Well see that's why we need images!!!!
Some people allege that a particular lens is more "3D" than another, and others say: nah, I can do that with a coke bottle. So then, without visual examples, we all just talk past each other... and both sides get frustrated.
Time for both sides to put up or shut up!
Simple one , look at the girl and boys faces. I call this 3D and Glow. look at the faces , they are like balloon and see how smooth and how daylight shines on them. I want to buy that camera for one frame shots. There are zillions of highest quality Leica examples but this is famous old Leitz one .
How a terrible technique cant stop the lens. LCD monitors are bad .
Damn, I wish I'd thought of those!
Originally Posted by keithwms
Gonna have to steal them- they're too funny to pass up!
I do use a digital device in my photographic pursuits when necessary.
When someone rags on me for using film, I use a middle digit, upraised.
APO Moneygon is golden!
Originally Posted by lxdude
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
Oh, my apologies, I always get the Rodenstock Apo Moneygon confused with the Schneider Apo Digital Avatar XXL, which is actually more expensive but sports a much smaller image circle. Anyway, all of these tend to cause people to lose perspective in 3D.
Mustafa, those childrens' faces are indeed like glowing balloons and the light does shine on them very specially. I just wonder if the Leica camera comes with that soundtrack built in.
High quality still images please; low-res videos don't tell us much about lenses nor do any justice to your argument, whatever that is. And cine lenses are a completely different story; we're in the medium format section here. So unless you have one coupled to your medium format camera and have some images to share then I'm afraid that I don't see the relevance.
Last edited by keithwms; 01-10-2012 at 05:12 PM. Click to view previous post history.
lol, epic troll is even more epic in blurry 360p video.
Edit... OK, I'm going to go out on a limb here and talk about what I mean by lighting. For example, I reckon this has a nice 3D look (tell me if you disagree! can't have us arguing from differing axioms), and it's IMHO all because the light is quite directional. I don't agree that "bokeh transitions" have anything to do with it because there are none in the scene: my wife is in focus and nothing else. You don't get to see the transitions because none of them are imaged except in her upper-arm, and that has such smooth tone that you could never tell even if the transitions were in some way "bad".
This plumbing has visible transitions, but I reckon the 3D look (does it have it?) is all down to the combination of leading line and DOF.
Counter-example. Same lens as the last two shots, plenty of bokeh, transitions are visible ... but to me it looks quite flat. While you know intellectually that the lower blossom cluster is a lot further away because it's way OOF, the whole thing looks to me like a flat L-shape plastered into the frame and the focused flowers could just as easily be press-dried flowers as live. The difference is that that was largely back-lit, which changes the way your mind processes structure; you lose much of the shape-from-shading information that is present in my previous examples.
Second counter-example. Again, some DOF effects, transitions are visible and IMHO undistracting, but it looks flat and graphical - that metal bogey could be at any angle to the camera and the only way you can tell its orientation is by looking at the context of the things it's connected to. The reason: solid noonday sun and the loss of all shape-from-shading.
All of the above shot with RZ67 and 110/2.8.
Conclusion: it's the light and composition. If you shoot a non-crap system and choose your lighting well, you will get a "3D look". You can buy an APO Moneygon and shoot it in flat light and, duh, it will look flat.
Edit II: I want to see someone (lookin' at you, Keith) post an image where a lens with somehow "poor" bokeh transitions ruins the 3D effect that you would get from excellent lighting.
Edit III: see my avatar image? That is me focusing the first example I posted above! You can see the RZ, 110/2.8, prism and a Minolta 5600HS(D) hanging off the hotshoe set to bounce off the white tent ceiling. And my shiny bald, er, extra flash diffuser.
Last edited by polyglot; 01-11-2012 at 03:38 AM. Click to view previous post history.
Originally Posted by polyglot
Alright. Well here is a shot on a branch coming at me in good light, taken with one of the not-so-nice bokeh m645 lenses, the 80 macro if I remember correctly. Doesn't look as 3D as it could, to my eye, although there is some kind of interesting twist that strikes me as a bit nauseating:
Here's another with the 80 macro, this one almost no 3D depth, to my eye. Looks like a 2D painting to me:
And here is another so-so result, actually not bad in terms of dimensional feel but not great, this time with a Nikkor 150 SW:
I am looking for an example of bokeh lines, which really kill the 3D feeling, in my opinion. I'll post if I find one.
There is such a thing as a 3d effect, in the same way that there's such a thing as bokeh. It doesn't make a boring image good, and again like bokeh it's not just something you can just buy your way into necessarily. Some lenses have nervous bokeh wide open but great bokeh once you get them closed down a stop or when you put them on a neutral background. Similarly, I'd guess the 3d effect is a big combination of lighting + leading eye composition, with close focus, low depth-of-field with smooth bokeh, a sharp subject, and a rapid but smooth transition from focus to background being used to accomplish that.
It's probable that there's also a big psychological factor, where you want your good lenses to have an attribute you consider desirable. I consider the lens that took these to be a great lens, so I am probably not the right person to say whether it really produces "3d effects" in my images. Also you may typically be flipping through prints or negative scans when you notice this, and the parallax of similar shots can produce the 3d effect. Let's perform a little science here: open A in a tab, record if it looks 3d or not. Go do something else for 5 minutes. Click back to this thread, open B in another tab. Record 3d or not. Now click back and forth between the two tabs. Do either/both A or B look 3d now?
Polyglot, I can't see 3d in #2 or 3. I can maybe see it a tiny bit in #1, but I agree it's likely a result of the leading eye composition and shallow depth of field. I think the inability to spot the transition from focus to background is a big part of it, which can be done through composition by making sure nothing is in that spot but also that the transition isn't too abrupt. The pipe shows that a bit.
Last edited by PaulMD; 01-11-2012 at 07:02 PM. Click to view previous post history.
keith: the Mangolias look totally flat to me, but that's because the light is really really flat. The branch, you're right it's nauseating. I think the foreground bokeh is highly distracting (a bit cats-eye/anisotropic and a lot nisen) but again, the light on the branch is not conducive to resolving shape. You can see colouring variations due to lichen/bark contrasts and dappling effects from the trees above but the light shows you no physical texture so the branch itself even looks planar - forget it going off into the distance, it looks like a flat-faced painted item with no curvature! I think the light and colour variations are so strong as to overwhelm all structural information that would give depth clues.
Paul: by #1 and "leading lines", are you referring to the pipeline or the portrait? The last two (flowers and bogey), listed as counter-examples, my point is that they look flat (because of the light!) even though shot with the same lens as the portrait and pipeline.
You A & B both look really flat to me, mostly because the bridge is brightly underlit. There's practically no contrast between upper and lower surfaces.