I appreciate your contribution, I knew about the first part, I didn't know how a correlation between the entrance and exit pupil sizes would cause a 3d effect on the photo, but I for one would surely like to know this interesting theory.
I really do think design matters. my biggest succes rate goes for my zeisses (not the flek though) too, but that discussion doesn't interest me, and I don't see why people should be convinced by this. They either see it or they don't (just like brainiac said)
Where it does become interesting is what I do wrong when my 35-70 (to pick an example) DOESN'T produce this effect. What do I need to do to optimize my keepers rate (if I go for this effect in a photo of course).
Also: as your own scissor&thread shot shows, there can be something with the texture alone that not necessarily shows depth, but it does have an amount of realness to it that makes it of another type of 3d than this depth. I am willing to go with Carstens texture for it. I have had exactly the same with a banana test shot on my table taken with a zuiko 24/2.8 BTW.
All I really want is people to get over the fact that some lenses are just more capable of rendering the effect. As I said, it only gets interesting at the moments it doesn't create this effect.
I am looking forward on seeing more on your thesis about the correlation between the entrance and exit pupil sizes. That is, if you want to take the time involved in this. For now I put myself to rest for a change
-edit: wow! I missed a whole conversation while typing!
Nobody is saying "ZEISS" per se ... it is lens design, irrespective of mfr ... just like a brush design is more important thnt WHO makes that design.
Bifurcator ... first you say that the consensus is that lens design doesn't matter, then you say that we've all agreed that it does. Please stop being a fence jumping arbitrary instigator.
Most everyone here desires objective information, which has been thoroughly diluted by your incessant contrariness putting others who are legitimately trying to help into a rhetoric that has not been helpful.
Bifurcator has the floor ... I bow to anything & everything he says from now and forever more.
RustyBug wrote:
Nobody is saying "ZEISS" per se ... it is lens design, irrespective of mfr ... just like a brush design is more important thnt WHO makes that design.
Bifurcator ... first you say that the consensus is that lens design doesn't matter, then you say that we've all agreed that it does. Please stop being a fence jumping arbitrary instigator.
I think you are missing my point there. Switch Zeiss out in my last post for any other brand. The lens only contributes to some factors of what makes an image 3D, not all. In addition, SOME factors that give the 3D appearance can indeed be altered after the shot is made, such as color, saturation, and apparent sharpness. Some cannot, such as light, perspective, oof rendering, and sure, micro-contrast.
Edit: And yes, I find the rending of some lenses more to my liking that others. I might even say some bolster the 3D characteristics of an image, if those characteristics are ALREADY present in the image. The 135mm L is an example that was given that I agree with....as well at the 35mm L.
Biotar, please look at this page: Need some Zeiss adveiss
On this page, mcbroomf posts, among others, 3 pics. A red flower, a red ship, onboard a rusty ship. All three with the same lens, 35-70. AFAIAC, one has no 3D at all (quite flat, actually), one has depth and some 3D, one is stunningly 3D. At least IMHO.
That shows that the lens alone can't deliver 3D every time, even if the subject theoretically lends itself to it (all 3 subjects are 3D compatible, in this case)
I think we need to go back to Carstenw's definition: if there is no sense of texture, there can be no 3D. Texture is not in itself enough to generate it, but the absence of it is enough to suppress it. In this case, 2 pics have no texture whatsoever, the third one has tons of it.
What do you think?
RustyBug wrote:
Bifurcator ... first you say that the consensus is that lens design doesn't matter [THAT MUCH], then you say that we've all agreed that it does.
It's just not the most critical factor is all I meant. I'm pretty sure I made that VERY clear several times now.
jcmarney wrote:
I think you are missing my point there. Switch Zeiss out in my last post for any other brand. The lens only contributes to some factors of what makes an image 3D, not all. In addition, SOME factors that give the 3D appearance can indeed be altered after the shot is made, such as color, saturation, and apparent sharpness. Some cannot, such as light, perspective, oof rendering, and sure, micro-contrast.
Edit: And yes, I find the rending of some lenses more to my liking that others. I might even say some bolster the 3D characteristics of an image, if those characteristics are ALREADY present in the image. The 135mm L is an example that was given that I agree with....as well at the 35mm L. ...Show more →
Yes, exactly.
RustyBug wrote:
Please stop being a fence jumping arbitrary instigator.
Bifurcator has the floor ... I bow to anything & everything he says from now and forever more.
I agree that the lens is not the ONLY determinate, but it can certainly be a weak link ... as can other aspects of the photographic process. I totally agree that no lens produces 3D all the time. I've got my 35-70 as referenced in philber's post ... sometimes I get sweet 3D ... other times totally 2D ... but it will always beat the snot out of my 28-135.
jcmarney wrote:
The 135mm L is an example that was given that I agree with....as well at the 35mm L.
