+1 about the branches showing some, but a tough pic to let it show well.
+1 about the upload/resize issue can go against you ... but different bodies / sensors have different strengths of AA filters ... so PP is usually a requirement to optimize unless you have a sensor without any AA filter.
As far as brand X lenses ... I'm of the equal opportunity persuasion, as I have glass from 4 different mfrs that I have (& more on my wish list) in my 'go to' category that can be used when trying to get some 3D in the pic ... but do strongly agree that the glass DESIGN is an integral element (regardless of mfr) ... so not every lens from any given brand magically produces 3D ... but some specific lens designs are definitely better at it than others.
One of the things that I think is vastly overlooked when trying to produce 3D-ish pics is the significance of composition & perspective of scene elements / lines. The masters of painting & drawing (similar 2D medium) throughout history have excelled in their knowledge of these issues to produce incredibly life-like 3dish works ... I think one can help improve the effect by giving more consideration here as well.
Given the above, I'm wondering if many of those ... 'pop' but no '3D' ... are pics that are lacking the compositional / perspective elements to aid the mind with sufficient visual cues, that otherwise could have rendered a more 3D-ish pic.
How about this one?
A man with an offering of fruit in the great Sufi-shrine of Nizamuddin in Delhi, 5:09 p.m.
D 700 Nikkor 2.5/105mm @ f 2.8 ISO 800
Thomas
RustyBug wrote:
As far as brand X lenses ... I'm of the equal opportunity persuasion, as I have glass from 4 different mfrs that I have (& more on my wish list) in my 'go to' category that can be used when trying to get some 3D in the pic ... but do strongly agree that the glass DESIGN is an integral element (regardless of mfr) ... so not every lens from any given brand magically produces 3D ... but some specific lens designs are definitely better at it than others.
I have now 11 50mm lenses of which many are "planar" design, but only ones consistently providing plasticity/what-ever-word-is-approved-to-be-used-by-forum's-definition-guys are Zeiss f/1.7 C/Y and f/1.4 ZE. But on other hand bokeh of all my 50mm lenses is different even many of them share same base design.
Lens brand has absolute nothing to do with this. I have seen multiple Leica 90AA photos which have it. Few months back I did see one Canon EOS photo (35mm f/2 B&W), which had strong 3D-ish look, and naturally many FD f/1.2 50&85mm shots have had it over the years. Multiple Voigtlander 125mm photos have had the effect as well. Also few of the Nikon 35mm f/1.4 shots have had it. If I remember correctly also one photo last summer posted in here shoot with OM 50mm or 90mm macro had it. So when I see first Pentax & Sony/Minolta (not Sony Zeiss, those I have seen plenty) shot with 3D, I think I have seen it from all major brands, at least in one photo. Even brand doesn't create it but something in Zeiss designs is causing it since it's happening much more consistently.
RustyBug wrote:
One of the things that I think is vastly overlooked when trying to produce 3D-ish pics is the significance of composition & perspective of scene elements / lines. The masters of painting & drawing (similar 2D medium) throughout history have excelled in their knowledge of these issues to produce incredibly life-like 3dish works ... I think one can help improve the effect by giving more consideration here as well.
I categorize the 3D in 2D picture to two categories:
1) "lens made 3D" (plasticity or what-ever-word-is-approved-to-be-used-by-forum's-definition-guys)
2) "classical art 3D cues"
If you take Cogitech castle shot and turn it 45 degrees and crop so that only half of the castle is visible it still "comes out" from your screen even composition is ruined. Bifurgator tried to find 3D-looking drawings but none of them provided 1) but almost all were good on 2).
Some people just don't see 1) for example Bifurgator said that Cogitech castle shot is not 3D-ish looking, while majority of people see it very well. Then some people (myself for example) don't see picture as 3D if it lacks 1) no matter how well 2) is executed. Best results (regarding getting 3D look - does not guarantee you are creating art...) is achieved when combining both 1) and 2).
RustyBug wrote:
Given the above, I'm wondering if many of those ... 'pop' but no '3D' ... are pics that are lacking the compositional / perspective elements to aid the mind with sufficient visual cues, that otherwise could have rendered a more 3D-ish pic.
If considering from "classical art 3D cues"-point of view then yes many may not have enough cues to look 3D.
Makten wrote:
As flat as a scene can be, but very "3D" to me.
ZF 35/2 @ f/5.6 on D700, slightly cropped.
In this scene the wall texture itself has very coarse structure, which is kind of shape by itself. I don't find the scene flat:
- the gray wall on left appears to be few centimeters closer to camera than the cream colored top part
- also the door is protruding from the wall
The derailleur shot is an 'of course' 3D subject due to perceptual expectations, together with the gentle fade off from sharp focus - along the rear arm, chain and soil. Helped also by bright objects in the foreground sharp focus area, with less bright subject rendition in the defocus areas. The eye will naturally travel from bright to dark, sharp to unsharp, colourful to muted tones, contrasty to flat.
