Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda

New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site

New Feature: SMS Notification alert

New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist

FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1 2 3 … 12

14 15 end

Archive 2009 · 3-D "effect" from non pro bodies?

DavidP
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.13 #1 · p.13 #1 · 3-D "effect" from non pro bodies?

saaketham wrote:
From what I've seen so far .. it has more to do with the lens, the aperture used, the background, the subject size, the subject-to-background distance, contrast, the depth of field (too shallow DOF nor too deep DOF work, somewhere in between lies the sweet spot) and that it has nothing whatsoever to do with the body.

The only body I've seen that had a completely different look to it, IMO, was the original 1D. I'm not sure if it was because it was CCD rather than CMOS, but it had a different look to it. A lot more accutance would be the right way to express it, I think. The CMOS cameras look a lot "smoother".

Nov 30, 2009 at 09:11 AM

DavidP
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.13 #2 · p.13 #2 · 3-D "effect" from non pro bodies?

brainiac wrote:
Try this one:
http://cyberphotographer.com/5D/soph3d.jpg

Neither looks more or less "3D" than the other.

The left one, though, is a more pleasing photo to me, primarily because both eyes are in focus. In the image on the right, only her right eye is in focus, the other is already out of the DOF).

The right image looks softer, as well. But it's hard to say if that's the fault of the lens or not, since the focus isn't the same as the left image.

Nov 30, 2009 at 09:14 AM

mh2000
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.13 #3 · p.13 #3 · 3-D "effect" from non pro bodies?

Yes I have.

I'm not going to make an example for you, but as a thought experiment, think of a white background and a black bar suspened one foot above it, if you take the photo (with no shadows) the black bar will appear as a line on a white background. you will get no clue from perspective and will not be able to tell the difference between the black bar and a black line on the paper. Even you can do this. Clearly the subject is 3D, but it will appear completely 2D.

DavidP wrote:
But I'd ask again, have you EVER seen a photo of a 3D scene/object that you didn't think was 3D?

If so, perhaps some examples would illustrate this lack of 3D-ness, which in turn would illustrate 3D-ness.

Nov 30, 2009 at 09:32 AM

saaketham
Online
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.13 #4 · p.13 #4 · 3-D "effect" from non pro bodies?

pingflood wrote:
No, I said FF + certain lenses are prone to producing it in my limited experience.
Once again, the lens is the main factor. You could probably use the same alt lenses or whatever it is that gives you that effect on a FF, on a crop body and probably get the same effect.

I shoot plenty of MF and LF but have not really noticed it there, however most of the time I am stopped down pretty far.
Cool .. good to hear you're talking from experience on MF and LF. I've never even clicked a single shot, so I'll just believe you.

Nov 30, 2009 at 09:48 AM

gdanmitchell
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.13 #5 · p.13 #5 · 3-D "effect" from non pro bodies?

Hey, I may have been a bit subtle here, but in case it isn't clear... I'm a very big skeptic about the idea that the term "3D effect" means much in anything in concrete terms. That's why I referred to it as a "subjective sense" and used terms like "what some people like to refer to" and have listed a variety of things that they might actually be reacting to.

To be clear:

1. I think that "3D effect" is a diffuse and very subjective thing like "pop" or "clarity" or "balance" or "super wonderful all-around loveliness." We can individually speak about what we see in these areas, but when we try to reach some objective agreement about what the terms mean we run into an icky pool of sticky and oozing mud... ;-)

2. I do not believe that (as the OP posited...) there is any difference in a thing called "3D effect" that can be associated with "pro bodies" and not with "non pro bodies."

3. This whole thing is becoming sort of silly...

Dan

DavidP wrote:
But I'd ask again, have you EVER seen a photo of a 3D scene/object that you didn't think was 3D?

If so, perhaps some examples would illustrate this lack of 3D-ness, which in turn would illustrate 3D-ness.

Nov 30, 2009 at 12:09 PM

DavidP
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.13 #6 · p.13 #6 · 3-D "effect" from non pro bodies?

Just to be clear, I agree with you 100%. But I still say that any photo I've seen of a 3D object looked "3D" to me.

I believe (and I suspect that you would agree, at least mostly) that what people describe as "the 3D effect" can be explained by a combination of lighting, DOF, perspective, and/or accutance/sharpness/contrast.

And that's why I think the term "3D" isn't needed, and only confuses the matter. People should simply point out which of those things they're talking about. After all, doesn't it make sense to try to figure out which of those things are causing the "3D effect" in a particular photo, so one can apply the concept in the future and try to replicate it later?

Nov 30, 2009 at 11:25 PM

ChrisDM
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.13 #7 · p.13 #7 · 3-D "effect" from non pro bodies?

saaketham wrote:
Well .. so far, what I've gleaned from this thread ...

