Bifurcator wrote:
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.
I suppose then that we are really dealing with two schools of thought regarding the definition of 3D, because nothing you wrote contradicts anything I wrote, yet you used the term 3D in a situation where I would not have.
The feeling of being able to reach into an image I describe as having depth, and any lens could do that under the right circumstances. In particular, Leica and Zeiss lenses can do that equally well.
What I describe as 3D is the feeling of being able to reach into a photo and feel the shape of some object in it (a non-flat object, otherwise the two definitions collapse into one). Richard\'s close-up Contax 35mm f/1.4 portraits give me that feeling of being able to feel the roundness of the subject\'s cheek, for example.
A third concept is that of texture. An example would be the feeling of being able to reach into a shot and feel the roughness of a wall, or of stubble.
All three concepts require good lenses though. A little smearing or poor micro-contrast can ruin them all.
The three for me are orthogonal, i.e. completely separate and at least in theory, independent. A shot may contain one, two or three of the above independently of each other.
I find that people often label shots having depth as being 3D, although this is not how I describe them. However, the people who I know around here with most experience and knowledge (doesn\'t mean that I am right, of course, just that I feel that I have some support in my opinion) consistently do not \"mix\" depth and 3D-ness in that way.
Jan 12, 2010 at 04:48 PM
Previous versions of carstenw's message #7997712 « what is '3d' ? »
