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.
I agree with the first two.
On the third, it depends on the first. Certain bodies/sensors are better, IMO, at preserving accutance/sharpness/contrast (or some combination thereof) . . . and that may very well be what some people are claiming is part of the "3D effect".
But, it is my suggestion/opinion that it's better to talk about the speific things (#2 in your list) individually, rather than trying to lump them all together into some nebulous/mystical term like "3D".
What's wrong with simply saying something like:
This lens is so much sharper/contrasty than others I've used
This camera body gives much sharper detail than the last body I had.
What can it be other than subject isolation through manipulation of depth of field?
A photograph of a printed page as opposed to a person far removed from a back/foreground would seem to prove this
The Zeiss image imparts a greater *feeling* of depth to me than the 35L... while my computer screen is perfectly flat, this feeling of depth is an illusion, but the feeling is real... I don't care about the term used... no reason to argue reality. This is an image with no shallow DOF or subject isolation.
I wonder why a 3d effect should be a wrong term for the sense of depth that occurs in a given photo. 3d effect only applies to photo's btw, since post processing and composition are also key elements. Lenses can only facilitate this, and it should be possible with careful composition, processing etc to get a sense of depth (3d effect!) out of every lens. And in MY experience some Zeiss lenses facilitate this most.
Dan's point is a great explanation. There's really no tangible way to describe what is being bandied about here...it's just a feeling to the photo, and certain lenses render scenes in such a way that there is an illusion of depth, despite the 2D format.
I'll re-post the shot from my Voigtlander 40/1.4 again to show what I mean.
This shot, despite there being no selective focus, at least to me, has a depth to it. It's hard to describe. I think a lot of it comes from high microcontrast and good color reproduction, but it's hard to put a finger on it.
Great example Jordan. I remember an old thread in which some people were convinced that the 3d effect was solely realised by infinite DOF. I cant find it anymore.
n0b0 wrote:
Pfft... those zeiss vs canon images weren't even taken with the same lighting. Why does the stone colouring look different?
And yet the guy who took them claims they were taken with identical settings only a couple of minutes apart. Something sure doesn't seem right with them, though.
This shot, despite there being no selective focus, at least to me, has a depth to it. It's hard to describe. I think a lot of it comes from high microcontrast and good color reproduction, but it's hard to put a finger on it.
To me, it's simply a matter of perspective. It's quite clear, for example, that the lamp posts are in way out in front of the buildings. But there's nothing magical about the lens or anything else that produced that effect.
Aah, now that is interpretation. You're coming close now
and on this quote
"To me, it's simply a matter of perspective. It's quite clear, for example, that the lamp posts are in way out in front of the buildings. But there's nothing magical about the lens or anything else that produced that effect."
You are right that composition is a key element in the 3d effect, to me the picture has even more than that as it gives me a subconscious (excuse my crappy English, lost for words here) sensation that I am part of that scene. I find it a great picture, and I agree that perhaps the microcontrast helps making this scene come 'alive'. It really adds something to me, and I'm not making it up
who said "cartoon?" Renaissance painters slowly developed methods for creating the illusion of space and persective on a 2D surface... and yet, in no museum I've been to are they referred to as "cartoons."
He said that they were taken minutes apart with same settings.
n0b0 wrote:
I don't know any camera that produce a cartoony image.
Pfft... those zeiss vs canon images weren't even taken with the same lighting. Why does the stone colouring look different?
