Leica lenses can produce all the DOF variations one wants, including ultra-thin (how thin can it get with a f:0.95 lens ?). This does not help them, as a general observation, generate a strong \"3D\" effect. Zeiss, as a general rule, do not defocus the background as much as some others, yet are credited with, generally, strong \"3D\". This should put to rest the theory that \"3D3 is all about DOF and background separation.
In order to contain \"focused depth\", as so aptly described IMHO by Richard, the lens has to capture micro-changes in shape and colour so as to reproduce a gradual transition. A lens that has less definition in this respect will reproduce a more brutal transition. In this case, the viewer would see more delineation, more separation, but less \"3D\". If that micro-information is not there, no amount of PP can bring it back, unless this old dog (me) needs to learn new tricks. Just my 2 cents.
Jan 12, 2010 at 02:57 AM
Previous versions of philber's message #7995509 « what is '3d' ? »
