Mirek Elsner wrote:
I don\'t think the problem is that nobody can define them, the problem is that \"3D\" is hard to reproduce and that nobody knows what exactly is causing it. You can point it out in photographs, but you can\'t explain why it is there. It seems that it appears most often in Zeiss pictures (some lenses more than others).
I think that the problem is not so much that \"nobody knows what exactly is causing it.\" It is actually that the term is almost completely meaningless. Whatever it is that people think they are seeing when they use this term, it is likely the result of a whole range of things, most of which have little or nothing to do with the choice of lens. These things probably include at least the following:
- subjects not all in a plane parallel to the sensor, and/or...
- something in the image appears to be relatively sharp compared to other things in the image, and/or...
- some effect of exaggerated depth caused by OOF background, and/or...
- some effect of exaggerated depth caused by focal length compression, and/or...
- some effect of exaggerated depth caused by short focal length (!), and/or...
- separation between background/foreground/subject due to lighting, and/or...
- separation between background/foreground/subject due to color relationships, and/or...
- separation between background/foreground/subject due to compositional choices, and/or...
- too many other things to list here.
To be blunt, chalking this thing (or these things?) referred to as \"3D effect\" to the quality of the lens seems photographically naive to me.
wickerprints wrote:
If you can see it, you can measure and quantify it.
But being able to measure and quantify it does not necessarily mean that it is significant or even perceptible in situations other than the measurement process. You can measure and quantify the difference between a vehicle going 150 mph and one going 150.00001 mph, but that has no meaning in the real world.
And it certainly would not be worth 18 pages of online forum discussion arguing about whether or not the 150.00001 mph vehicle was better than the 150 mph vehicle. ;-)
Mirek Elsner wrote:
I don\'t think the problem is that nobody can define them, the problem is that \"3D\" is hard to reproduce and that nobody knows what exactly is causing it. You can point it out in photographs, but you can\'t explain why it is there. It seems that it appears most often in Zeiss pictures (some lenses more than others).
I think that the problem is not so much that \"nobody knows what exactly is causing it.\" It is actually that the term is almost completely meaningless. Whatever it is that people think they are seeing when they use this term, it is likely the result of a whole range of things, most of which have little or nothing to do with the choice of lens. These things probably include at least the following:
- subjects not all in a plane parallel to the sensor.
- something in the image appears to be relatively sharp compared to other things in the image.
- some effect of exaggerated depth caused by OOF background, and/or...
- some effect of exaggerated depth caused by focal length compression, and/or...
- some effect of exaggerated depth caused by short focal length (!), and/or...
- separation between background/foreground/subject due to lighting, and/or...
- separation between background/foreground/subject due to color relationships, and/or...
- separation between background/foreground/subject due to compositional choices, and/or...
- too many other things to list here.
To be blunt, chalking this thing (or these things?) referred to as \"3D effect\" to the quality of the lens seems photographically naive to me.
wickerprints wrote:
If you can see it, you can measure and quantify it.
But being able to measure and quantify it does not necessarily mean that it is significant or even perceptible in situations other than the measurement process. You can measure and quantify the difference between a vehicle going 150 mph and one going 150.00001 mph, but that has no meaning in the real world.
And it certainly would not be worth 18 pages of online forum discussion arguing about whether or not the 150.00001 mph vehicle was better than the 150 mph vehicle. ;-)
Mirek Elsner wrote:
I don\'t think the problem is that nobody can define them, the problem is that \"3D\" is hard to reproduce and that nobody knows what exactly is causing it. You can point it out in photographs, but you can\'t explain why it is there. It seems that it appears most often in Zeiss pictures (some lenses more than others).
I think that the problem is not so much that \"nobody knows what exactly is causing it.\" It is actually that the term is almost completely meaningless. Whatever it is that people see when they use this term, it is likely the result of a whole range of things, most of which have little or nothing to do with the choice of lens. These things probably include at least the following:
- subjects not all in a plane parallel to the sensor.
- something in the image appears to be relatively sharp compared to other things in the image.
- some effect of exaggerated depth caused by OOF background, and/or...
- some effect of exaggerated depth caused by focal length compression, and/or...
- some effect of exaggerated depth caused by short focal length (!), and/or...
- separation between background/foreground/subject due to lighting, and/or...
- separation between background/foreground/subject due to color relationships, and/or...
- separation between background/foreground/subject due to compositional choices, and/or...
- too many other things to list here.
To be blunt, chalking this thing (or these things?) referred to as \"3D effect\" to the quality of the lens seems photographically naive to me.
wickerprints wrote:
If you can see it, you can measure and quantify it.
But being able to measure and quantify it does not necessarily mean that it is significant or even perceptible in situations other than the measurement process. You can measure and quantify the difference between a vehicle going 150 mph and one going 150.00001 mph, but that has no meaning in the real world.
And it certainly would not be worth 18 pages of online forum discussion arguing about whether or not the 150.00001 mph vehicle was better than the 150 mph vehicle. ;-)
Dan
May 31, 2011 at 11:06 AM
Previous versions of gdanmitchell's message #9634554 « Digital-Picture review ZE 100 MP lens »
