All lens talk aside, I think it makes more sense to look for the common ground that all the best examples share.
Also, one would have to separate different types of 3D from each other, because they work in different ways. A discussion would have to take place for each different kind of 3D. The most common is certainly the effect that is caused by the transition from sharp to unsharp parts of the image.
Also, contributors to the discussion should only be those that agree that this kind of 3D is in fact working for them.
After finding the most important aspects of 3D-ness followed by another inquiry about which kind of situation, light and processing are helpful or even important, ONLY THEN should the discussion continue which lenses can help the cause with their special way to render a scene.
For all of you, who wants to see a [ one of perfect ] example of 3D. This is the SHIT!!!
Learn from this image!
Save this single page thread, bookmark it then make it as your 3D BENCHMARK.
and yes it's done by Leica. and this was done around maybe more than 10 years ago.
My first thought before reading the stats was that it looked like it was probably captured at f/4. Many of the posters have mentioned that 3D effect needs to occur with the lens stopped down more (though, it was often in the context of wide open, so I suppose f/4 qualifies . . . perhaps).
This red Ferrari image has less 3D effect than I see in many other images. Even Rob70's image he just posted above has much more.
Glad I'm not the only one, the Ferrari doesn't really do it for me.
I liked this shot from this morning with the Loxia 25. I slightly missed focus as I shot from the hip but I feel like I can push him in while looking at it. Admittedly, not sure it carries the same gravitas at web size.
seanj wrote:
My first thought before reading the stats was that it looked like it was probably captured at f/4. Many of the posters have mentioned that 3D effect needs to occur with the lens stopped down more (though, it was often in the context of wide open, so I suppose f/4 qualifies . . . perhaps).
This red Ferrari image has less 3D effect than I see in many other images. Even Rob70's image he just posted above has much more.
My first thought before reading the stats was that it looked like it was probably captured at f/4. Many of the posters have mentioned that 3D effect needs to occur with the lens stopped down more (though, it was often in the context of wide open, so I suppose f/4 qualifies . . . perhaps).
This red Ferrari image has less 3D effect than I see in many other images. Even Rob70's image he just posted above has much more.
The aperture settings depends on your lens, its own character. You need to know your lens inside out.
The Carl Zeiss 1.4/50 classic planar won't produce or say will be hard producing 3Ds wide open at close distances say 3 feet & closer. You want close focusing? this is not for you. Zeiss even themselves said it is optimized somewhere mid distance shooting..., same with what experienced people say here.
If you check the old threads., none of them says "it's wide open or mid aperture will make the best 3D" --- it depends on the lens.
If the Red Ferrari has no 3D for you or less... there's nothing I can do.
What you can do for us here in community is share your bunch of 3D images so we can understand what's 3D for you.
The aperture settings depends on your lens, its own character. You need to know your lens inside out.
The Carl Zeiss 1.4/50 classic planar won't produce or say will be hard producing 3Ds wide open at close distances say 3 feet & closer. You want close focusing? this is not for you. Zeiss even themselves said it is optimized somewhere mid distance shooting..., same with what experienced people say here.
If you check the old threads., none of them says "it's wide open or mid aperture will make the best 3D" --- it depends on the lens.
If the Red Ferrari has no 3D for you or less... there's nothing I can do.
What you can do for us here in community is share your bunch of 3D images so we can understand what's 3D for you. ...Show more →
I am not sure what you were talking about with knowing a lens inside and out and close focusing and wide open talk about the 50/1.4. My post never suggested that I thought a person needed to shoot wide open or close to a subject to get 3D or whatever you're claiming. In fact, I suggested the opposite in that I thought stopping down was a requirement. The only thing you wrote that seemed to address my post is when you claimed that the red ferrari has it and if I don't see it then I should produce my own images.
I don't have any because I shoot closer to wide open too often. You can see types of photography I often shoot, but it's at f/2 with the Sony Zeiss 55/1.8 (and, it's less 3D and just more shallow depth of field). But I can look at Mathieu18's post above and see what appears to be 3D in his shot. I already noted that I thought Rob70's image on the previous page had more 3D than the Ferrari image. I don't expect you to help me see 3D effect in the Ferrari image, so please don't feel responsible for changing my perceptions.
A short summary of the last 20 pages of this thread is based on the likes:
10 likes jeffersoncasey https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/983034/6
camera: Huawei Mate 9, same photos on RX1R look even better
conclusions by jeffersoncasey:
what is important: light and graduation
what is not important: light and graduation much more important than camera.
jeffersoncasey's remarks: a picture needs shadows and dark regions or else the photo is perceived flat.
remarks: photo 1 does not include any background and foreground blur effects but uses reflections in the water, which are blurred.
My own conclusion: In general I agree but philip_pj shows me that it is possible to get the effect also without playing with shadows and dark regions. https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/983034/9
14 likes: Olaf G, https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/983034/1
remarks: all photos shown include foreground and background blur and include shadows and dark regions. multi row panorama technique.