- nobody can describe what this 3-D effect is
- we cannot agree on what exactly this 3-D effect is
- it doesn't take a "Pro-Body" (sorry, the dude who mocked my 30D

) to get this effect
- it seems easier to get what more people call the 3D effect with very bright lenses (f/2 or brighter?)
- most alt lenses used here are very bright lenses, and this explains that "effect" in more photos from alt lenses
- we all love to argue

Check, check and done...

Chris Miller
www.imagineimagery.com

Dec 01, 2009 at 12:27 AM

brainiac
Offline
[X]

p.13 #8 · p.13 #8 · 3-D "effect" from non pro bodies?

DavidP wrote:
Neither looks more or less "3D" than the other.

The left one, though, is a more pleasing photo to me, primarily because both eyes are in focus. In the image on the right, only her right eye is in focus, the other is already out of the DOF).

The right image looks softer, as well. But it's hard to say if that's the fault of the lens or not, since the focus isn't the same as the left image.

They are actually a stereo pair, taken with two copies of the same lens on the same camera. They weren't supposed to be an illustration of 3D effect within one image, but rather an illustration of the fact that although you have said you've never seen a 2D image in 3D, our 3D vision is just a stereo pair of 2D images.

Dec 01, 2009 at 10:38 AM

brainiac
Offline
[X]

p.13 #9 · p.13 #9 · 3-D "effect" from non pro bodies?

When I talk about the 3D effect of a lens, I am talking about a particular optical quality of the lens which enables it to make images like 2 below, and not 3 below:
http://cyberphotographer.com/5d2/no3d.jpg

I would be interested if anyone with a Contax 35 f1.4 can take a focussed shot that does not demonstrate this 3D quality. I would also be interested in seeing any picture which does demonstrate this quality despite being taken with a Leica R 50 f2. Since 3D is all in the mind, no discussion will be necessary. I know what I'm looking for, and am open-minded enough to change my mind if I don't find it.

Dec 01, 2009 at 10:43 AM

saaketham
Online
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.13 #10 · p.13 #10 · 3-D "effect" from non pro bodies?

Several years back, I was a Teaching Assistant for a Remote Sensing course at Oklahoma State Univ. I was handling the labs and one of the labs was about stereo photos and taking measurements using aerial stereo photos. A couple of the students just couldn't see in 3-D. They tried their best, but gave up and I didn't know if they were faking it (didn't see a reason to) or just not trying correctly or if they had astigmatism or some other problem which prevented them from seeing the stereo photos in 3-D. A few others (including myself when I was preparing the lab manual) was seeing the image in "reverse depth". So, what was actually a steep, narrow hill, looked like a big crater to us. After trying several times, suddenly, I started seeing the right image - I saw the hill as a hill. The eye had to be trained, basically.

It was one of the most confusing labs I'd ever taught. And some of the students who had no problem seeing the actual images in stereo were making fun of the others (jokingly, not mean).

So .. I wonder if some of us are missing something?

Dec 01, 2009 at 10:50 AM

DavidP
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.13 #11 · p.13 #11 · 3-D "effect" from non pro bodies?

I think there's a big difference between seeing a stereoscopic image and seeing a "3D effect" on a single 2D photo.

Makes me wonder if any of those people had any issues with watching a 3D movie?

I've seen a few stereoscopic images, and could see 3D with them. I have no issues seeing 3D movies in 3D. As mentioned previously, though, I've never had much luck with those 2D images that are designed to have a 3D image "embedded in them" if you stare at it correctly. Just once . . and only once (couldn't even repeat seeing it with the same image). So, I know the illusion does work.

Dec 01, 2009 at 11:11 AM

DavidP
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.13 #12 · p.13 #12 · 3-D "effect" from non pro bodies?

brainiac wrote:
When I talk about the 3D effect of a lens, I am talking about a particular optical quality of the lens which enables it to make images like 2 below, and not 3 below:
http://cyberphotographer.com/5d2/no3d.jpg

The thing is, I have NO IDEA why you think image #2 is more "3D" than #3.

Does anybody else?

Dec 01, 2009 at 11:11 AM

brainiac
Offline
[X]

p.13 #13 · p.13 #13 · 3-D "effect" from non pro bodies?

DavidP wrote:
I think there's a big difference between seeing a stereoscopic image and seeing a "3D effect" on a single 2D photo.

+1

Dec 01, 2009 at 11:31 AM

brainiac
Offline
[X]

p.13 #14 · p.13 #14 · 3-D "effect" from non pro bodies?

saaketham wrote:
A few others (including myself when I was preparing the lab manual) was seeing the image in "reverse depth".

That only happens if the pictures are swapped right for left.

