Would be interesting to see a series of shots to show the 3D ness of a lens under different lighting, i.e. omni-directional ambient light vs. softbox (front, oblique, side) vs. with a lens renowned for its 3Dness (i.e. 100 Planar) ... and shoot the same lighting setups with a lesser 3D lens (i.e. Canon, Leica, etc.) and see how much variance exists between shots/lenses and how much 3Dness lighting can impart on the image regardless of the lens.
A bit of discussion has been about how the micro-contrast seems to \'wrap around\' the subject giving it contour (not to be confused with focus/blur/DOF separation). It makes me wonder how much impact the quality of the light \'wrappping\' around the subject comes into play ... I\'m thinking about how the softbox very close to subject
wraps around and contours someone\'s face.
I\'d play with my 35-70 3.4 to test this out myself, but I\'m limited to natural lighting, which doesn\'t bode as well for controlled testing.
I think that you\'d still see a difference in the 3Dness of of the lenses, but it could serve well to provide some insight into \'optimizing\' 3Dness for any lens
Nov 03, 2009 at 09:18 AM
Previous versions of RustyBug's message #7726721 « Zeiss look? »
with a lens renowned for its 3Dness (i.e. 100 Planar) ... and shoot the same lighting setups with a lesser 3D lens (i.e. Canon, Leica, etc.) and see how much variance exists between shots/lenses and how much 3Dness lighting can impart on the image regardless of the lens.