RustyBug
Offline
Upload & Sell: On
|
 Re: which lens has the most 3D POP? | |
hiepphotog wrote:
RustyBug wrote:
hiepphotog wrote:
I'm surprised that the Contax 35/1.4 has not been mentioned more often in this. It used to be the 3D pop lens.
+1
Yes, lighting does enhance modeling.
There are multiple visual cues regarding the perception of depth. All of them involve change in some form. As mentioned with the shading it is a change in tonality. But, since the OP was specific to which lenses ... the Contax 35/1.4 would certainly fit the model of large exit pupil : entrance pupil ratio.
Here is the data sheet on it. Note that the exit pupil is 47.3mm and the entrance pupil is 25.1mm ... for a ratio of 1.8 : 1.
https://www.zeiss.com/content/dam/consumer-products/downloads/historical-products/photography/contax-yashica/en/datasheet-zeiss-distagon-1435-en.pdf
When this was a prolific topic, over a decade ago, I researched all the "top performers" for producing such effects, that were posted in that epic thread. The one single, common, lens attribute that I could find was this relationship between the entrance pupil and exit pupil relationship (magnitude of impact varies with FL). Coupled with a well corrected Zone A.
As mentioned, Zeiss approached it more than many other mfr's. But, even in my selection of other lenses (alt + adapter territory), I found that the relationship held true. The main difference I found was how aggressive Zeiss was in their transitions (and the mustache distortion that came with it) vs. those using milder / linear transitions. Some mfr's approach this more aggressively than others. Imo, Zeiss was likely the leader of the pack, Oly was likely the least aggressive. Others fall in between ... specific lens dependent of course. Noting that the rendering style of Oly was sometimes referred to as egg tempora or painterly. I did have a couple of Oly lenses that could do a decent job with some depth perception ... in a more subtle way than some of my Zeiss glass did. (NOTE: I've since divulged myself of my alt collection).
I didn't (at that time) take specific notice to how much difference barrel vs. pincushion distortion played in to things (and again subject placement), but it likely is something that could be an "enhancer" or "retarder" to the effect, too.
Note also, how tight the tangential / sagittal lines are in the Zone A, then they "separate" in Zone B. So, if subject placement has its edges near this transition ... the apparent / perceived rate of transition change is accelerated, given the effect more prominence. Here again, the perception of depth is rooted in change(s).
Acuity
Scale
Aberration
Hue
Tone
These attributes (etc.) can all play in influence in the perception of depth / plane interpretation. The greater rate of change for various attributes occur, the more easily discerned is the depth / plane variance.
Acuity and aberration are lens attributes. Scale, hue, tone, etc. are non-lens attributes. Perspective is another attribute in play.
So, the attributes of how the Contax 35/1.4 are designed make for a nice illustration of the technical model that is capable of generating those rates of transition ... with proper placement of the subject relative to those zonal transitions. How rapid the transition is ... that varies with the lens designer's ethos, as optics design is always an exercise in a series of compromises.
In my peak exploration of the subject, I was enthralled by maximal effect. Today, I prefer a slightly reduced / balance between this, and other attributes in my glass of choice. But, I will always have an appreciation for how the eye perceives our presentation.
Lighting (et al) is additional contribution to the perception, whereas acute lighting that "wraps" the subject with crisp modeling renders differently than diffuse might. So, the effect is in part achieved with lens design, subject placement and lighting ... in combination. Add more of the pieces to the puzzle, and you get a greater effect in presentation. Utilize only one or two of the attributes, and you get a lesser / no effect.
So, again ... wrt lens ... larger exit pupil, and nice tight sagittal / tangential in Zone A. Imo, those are the kind of lenses that have the ability to generate or contribute to rapid zonal transitions, as things falloff from the focal plane. More than one piece to the puzzle, but wrt to lenses that could enhance the perceptions of departure from focal plane (i.e. depth), that was my summary finding.
How one uses such lenses will vary, with such factors as subject distance / perspective and subject to surrounding / background objects, dof aperture selection, etc. But, the point here is that as you include more attributes that enhance the perception of change / transition ... the strength in presentation increases.
Thank you for such interesting observations. Just based on what you have concluded, which lenses would you recommend for the 3D pop effect? I'm curious to hear.
---------------------------------------------
RustyBug wrote:
lumis beans wrote:
There was an image here years ago in another 3D pop thread. It was an elephant pic made with a Leica in a tropical setting?
It was shimmery and almost holographic. Maybe someone recalls it. Had to be like 8 years ago or more.
It was pretty popular as a pop example given the number of likes it had at the time.
Here's an elephant from before, shot with a Summicron ... might be the one you're thinking of.
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1220500/3
#4
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1220500/2
Check out the old car and driver in costume in #4
Out of a bunch of images in that thread and this one, we got like only a few impressive samples. Maybe it also has to do with PP as well. Certainly wfrank does have his signature PP.
