Bifurcator wrote:
Ooo, you're avatar AND you image.
Maybe think about putting up a little FTP or HTTP server in your house. That cost less than about $8.00 a month to run and just for posting images eat almost none of the household bandwidth.
Yeah, I'm pretty fed up with Photobucket anyway, since they sometimes compress the images and sometimes not. Anyhow, the image should be visible now if you update the page. I've reduced the number of images on my account.
Lotusm50 wrote:
OK. While we're waiting for this test for plasticity or "3-Dness", I decided to whip together a quick comparison. The ZF 50/2 Makro-Planar and the ZF 50/1.4 Planar, side-by-side, same subject, same camera, position and lighting, the same image processing. Aperture used was f5.6 so there are few DOF distractions and misinterpretations, and both lenses are in their optimal performance range. Now with all these things essentially equal, does one of these lenses appear to produce an image that is noticeably "flatter" than the other? http://boncratious.com/images/_MG_9435.jpg http://boncratious.com/images/_MG_9436.jpg
Sorry this is old news now, but I love my 50 MP ZE, and I'd have to say that depending on the subject and lighting and distance both lenses "could" produce different results. I recently posted some shots taken with the 50 MP ZE on the ZE thread, and I know I couldn't get images like that with a canon lens. Though, would I have gotten simular or better images with the 50 1.4 ZE, I'm not sure! But I think it would take me buying the lens and using it, to really decide. Though in the end which ever lens I decided I liked better, would totally be personal preference. Though to generalize and say one lens is better then the other I'd go with the 50 MP ZE, as the 50 1.4 ZE doesn't get sharp till way after f/2, where as the MP is sharp at f2, also the MP has closer focusing, so that would make it better in my books, AND from the limited amount of shots I've taken with the 50 1.4 (friend let me try) I really didn't like it (though, it was in bad conditions, you really can't make lemonade with no lemons right).
I came across this image on 1x.com and it's the most 3D landscape photo I've seen. The impression of depth is amazing: http://1x.com/v2/#photos/member/17110/33969/
Made with Sony Zeiss 16-35 on A900.
@Makten: I've compared an image (1500x100) uploaded to both Photobucket and flickr, which got resized to 1024x6** and on flickr it was noticeably sharper and was compressed less. I don't really like flickr (I hate the group invites) but I'll settle on it for now. I'm looking for something that doesn't have the 1024x1024 limitation and the compression, but I might need to pay to get that (flickr pro account is $25 per year).
This is a favourite subject of mine and I'm glad to finally find a forum and a specific thread that understands it.
As has probably been mentioned within the previous 36 pages, the 3D-look does not necessarily have to have a thin or definable depth of field. It has to be able to allow the viewer to imagine being able to 'be' in the photograph.
If it is a landscape, to easily imagine being able to fly and walk through it, along the winding path and towards the trees...and not suddenly hit a flat surface as you would if you tried to walk into a huge billboard on the street.
AhamB wrote:
I came across this image on 1x.com and it's the most 3D landscape photo I've seen. The impression of depth is amazing: http://1x.com/v2/#photos/member/17110/33969/
Made with Sony Zeiss 16-35 on A900.
@Makten: I've compared an image (1500x100) uploaded to both Photobucket and flickr, which got resized to 1024x6** and on flickr it was noticeably sharper and was compressed less. I don't really like flickr (I hate the group invites) but I'll settle on it for now. I'm looking for something that doesn't have the 1024x1024 limitation and the compression, but I might need to pay to get that (flickr pro account is $25 per year)....Show more →
Thats a great example which exhibits texture, atmospheric depth and a right perspective
RustyBug wrote:
Has anyone noticed that many times when 3D is strong, bokeh is not as smooth ??
I think "3D" is happening when the brain is fooled into thinking that we're not looking at a picture but rather at a real scene, and smooth "gaussian" blur is something created by (some) lenses, but never by the human eye/brain. Try looking at something closeby and at the same time concentrating on stuff in your field of view that is out of focus (yes, it's kind of hard to do). Chances are you'll see "edgy zeiss bokeh" rather than "smooth sigma bokeh".
I'm not saying this is all "3D" is about or even that this is necessary for "3D" to happen, but it might play a role.
dcjs wrote:
I think "3D" is happening when the brain is fooled into thinking that we're not looking at a picture but rather at a real scene, and smooth "gaussian" blur is something created by (some) lenses, but never by the human eye/brain. Try looking at something closeby and at the same time concentrating on stuff in your field of view that is out of focus (yes, it's kind of hard to do). Chances are you'll see "edgy zeiss bokeh" rather than "smooth sigma bokeh".
I'm not saying this is all "3D" is about or even that this is necessary for "3D" to happen, but it might play a role. ...Show more →
It depends whether you're talking about the impression of volume (plasticity) of subject(s) in the picture or simply the impression of depth (layers) by DoF separation.
Many times people call a picture 3D where the subject is simply separated from BG and FG by (smooth) blur, whereas the plane of the subject still looks flat (without plasticity).