Dec 01, 2009 at 11:33 AM

saaketham
Online
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.13 #15 · p.13 #15 · 3-D "effect" from non pro bodies?

brainiac wrote:
That only happens if the pictures are swapped right for left.

We were looking at pre-set stereo pairs from a book full of aerial stereo photos. The idea was to be able to find the time of the day from the shadows, heights of certain physical features, etc from those stereo photos. And try as I might, I was seeing the hill as a crater for a long time. Some others saw the hill as a hill. So, we were confused about who was right .. but the accompanying text was clear - it mentioned the name of the hill, location, etc. So, I was seeing the stereo pair wrong. And we weren't using the cross-eyed method or the parallel-eyed method. We were using a stereoscope.

But, after several attempts at making myself see the hill as a hill .. suddenly, my eyes just got "trained". I suddenly saw the image the way it was supposed to be seen. I couldn't explain to the other 2 who were also seeing in reverse depth, what I did to see correctly. In the end, we gave everyone in that lab the same points. Like I said, it was a confusing lab.

Dec 01, 2009 at 11:39 AM

TTLKurtis
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.13 #16 · p.13 #16 · 3-D "effect" from non pro bodies?

This thread is stupid. Who ever said you need a pro body to make your subject pop ("3D"). And why do people call it a 3D effect? It's just depth-of-field, which has a lot to do with your lenses, and of course larger sensors do have the ability to have more shallow DOF (just as medium and large format are even more shallow)... but you don't need a pro body to achieve this "famed effect"...

Dec 01, 2009 at 02:03 PM

saaketham
Online
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.13 #17 · p.13 #17 · 3-D "effect" from non pro bodies?

TTLKurtis wrotebut you don't need a pro body to achieve this "famed effect"...
Pretty much what I wanted to prove.

You said it.

Dec 01, 2009 at 02:28 PM

Paul Yi
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.13 #18 · p.13 #18 · 3-D "effect" from non pro bodies?

I think this thread will be more beneficial for the forum members if we can lay out some lenses that particularly tends to show that "famed effect", namely 3-D look.....

I've used some 3-rd party lenses that shows this characteristics.
They are;

Contax 35-70/3.4
Contax Planar 100/2.0
Leica R Apo 180/2.8

Canon 200/1.8L --- I've never used this lens, but seen so many pictures from this lens that showed amazing 3-D look.

Unfortunately I couldn't say that for other Canon lenses. (Well I've seen some pictures from 85L and 135L that showed those characteristic)

Dec 01, 2009 at 02:49 PM

mh2000
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.13 #19 · p.13 #19 · 3-D "effect" from non pro bodies?

Kurtis, if you do not recognize that different lenses render OOF regions differently you cannot understand that some people actually do and react to sublties in photographs. This is not "just depth-of-field." To keep this Canon-centric, think of both the 50L and the 50/1.8 both used to shoot something at f2, the 50L will definitely look different than the 50/1.8 in how it renders the OOF regions, the highlights and transition from sharp focus to OOF. Unless you are a total oaf you have to appreciate that these rendering differences will have some effect on the feeling that many people will get when viewing the final photographs. The differences between lenses goes beyond this. If all lenses look identical at the same FL and aperture to you, just get the cheapest lenses you can find... and be happy.

TTLKurtis wrote:
This thread is stupid. Who ever said you need a pro body to make your subject pop ("3D"). And why do people call it a 3D effect? It's just depth-of-field, which has a lot to do with your lenses, and of course larger sensors do have the ability to have more shallow DOF (just as medium and large format are even more shallow)... but you don't need a pro body to achieve this "famed effect"...

Dec 01, 2009 at 03:55 PM

pingflood
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.13 #20 · p.13 #20 · 3-D "effect" from non pro bodies?

TTLKurtis wrote:
This thread is stupid. Who ever said you need a pro body to make your subject pop ("3D"). And why do people call it a 3D effect? It's just depth-of-field, which has a lot to do with your lenses, and of course larger sensors do have the ability to have more shallow DOF (just as medium and large format are even more shallow)... but you don't need a pro body to achieve this "famed effect"...

I don't agree with the "pro body" thing but I do think that the sensor size comes into play.

As for it being just depth of field -- that is absolutely NOT the case. The one shot of my little girl throwing hay in the air was with a 24/2.8 which gives you rather generous DOF and it looks far more '3d' than most of my 50/1.4 or 85/1.8 shots wide open. Contrast, edge definition, OOF rendering all come into play.

Don't go calling things stupid just because you're not understanding them.

Dec 01, 2009 at 04:27 PM

1 2 3 … 12 13 14 15 end
FM Forums \| Canon Forum \| Join Upload & Sell 1 2 3 … 12 13 14 15 end

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.