Yes, PP plays its part in things too. In the "epic" thread back around 2009-2010, there was a shootout of sorts where a non-3D-ish producing lens, image was PP'd to bring it to a level of 3D-ishness similar to a different lens ... then folks asked to choose. So, to that point ... again we are back to the matter of how the human perception of depth works.
Bear in mind, that if painters and pencil artists produce Trompe' Loeil (fool the eye) works from scratch, similar understanding of how the eye / brain functions can be integral to PP decisions. The key point here is wrt to the lenses is where your "starting point" is.
Since the issue at hand for human depth perception is rooted in degrees of (broad term) contrast (focus vs. oof, light vs. shadow, ortho vs. scale, warm vs. cool, etc.) and rates of transition between those contrasting attributes, it is certainly easier to achieve that perception if start off with glass that plays nice with resolution and contrast, and a non-linear zone design. As mentioned, Zeiss plays strong in the zonal play. Tamron sometimes follows as a knock-off approach from Zeiss. Leica plays a more subtle transition (where my interests are). Canon plays pretty flat (an interest of mine previous), Oly plays pretty flat. Nikon between Zeiss / Tamron. Of course, those are just broad generalizations and only my, imo.
As to specific lenses, my memory is flooded with so many ... and yet, the specifics of my memory are cloudy. I do recall the Lecia 90 AA was one lens that caught my attention early on. Voigt 125 and many others were of the C/Y variety 21, 35, 85, 100 focal lengths come to mind. Sadly, most of the images from the epic thread are no longer available, for me to correlate to those. I seem also to recall a Leica R 19mm (iirc) that I was fond of it's images. Just too much for me to recall reliably.
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/829238/0
Cogitech (Paul) was a strong player with his C/Y 100/2 (iirc, note the 1st post in the above thread). Iirc, the 85 (can't recall if it was a Sonnar or Planar) was one I often liked what folks did with it.
Hopefully, I don't get the "fanboy" label (I've sold all mine, so there's that), but if I were going to get back into the max 3D thing again ... I'd likely be looking at today's Sony / Zeiss glass. Zeiss was a strong player back then with the older C/Y glass. Fast forward to how much more they've learned since then, and there's likely still some strong play for their ethos there. Bear in mind, that was the "pre-mirrorless" era. Canon EF mount ruled, with adapters and alternative glass of most any mfr ... so, it was kinda like a kid in a candy store time frame ... so much, to explore. OTOH, I used M645 glass on FF, or Oly for its smoother transitions, rather than rapid ones of my C/Y and Nikon glass. My Canon glass of choice was also fairly smooth.
As it pertains to today's native mount glass ... I'm out of the loop. Case in point, that with the proximity to the sensor in the newer mirrorless bodies, coupled with the wider throat ... it can afford lens designers different latitude (i.e. exit pupil size). The new versions of lenses in the mirrorless era, could mean that Canon could have taken a page from Zeiss a bit more ... IDK, not the one to ask about current glass (particularly mirrorless designed glass).
As to the "old days", I can't recall if there was a "list" made (I think there was a poll / list at one point) of top contenders / favs). You might send a PM to Cogitech (Paul) and ask for his input. Those were interesting times, and that was an interesting thread with a lot of challenge and present (which spawned my deeper study) ... not the least of which was Bifurcator, as he played the nemesis role.  You could read through the thread to find reference / discussion to different lenses, too.
But, if I wanted to find the lenses that were strong producers in native glass, today ... I'd post the question in the dedicated Sony (aka Zeiss) forum to find the "best" in their lineup. Then, I'd do the same in the Nikon dedicated forum. Rinse and repeat in the dedicated Canon / Fuji Forums, etc. if you feel the need. That way, you avoid the "my brand is better than yours'" minutia ... and it's corollary "your brand doesn't do anything, it's all in the lighting".
I think if I had to "pick one" for maximal 3D-ishness intent ... I'm pretty sure it would be in the C/Y variety (or modern times = Sony / Zeiss). Just a matter of how aggressive or tempered you prefer things in your glass. As mentioned ... I'm a bit more tempered these days for what I like in my glass ... I like the way my M's transition (a bit more subtle) ... yet, knowing I can use my knowledge and PP to pick up the pace when I want.
Probably not as specific as you were hoping for, but ... hey, for the price of admission. 
Here's a nice one shot stopped down with a Nikon 28. I had the Nikon 28/2.8 AIS in my bag for a while, too. It was my "go to" for closer distances (i.e. not landscape), whereas I used my C/Y 28/2.8 or Oly 28/3.5 for landscape.
Scroll down to #11 (not mine).
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/929565/0#13217155
One other thing ... you could always go look at the Zeiss data sheets to compare exit pupil sizes to entrance pupil sizes (relative to focal length). That's what I did, back in the day.
HTH
P.S. After typing all that ... reminds me of this one.
|
