view (or whatever is the function called in Mac when you can preview images by pressing space in Finder - it's showing the small JPG inside RAW image) and I don't need to do anything special in RAW processing neither Photoshop. Just resize & sharpen & save to jpg and I'm done. If I otherwise prefer different white balance, saturation, vignetting, selective sharpening to save bokeh smoothness etc. I can add the effects but it won't change the fact that in original image has it or doesn't have it.

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

3D-ish effect can be lost in resing/sharpening/etc. operations if done badly. But I don't know how (and believe me I have searched and asked around) to add it to image which originally doesn't have it. If somebody figures how to add it to images, which don't originally have it, let me know and I'll buy few Canon lenses again since autofocus is very handy sometimes.

Adding contrast and saturation to lousy image can enhance the classical art cue based 3D what Bifurcator was explaining, but the 3D-ish effect seen on few example images here, cannot be added in photo processing (I really wish it could).
Jan 18, 2010 at 02:40 PM
Joseph Marney
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.16 #2 · what is '3d' ?


Samuli Vahonen wrote:
Even with explanation I don't get what was the point of your comparison.
...
Saturation at least has nothing to do with this since B&W photos can be 3D-ish as well.
...
While you modified the image you removed also microcontrast, sharpness and edge sharpness, not just contrast and saturation, which do contribute something as well...
...
If I otherwise prefer different white balance, saturation, vignetting, selective sharpening to save bokeh smoothness etc. I can add the effects but it won't change the fact that in original i....
but the 3D-ish effect seen on few example images here, cannot be added in photo processing...Show more →

Thanks for your response. As a disclaimer, I may simply be wrong, and I accept that. I do enjoy this discussion though.

My first statement in this thread was "I think it comes down to subject contrast--sometimes DOF causes this, sometimes contrasting colors or shapes, lights and darks, lighting, perspective (large foreground/small background)....any of those things cause some subject isolation that makes it jump out to us."

Thus, some or all of these things. The black and white image can certainly exhibit 3D-ness through DOF, perspective, sharpness, etc. In other images, color may play a role in a 3D look while DOF does not. I'm simply saying that I think it comes down to contrast. - Contrast of light and dark, contrast of sharpness to smoothness, contrast of in-focus to out of focus, contrast of large in foreground to small in background, etc.

No, not all images can have that look. In fact, if you took that motorcycle image, and turned the bike so it was perpendicular to the camera and had the lighting been flatter, it would undoubtedly look less 3D, because the perspective and lighting played a large role in it's 3D-ness. In my comparison though, I could not change the perspective or lighting, so I changed what I could--sharpness, contrast and saturation. The result, I think, looks pretty close to OOC image from your run of the mill Canon or Nikon--soft-ish, lacking pop, etc.

So, in my theory, contrast, sharpness and saturation give the image it's 3D look (as well as the lighting and perspective), and while a Zeiss lens may be a tool to help achieve that look, it is just a means to an end. As is Photoshop, Lightroom, etc.

But then, I may be talking completely out of my arse. And I'm ok with that.
Jan 18, 2010 at 02:58 PM
blackpill
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.16 #3 · what is '3d' ?


So it seems like there are two conversations going on here. One is talking about what gear (lenses) most consistently give you a "3D" look. The second conversation seems to be about what other elements (contrast, sharpness, saturation, DOF, composition, etc.) are involved in those images that appear "3D" as obviously not every photo coming from one of the "3D" lenses achieves this look. As to "what is 3d?", well I think most of us (but of course not all) can agree when we see it though there are several degrees of 3Dishness. I don't have any Zeiss lenses. The shot I posted of the kids which I felt had a 3d quality was shot with a plain old Rebel XT and 18-55 plastic kit lens (my first DSLR). The B&W of the building and path was actually shot on a Yashica T4, so I guess that's actually a Zeiss 35/3.5 now that I think of it. I feel that my most 3D lens is my 35L or my Canon 15mm Fisheye, but that one for a different reason obviously.