Even without the sidelight/wall render effect in Makten's shot, fine detail shaping (a trademark effect of that lens) provides excellent depth - witness the door, the downlight side of the 134 lamp and even the low grated windowframe.
For those whose main subject matter is best rendered in (more or less) clear focus, this effect is a winner if depth is considered desirable. There are many shots in this thread that are simple exercises in bokeh, a truly contrived and unconvincing (albeit often very attractive) effect, because the eye can never see defocus to a high degree in the real world. It is literally focused elsewhere. The sparrow shot on p29 puzzled me, it has 3D in spades, despite the bokeh - but the bird itself has convincing depth, as does the seat top. Lovely lens also, a classic. The Nizamuddin image is high contrast, decreasing its 3D potential - is another factor in 3D the actual tones of objects, do midtone objects render it better?
Many shots depend on longitudinal diminishing lines, fences disappearing into the distance - a pure optical device that should guarantee a 3D cue, but may not be 'enough'. So I guess I feel the opposite of RustyBug's comments above at 11.24 this page. Opinions as always.
philip ... thanks (I think ??)
I do try to obtain the 3Dish using as many different elements as possible, with the lens itself being but one of them, so your recognition of the other attributes is well received. I must admit however, I sometimes wonder how I'd do with something like the Planar 2.0 of Paul Yi's to play with or the Leica 100 APO or ?? some of the Sonnar's..
RustyBug wrote:
Agreed ... and nicely put that while they are not exclusive ... but seemingly lead the consistency of purpose in this area of lens design.
Yes, I read somewhere that this is one of the guiding priciples for the Zeiss engineers. As opposed to, say, Leica, who put more emphasis on color rendition. Minolta had yet a third main priority, but I forget what it was.
Canon's thing seems to be rich, almost over-saturated colors. (or maybe just profit.) There are a few Canon lenses with good-to-great plasticity (the 85/1.2's and of course the 200/1.8) but most are painfully flat to my eyes. I don't enjoy bashing Canon, far from it, but that's just how I see it.
Even the new 70-200/2.8 MK II is a bit underwhelming.
Also note that even Zeiss can miss. Witness the ZF / ZE 50/2 makro. It's an incredible lens in almost every way, but compared to the Planar 50's, it's rather flat. The new 100/2, while sharper than the Planar version, seems just a tad less plastic (though it's hard to be 100% sure)
While the new ZE 35mm is just absurdly, ridiculously good.
From the pics that I've seen and the MTF's I've read ... I'd love to see what I can do with it ... but can't 'justify' the $$$ since I shoot 50mm so little (and already have the C/Y 1.7, which I rarely shoot as is).
If someone wants to 'loan' me their 50/2 macro ... I'll take real good care of it
Cableaddict wrote:
Also note that even Zeiss can miss. Witness the ZF / ZE 50/2 makro. It's an incredible lens in almost every way, but compared to the Planar 50's, it's rather flat.
I have both the ZF 50/2 MP and the ZF 50/1.4, and from what i see, I simply can not agree that the 50/2 MP is "rather flat" in comparison to the 50/1.4. In fact, the only advantage the 50/1.4 has over the 50/2 is an extra stop of speed. The 50/2 MP is to my eyes superior in every way, and is certainly not "flat" compared to any lens. In fact, if there is a "miss" by Zeiss in the ZF/ZE lenses it is the 50/1.4. Zeiss should have done a lot more to improve their classic design. While it's an excellent, competitive and competent performer, one would have thought that the 30+ years since the Zeiss Contax 50/1.4 would have produced more than the rather modest improvement we see in the ZF 50/1.4. Most expected more. In consolation for this disappointment, however, we do have the 50/2 MP.
While I agree the 35/2 is a great lens, I don't think the 50/2 is a slouch or "flat" in its drawing style. While I have not used it much, here is a quick snapshot I took the other day of my wife and her mother. While not a poster child image for 3d, I don't find it "flat" either. This is with the ZE 50/2 wide open hand held.
Lotusm50 wrote:
I have both the ZF 50/2 MP and the ZF 50/1.4, and from what i see, I simply can not agree that the 50/2 MP is "rather flat" in comparison to the 50/1.4. .
Then (respectfully) you haven't tested them carefully, or correctly, or you are mistaking DOF for plasticity, or, well I dunno.
I own both and have done many such tests, and it's no contest. That's why I still have the Planar.
I'll see if I still have any of those test pics. It was a while ago, and the results were so apparent that I didn't feel a strong need to ever check them again.
