I may be in the minority but I think a lot of the 3dness can be recreated in post pretty easily. As long as you have a sharp lens that provides at least a touch of subject separation you can get the 3d look by over sharpening an image (100+ in LR) but masking it so it is just on the outer edges of your subject (70-85 masking in LR)...a bit of contrast and clarity doesn't hurt either.
tsdevine wrote:
This detour started when someone suggested we shouldn't use the term "pop" and I posted that Batis link to show that even Zeiss is using that terminology.
Yeah that was me. My complaint is that the term is rather meaningless without a definition, and thus it will produce endless, fruitless debates like the current one.
As for Zeiss, see my opinion earlier in this thread:
vdo1 wrote:
Yeah that was me. My complaint is that the term is rather meaningless without a definition, and thus it will produce endless, fruitless debates like the current one.
As for Zeiss, see my opinion earlier in this thread:
I would say that, at least in the lexicographic circles I travel in, "pop" and "punch" are understood to be synonymous with micro-contrast.
The reason that the conversation is endless is that it has proven fruitless and the reason that it has been fruitless is that no one contributing has been able to pull it all together in a coherent way.
But -just because something is not well understood doesn't make it refractory to understanding.
The original question "Which lens has the most 3D?" is based on the premise that optics contribute and that some have the potential to contribute more than others.
My "a posteriori" experience leads me to believe that they do indeed play a role; some more than others.
Other photographers have not had the same results but that does not negate my experience nor those of others that have made similar observations.
As I stated earlier only one in ten thousand people can confirm the existence of absolute pitch so attempting to achieve knowledge through popular opinion can lead us to ignorance.
In any case this would make a great round-table conversation.
We just need to gather the physiologists, physicists, and optical engineers to help us make sense of it all.
I am sure there is someone at Zeiss (among others) that could bring this conversation to a whole new plane.
DaveFP wrote:
The original question "Which lens has the most 3D?" is based on the premise that optics contribute and that some have the potential to contribute more than others.
My "a posteriori" experience leads me to believe that they do indeed play a role; some more than others.
It's my experience too.
I have three Zeiss ZF.2 "Classic" lenses (21, 35/2, 100/2).
Their "3D POP" doesn't come from what Zeiss marketing claims though. Here Zeiss states:"brilliant optical design and a sharp transition out of the focused areas create a perfect distinction between the main subject and its environment."
It's exactly the opposite. Sharp transition between focus plane and planes in front and behind said plane produce a "cartoon", 2D effect. What a good lens must be able to do is a smooth transition, maintaining a large microcontrast in the focus plane. This is I think what gives Zeiss lenses more 3D POP than other lenses. This effect can be visible (at least to my eyes) even when shooting at f/11 ...
Therefore, 3D POP isn't related necessarily to very large apertures.
DaveFP wrote:
I would say that, at least in the lexicographic circles I travel in, "pop" and "punch" are understood to be synonymous with micro-contrast.
why not just ask which lenses have the most micro-contrast then?
there are obviously people here who are using 3D to mean, as zeiss says, a sharp transition out of the focused areas to create a perfect distinction between the main subject and its environment.
i think this photo has a very good 3D effect, but other people are talking about something that is not present at all in this photo:
sebboh wrote:
why not just ask which lenses have the most micro-contrast then?
there are obviously people here who are using 3D to mean, as zeiss says, a sharp transition out of the focused areas to create a perfect distinction between the main subject and its environment.
DaveFP wrote:
I put that up on page 3 but no one commented on it.
that article seems like a classic example of missing the forest for the trees both literally and figuratively. i bet Nasse wanted to strangle him. what Lloyd is looking for is called accuracy, but increases in accuracy at > 40lp/mm often come at a cost to other types of accuracy (or size in the oti). I'd love to have heard what types of accuracy Nasse and Mandler were most willing to sacrifice.
sebboh wrote:
that article seems like a classic example of missing the forest for the trees both literally and figuratively. i bet Nasse wanted to strangle him. what Lloyd is looking for is called accuracy, but increases in accuracy at > 40lp/mm often come at a cost to other types of accuracy (or size in the oti). I'd love to have heard what types of accuracy Nasse and Mandler were most willing to sacrifice.
I didn't link it as a definitive reference paper; just thought it might be interesting.
You might be right but it is odd that Zeiss would be willing to publish it if it was very far off.
In any case I prefer lenses with lovable aberrations rather than accurate lenses.
(I am a frustrated painter)
By way of example some of my favorites are the Canon 50L, Zeiss Planar 50 1.4, and Zeiss Planar 85 1.4.
DaveFP wrote:
You might be right but it is odd that Zeiss would be willing to publish it if it was very far off.
it does read like marketing material for zeiss, so i'm not surprised they published it. it can't be that far off since it's mostly just pointing out obvious characteristics of otus lenses and seasoning that language with “pop” or “3D rendering” or “brilliance” or “bite”.
sebboh wrote:
it does read like marketing material for zeiss, so i'm not surprised they published it. it can't be that far off since it's mostly just pointing out obvious characteristics of otus lenses and seasoning that language with “pop” or “3D rendering” or “brilliance” or “bite”.
I can't disagree but, to be fair, Zeiss is famous for designing and/or manufacturing lenses perceived to have those very qualities.
It is not as though they needed to induce mass hypnosis in order to create their reputation.
High build quality, great service, and Zeissiness is what they have on offer so no surprise that they are happy to emphasize it.
If you wander the WWW you will find that Zeiss (and these very terms) come up over and over again in every thread that touches on this topic.
Some of it is simple parroting for sure but most seems to be from the heart (eye?).
DaveFP wrote:
I can't disagree but, to be fair, Zeiss is famous for designing and/or manufacturing lenses perceived to have those very qualities.
It is not as though they needed to induce mass hypnosis in order to create their reputation.
High build quality, great service, and Zeissiness is what they have on offer so no surprise that they are happy to emphasize it.
If you wander the WWW you will find that Zeiss (and these very terms) come up over and over again in every thread that touches on this topic.
Some of it is simple parroting for sure but most seems to be from the heart (eye?). ...Show more →
perhaps their marketing is better than i give them credit for? i thought it was only the nerdiest corners of the photo internet. they should definitely trademark zeissiness, then we could debate that term.
