mh2000 wrote:
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.
Oddly enough, if you were to shoot at f/1.8,it's entirely possible that the 50/1.8 would have better bokeh, simply because it was shot wide open, vs. stopped down for the 50/1.0
Just depends on how "circular" you like your bokeh in the OOF regions to be.
pingflood wrote:
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.
This is a beautiful photo and I, for one, call this look the "3-D effect"
Yeah, I disagree, I dont think they are talking about limited depth of field shots, I think they are trying to describe the difference between FF and crop and 3D affect is the closest way to describe it and I have seen it but cant describe it, most people that move from a crop camera to a FF camera end up seeing it.
There is a lot more to bokeh than perfectly circular distant highlights... but yes, it is possible that the 50/1.8 would produce better bokeh for a specific scene... but probably not most.
Many lenses produce circular highlights shot wide open, but produce harshest bokeh wide open... a circular aperture has little to do with pleasing bokeh.
DavidP wrote:
Oddly enough, if you were to shoot at f/1.8,it's entirely possible that the 50/1.8 would have better bokeh, simply because it was shot wide open, vs. stopped down for the 50/1.0
Just depends on how "circular" you like your bokeh in the OOF regions to be.
This is like discussing religion so no consensus will be reached, you either believe or you don't. However, I agree it's more than just subject isolation due to shallow DOF that distinguishes between two shots taken with different lenses of nominally the same specs. A Zeiss 100 f/2 planar will look different to a Canon 100 f/2 wide open for sure. These lenses will actually have different DOF at f/2 and the microcontrast will be greatly different and the Zeiss will at least have more pop which our brain interprets as being more 3D like.
Anyhow this is one I like taken with a C\Y Zeiss 85 f/1.4 wide open on a 5D. I'm sure other good 85's could do the same or better as wide open isn't strong point of this lens, but it's turned out better than I thought.
pingflood wrote:
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
It's not an "extremely limited" DOF . . however, it is a nice use of DOF for subject isolation.
Honestly, that shot shows a better use of DOF than many I've seen. You know the kind, that only have one eye in focus, for example.
You captured what should be in focus (all of the girl and most all the haystack) and blurred out the rest. And the lighting definitely helps "highlight" the subject, as well. The rest of the scene (green grass) is much darker than the subject, helping the subject to stand out.
>>This is like discussing religion so no consensus will be reached, you either believe or you don't.
Not really, at least you can *see* differences from different lenses... it's not just believing in something from the words of others. I was able to do some tests with different lenses and convince at least a few people that bokeh was actually a real property of lenses... even if they still didn't think that it was that important, they could see it. I don't think anyone has presented a perfectly convincing example of a lens producing a 3D effect over another here yet. Those arguing against say it is exposure etc... but how do you equalize for exposure? Shooting different lenses at at the same apertures always gives different exposures, so do you PP to equalize? ... and then how much is coming from the lens and how much from the PP? Many people justify L-lenses over non-L lenses by saying their images need less PP to look good... the same could be used here. A lens produces more "3D effect" if it takes less PP to make it "pop."
brainiac wrote:
That only happens if the pictures are swapped right for left.
Depends on the stereo-pair type.
Your pair is for cross viewing (not parallel viewing) and with a little training anyone should be able to match them and see the real 3D effect.
If reverse-depth is perceived, then just change from cross to parallel and vice versa.
On my 27'' display I need to be about 1 meter far from the display in order to match the pictures.
I'm telling you guys .. we were not using the cross-eye or parallel-eye method to view the stereo pairs. We were using a stereoscope and looking through it. About 20 people were looking through it in the same manner, and a few didn't see the 3D at all (dunno what they saw), and a few of us saw reverse, while the others saw the hill, etc. And after willing my mind to believe that it was a hill and not a crater, after several tries, my eyes just suddenly locked and I saw the stereo as it was meant to be seen. It's not a swap deal.
DavidP wrote:
It's not an "extremely limited" DOF . . however, it is a nice use of DOF for subject isolation.
Honestly, that shot shows a better use of DOF than many I've seen. You know the kind, that only have one eye in focus, for example.
You captured what should be in focus (all of the girl and most all the haystack) and blurred out the rest. And the lighting definitely helps "highlight" the subject, as well. The rest of the scene (green grass) is much darker than the subject, helping the subject to stand out.
So we are dealing with possibly a combination of:
Depth of field
Color separation of subject/background
Microcontrast/edge sharpness
Sensor size
... it would be pretty interesting if we could pick a set of images the majority agrees look "3d" and analyze them together, possibly in a separate thread, to see if we can figure out the magic formula.
pingflood wrote:
For the record, both with 1Ds2 and Zuikos (first 24/2.8, second 50/1.8). I have my 1Ds2 and a 50D, and the 1Ds2 + Zuikos (24, 28, 35 and 50) seems to generate the "3d look" more often than not, while I don't have a single shot from the 50D like that.
mttran wrote:
pingflood, beautiful daughter in beautiful colour. she is a doll.
Thank you -- we are really fortunate to have her. I think she's a potential future wedding photographer as she already likes to direct things; the other day we were out walking on the beach and she kept trying to pose me and the wife while pretending to take pictures. "No, daddy, go THERE! Hold mommy! CHEEESE!"
saaketham wrote:
I'm telling you guys .. we were not using the cross-eye or parallel-eye method to view the stereo pairs. We were using a stereoscope and looking through it. About 20 people were looking through it in the same manner, and a few didn't see the 3D at all (dunno what they saw), and a few of us saw reverse, while the others saw the hill, etc. And after willing my mind to believe that it was a hill and not a crater, after several tries, my eyes just suddenly locked and I saw the stereo as it was meant to be seen. It's not a swap deal....Show more →
Is one of your eyes significantly better than the other? I have that problem, and for years before I got my first glasses, my brain had essentially discarded all info from my left eye (without me realizing it...made it tough to catch or throw a ball with much success...at least that is my excuse). Even years later with glasses or contacts, when I am trying to look at something like a stereo pair, I have to force my brain to consider both images and which eye needs to perform which task. If I don't, I either see two unmerged images or reversed stereo...even with a stereoscope. Kind of a problem for me, because I look at those kinds of stereo pairs every day at work.
Grenache wrote:
Is one of your eyes significantly better than the other? I have that problem, and for years before I got my first glasses, my brain had essentially discarded all info from my left eye (without me realizing it...made it tough to catch or throw a ball with much success...at least that is my excuse). Even years later with glasses or contacts, when I am trying to look at something like a stereo pair, I have to force my brain to consider both images and which eye needs to perform which task. If I don't, I either see two unmerged images or reversed stereo...even with a stereoscope. Kind of a problem for me, because I look at those kinds of stereo pairs every day at work....Show more →
Excactly .. binocular vision impairment. In my case, I was able to somehow (don't ask me how) train my eyes to see correctly. The other 2 couldn't. And still some others couldn't see in 3d at all. So .. I know exactly what you're talking about.
We were using a stereoscope too.
Here's two images, one taken just after the other, that I think have "pop" (don't know about "3D" though ) . I took them while I was in FL last week, one with my 5D and 70-200 f/4 and one with my 40D and 200 f/2.8...
I don't really buy into the "3D effect", but if I did need to sell it this would be the image... And its taken with a "non-pro" body, how is this POSSIBLE!?!?!?!?
It's not a swap deal.
