Home
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

The flattening of modern lenses or the death of 3D pop
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Sun Oct 01, 2017 10:47 pm    Post subject: The flattening of modern lenses or the death of 3D pop Reply with quote

Found this by coincidence: http://yannickkhong.com/blog/2015/10/4/the-flattening-of-modern-lenses-or-the-death-of-3d-pop

Basically the author states that a lens giving 3D pop should not have more than 9 lens elements

He gives plenty of examples ... especially here: http://yannickkhong.com/blog/2015/11/12/depth-vs-flat-lens-quick-comparison

Statements guys?


PostPosted: Mon Oct 02, 2017 2:10 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

This is one of those comparisons where I realize I lack the visual processing brain connections, probably, to see the differences.

Im sure some people can. Just not me.


PostPosted: Mon Oct 02, 2017 6:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yes, that's all fine and true but that's only one part of the equation. You have to look at the imaging pipeline as a whole and optimize each single element of the chain to take the whole system to the highest level of colour 3D tonal fidelity. Because for example you can't really appreciate the full potential of your lenses until you replace all the connectors and flat cables inside your digital camera with high end gold plated ones with superior digital signal transmission properties. The chain is a strong as its weakest link! Of course I'm assuming you've already treated your sensor with a high quality nano fairy dust coating, that's a given in today's world of hi-fi photography.


PostPosted: Mon Oct 02, 2017 7:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

luisalegria wrote:
This is one of those comparisons where I realize I lack the visual processing brain connections, probably, to see the differences.

Im sure some people can. Just not me.


Welcome to the club Luis, I felt I was missing something, too. Hence why I posted it here Wink


PostPosted: Mon Oct 02, 2017 7:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The author is a known moron.

Quote:
Glass is a capacitor. Simply put, it absorbs light energy thus slows it down and feeds it into the following glass element.

Glass is not a capacitor. It is used as a dielectric (insulator) in capacitors. Capacitance is also not the operating principal of the refraction (absorption and reemission) of photons in the glass.

Quote:
As less luminous information can be recorded by the sensor as the light passes through each glass elements, the lens has to have a bigger front element to compensate for the loss of light going through the lens barrel and its many glass elements.

Simple scattering, absorption and reflection of light!

Quote:
Light adopts a spiral behavior that spins into the lens.

That's just absurd and kind of funny, if he wasn't actually serious. He took Ken Wheeler's garbage and ran with it. Ken Wheeler - the same person who states that lenses with chromatic aberration are truly rendering the nature and the depth of light in an image, according to his theories of electromagnetic mechanics.

If he can write an article exploring his true identity, Yannick Mong or Yannick Nong, then I might be interested.


PostPosted: Mon Oct 02, 2017 3:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

3-D pop?



And this lens (guess) has only 3 elements. QED! Smile


PostPosted: Mon Oct 02, 2017 4:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

This story that modern lenses lack of 3d pop because of the too many glass elements in them is pure bullshit.
I have many modern Nikon lenses and I love them as much as my many vintage lenses. They are just different.

Read this article: https://photographylife.com/the-death-of-beautiful-rendition-and-3d-pop-on-modern-lenses, but till the end!


PostPosted: Mon Oct 02, 2017 6:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

This author is absolutely a moron. I have lenses with 4 elements, made in the 1950s (Ross Xpress 4/100) that can produce a lot of 3D pop and I have lenses made in the 200s with 16 elements (Hitachi Illumina Super ED 1.8-2.2/20-38mm) that can also produce a lot of pop.


PostPosted: Mon Oct 02, 2017 6:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I read an interview with Peter Karbe (Leica lens designer). He did't speak about 3D effect, but I think he thought similar effect in case of apo summicron 50 “the contrast has to fall off very fast in terms of depth of field. That’s it. That is the idea – and the ideal. The fall off has to be very fast!” I can see 3D effect almost all photos. Here the article: http://www.overgaard.dk/leica-50mm-APO-Summicron-M-ASPH-f-20.html


PostPosted: Tue Oct 03, 2017 10:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

miran wrote:
Yes, that's all fine and true but that's only one part of the equation. You have to look at the imaging pipeline as a whole and optimize each single element of the chain to take the whole system to the highest level of colour 3D tonal fidelity. Because for example you can't really appreciate the full potential of your lenses until you replace all the connectors and flat cables inside your digital camera with high end gold plated ones with superior digital signal transmission properties. The chain is a strong as its weakest link! Of course I'm assuming you've already treated your sensor with a high quality nano fairy dust coating, that's a given in today's world of hi-fi photography.


Laugh 1 Like 1


PostPosted: Tue Oct 03, 2017 11:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

(quote) What does this sentence mean? blah-blather-blat-buh-blah-blat-blather-buh-bluh-blather-blat-buh-bluh . . . (and so on, ad nauseum)

Here's the way I see it with regard to "3D pop": Ya gets 3D pop with a fast lens. Ya don't gets 3D pop with a slow lens. Sensors be damned. We're talking about lenses, right? The above two statements of mine are somewhat dependent on focal length. That is, 3D pop is more noticeable with increased focal length, less noticeable with decreased focal length. But still noticeable, regardless.


PostPosted: Tue Oct 03, 2017 12:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

cooltouch wrote:
(quote) What does this sentence mean? blah-blather-blat-buh-blah-blat-blather-buh-bluh-blather-blat-buh-bluh . . . (and so on, ad nauseum)

Here's the way I see it with regard to "3D pop": Ya gets 3D pop with a fast lens. Ya don't gets 3D pop with a slow lens. Sensors be damned. We're talking about lenses, right? The above two statements of mine are somewhat dependent on focal length. That is, 3D pop is more noticeable with increased focal length, less noticeable with decreased focal length. But still noticeable, regardless.


