vdo1 wrote: tsdevine wrote:
This detour started when someone suggested we shouldn't use the term "pop" and I posted that Batis link to show that even Zeiss is using that terminology.
Yeah that was me. My complaint is that the term is rather meaningless without a definition, and thus it will produce endless, fruitless debates like the current one.
As for Zeiss, see my opinion earlier in this thread:
I would say that, at least in the lexicographic circles I travel in, "pop" and "punch" are understood to be synonymous with micro-contrast.
The reason that the conversation is endless is that it has proven fruitless and the reason that it has been fruitless is that no one contributing has been able to pull it all together in a coherent way.
Just because something is not well understood doesn't make it refractory to understanding.
The original question "Which lens has the most 3D?" is based on the premise that optics contribute and that some have the potential to contribute more than others.
My "a posteriori" experience leads me to believe that they do indeed play a role; some more than others.
Other photographers have not had the same results but that does not negate my experience nor those of others that have made similar observations.
As I stated earlier only one in ten thousand people can confirm the existence of absolute pitch so attempting to achieve knowledge through popular opinion can lead us to ignorance.
In any case this would make a great round-table conversation.
We just need to gather the physiologists, physicists, and optical engineers to help us make sense of it all.
I am sure there is someone at Zeiss (among others) that could bring this conversation to a whole new plane.
Apr 30, 2019 at 01:12 PM
Previous versions of DaveFP's message #14837495 « which lens has the most 3D POP? »