Jan 18, 2010 at 03:14 PM
Joseph Marney
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.16 #4 · what is '3d' ?


Blackpill--

Yes, it makes it difficult to discuss where 3D comes from when we can't really quantify what 3D is.


Jan 18, 2010 at 03:22 PM
Samuli Vahonen
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.16 #5 · what is '3d' ?


jcmarney wrote:
...The result, I think, looks pretty close to OOC image from your run of the mill Canon or Nikon--soft-ish, lacking pop, etc....
I don't think this is the issue. Even the new version of EOS18-55IS is pretty damn good at many aspects when stopped down to f/8. And if the consumer grade lens lacks these qualities (contrast, sharpeness, "pop") they can be added in Photoshop, at least for these ridiculous small webimages. Most of the "professional" quality Nikon/Canon lenses (at least primes) as well as almost all Leica lenses are already OK on these properties, however they do not seem produce what people here are after.

Also it's possible to take flat photos with Zeiss. Try for example Finnish winter, when so big number of days it's overcast and there is snow in the ground - light is coming from every direction. Sometimes it's difficult even by eye figure out shape of objects. I still would encourage people to go through the posting made by carstenw at end of page 10, it explains things pretty well.

blackpill wrote:
....The shot I posted of the kids which I felt had a 3d quality was shot with a plain old Rebel XT and 18-55 plastic kit lens (my first DSLR)....

I did not comment the image and still would not like to since it looks so unreal due to added vignetting and HDR look, which both make for example the white shirt strange gray (=unreal) and the white glowy cheek of the children with white shirt so unnatural looking that it's distracting my viewing of the image. However if I try to look past the unreal processing (and small dimensions of image) I may see some shape on the children faces but it's so hard when there are distractions in the image. Some of "I may see something" may be actually caused by the HDR look of the image. I'm personally allergic to things which seem artificial and added to picture, for some other persons it might work. As a image and art it's OK.

On the B&W image I do not see any 3D-ish look/feeling. Both of the images fulfill some of the criterias for classic art cues for 3D, and in the sense of classic art 3D cues they look 3D.

jcmarney wrote:
Yes, it makes it difficult to discuss where 3D comes from when we can't really quantify what 3D is.

I already gave up (I get pimples and shivers when I even mention the "definitions" word these days) - I see it as two separate things, which I have stated already so many times - some other people want to put all of these to one thing - some of the people decline to believe there is thing number 2 - etc. - etc. - I no longer could care less, for me they are:
- classic art cues for 3D
- 3D-ish feeling / 3D look / 3D-ish, whatever it's named, I'm happy with whatever name forum comes up for this

Somebody more verbally capable to figure out the definitions etc. academic stuff: After sitting many years in technical university for MSc it was enough for me, I definitely do not miss academic & theoretical part, and specially in my hobby I don't need it...
Jan 18, 2010 at 04:58 PM
Bifurcator
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.16 #6 · 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.

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?

Yes. But most of my experience isn't digital. It wasn't even until the D2x days (which I purchased and owned for a few years) that I even thought digital cameras were good enough to consider.


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.

Quality and attributes by consensus? Well this thread CLEARLY shows that the vast majority here do not think it's the lens. And with only one or two exceptions it's ONLY the Zeiss zealots who are saying this. They (including yourself) repeatedly tell this vast majority "you're wrong" in message after message - both directly and through implication. I think all the reasonable people just gave up. So that leaves guys like me who aren't afraid to repeat themselves. Just from the first two pages or so look at the ACTUAL consensus:


      weezintrumpete wrote:
      I am under the strict opinion that it really doesn't have much to do with the lens, but all to do with the situation as mentioned above (distance to subject, distance from subject to background, etc).
      ----------------------


      Sam N wrote:
      It's mostly down to DOF, lighting, textures, and subject distance vs. background distance.

      It actually doesn't have too much to do with the lens, though some would like to think that it does.