Camera A7
Lens: Carl Zeiss Jena Visionar 109mm f1.6 cinema projection lens - photo 2,3
12 likes Makten https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/983034/3
GFX 63, 28; 45, 2.8
Both photos with background blur. No major shadow or other tricks.
authors remarks: GFX better than FF, GF lenses have large DOF with abrupt transition into out-of-focus
12 likes John Dizzo again https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/983034/6
Remarks of photographer: With right lighting conditions also APS-C works.
This time photos with heavily blurred fore or background... some open aperture.
Lens: Sigma 20
12 likes Bushwacker, https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/983034/10
Zeiss 2 35 ZE
Most of the fore and background is in shadow - which should give a rather flat impression in the theory above. Photo shows background blur and perspective lines.
So, the most likes was an f/2 image with the FE 28 . . . a lens that is cheap and never had a review noting it has 3D characteristics A few other most liked are also using a shallow depth of field. I want to reiterate that I can see something of a 3D effect in some images. I think some scenes are better for it and some photographers are better at creating it (e.g., either in spotting the right lighting, , composition, overall scene, post processing, etc.) or they simply get lucky. But even a camera phone registered some of the most Likes. That being said, I also don't think Likes necessarily reflect the best 3D effect. As in the FE 28 image, that's really the impact of a shallow depth of field, but it's a cool image and therefore gets Likes just for being cool, potentially and that's why I Liked it.
I sought science to help explain the effect. Lloyd Chambers has a primer of sorts of the Zeiss 3D effect (and it's clearly a Zeiss marketing page since it's on their website here). And, I suppose Zeiss benefits from having 3D pop as a marketing tool. Anyway, Lloyd discusses microcontrast as a feature of a lens that is necessary to achieve the effect. He argues that the 3D Zeiss Pop is apparent at wider apertures and that the field flattens as you stop down more and diffraction begins (e.g., f/11 or so on various Milvus and Otus lenses he used). Do we all agree that microcontrast is an element of a lens that produces 3D effect? Or, is that simply Zeiss trying to capitalize on the the claimed Zeiss pop?
As I looked through his set of images, the image that had what appeared to be the most 3D effect was one shot at f/1.4 (similar to the cat being shot at wide open or John Dizzo's images being wide open; though, he is also shooting a fairly ultra wide open lens and that introduces another variable).
Earlier, I suggested a test using similar lenses with the same focal length to demonstrate that they didn't also produce the 3D effect using the exact same scene and processing. What I really would find useful is a scientific explanation for the 3D effect that can be attributed to a lens and that's why I read the Lloyd Chambers article hoping it had answers. Anecdotes can be countered with hundreds images on Flickr that do not show the effect from the same lens or can be debated as to whether they even demonstrate the effect (e.g., like the red Ferrari). I did search on Jim Klasson's blog to see if he had tested for the the 3D effect and because I value his research, but nothing came up. I searched articles by Roger Cicala and others on his site and found nothing. Why is this so difficult to explain with science (or just link me to it) Luminous Landcape has this link about stereo vision that he describes as 3D, but it's much more about lighting and color and composition and not lens specific. I am seeking the features of a lens that can specifically lead to enhancing the effect.
I posted this image below today just for discussion and I'll delete it in a few weeks as it's not up to my standards. I shot this at 12mm on the 12-24G and at f/11. I speculate that this would have had some 3D effect had I shot it at f/4 instead with the couple nearest as the target of the focus. But then that's getting back to many of the most Liked images using more shallow depth of field and also ties into the Zeiss article.
The 3D Pop debate has been going and going and going for years. I can't count the number of times I've gone off searching for answers myself. You've touched on many of the same data/sources I've read in the past and even posted one of the most pop samples I've seen too, Lloyd Chambers's dead tree is a beaut. There are other very good examples too. This one is also a very good example but you have to click on it so not sure many bothered to click when I posted the first two times but am not able to download and repost. https://zenfolio.page.link/PsBU
As I mentioned, I've put a lot of time researching to include talking to optics engineers and sifting through the endless amount of data on the same to include the "fewer elements" theory ( remember that one haha)
My personal summary:
-The pop comes from more brands than just Zeiss ( maybe just about any brand)
-Wide aperture do push the perception/look
-Certain colors and combination of colors can help the look ( painters knew this for centuries)
-Lighting and position of the subect in relation to near, mid and foreground all contribute
-As I mentioned before I already know, first hand some people just can't see it. Full stop
chris9 wrote:
A short summary of the last 20 pages of this thread is based on the likes:
10 likes jeffersoncasey https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/983034/6
camera: Huawei Mate 9, same photos on RX1R look even better
conclusions by jeffersoncasey:
what is important: light and graduation
what is not important: light and graduation much more important than camera.
jeffersoncasey's remarks: a picture needs shadows and dark regions or else the photo is perceived flat.
remarks: photo 1 does not include any background and foreground blur effects but uses reflections in the water, which are blurred.
