Anden wrote:
More contrast in focus than out of focus helps alot. The Zeiss is probably the king of 3D.
Again, an actual controlled demonstration of this would be in order, IMO.
Anybody can *claim* to be "king of 3D". But until it's demonstrated in a controlled situation, it's just a bunch of chatter, IMO.
You just can't compare a bunch of shots and judge . . . far too many variables can contribute to what one calls "3D effect" to know how much effect (if any) the lens plays.
More contrast in focus than out of focus helps alot.
Presumably, almost all lenses (when shot wide-open) show a LOT more micro-contrast in the areas that are in focus than in the areas that are out of focus.
While I didn't read the whole post I did enjoy the photos and can make a comment.
It may already have been stated so I'm sorry if this is redundant. Pro bodies cost lots of money, for us Nikon guys a D3x body is more than some folks have to spend on good used cars. Same for you Canon shooters too. Someone with the means and inclination to spend that type of cash for a body are also going understand the need for superior glass. Better glass usually means better performance at larger apertures, usually a couple of more stops to begin with. Long story short, pro bodies produce this "effect" because they tend to be mated to better lenses with larger usable maximum apertures that aren't available on consumer bodies with kit lenses. 3D = wise use of DOF + Lighting.
DavidP wrote:
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.
They could have not bothered with the 2D version then... True 3D is inconvenient, the point here is to get the same feeling across without having to resorting to glasses and making the image an anaglyph . When you're in a controlled environment such a theater, 3D is an option, not so much everywhere else.
DavidP wrote:
Again, an actual controlled demonstration of this would be in order, IMO.
Anybody can *claim* to be "king of 3D". But until it's demonstrated in a controlled situation, it's just a bunch of chatter, IMO.
You just can't compare a bunch of shots and judge . . . far too many variables can contribute to what one calls "3D effect" to know how much effect (if any) the lens plays.
Presumably, almost all lenses (when shot wide-open) show a LOT more micro-contrast in the areas that are in focus than in the areas that are out of focus.
I like your attitude regarding this matter.
Noone needs to convince you of anything do they? Since I'm no salesman I too have no reason to convince you of the psychological effects that can be created in a photo.
If you fail to see that all photo's create an illusion and at most only represent scenes or events, fine. That must mean to you that photo's are simply an alignment of pixels right?
Perhaps not. Perhaps a photo does create illusions. Perhaps we do recognise photos as a representation of reality. Perhaps this illusion can be furthered by technique and skill. Perhaps even your gear can help in this illusion so that people might regard a photo as 3d due to the fact that it is al interpretative? Who knows?
I myself am convinced that post processing and gear can have a great influence on the perceived reality and sometimes the feel of 'realness' and, indeed 3d. As I have seen many of these photo's on the alt forum, I myself became convinced that many (certainly not all) Zeiss lenses excel in this department.
And no, I'm not going to perform double blind tests for you, search for yourself or remain sceptical.
Kolor-Pikker wrote:
They could have not bothered with the 2D version then
They bothered mainly because there are lots of theaters incapable of showing 3D movies.
Also for home use. So far, there's no 3D at home. However, 3D-ready LCD TV's are already available, and I believe that 3D blue-rays are already on their way, as well.
Still, too many theaters (and people at home) with systems that can't do the 3D thing yet to pass up a 2D version.
DavidP wrote:
I'm not the one making the claim . . therefore I don't have to provide the evidence.
I disagree on that. It is you who claims that a 2d picture can't produce a 3d effect. If you read my post you'd know that it is precisely this that I don't believe because the sole purpose of a photo is to create an illusion wether it is an illusion of representing reality or not. Otherwise pictures can only be regarded as a collection of pixels.
The illusion is a psychological exercise, in which interpretation is key. Interpretation is just what makes one susceptible to experiencing 3d in a 2d picture. If you want proof of these concepts, you could go to any library and read up on Kant or something more contemporary.
Whats left to debate is the role of gear and post processing. This is far more interesting in my opinion. However since interpretation is key in this point, and since I am far too lazy to present you a test you may stay blissfully ignorant on this subject (on this subject alone I mean, this isn't meant as a rant), or go find out perhaps.
Just because someone keeps repeating that "I've never seen or read about this 3-D effect". doesn't change the fact that this term is bandied about by many pro body users and especially by alt lens users. There are things in the world that many of us don't know about. Doesn't mean they don't exist. Like honest politicians .. true .. we don't know any politician who is honest. But, doesn't mean there aren't 1 or 2 in the country somewhere. So .. why waste time trying to convince someone who's already convinced otherwise and refuses to understand that "3D effect" is not to be taken literally.