      Don't buy in to all the hype.

      andreavaccaro wrote:
      I totally agree with you, I think that lighting is the most important component to give that "3D feel"
      ----------------------

      Sean Mills wrote:
      It's a subjective perception of recognizable depth in a photograph.

      Subjective being the key adjective.
      ----------------------

      carstenw wrote:
      Lots of Zeiss lenses don't have it, at least that I have seen.
      ----------------------

      Tariq Gibran wrote:
      I guess I would have to disagree with that statement in a major way. LIghting is to photography what air is to breathing! I do agree the lens plays a part but not necessarily more so than lighting and color.
      ----------------------

      Spyro P. wrote:
      it doesnt matter if its a $50k lens straight out of the *ss of the Konig of Bavaria. Its a simple matter of perspective.
      ----------------------

      snowboarder wrote (Zeiss owner):
      It's more of a combination of contrast and color rendering.
      ----------------------

      Leon Noel wrote:
      We all should shoot fisheyes at close range if 3D is what we are after..

      Popping (read: in your face) distorted perspective (to the extreme) and lots of apparent depth.
      ----------------------

      AlexTokyo wrote:
      For me, 3D isn't only about shallow DOF but about finding something in the picture that helps relate to distance. Here, at f/2 (135L, not Alt sorry), the front and back OOF seems to help that 3D feeling. So, more than magic driven from German engineers, composition might have something to do w/ it.
      ----------------------

      Sam N wrote:
      It's mostly down to DOF, lighting, textures, and subject distance vs. background distance.

      It actually doesn't have too much to do with the lens, though some would like to think that it does.

      Don't buy in to all the hype.

      musclepics wrote:
      I agree totally.
      ----------------------

      jrn813 wrote:
      For Me The Strongest Key/Factor Is Resolution.....
      ----------------------

      Spyro P. wrote:
      I think based on the answers given, we can now safely respond to the OP's question:

      3D is something different for every photographer.
      ----------------------


Every single one of them are saying it's not lens! And to show an alternative consensus you're going to have to quote yourself kind of a lot.




Jan 18, 2010 at 05:52 PM
RustyBug
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.16 #7 · what is '3d' ?


And a consensus obviously makes it so ... thereby 'proving' Columbus was wrong about the world being round, since the consensus was that the world was flat.

The Title of the forum is "Alternative Gear & Lenses", so I'm not sure why the strong opposition to Richard, Paul, Paul, et al . . . indication that the significance of the gear is warranted.

The 'scissors & thread' shot is with an Oly, and I've got a Mamiya lens that I can use as a 'go to' lens for some 3D-ish as well ... i.e. not a Zeiss Zealot, simply recognizing there are lenses that Zeiss makes which I find to produce 3D with great results & consistency. I'm certain that if Graham & others were to chime in here, they'd have some killer work that was equipment dependent too. Makten has shown some nice things with his 85mm that is not a Zeiss, but it's drawing style does lean toward some 3D tendencies.

Leica makes an APO lens that is on my dream list as well for the 3D-ish, while other Leicas don't ... so this discussion is not about "Zeiss Zealots" but the fact that lens design has an integral part (all other aspects being equal) on the 3D effect. Canon's 135/2 L has been known to post up some good 3D renderings ... again, lens design matters.



http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4038/4207172531_c58685b343.jpg

Edited on Jan 18, 2010 at 07:40 PM · View previous versions
Jan 18, 2010 at 06:38 PM
RustyBug
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.16 #8 · what is '3d' ?


Here's a litmus test ??

If you & your family were being held hostage and were going to be executed unless you were able to produce a 3D-ish image ... and you could only shoot ONE frame ... which lens would you choose?

a) it wouldn't matter ... they are all the same with regard to the ability to produce 3D-ish effect, or

b) you have a definite lens in mind (Oly, Zeiss, Mamiya, Leica, Canon, Nikon, Voigtlander, Hasselblad, Jupiter, Tair, etc.) that you would shoot the ONE, all important, shot with.
Jan 18, 2010 at 06:56 PM
Bifurcator
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.16 #9 · what is '3d' ?


