I wonder how lens\' telecentricity affects 3d. (telecentric refers to maintaining dimensions of objects front-to-back of dof).
The more orthographic the projection the less depth - where contrasting lines and recognizable curves play a part in the composition.
How would you describe the 3D you see in that shot?
Maybe our vocabulary is just different. I use 3D *only* about the feeling of shape, not about depth.
Your description of my image perfectly describes the majority of images in this thread where people are agreeing that they can \"really see the 3D\". There are a few like the thread spool above where the object itself also contain \"depth cues\" (DOF/Shading) and where that depth contrasts (seems out of phase) with the BG and/or FG depth the 3D-ishness is even more apparent (according to those who have commented on the images in this thread).
A good example of this is the \"happy couple swinging Junior\" shot. Perfectly paper flat people with no focus depth at all in the midst of an almost racked looking shot (Racking is a filmographers and cinematographers term for faking or creating depth and/or parallax motion by layering and blurring multiple layers or footage.). I literally feel as though I could reach into that image and peal the flat people out of the scene just like pealing a sticker off of a large backing.
My brain recognizes two conflicting aspects immediately. The first is the DOF - my eyes can\'t naturally produce that DOF if I were in the scene myself in place of the camera so I want to reject what I\'m seeing but the lines (tree line and vertical trunks) and recognizable curves (the contour of the ground) are perfectly recognizable and realistic. This confusion or \"mental conflict\" is the first and most critical component in designating an image as being \"3D\" - from what I\'m understanding from people using and describing \"3D\" as an image aspect. This foundational (to being \"3D\") aspect of an image is 100% reliant on DOF and focus point within a real and recognizable scene. So I draw from this that it\'s all about DOF and things like micro-contrast, Bokeh, color contrast, lighting, and subject geometry while important to enhancing the overall affect (either by creating more brain conflicts or adding to the reality) are just assistants to the DOF in producing what I think people mean when they say \"3D\'. In this image the Bokeh is granular where my eyes are not and the lighting on the people doesn\'t match the scene in terms of highlights and color contrast == more brain conflicts == more assistance to the DOF \"3D-ishness\".
Here\'s Bruce Sawle\'s image again - the one I\'m describing above.
The more orthographic the projection the less depth - where contrasting lines and recognizable curves play a part in the composition.
How would you describe the 3D you see in that shot?
Maybe our vocabulary is just different. I use 3D *only* about the feeling of shape, not about depth.
Your description of my image perfectly describes the majority of images in this thread where people are agreeing that they can \"really see the 3D\". There are a few like the thread spool above where the object itself also contain \"depth cues\" (DOF/Shading) and where that depth contrasts (seems out of phase) with the BG and/or FG depth the 3D-ishness is even more apparent (according to those who have commented on the images in this thread).
A good example of this is the \"happy couple swinging Junior\" shot. Perfectly paper flat people with no focus depth at all in the midst of an almost racked looking shot (Racking is a filmographers and cinematographers term for faking or creating depth and/or parallax motion by layering and blurring multiple layers or footage.). I literally feel as though I could reach into that image and peal the flat people out of the scene just like pealing a sticker off of a large backing.
My brain recognizes two conflicting aspects immediately. The first is the DOF - my eyes can\'t naturally produce that DOF if I were in the scene myself in place of the camera so I want to reject what I\'m seeing but the lines (tree line and vertical trunks) and recognizable curves (the contour of the ground) are perfectly recognizable and realistic. This confusion or \"mental conflict\" is the first and most critical component in designating an image as being \"3D\" - from what I\'m understanding from people using and describing \"3D\" as an image aspect. This foundational (to being \"3D\") aspect of an image is 100% reliant on DOF and focus point within a real and recognizable scene. So I draw from this that it\'s all about DOF and things like micro-contrast, Bokeh, color contrast, lighting, and subject geometry while important to enhancing the overall affect (either by creating more brain conflicts or adding to the reality) are just assistants to the DOF in producing what I think people mean when they say \"3D\'. In this image the Bokeh is granular where my eyes are not and the lighting on the people doesn\'t match the scene in terms of highlights and color contrast == more brain conflicts == more assistance to the DOF \"3D-ishness\".
Here\'s Bruce Sawle\'s image again - the one I\'m describing above.
Jan 12, 2010 at 04:26 PM
Previous versions of Bifurcator's message #7997643 « what is '3d' ? »
