I went over to the PP forum to see if I could learn something over there ... and ended up leaving a post. Below is the link & what I wrote in response to someone saying that 3D is a bad term and that it is really only DOF.
Understandably, this is a 2D medium and anything that is "3D-ish" is the illusion of something that presents a greater sense of realism regarding depth & form.
DOF itself is mostly related to the range of focus vs. oof and does not always incoporate the elements of perspective, contrast, composition and numerous other factors that ... along with DOF ... render the 2D with a more "3D-ish" emotive from the viewer.
As such, 3D is not necessarily a bad way to describe the illusion ... but it is an improper way to discuss DOF.
Actually, I think that the greatest confusion (including on this thread) is that of 3D and depth. Because DOF is "only" in-focus, whereas you can have depth with out-of-focus areas as well.
Well, I think most people still really think that the basis for "3D" is DOF. All of the people in this thread who said so in the first 5 pages or so just left the discussion when we started in with the feelings and speculative descriptions. So I think pretty much the term "3D" as is being defined in this thread will probably never have a life outside of this thread. I don't really blame them. The definition is just too faceted, fleeting, and speculative. And you have to admit that the vast majority of images which can be called "3D" in the way it's being used here do indeed contain a lot of DOF blur relatively speaking. I myself am still to shy to actually use the term as it's being used here. I'm following along and understanding but I personally would never say an image is "3D" and expect anyone to know what I was talking about - unless it was constructed via one of the methods already being called "3D" like stereoscopic separations and etc.
Bifurcator wrote:
Well, I think most people still really think that the basis for "3D" is DOF. All of the people in this thread who said so in the first 5 pages or so just left the discussion when we started in with the feelings and speculative descriptions. So I think pretty much the term "3D" as is being defined in this thread will probably never have a life outside of this thread. I don't really blame them. The definition is just too faceted, fleeting, and speculative. And you have to admit that the vast majority of images which can be called "3D" in the way it's being used here do indeed contain a lot of DOF blur relatively speaking. I myself am still to shy to actually use the term as it's being used here. I'm following along and understanding but I personally would never say an image is "3D" and expect anyone to know what I was talking about - unless it was constructed via one of the methods already being called "3D" like stereoscopic separations and etc.
The answer is simple. Anyone who thinks that the "3D effect" is just another word for DoF is just plain wrong. :P
Not surprisingly, you find many of these misinformed people in the Canon forum. Not surprising because the vast majority of Canon lenses have no chance at any sort of 3D effect except by virtue of subject isolation.
DoF (or lack thereof) can contribute to the 3D effect, but it is neither a requirement for nor does it invariably create the effect.
thrice wrote:
is this 3D? voigtlander 50mm color-skopar!
Thrice, to me this image appears 3D. I get quite a lot of mixed signals to my eyes but it's obvious that the hair left from his right eye (right eye in photo is on left side of course) is closer than the face, something similar on other side of the face but on smaller magnitude, and somehow when I position my head to correct distance from screen face also appears to have shape, but the illusion breaks quite easily.
How did you light this image, it seems main light was right from the camera pretty high, but did you have additional light source or reflector on left?
PS. This image seems to be very effective, I was looking it and the got a phone call. While discussing in the phone I got weird feeling that somebody is staring at me and after the phonecall I realized it was you photo staring at me
PS2. Any possibility to see "head only" version of this?
thrice wrote:
Here is just the face:
Dan
Thanks for the enlargement. Damn, I assumed the effect would have been more effective but at this size I don't see it at all.
As limited as they may be, of all the lenses I've tried thus far, no lens came close to C/Y Planar 100/2.0 for making that 3D look.
I think some PP can bring about some degree of 3D look, but I think there is definitely an inherent element of lens' structure of Planar 100 that produces such 3D-ness.
Many Zeiss lenses have that characteristics more than other brand lenses, but Planar 100 is really special.....