Yeah, that's cool! You can have your opinion. I'm good. But I'm not the one in opposition here. They keep quoting me and disagreeing or whatever. I play into it only by continuing to respond. I think it's a bunch of fun myself... I mean as long as no one is getting too serious about all this. The same is true throughout the thread. Pretty much everyone says it's not the lens (and these are expert witnesses forming this consensus so yes, it is somewhat meaningful) or that the lens is not the biggest factor and just three or four guys keep repeating over and over that they're all wrong or challenging them with "Prove it". The funniest part about this thread to me is that everytime someone takes the challenge and does prove it then those same 3 or 4 guys say "I can't see it, It doesn't look 3D to me."

I'm waiting for someone to take a shot with a point&shoot and then claim it was a Zeiss. I wanna see all the Zeiss zealots say: "Oh yes, I totally see it".

BTW, I'm not saying that the lens has noting at all to do with it. It has some. But it's not even the biggest factor.
Jan 18, 2010 at 06:59 PM
RustyBug
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.16 #10 · what is '3d' ?


Bifurcator ... thank you for the rhetoric.

Be sure and charge everyone that follows your advice an excessive amount. I'm sure they'll be totally happy with the images they produce for the rest of their lives because of it (or the Kool-Aid) ... "You da man !!"

I humble myself to your vast array of exceptional imagery and unparalleled sense of objectivity.

BTW ... nice job finding the drawings with 3D rendering, especially the last two.

Edited on Jan 18, 2010 at 07:43 PM · View previous versions
Jan 18, 2010 at 07:10 PM
Bifurcator
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.16 #11 · what is '3d' ?


jcmarney wrote:
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...Show more →

Yup, that sums it up fairly well!
Jan 18, 2010 at 07:25 PM
philber
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.16 #12 · what is '3d' ?


Bifurcator wrote:
I'm waiting for someone to take a shot with a point&shoot and then claim it was a Zeiss. I wanna see all the Zeiss zealots say: "Oh yes, I totally see it".



If it is that easy, and since you seem to want it so badly, I can't imagine what's holding you back from doing it yourself
Actually, come to think of it, there are P&S cameras with Zeiss lenses. Made by Sony, no less. There are also P&S cameras with Leica lenses, made by Panasonic. Samsung use Schneider Kreutznach. I can't imagine why the world's 3 largest consumer electronics companies pay money for such cooperation unless they, too, feel that not all lenses are created equal.
Jan 18, 2010 at 07:35 PM
philber
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.16 #13 · what is '3d' ?


jcmarney wrote:
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.



Where I beg to differ with the above is this. If, as is my personal intuition, 3D is created by micro-information that happens to be better reproduced, by some lenses than by others, no amount of post can fix that. Post can, of course wipe out 3D if you set it up to eliminate information, such as colour sharpness, contrast, etc..., but it cannot add back information that the lens did not reproduce faithfully.
Jan 18, 2010 at 07:41 PM
biotar
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.16 #14 · what is '3d' ?


pfff... I finally got fed up with the way this thread turned out to be. In stead of using it as a means to communicate each others insights, which i feel we got close to here, and finally agree to a basis to elaborate further on, people stick with the 'lens has/ has not have anything to do with 3d'. Can't people get over that? We all seem to agree that the lens is part of the process right?

What sense does it make discussing 'how much' the gear contributes to the '3d-ness' of a picture, when we haven't even figured out what the phenomenon 3d consists of, or how we can use it to improve our photography.

I am really sorry that I interpreted this thread as dealing with the question "what is 3d". I clearly am disappointed as I thought this would be more useful and more contributive (since everyones still debating what 3d is) than all just saying its all about/ it's not about the lens (because we all should now that the lens does it's part here).

