Steve Spencer
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 p.150 #8 · which lens has the most 3D POP? | |
RustyBug wrote:
Guys ... seriously.
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1719880/2/
Got to page 3, post #3. It is from a photographer we ALL respect. It includes 4 different lenses of same subject, same lighting, same distance.
Yes, the human physiological response of depth and dimensionality is impacted by a variety of factors. Those factors include (no exhaustive), lighting (specularity / diffuse), contrast (tonal / hue / saturation), contour, shape, distance, and a host of factors that all share one common aspect to them ... the rate of change among attributes (we often call it falloff). Those rates of change occur across the hybrid matrix of the various contributing factors. In the matter of lenses (which is supposed to the focus of topic of this thread), the lens designers make decisions that affect the rates of change ... the rate of change for sharpness or resolving capability or acuteness can vary across zones A / B / C.
Philip has presented that in his statement of Thypoch taking a "slower / gentler" approach vs. something like a Voigtlander design that make take a very rapid approach. The matters of field curvature, vignetting, ... as well as other factors and aberrations that occur "differently" across the zones are other contributing aspects of the rates of change that are in play, from an optical perspective. Whether or not you prefer the style / look / render of the Thypoch vs. Zeiss, as it pertains to your individual assessment may vary. But, the point that they design differently and it induces different rates, is salient ... some folks tend to think more "natural", while other lean toward more "aggressive".
Separating and isolating the non-optical factors from consideration (valid as they are, history is well noted for human physiological response, not the least of which in art, et al) ... requires a controlled set. For all the folks decrying this (valid as it is), the link above is one of the best "controlled set" of images that we have readily available to us. Please review it.
Pause here, do not read any more until after you have viewed the four images. My next comments will be my assessment of the images, so I do not want to pre-maturely influence your review of the images.
Pause.
Pause.
Pause.
Resuming ...
In review of the images, I take note ... not to suggest that we have found the holy grail of the MOST 3-D lens. Rather, to note that of the four images ... there IS a DIFFERENCE in the rendering / falloff rates.
To my eye, ONE of the lenses is significantly different from the other THREE. That, and then, the other three ARE indeed, more tightly grouped, in the rates of change they are designed to induce / render.
Those two aspects are (imo) sufficient for logical deduction that the LENS DOES influence the perception. Peter Karbe (I've linked numerous times to his discussion) designed the SL APO lenses to induce a faster rate of falloff in that line of lenses. He specifically notes the difference in rate of falloff from that line of lenses vs. ... (my words, not his) let's go back to Mandler era. Zeiss designs different, Canon designs different, Voigtlander designs different, Thypoch designs different.
By this time, the matrix of designs is extensive, and with that comes also the point that, yes a degree of separation can sometimes be challenging to differentiate ... particularly in "one off" comparisons that incur a host of vairable outside the scope of the optical differences ... almost like pouring ketchup on a Wagyu steak and saying it tastes like the steak at a truck stop cafe. The difference are now masked.
Fred has established a wonderful site, and has long expected us to conduct ourselves as the "Gold Standard" of internet forum conduct among our members. Before you write your next post in this (or others) thread, please consider Fred's desire for our community to be the model for the world to see ... particularly as it pertains to inter-member conduct.
I've said it before, and it isn't going to change. Human physiological response to depth and modeling cues are predicated on rates of change (noted elsewhere). Plenty of attributes involved ... some are non-optically induced, some are optically induced. Some designers seek to harness this, others not so much. The soup mix of possibilities is exhaustive, and yes ... there will be NO CONCENSUS as to WHICH ONE LENS is the MOST. Smart and secure people already know this and don't bother to decry it and mock others about their contributions to the subject matter.
The point of the thread was to promote a discussion about the optics involved with inducing the physiological response of dimensionality and depth. Those individuals who remain intent to derail the thread AWAY from the discussion of the optical influences ... really, you should ask Fred to HIDE this entire thread from your view, since it causes you so much angst and grief. Just walk away, for your own personal well being, as well as the betterment of joy for your fellow members.
I've made a variety of links, posts and contributions of discussion on this topic for well over a decade. It has included the objective discussion from Karbe, as well as others. Yet, all the naysayers continue to clamor for an A:B that is decidedly conclusive that the lens contribution has impact / influence on the subject.
I don't have a host of significantly different lens designs to conduct such an A:B that is clearly evident that the LENS contributed. For that reason, I defer to the post linked above. Human condition being such as it is ... I expect this to NOT sway any of the ardent objectionists. BUT, if you are a person who is genuinely interested in seeing the lens contribution ... is it real, or is it bogus ... the provided link is about the best I can offer, at this point in time.
Now, look in the mirror ... grow up and quit bickering like you're a bunch of middle school playground hooligans. 
Seriously, take a pause with your conduct toward your fellow members.
Play nice. 
 ...Show more →
Kent,
When I look at those images the Helier looks different from the other three, but I don't think it has more 3D effect--at least to my eyes. If anything a little less. The speed of focus fade may be related to 3D, but I am not sure how and because focus fade is so dependent and aperture and focus distance whatever role it plays I would think would be swamped not by differences in lenses at the same aperture and focus distance, but would be affected more by what aperture is used and the focus distance. Lenses do differ on focus fade, and I think that is interesting, but to me the relation of that to 3D is not at all clear and I don't find Fred's images in that thread at all helpful in understanding that relation, but perhaps that is just me being dense.
|
...