carstenw wrote:
I am not sure what you mean about my inability to show the 3D effect, due to my lenses with a shared focal length and something about the intensity? That sentence is too complex for me.
The question was whether certain lenses show the 3D in a manner that is unlike other lenses. If this is true, it should be possible to take one lens of each flavor and shoot a scene. Then we could all admire how the "3D" lens shows more depth effect than the "flat" lens and in the future buy those. Instead all we get here are scenes that are shot with only one lens. So even if a 3D effect is observed, it remains unclear how much of that effect is due to the lens. My guess is that only very little of the effect is due to the lens used. So if you see a 3D effect in a scene and shoot it with a different good lens, you would still see it.
Daran wrote:
The question was whether certain lenses show the 3D in a manner that is unlike other lenses. If this is true, it should be possible to take one lens of each flavor and shoot a scene. Then we could all admire how the "3D" lens shows more depth effect than the "flat" lens and in the future buy those. Instead all we get here are scenes that are shot with only one lens. So even if a 3D effect is observed, it remains unclear how much of that effect is due to the lens. My guess is that only very little of the effect is due to the lens used. So if you see a 3D effect in a scene and shoot it with a different good lens, you would still see it....Show more →
carstenw wrote:
Nonsense, to determine if a lens has 3D you just look at a photo which demonstrates the 3D, and decide if you agree or disagree.
Daran wrote:
The question was whether certain lenses show the 3D in a manner that is unlike other lenses. If this is true, it should be possible to take one lens of each flavor and shoot a scene. Then we could all admire how the "3D" lens shows more depth effect than the "flat" lens and in the future buy those. Instead all we get here are scenes that are shot with only one lens. So even if a 3D effect is observed, it remains unclear how much of that effect is due to the lens. My guess is that only very little of the effect is due to the lens used. So if you see a 3D effect in a scene and shoot it with a different good lens, you would still see it....Show more →
I'm afraid you missed at least Fred's comparison that was linked recently...
There is a secret sauce to 3D pop. I use it pretty regularly, but I’m not going to share it. I will give some hints. It can be added to most images. It occurs regularly in many lenses that are regaled as having “3D” or “character.” Look at a few old school paintings from the Dutch masters and you can see that they used it too.
Jack Flesher wrote:
There is a secret sauce to 3D pop. I use it pretty regularly, but I’m not going to share it. I will give some hints. It can be added to most images. It occurs regularly in many lenses that are regaled as having “3D” or “character.” Look at a few old school paintings from the Dutch masters and you can see that they used it too.
j4nu wrote:
I'm afraid you missed at least Fred's comparison that was linked recently...
Have I? https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1719880/2#15721794 isn't claiming a particular 3D effect to the exclusion of other lenses. Only one looks actually sharp to me, the first of the four looks *very* soft. To my taste all four show a distracting amount of character (aka lens flaws). I guess they would require some stopping down to sharpen up (not the topic here, but may be relevant for the effect). I can see some 3D-ish effect in all but the soft image. Maybe that effect is a tad stronger in what I think the sharpest (second) image, but I would mark that down to that image being less distracting. Is this the special 3D sauce you think I missed?
The conventional view in this YT video - take compositions that give you 3D, instead of using a suitable lens you actually prefer for your chosen compositions.
..
Daran wrote:
Have I? https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1719880/2#15721794 isn't claiming a particular 3D effect to the exclusion of other lenses. Only one looks actually sharp to me, the first of the four looks *very* soft. To my taste all four show a distracting amount of character (aka lens flaws). I guess they would require some stopping down to sharpen up (not the topic here, but may be relevant for the effect). I can see some 3D-ish effect in all but the soft image. Maybe that effect is a tad stronger in what I think the sharpest (second) image, but I would mark that down to that image being less distracting. Is this the special 3D sauce you think I missed?...Show more →
The point of the sharing it ... bearing in mind it wasn't Fred's mission to produce some kind of exceptional 3D shot when he shot those ... the point of me referencing them was to present that it is about as good an A:B comp with the primary diff being the lenses. And, as such ... the amount of diff (none of them super-monster 3D-ish, pop) is a factor of the lens variance used ... inducing the diff as it is presented. Bear in mind that such a difference can be "amplified" or "reduced" by soft vs. contrasty lighting. If these were taken in different lighting, the variance might be even greater ... so, you kinda need to use your noodle a bit when understanding the point of the diff's being a byproduct of the different optic. The point is that the difference IS visible, not that the AMOUNT is tremendous, as the "best" example.
I also linked a previous 50mm (iiirc) shootout (quite some time ago) that one could see some diff's too, but I thought Fred's were "easier" to see how a different lens can contribute to a different amount being realized (under same conditions).
