Here's an "older" lens, sticking with the woods motif from the past few posts. I need to do a comparison between some of my "older" design lenses and some of my "newer" modern lenses. Makten's post above would seem to fall more in the modern bucket than classic, but I could be wrong. Some say modern well corrected lenses detract from this. But again I don't think it's solely a function of a lens and its design.
I may try to do a back to back comparison between the lens two posts above, and a more modern lens. FWIW. Just didn't have it with me when I took those shots.
I did have another lens with me, a slightly different focal length, that didn't seem to have quite the pop as the lens above. Maybe I should post those. But it's from a 5mm wider lens, so it may not apples to apples enough.
Fred Miranda wrote:
I think that shooting with a lens capable of high contrast (micro-contrast) is a prerequisite but lighting has a lot to do with it as well.
I'm pretty sure the lens is a significant, but certainly not sole, factor.
IMO a better starting point for a thread like this would be:
"We occasionally see an uncanny degree of three-dimensionality in our images.
Are some lenses more likely to produce this effect than others?"
Guaranteed that you will see a tendency for high micro-contrast lenses to be the most referenced.
It is clearly not a function of max aperture as many such images are shot at 2.8 - 3.2.
Reprocessed one from above to try to match color between the two lenses. Now 75% of you will say you see no 3D in either. 20% will complain that they are slightly different focal lengths. And 5% will maybe say you see it more in one than the other (or not.)
Lens A
Lens B
When I get a chance I will compare the narrow focal length "old" lens to a similar FL "modern" lens. And the wider "old" lens to a similar FL "modern" lens. (Assuming someone sees some evidence of 3D pop with these. (When I get the time....)
tsdevine wrote:
Reprocessed one from above to try to match color between the two lenses. Now 75% of you will say you see no 3D in either. 20% will complain that they are slightly different focal lengths. And 5% will maybe say you see it more in one than the other (or not.)
When I get a chance I will compare the narrow focal length "old" lens to a similar FL "modern" lens. And the wider "old" lens to a similar FL "modern" lens. (Assuming someone sees some evidence of 3D pop with these. (When I get the time....)
My wife said lens A has more 3D pop. While I'm struggling to see it. I suppose the trees in the the corners being a bit more out of focus than lens B give it that illusion. I see a slight bit more contrast with lens B. They both have pop imo. The closer perspective of lens A gives it more of that impression. I'm guessing it has to do with compression.
Lens A is a 55mm lens, lens b is a 50mm lens. I do have a modern 55 and a modern 50 to pair with these older lenses. I will try to find a better subject and compare the old and new 50's and the old and new 55's. Now none of these lenses may show 3D...but maybe will will have different dimensionality to them.
princeharbinger wrote:
My wife said lens A has more 3D pop. While I'm struggling to see it. I suppose the trees in the the corners being a bit more out of focus than lens B give it that illusion. I see a slight bit more contrast with lens B. They both have pop imo. The closer perspective of lens A gives it more of that impression. I'm guessing it has to do with compression.
tsdevine wrote:
Lens A is a 55mm lens, lens b is a 50mm lens. I do have a modern 55 and a modern 50 to pair with these older lenses. I will try to find a better subject and compare the old and new 50's and the old and new 55's. Now none of these lenses may show 3D...but maybe will will have different dimensionality to them.
Try shooting at F/4 and getting a bit closer to your subject.
In one of these discussions a few years ago, someone (maybe it was me) pointed to a few articles on painting techniques to simulate 3d in painting (pretty close to 2d). Painters figured out perspective and 3D a long time ago. Animators and graphics developers have surely figured it out.
I imagine composition, color, gradients, etc have most to do with it, but I bet some of the techniques map to lens attributes and might help understand what lenses might be more 3D in circumstances where those attributes are the appropriate tool to induce 3D.
I believe it's a combination of things, similar to what you say. Where a lens can contribute.....and the more of those things come together the more "pop" you may perceive.
darrellc wrote:
In one of these discussions a few years ago, someone (maybe it was me) pointed to a few articles on painting techniques to simulate 3d in painting (pretty close to 2d). Painters figured out perspective and 3D a long time ago. Animators and graphics developers have surely figured it out.
I imagine composition, color, gradients, etc have most to do with it, but I bet some of the techniques map to lens attributes and might help understand what lenses might be more 3D in circumstances where those attributes are the appropriate tool to induce 3D.
tsdevine wrote:
Reprocessed one from above to try to match color between the two lenses.
Finally! Now we are talking...
Now 75% of you will say you see no 3D in either.
Well, it is an illusion, so of course not everybody will be on the same page. Personally I have no issue finding 3D pop in my images, while I seem to have a harder time than most to see stuff like this shark
20% will complain that they are slightly different focal lengths. And 5% will maybe say you see it more in one than the other (or not.)
And I will complain that the plane of focus is different:-D
When I get a chance I will compare the narrow focal length "old" lens to a similar FL "modern" lens. And the wider "old" lens to a similar FL "modern" lens. (Assuming someone sees some evidence of 3D pop with these. (When I get the time....)
Please do.
My theory is that 3d-pop is usually triggered by the different types of contrast (sharpness, color, pattern, etc) between fore- and background in a plausible 3D-scene. And that it works with any lens of sufficiently high IQ. Hence it easily gets lost with poor JPEG compression (no more sharpness). If true, there is no need to specifically look for 3d popping lenses, just buy something good.
Focus was on the same spot, I was pretty careful. But these lenses are as crisp at f/2 as my more modern 50's, so it's possible I was off a little. Or maybe there is some focus shift involved.
Daran wrote:
Finally! Now we are talking...
Well, it is an illusion, so of course not everybody will be on the same page. Personally I have no issue finding 3D pop in my images, while I seem to have a harder time than most to see stuff like this shark
And I will complain that the plane of focus is different:-D
Please do.
My theory is that 3d-pop is usually triggered by the different types of contrast (sharpness, color, pattern, etc) between fore- and background in a plausible 3D-scene. And that it works with any lens of sufficiently high IQ. Hence it easily gets lost with poor JPEG compression (no more sharpness). If true, there is no need to specifically look for 3d popping lenses, just buy something good.
tsdevine wrote:
Focus was on the same spot, I was pretty careful. But these lenses are as crisp at f/2 as my more modern 50's, so it's possible I was off a little. Or maybe there is some focus shift involved.
If you re-crop the wider to be about the same area and flip back and forth, the difference in plane of focus becomes fairly obvious. Did you manually focus?
Yes, these are fully manual lenses. I focused wide open, and there is enough glow that it's possible I missed. But these are at f/2, so it's possible there was focus shift involved. Next time I'll refocus at shooting aperture.
Daran wrote:
If you re-crop the wider to be about the same area and flip back and forth, the difference in plane of focus becomes fairly obvious. Did you manually focus?