My own conclusion: In general I agree but philip_pj shows me that it is possible to get the effect also without playing with shadows and dark regions. https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/983034/9
14 likes: Olaf G, https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/983034/1
remarks: all photos shown include foreground and background blur and include shadows and dark regions. multi row panorama technique.
Camera A7
Lens: Carl Zeiss Jena Visionar 109mm f1.6 cinema projection lens - photo 2,3
12 likes Makten https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/983034/3
GFX 63, 28; 45, 2.8
Both photos with background blur. No major shadow or other tricks.
authors remarks: GFX better than FF, GF lenses have large DOF with abrupt transition into out-of-focus
12 likes John Dizzo again https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/983034/6
Remarks of photographer: With right lighting conditions also APS-C works.
This time photos with heavily blurred fore or background... some open aperture.
Lens: Sigma 20
12 likes Bushwacker, https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/983034/10
Zeiss 2 35 ZE
Most of the fore and background is in shadow - which should give a rather flat impression in the theory above. Photo shows background blur and perspective lines.
BTW, if someone has the ability to do this and wiling to post examples. Would like to see someone take one of the lense known for 3D Pop, and take an image that results in the pop effect at wide open and take a comparison shot at 5.6 with the same lens.
seanj wrote:
I sought science to help explain the effect. Lloyd Chambers has a primer of sorts of the Zeiss 3D effect (and it's clearly a Zeiss marketing page since it's on their website here). And, I suppose Zeiss benefits from having 3D pop as a marketing tool. Anyway, Lloyd discusses microcontrast as a feature of a lens that is necessary to achieve the effect. He argues that the 3D Zeiss Pop is apparent at wider apertures and that the field flattens as you stop down more and diffraction begins (e.g., f/11 or so on various Milvus and Otus lenses he used). Do we all agree that microcontrast is an element of a lens that produces 3D effect? Or, is that simply Zeiss trying to capitalize on the the claimed Zeiss pop?...Show more →
LBJ2 wrote:
My personal summary:
-The pop comes from more brands than just Zeiss ( maybe just about any brand)
-Wide aperture do push the perception/look
-Certain colors and combination of colors can help the look ( painters knew this for centuries)
-Lighting and position of the subect in relation to near, mid and foreground all contribute
-As I mentioned before I already know, first hand some people just can't see it. Full stop
I just happened to watch this video which emphasizes a few good points you both bring up regarding the use of contrast and light/position to create depth/3D.
The perspective isn't particularly dramatic (wide angle + exaggerated leading lines) and they're black and white, so color doesn't play a role. There's a very gradual, almost subtle, in-focus/out-of-focus transition, the background is blurry but very recognizable and the foreground object usually contrasts with the background in terms of luminance.
LBJ2 wrote:
BTW, if someone has the ability to do this and wiling to post examples. Would like to see someone take one of the lense known for 3D Pop, and take an image that results in the pop effect at wide open and take a comparison shot at 5.6 with the same lens.
New lens but I think it'll be known for 3D pop soon enough. Sigma 35/1.2 wide open versus stopped down.
Tried to get them pretty close but is tough handheld and with humans.
lora_to wrote:
Personally, Dougo's pictures in the Zeiss ZE/ZF/ZM thread were always some my favorite examples of 3D effect without super shallow depth-of-field.
The perspective isn't particularly dramatic (wide angle + exaggerated leading lines) and they're black and white, so color doesn't play a role. There's a very gradual, almost subtle, in-focus/out-of-focus transition, the background is blurry but very recognizable and the foreground object usually contrasts with the background in terms of luminance.
All those pictures are taken with Distagon 35/2 lens that is praised to be very 3D among ZE/ZF line. It has a nervous bokeh that helps (!) in 3D rendering cuz it retains edges of OOF subjects recognizable yet blurred. Sigma 35/1.4 Art has a nervous bokeh and can produce 3D images but not very easy as ZE 35/2.
Samuli Vahonen explained this behavior very detailed. Can't find his post in ZE/ZF/ZM thread. Maybe he could post it here again.
I am not sure what you were talking about with knowing a lens inside and out and close focusing and wide open talk about the 50/1.4. My post never suggested that I thought a person needed to shoot wide open or close to a subject to get 3D or whatever you're claiming. In fact, I suggested the opposite in that I thought stopping down was a requirement. The only thing you wrote that seemed to address my post is when you claimed that the red ferrari has it and if I don't see it then I should produce my own images.
I don't have any because I shoot closer to wide open too often. You can see types of photography I often shoot, but it's at f/2 with the Sony Zeiss 55/1.8 (and, it's less 3D and just more shallow depth of field). But I can look at Mathieu18's post above and see what appears to be 3D in his shot. I already noted that I thought Rob70's image on the previous page had more 3D than the Ferrari image. I don't expect you to help me see 3D effect in the Ferrari image, so please don't feel responsible for changing my perceptions.
). 
