Ripolini wrote:
I understood perfectly. And I disagree. As I tried to explain, smooth (not "sharp" or "steep") transitions between focus plane and planes in front of and behind it help providing a realistic visual effect (i.e. you look at a 2D image but you feel like you're looking at a real object in 3D space); in my opinion 3D pop has little relation, if any, with shallow DOF. Confusing shallow DOF with 3D pop is a rather common mistake.
Sure, but I don't think that is what Zeiss meant, and that you misinterpret their use of "sharp transition". I agree with your opinion, it's not about that.
Makten wrote:
Sure, but I don't think that is what Zeiss meant, and that you misinterpret their use of "sharp transition". I agree with your opinion, it's not about that.
Ripolini wrote:
The term "3D POP" is used by Zeiss marketing guys, who most likely are neither photographers nor lens designers. When speaking about "3D POP" of Zeiss lenses, those guys say that their lenses "help photos convey the feeling that the areas in focus appear almost separate to the rest of the image. At wide-open aperture, they create the magical ZEISS 3D pop effect and deliver a harmonious bokeh for great visual impact." They confuse three dimensional illusion with shallow DOF. They should study Piero della Francesca and read his De Prospectiva pingendi. But they won't read it; they are only interested in selling volumes, not in the dissemination of image culture....Show more →
The more the areas in focus appear separate to the rest of the image, the more the picture appears like a 2D "cartoon".
ftllens wrote:
Honestly, the only way to compare lens abilities to express 3d pop (I also think this is a term that should disappear due to its horrible lack of precision) is to take photos in a flat (or identical) lighting situation in a no depth composition at the same f stop with the same camera body using the same raw processor with no post processing.
Then take those images with exif removed and presented side by side. Not to say there aren't lenses that exhibit this effect straight out of camera, but there are too many variables that can increase that effect especially in post.
As I understand it, absolute sharpness and lens design and construction affect micro contrast (midtone detail), bokeh structure, aberration resistance, flare and ghosts resistance in backlit high contrast areas, color gradation, and color fidelity across surfaces.
The computational side along with the sensor itself can magnify the dimensional effect and in post with things like selective sharpening and color contrast even more so.
But if we're talking really strong "3D" you cannot beat high end cinema anamorphic lenses. On the photographic side I would say APO glass under 100mm present images closest to reality and therefore a stronger associative dimensional image....Show more →
ftllens wrote:
Honestly, the only way to compare lens abilities to express 3d pop (I also think this is a term that should disappear due to its horrible lack of precision) is to take photos in a flat (or identical) lighting situation in a no depth composition at the same f stop with the same camera body using the same raw processor with no post processing.
Then take those images with exif removed and presented side by side. Not to say there aren't lenses that exhibit this effect straight out of camera, but there are too many variables that can increase that effect especially in post.
As I understand it, absolute sharpness and lens design and construction affect micro contrast (midtone detail), bokeh structure, aberration resistance, flare and ghosts resistance in backlit high contrast areas, color gradation, and color fidelity across surfaces.
The computational side along with the sensor itself can magnify the dimensional effect and in post with things like selective sharpening and color contrast even more so.
But if we're talking really strong "3D" you cannot beat high end cinema anamorphic lenses. On the photographic side I would say APO glass under 100mm present images closest to reality and therefore a stronger associative dimensional image....Show more →
A handful of years back, there was a thread on FM Alt that was a blind comparison of Zeiss and equivalent Canon (I think) lenses. It wasn't worded as "spot the 3D pop," but the cumulative results of the guesses were pretty well conclusive. That thread was probably already referenced/linked in this thread.
WhyFi wrote:
A handful of years back, there was a thread on FM Alt that was a blind comparison of Zeiss and equivalent Canon (I think) lenses. It wasn't worded as "spot the 3D pop," but the cumulative results of the guesses were pretty well conclusive. That thread was probably already referenced/linked in this thread.
WhyFi wrote:
Ha. Sorry about that. The Zeiss were very easily distinguished by the forum members.
the there was also a control group of sorts with the same survey given to a canon forum on a different site, if i recall correctly they also preferred zeiss.
WhyFi wrote:
I don't recall ever seeing discussion like that w/r/t L glass, despite spending a lot of time on POTN several years ago, which was very much Canon-centric at the time. I mean, many of those folks had nothing but high praise for L-series lenses, often insinuating that anything less was a waste of time and anything costing more [read: Zeiss] a silly waste of money... but never a discussion on the illusion of depth.
Actually, what lead me to the FM Alt forum in the first place was a dismissive exchange on POTN. I remarked on the depth of someone's photo, I hadn't seen anything quite like it before (I believe it was taken with a 21 Distagon), and the L-fans pounced, telling me that both I and the photographer were nuts.
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.
Out of curiosity, if one were to test similar lenses on a consistent scene to evaluate the merits or their POP... what kind of scene would be best? A still life? A street scene? A landscape?
Mathieu18 wrote:
Out of curiosity, if one were to test similar lenses on a consistent scene to evaluate the merits or their POP... what kind of scene would be best? A still life? A street scene? A landscape?
depends on whether you want to make it hard or easy to perceive 3D?
most important think to make it worthwhile is consistent light across all shots. so indoors at night, here in the pacific northwest in winter, or midday sun with no clouds.
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.
A factor worth mentioning is that not everyone is using good quality display to view the pictures. On my retina MBP the dimensionality difference is more readily apparent, particularly the color gradation. On my mobile phone, not so, with few exceptions that the image quality even shine through lesser quality display.
Mathieu18 wrote:
Out of curiosity, if one were to test similar lenses on a consistent scene to evaluate the merits or their POP... what kind of scene would be best? A still life? A street scene? A landscape?
If you are into Zeiss lenses and don't care anything else...
Get yourself a Zeiss 2/35 ZE/ZF2 lens either classic or in milvus form... used or brand new whatever you like.. Yeah believe the hype!
Bokeh is little bit nervous but not distracting for my taste, actually I like to have a little just to give some funkiness not even sure funkiness is the right word.., it's like this - a woman with smooth skin, slightly red toned hair... few small sized freckles but noticeable thought not distracting.
If you want all smooth bokeh go with Zeiss 1.4/35
Look for Luka or Luca he got nice 2/35 captures or Helena i think... just browse some of their posts.