I beg to differ. My 135L did indeed produce some 3D effect. But my 35L was as flat as they come. A very good lens in other respects, but not this one, and I have no reason to believe that I had an inferior copy.
philber wrote:
I beg to differ. My 135L did indeed produce some 3D effect. But my 35L was as flat as they come. A very good lens in other respects, but not this one, and I have no reason to believe that I had an inferior copy.
I've had the 135, but not the 35mm, so my opinion would only be from others' processed samples, so I certainly take your word.
I agree that the lens is not the ONLY determinate, but it can certainly be a weak link ... as can other aspects of the photographic process. I totally agree that no lens produces 3D all the time. I've got my 35-70 as referenced in philber's post ... sometimes I get sweet 3D ... other times totally 2D ... but it will always beat the snot out of my 28-135.
I think it would make sense that if a lens can bolster certain image characteristics, that another lens could suppress those characteristics.
I do think you present your opinions in a way that can be interpreted as "lacking in diplomacy" or "facetious", but in "real life" people would have a whole bunch of other linguistic cues to judge your intent, which I think is overall positive and constructive. You've made several good points. Some really good ones, I think. The icon doesn't help. I know it's supposed to be a "big grin", but I've always interpreted it as "sassy" or "sarcastic". That said, I'm surprised at the number of people who seem to have their panties in a bunch over the whole thing.
I really like the comparison that jcmarney did on page 13 with Brainiac's motorcycle shot. The original is 3D as all anything; the altered version is flat! Then Samuli says "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", which I agree with completely. I've also looked, and Zeiss reigns supreme IMHO.
Most all of the images Samuli has displayed have the look that I want, call it 3D or whatever (or maybe "glossy", as if they look wet??). I want to know how to achieve that look in all of my photographs, and I strive to construct a simple set of post processing techniques to do just that. Zeiss lenses like the C/Y 50/1.4, 21/2.8, 28/2.8, etc. have these "3D qualities" inherently it seems.
Here are some random shots. Anything 3D in here? All with 5D and all with different lenses (all quality optics, no games). I'll reveal the lenses later.
Here is a shot that shows a little 3D in black & white It helps when you misfocus and the exact plane of focus is on the edge of the foreground object please forgive me it was a prefocused grab-shot.
I thought the most helpful demonstration of how some lenses do 3D and others don't was this, and I'm sorry - I can't remember who it was that so kindly uploaded it: http://cyberphotographer.com/5d2/no3d.jpg
Those who look for the kind of 3D effect that lenses can impart will probably spot the least 3D image, and those who don't accept that 3D is a quality that a lens can impart will not. It's pretty simple. I know which of these four lenses I definitely _don't_ want to waste my time using, because I like my pictures to look 3D. I think it gives them more impact and makes them seem more real. It's certainly a marginal, or even subliminal effect, but I think it's an important one.
As regards discussion of other factors that make a photograph seem 3D, as photographers we learn how to exploit lighting/contrast/tone, point of view, focal length and narrow depth of field as a matter of course. If you don't consider all of those issues while taking leisurely pictures, then you should, because they are part of a photographer's toolbox. If you take pictures that don't allow you time to manipulate those factors, then a lens which makes the scene seem real and 3D is still going to impart a certain drama to the scene as long as it is focussed and sharp.
Whichever kind of picture you take, the additional impact of a lens with a strong 3D effect is a quality that can be exploited over and over again. Most viewers of your images won't even realise that this effect is a major factor in retaining their attention.
I'm going to say that the lenses get cheaper as you go from left to right - with the two in the middle being too close to tell any difference. The one on the right has the noisiest and harshest bokeh - so I guess it's the cheapest lens. Then again some Zeiss lenses have a bokeh like that too.
<shrug> It's difficult to tell. Especially when the frame, angle, and BG shadows are different for every image. It looks like the white balance might have even changed for the one on the right.
I'm going to say that the lenses get cheaper as you go from left to right - with the two in the middle being too close to tell any difference. The one on the right has the noisiest and harshest bokeh - so I guess it's the cheapest lens. Then again some Zeiss lenses have a bokeh like that too.
<shrug> It's difficult to tell. Especially when the frame, angle, and BG shadows are different for every image. It looks like the white balance might have even changed for the one on the right.
So, clue us in man.
I don't think it really matters which lens is which and which costs what. The point of the example, to my eye, is that number 2 and number 3 have dramatically different 3D rendering. The flower sits on top of the lawn in number 2, but is only surrounded by lawn in number 3. 2 has strong 3D and 3 has weak 3D. I have no idea why, but I do think that this illustrates that the way lenses draw does affect the sense of 3D in an image, and it isn't always easy to see how to use processing to 'add' it, if that is possible, as suggested by some.
Number 3 is focused slightly farther away. That's the difference that I see, and the grass surrounding the bottom of the flower is therefore in focus, while not so in the other pictures. The flower is also slightly out of focus to some degree.
It helps when you misfocus and the exact plane of focus is on the edge of the foreground object 
please forgive me it was a prefocused grab-shot.