Saaketham, good point, however you are incorrect on the politicians.
On another note, I am not trying to convince anyone. I am stating what I know, but it is not my place to convince anyone since I might be incorrect. I am always interested in some elses opinion, who knows what I might learn. I would like to know how Davidp would react to my post. It might be that I'm missing something. I love civilised debate for this.
biotar wrote:
Saaketham, good point, however you are incorrect on the politicians. Just kidding. Of course there must be 5 or 6 honest politicians who do as they preach.
On another note, I am not trying to convince anyone. I am stating what I know, but it is not my place to convince anyone since I might be incorrect. I am always interested in some elses opinion, who knows what I might learn. I would like to know how Davidp would react to my post. It might be that I'm missing something. I love civilised debate for this.
True. But, David just takes it literally and has been saying the same thing over and over "I haven't seen or read about such a thing, so obviously everyone else is wrong for saying that people are talking about a so-called 3-D effect". With all respect to David, that kind of argument is not an argument. It's denial (and don't question my knowledge of psychology - I've watched almost all Frazier episodes.
saaketham wrote:
Just because someone keeps repeating that "I've never seen or read about this 3-D effect". doesn't change the fact that this term is bandied about by many pro body users and especially by alt lens users. There are things in the world that many of us don't know about. Doesn't mean they don't exist. Like honest politicians .. true .. we don't know any politician who is honest. But, doesn't mean there aren't 1 or 2 in the country somewhere. So .. why waste time trying to convince someone who's already convinced otherwise and refuses to understand that "3D effect" is not to be taken literally. ...Show more →
That's not quite what everyone is saying. The point is not that "Photos never have a quality or qualities that some people might describe using a term like '3D effect'." The real points might include:
no one can really define what a "3D effect" is in a consistent way.
whatever it is, it seems to be the result of a whole range of things that can be described separately.
whatever it is, it is not fundamentally caused by which sensor you use or which body you use.
To me, the term falls into a category of words that have a sort of diffuse meaning but if we are both looking at a photo that has "it" we might not disagree about the term's use. There are a lot of terms like this that are not easily quantified but which work this way - and which also are not describing some technical attribute of the equipment.
Imagine that you and I are standing in front of a print and talking about what we see. You or I might offer descriptions using terms like "pop," " atmosphere," "clarity," "3D effect," "uncluttered," "balanced," and so forth. These are all important things to think about when looking at a photograph and important things to think about when making one - but in no case are they the direct results of a single, particular equipment choice nor can they be attributed to one objective characteristic in all cases.
I believe strongly that when people use the term "3D effect" to describe a photograph that they are using a shorthand way of referring to a collection of attributes of the photograph that affect their perception of the photo - and very definitely not referring to any one quantifiable objective feature of the photo than can be connected back to things like the particular sensor or particular body used.
Good point Dan, and well written. As I posted in the alt forum:
(...)
The 3d effect is not qualitative, since it is the result of many factors in which composition is not to be underestimated. If Zeiss are better at this (which I'm convinced they are but look for yourself) these lenses merely help. It is mainly up to the spectator to be convinced by the realness of the picture.
-edit Oh, and Saaketan, I'll never underestimate the psychological insight of someone who is so erudite in Frasierology
gdanmitchell wrote:
That's not quite what everyone is saying. The points is not that "Photos never have a quality or qualities that some people might describe using a term like '3D effect'."
I agree. I was just referring to the argument that "I've never read about such an argument" .. and it follows implicitly, that "so there is no such argument".
biotar wrote:
I disagree on that. It is you who claims that a 2d picture can't produce a 3d effect. !
I never said that.
What I said was that nobody has DEFINED the "3D effect" yet . . . or at best, there are multiple, conflicting definitions.
And if one is going to claim that a specific lens or body is "adding to the 3D effect", then I submit that it's up to them to define it, and prove it.
If all they're talking about is added micro-contrast/etc, then they can just call it what it is . . . and use MTF charts or such to prove (or disprove) their point.
saaketham wrote:
Just because someone keeps repeating that "I've never seen or read about this 3-D effect". doesn't change the fact that this term is bandied about by many pro body users and especially by alt lens users. )
And just because people bandy about the term doesn't mean it exists, either.
Doesn't mean they don't exist. Like honest politicians .. true .. we don't know any politician who is honest. But, doesn't mean there aren't 1 or 2 in the country somewhere. So .. why waste time trying to convince someone who's already convinced otherwise and refuses to understand that "3D effect" is not to be taken literally. 