Guess I really am to serious about all this. What got into me...
Jan 18, 2010 at 07:46 PM
Bifurcator
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.16 #15 · what is '3d' ?


philber,
Processing can and does add information. It can also subtract. And it can modify without add or subtract operations as well. With enough processing you can turn a white blank page into a photorealistic image limited only by your imagination.




Samuli Vahonen wrote:
I already gave up (I get pimples and shivers when I even mention the "definitions" word these days) - I see it as two separate things, which I have stated already so many times - some other people want to put all of these to one thing - some of the people decline to believe there is thing number 2 - etc. - etc. - I no longer could care less, for me they are:
- classic art cues for 3D
- 3D-ish feeling / 3D look / 3D-ish, whatever it's named, I'm happy with whatever name forum comes up for...Show more →

I hear ya. I agree with your definition here too BTW.



biotar wrote:
Guess I really am to serious about all this. What got into me...

Well I hope the technicals are serious. Just not the emotions that get involved as we promote our own opinions. I'm sorry I brought that retrospective into the conversation if that only served to exacerbate.



Edited on Jan 18, 2010 at 08:02 PM · View previous versions
Jan 18, 2010 at 07:49 PM
RustyBug
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.16 #16 · what is '3d' ?


biotar ...

I apologize for not having reference material or a good memory, but ...

lenses that have very tightly aligned MTF's in both the saggital & tangential direction have a greater tendency to produce a micro-contrast that lends itself well toward producing a 3D-ish image. I'm remiss to provide the multiple sources from which my studies have revealed this ... they have been posted elsewhere in FM.

Additionally, my study of those lenses that typically produce 3D-ish imagery has revealed (theory IMHO) a correlation between the entrance and exit pupil sizes.

If you find this helpful ... glad to help. If you think design doesn't matter, I'm at a loss


Jan 18, 2010 at 07:56 PM
siriusdogstar
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.16 #17 · what is '3d' ?


ignoring the photographer for the moment, do all zeiss lenses produce 3d? surely some models tend to produce 3d more often than others; which? what i'm after here is which lens formula has the tendency? by identifying the lens formula, we can see if other lenses with the same formula have the 3d tendency, or decide it is only the Zeiss.
Jan 18, 2010 at 08:03 PM
Bifurcator
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.16 #18 · what is '3d' ?


RustyBug, siriusdogstar,

Reading the entire thread, I think most of us have agreed that lens "design" does matter but that it's not the most critical factor. I think most of us have come to the realization that as Samuli Vahonen puts it: "classic art cues for 3D" play at least, a very strong (perhaps the strongest) roll in producing the effect.

Edited on Jan 18, 2010 at 08:16 PM · View previous versions
Jan 18, 2010 at 08:03 PM
RustyBug
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.16 #19 · what is '3d' ?


It is NOT only Zeiss ... it is the lens formula. Zeiss produces some lenses that don't produce 3D strongly.
Jan 18, 2010 at 08:05 PM
Joseph Marney
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.16 #20 · what is '3d' ?


... again, lens design matters.

Sure, and brush design matters too. But if you asked consensus among painters of how a photo-realistic scene is made, they wouldn't rise up and say "The Bristle Strokamator 2000", even, EVEN IF _ALL_ of the best paintings were made with that brush.

I don't think anyone here has said that lens design doesn't matter at all.
...and to be fair, nor has anyone said that all Zeiss lenses or Zeiss image exhibit 3D.

The point that I'm trying to make, in discussing 3D, is that I think that certain characteristics of an IMAGE define 3D, not rendering characteristics of a lens. The lens may bolster certain things, like saturation, sharpness, or contrast, but the reason for the 3D look is saturation, sharpness and contrast, not Zeiss. Make any sense?
Jan 18, 2010 at 08:08 PM
1       2       3       …       15      
16
       17       …       46       47       end
FM Forums | Leica & Alternative Gear | Join Upload & Sell

1       2       3       …       15      
16
       17       …       46       47       end
    
 

Welcome back
Log in to your account
Reset passwordNo account? Register