carstenw wrote:
Hmm, well, interesting post, but I disagree with several items. First of all, and this is a minor semantic quibble, the two types you list aren't lens 3D types, but rather characteristics of lenses which you propose can produce 3D images. Minor, but important.
Secondly, I disagree with your characterization of Leicas as falling off towards the corners, Modern Leicas are some of the most solid performers in this regard. If you want to restrict this characterization to older Leicas, then I would agree somewhat. I also disagree with Zeiss lenses having high sharpness across the frame. This depends very much on the specific lens, but even some of the top Zeiss ZF/ZE lenses have dramatic fall-off towards the corners. Saying that Leica lenses are about optical perfection, sometimes at the cost of some personality and rendering style, and Zeiss images are about the rendering style, sometimes at the cost of optical performance, is much closer to the truth.
I agree 100% that the discussion of 3D pop would need to include the topic of DoF falloff rate. I disagree that processing is not relevant, simply because the OP asked about lenses. Any discussion of 3D needs to include processing. Not all lenses can take the same processing, and so the final result comes from lens+processing appropriate for that lens. I also disagree that colour considerations are not important. The spatial/textural rendering of a lens depends very much on its ability to render subtle colour differences visible, and this is why so many Canon lenses have no 3D, among other things (such as missing micro-contrast).
Finally, perhaps you could post a 50 Cron shot with lots of 3D? I used to own this lens, and loved it to bits, but I don't recall seeing any 3D from it.
--
What I feel is direly missing from this discussion is a definition of 3D. All previous threads fell flat on their inability to have the participants agree what 3D is, in theory and in photos. Most people are merely referring to a sense of depth, usually foreground and background planes, when they say 3D. The vast majority even. I find that more is needed. But as long as we want to discuss something in detail, we need to agree on what we are discussing, no?...Show more →
I agree with pretty much all of your points - and we all know how subjective the idea of "3D" rendering is - so here is a test shot from my v2 Summicron R showing what I find to exhibit some "3Dness". The only thing I did to this shot was to slightly push the black level up.
Anden wrote:
Interesting Tariq, I find these very flat. And you claim them to be 3D. We need a definition of 3D.
I think it's somewhat subjective myself. We can all state specific qualities that each of us think contribute to the illusion of 3D in a 2D image, but in the end, I doubt there will be a consensus on all points - and with all example images (as evidenced by your reaction to this shot of mine.)
rsrsrs wrote:
did anybod asked leica or zeiss how they do define 3D?
I have not heard of any scientific definition for it. Perhaps Zeiss has even refrained from precisely defining it in order to keep their magic design recipe a secret.
Because we're all human and see things slightly differently, plus we have opinions, I think it'll be near-impossible to nail down exactly what is 3-D, and even if that were possible, objectively defining which photo meets or doesn't meet these criteria would be extremely difficult, if not impossible.
I think one can only go on impressions of particular photos, etc. To be honest, some of the examples shown in this thread (and others) weren't impressive to me, while others have been great - others of course would disagree with me (hence, the existence of forums!)
Personally i don't see 3D in this pic wfrank, just like focus is in the closest subject i mean wheel, actually i see 3D better in the color photos, but it's just me.
Yeah, I guess I do. The isolation of the in-focus object is (in my mind) good and sharpness is excellent - even at the pixel level which of course is not visible in the web format. A fair amount of PP too, but only with the intention of keeping the lens'/original image characteristics into the small format presented here. But is it really 3D? Dont know, trying to find that out. Now I at least know the opinion of two respect-worthy posters... :-)
To take it one step further - thinking about the motif and the presumably juicy possibilities that steering wheel ought to possess when it comes to 3D. It really should be a fair object to "popize" - if my lens were to carry that capacity. Wouldnt it? Cant help thinking what gear would make it pop, if any. And if so, what would the difference be - compared to my humble fixed-4 attempt at 29mm.
Well, one question I can answer with absolute certainty: is it not 3D! It is a two-dimensional representation
Some of the oft-related clues are there, others not, but in the end it is a throw of the dice, and for me the necessary feeling about the shape and size and volume and feel and texture, and very importantly, the spatial relationship between foreground, middle and background, do not add up to something where I can squint a little and imagine that I am there. It looks like a (very good) photo of reality with very good texture, and two layers, foreground and background. I think I also miss the colour. I think colour is an important 3D clue, although I am not yet certain about that.
I should qualify this by saying that in all the time I have frequented this forum, I have seen maybe something like a dozen photos with convincing 3D. It is very hard to do, even for those who do it the best. I am not sure that I have made a single photo which has as strong 3D as brainiac's portrait, Martin's leather chair, or Luka's snail.
Yeah, I think that throws a lot of people off. I can understand the term "pop" but "3D" doesn't fit the description for me. I (and others?) just have too many other more appropriate associations for the term "3D". Oh well, what's in a term I guess... I suppose "3D" is better than calling it something else that doesn't fit either... like, "Goligafrigablop" or some shite. Still, I'll just go with "pop".
Thanks again Carsten. Well, am I lucky or what? Luka and Martin strole around the city where I live. Both carry 3D gear. If at all possible to plan for 3D, then take this opportunity guys: go a few km east to Nacka and find Tollarens closed down paper-mill. Easily found through the link below. Grab your 3D gear and find the 3D steering wheel, which is found close the "H" in the southernmost "Hedenströms väg" below
carstenw wrote:
I should qualify this by saying that in all the time I have frequented this forum, I have seen maybe something like a dozen photos with convincing 3D. It is very hard to do, even for those who do it the best. I am not sure that I have made a single photo which has as strong 3D as brainiac's portrait, Martin's leather chair, or Luka's snail.
Hmmm, I'm guessing you mean this snail:
Interesting as I don't see any 3D in the shot..
Typically for me to get a stronger sense of 3D I need some shape that implies perspective. Texture also usually helps.
Here's an example of what I mean. This was taken a couple of days ago:
wfrank wrote:
If at all possible to plan for 3D, then take this opportunity guys: go a few km east to Nacka and find Tollarens closed down paper-mill. Easily found through the link below. Grab your 3D gear and find the 3D steering wheel, which is found close the "H" in the southernmost "Hedenströms väg" below
