Nick Nishizaka wrote:
Again, I think folks are taking the term too literally.
The term "3D" itself is very specific and some people here use it to describe the look of something that is entirely 2D. These people (zeiss owners mostly), insist that there's a "three dimensional" look to their photos taken with their zeiss lenses and yet never really been able to precisely point out what makes their photos look "three dimensional".
Well, there is no 3D effect in a single 2D photo, it's impossible. Don't use that term. Call it a "pop" or something but whatever it is, it ain't 3D. I refuse to participate in the perpetuation of such gross overgeneralisation.
funny that most 24L, 35L, 85L and 135L owners think their lenses offer something extra over the cheapest zoom, even at f5.6...
to my eye, my Summicron 50 vs. EF 50/1.8, 135SF vs. 135L, 85/1.8 vs. TS-E 90 show differences in imaging at same aperture that are visible to me... if I dig out my anchient 28-80 and compare its output, the differences will be even more pronounced...
so I guess the concensus of all you L-users in this thread is that the only thing you gain with your L-lenses are aperture and build quality? Amazing...
ChrisDM wrote:
Generally faster/constant apertures are available only in high end glass, not "crappy consumer zooms", which is why most people choose them. Sure there are minor differences in sharpness, color rendition and contrast between lenses, but nothing that a little post-processing couldn't compensate for. Where high end glass earns its premium is usually in its light gathering ability.
funny how all of you are arguing against the term "3D" with respect to photographs, but probably none of you would take issue with the term "flat" being used...
Most photographs are more sucessful when they give the illusion of rendering 3 dimensionality... achieved mostly through lighting, perspective and subject. If all photographs appear as only 2 dimension non-spacial shapes and you get no cues to depth when viewing them you probably have some minor brain defect.
n0b0 wrote:
The term "3D" itself is very specific and some people here use it to describe the look of something that is entirely 2D. These people (zeiss owners mostly), insist that there's a "three dimensional" look to their photos taken with their zeiss lenses and yet never really been able to precisely point out what makes their photos look "three dimensional".
Well, there is no 3D effect in a single 2D photo, it's impossible. Don't use that term. Call it a "pop" or something but whatever it is, it ain't 3D. I refuse to participate in the perpetuation of such gross overgeneralisation....Show more →
mh2000 wrote:
If all photographs appear as only 2 dimension non-spacial shapes and you get no cues to depth when viewing them you probably have some minor brain defect.
I would argue that those who can't tell the difference in real-life 3D and a photo are the ones with the minor brain defects.
Unless, of course, perhaps they only have one eye.
Again, I'm saying this because some seem to think that certain specific lenses or even camera bodfies posess a magical "3D-like" effect.
If all they're talking about is lighting and subject distance and DOF-control, etc, then fine . . . . but it would make more sense to people if they talked in those terms than in some magical 3D-like language.
mh2000 wrote:
funny that most 24L, 35L, 85L and 135L owners think their lenses offer something extra over the cheapest zoom, even at f5.6...
so I guess the concensus of all you L-users in this thread is that the only thing you gain with your L-lenses are aperture and build quality? Amazing...
I didn't say that, I said the other minor differences (sharpness etc) can be compensated for in post processing, while more capable aperture cannot.
mh2000 wrote:
funny how all of you are arguing against the term "3D" with respect to photographs, but probably none of you would take issue with the term "flat" being used...
Most photographs are more sucessful when they give the illusion of rendering 3 dimensionality... achieved mostly through lighting, perspective and subject. If all photographs appear as only 2 dimension non-spacial shapes and you get no cues to depth when viewing them you probably have some minor brain defect.
Oh God... The picture themselves are ALL two dimensional. That's why you can't look at a photo sideways.
The only difference between a photo and a hand drawn cartoon is the amount of information they contain.
Pixel Perfect wrote:
Yeah, I've also got some CGI experience: I've seen all the Pixar movies
Yes to both posts, but movies are (unless you wear 3D glasses) are as much 2D as are photographs. Again (and again and again...) this term "3D effect" is a more or less meaningless term, or at least not an objectively definable thing. From what I've seen it might refer to any or all of the following in a still photograph:
narrow DOF separating sharply focused subject from blurred background/foreground
separation of subject and background though differences in luminosity
separation between subject and foreground by placing sharp, complex subject against a plain, simple background.
separation due to color differences.
separation/depth due to atmospheric recession.
a sense of exaggerated depth from the use of very wide angle lenses
etc.
But, to return to the original point of this thread... a "pro body" (whatever that means) has virtually no effect on any of these elements that can produce a sense of depth in a photograph.
gdanmitchell wrote:
Yes to both posts, but movies are (unless you wear 3D glasses) are as much 2D as are photographs. Again (and again and again...) this term "3D effect" is a more or less meaningless term, or at least not an objectively definable thing. From what I've seen it might refer to any or all of the following in a still photograph:
narrow DOF separating sharply focused subject from blurred background/foreground
separation of subject and background though differences in luminosity
separation between subject and foreground by placing sharp, complex subject against a plain, simple background.
separation due to color differences.
separation/depth due to atmospheric recession.
a sense of exaggerated depth from the use of very wide angle lenses
etc.
But, to return to the original point of this thread... a "pro body" (whatever that means) has virtually no effect on any of these elements that can produce a sense of depth in a photograph.
By "pro body" they meant full frame, which helps with DoF and thus seperation...
Anyways, having experience in CGI myself as well, what I find funny is that CGI is all about making 2D surfaces appear to have dimension... ZBrush much?
It's quite possible for a photo to look flat as it is to give the impression of the object popping out at you (by using a combination of what you have listed as well as proper post-processing). Retouchers go on about 3D all the time too, just ask about burn and dodge in the post-processing forum.
n0b0 wrote:
Heh. Your profile said you've done fluid dynamics. I'm surprised you've never worked for a post production studio. You can make a lot of money creating a fluid sim software.
I love the smell of Navier Stokes equations in the morning
Anden wrote:
3D is discussed alot in the alt forum. Have a look there.
I don't care for "discussion" of it.
I just want a definition, and controlled tests in the same lighting with equal focal length, aperture, shutter speed, ISO, lighting, subject, distance to subject (perspective), and camera body (did I miss anything?) on different lenses so I can see how this elusive 3D-effect is (or IMO, is *not*) affected by the lens.
Kolor-Pikker wrote:
Anyways, having experience in CGI myself as well, what I find funny is that CGI is all about making 2D surfaces appear to have dimension
And yet after watching a 3D PIxar movie (such as Up!), I'd be hard-pressed to call the 2D-version of the film "3D". I suspect they feel the same way, or they wouldn't have bothered with the 3D version.
DavidP wrote:
I don't care for "discussion" of it.
I just want a definition, and controlled tests in the same lighting with equal focal length, aperture, shutter speed, ISO, lighting, subject, distance to subject (perspective), and camera body (did I miss anything?) on different lenses so I can see how this elusive 3D-effect is (or IMO, is *not*) affected by the lens.
I was not directing you to the discussions but to the conclusions. Light and such can only take you that far. Micro contrast is an important thing. More contrast in focus than out of focus helps alot. The Zeiss is probably the king of 3D.