Daniel (thrice, that is your name, right?), can you try boosting the contrast somewhat until you start getting some inky black areas somewhere in the photo, like in his pupils and in the shadow underneath his T-shirt collar? If this doesn't also boost saturation, give that a tweak too, and add some "Clarity" or "Sharpness". Note that I am not asking to add a lot, just tweak it until right
Steven, essentially we agree on everything about Leica and Zeiss. I like the look out of the box of many Zeiss shots about as much as I like my Leicas, but as you pointed out, I find that the Leica look does leave a little more room for PP. In a contrasty shot, I find the Zeiss look too harsh sometimes, which is hard to recover from. On the other hand, Zeiss does get more 3D, which I wish I could have in the Leicas. I guess you can't have everything. I think I will pick up some Zeiss lens for my M8 at some point. Too bad that it has 1/3 stops on the aperture ring, which I always thought was too fiddly, and matched the 1/2 stops on the shutter speed ring poorly.
carstenw wrote:
Many of us are repeatedly saying that this is exactly what we do *not* think, yet you keep coming to this conclusion
There is depth, which can be given by perspective, DoF, etc., and there is 3D, which is about rendering, micro-contrast and so on.
Read the thread again, I really cannot imagine how you got your impression.
He's getting the impression from basically every other discussion out there on the web, which are thick with people who have never really seen the 3D that we are discussing in this thread. The vast majority of people still think it is only about DoF. As wrong as they are, Bifurcator chooses to side with the majority.
Bifurcator wrote:
I do see it! I just said I did and explained why on both the B&W and your water tank.
I do see it. I just don't see the same as you. No one does. No one can without your eyes and your brain. But I see "3D-ish" looking photographs and one's that aren't so much so.
Bifurcator wrote:
I'm following along and understanding but I personally would never say an image is "3D" and expect anyone to know what I was talking about
cogitech wrote:
He's getting the impression from basically every other discussion out there on the web, which are thick with people who have never really seen the 3D that we are discussing in this thread. The vast majority of people still think it is only about DoF. As wrong as they are, Bifurcator chooses to side with the majority.
Ah, I see. Well, I have seen the occasional other thread on the web, but it was usually a 3-5 post jobbie with most people saying "yup, depth of field gives nice 3D" and "why do DSLRs have so much more 3D than my compact" and such I have never seen an intelligent, open-minded and probing discussion like this thread anywhere else on the web, on this topic. Links to such are more than welcome.
I'm following along and understanding but I personally would never say an image is "3D" and expect anyone to know what I was talking about
FYI ... I think that there are those who know what one means when they say 3D.
"Trompe L'Oeil is a French term literally meaning "to deceive the eye." It dates back as far as 400 B.C. and was part of the rich culture of the Greek and Roman Empires. It is artwork that attempts to be so realistic that the viewer is fooled into thinking that actual three-dimensionalobjects are being displayed rather than a two-dimensional representation of those objects."
Can we please dispense with the unsubtantiated rhetoric about 3D not being a valid term ... and continue our quest to develop our skills, in our medium, as the masters before us did in their mediums?
carstenw wrote:
Ah, I see. Well, I have seen the occasional other thread on the web, but it was usually a 3-5 post jobbie with most people saying "yup, depth of field gives nice 3D" and "why do DSLRs have so much more 3D than my compact" and such I have never seen an intelligent, open-minded and probing discussion like this thread anywhere else on the web, on this topic. Links to such are more than welcome.
It is certainly an entertaining thread, but it gives rise to confusion more than that it answers questions. It is impossible to get a clear picture of the topic when the '3D' perception appears to be highly subjective and key terms ill-defined.
My brain tells me that there are depth cues in some images in this thread; some of these have a blurred background and some have not. The lens may play a role, because ultimately it must be a matter of contrast (in the all-sharp images anyway). Contrast in the broad sense of the word.
I am a loyal Zeiss user, and have been for 20 years, but I don't think that Zeiss holds the secret to a mystical lens quality that enhances depth perception, '3D' experience, or whatever it is called. My guess is that the microcontrast or resolution of the lens is relatively unimportant, since the discussion here is based on significantly downsampled images. Hence we are left with the macrocontrast (brilliance), where the lens plays a role, and all kinds of post-processing that determine the rendering of details and edges in these downsampled images.
Peer-reviewed papers such as these could be relevant, but I can't be sure as I don't have access. If someone else here does, I am interested ...