With the most charitable reading possible - you could maybe suggest that improving geometric correction and flattening the area in focus could reduce a perception of "3d", and more glass tends to be thrown into the path to achieve that. But IIRC this guy is adamant that this isn't the correct reading! It has to be his specific thing of each element over a certain number somehow diminishing the excellent 3d popping image you would otherwise be getting as part of some conspiracy to rob you of good photos.

I don't know enough to demolish it utterly but I think everyone sees the same kind of internet crank assembly kit at work - bits of laymans explanations and partly understood technical terms being reassembled into something new, only, without any of the hard work being done to prove it.


PostPosted: Tue Oct 03, 2017 4:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Okay, fine. Here's a modern lens -- a 50mm f/0.95 with 10 elements. For Sony E-mount cameras. Is anyone really gonna suggest that this lens lacks having a 3D look?

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1072733-REG/mitakon_mtk50mf095bk_50mm_for_0_95_lens.html

Here's another -- a 40mm f/0.85 with 10 elements. For Sony E-mount and a couple of others. Same question as above:

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1056301-REG/handevision_hvib4085se_ibelux_40mm_f_0_85_lens.html


PostPosted: Tue Oct 03, 2017 10:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
This author is absolutely a moron.


You are too kind.
I'd say he's an absolute moron.


PostPosted: Wed Oct 04, 2017 12:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

What does this moron have to say about vodka? Wink


PostPosted: Sun Oct 08, 2017 7:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Here is a comparison for tonality between a a modern Canon pancake EF-S 24mm f/2.8 lens (left) and a 24mm Yashica f/2.8 ML lens (right). The Yashica is a 9 element lens while the Canon has 6 elements. What interests me is the watermarks on the Beijing ticket in the center of the frame. The watermarks are clearly visible in the Yashica and nearly absent in the Canon pancake. If I owned the regular Canon 24mm (10 elements) I would like to try that out, too.

Anyway, in actual picture taking I find the Canon produces nice, sharp photos that lack depth and sparkle. Maybe this inability to separate tones is why? The size and weight of the Canon are great for traveling and I haven't had any mechanical issues with it at all.



Both images shot at f/2.8 on a Canon EOS-M6. No pp, straight jpgs from the camera. 50% magnification and cropped.


PostPosted: Sun Oct 08, 2017 8:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Reminds me of the Heady days of Analogue Hi-Fi, with so called journalists and other Experts claiming they could tell the difference between types of Cables used to connect speakers etc!


PostPosted: Sun Oct 08, 2017 8:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Big joke flattens our mental lenses by reexamination, reinforcing here and rejecting there. Mental masturbation.


PostPosted: Sun Oct 08, 2017 10:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

My best 3D Pop lens is the Nikon 85 1.4 AF. I was noticing it before I knew what 3D Pop actually was.
I bought this lens new but I don't know if it classifies as a new or old school lens.


PostPosted: Mon Oct 09, 2017 3:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

All the images I've seen with "3D Pop" show "quick contrast reduction" as someone said above. What I've noticed about a couple of lenses I own is that they don't focus "linearly". They are lenses which are optimized for a particular magnification range (I am a macro photographer) and within a narrow range around that optimum magnification the lenses show a flatter focus vs magnification than outside the range.

Magnification translates to working distance, so that objects a certain working distance from such an optimized lens have this quality of stable focus. Lenses with "close range correction" like the 55/3.5 or 55/2.8 Micro Nikkors have moving elements to help to optimize the lens to improve performance at higher magnification. These moving elements improve performance at close range, but what is their effect on objects farther away? From what I've seen, they show good 3D Pop when used in their optimum range of around 0.5:1 magnification. Depth of field is getting shallow here, and the fall-off seems very quick, perhaps due to the CRC corrections.

Another lens with this quality is the Zeiss 74mm S-Planar. It is not a full-range macro lens, but one specifically optimized at 1:1. So its "CRC" is designed-in to the lens formula. It has the strongest nonlinearity of focus of any lens I own.

Applying this principle to a portrait lens, which is often where I see the most 3D Pop going on, if the lens is optimized for best performance at middle distances, and allowed to fall-off a bit especially toward infinity, wouldn't that create 3D Pop?

I'm also curious about the Nikon "defocus control" lenses. These seem to have a variable control to the focus fall-off. Do they show better 3D Pop? I have no experience with them but the principle seems to be consistent.


PostPosted: Mon Oct 09, 2017 7:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

marcusBMG wrote:
3-D pop?



And this lens (guess) has only 3 elements. QED! Smile

Indeed the flower does stretches outward. I would account this effect to a bit shaken photo which really is helpful sometimes to achieve depth illusion.


PostPosted: Mon Oct 09, 2017 12:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Pentax super tak 55mm f2 WO. Click for large.



Hasselblad CZJ 80mm f2.8 WO.




PostPosted: Mon Oct 09, 2017 4:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Pancolart wrote:
marcusBMG wrote:
3-D pop?



And this lens (guess) has only 3 elements. QED! Smile

Indeed the flower does stretches outward. I would account this effect to a bit shaken photo which really is helpful sometimes to achieve depth illusion.


Yep, indeed, it is the (well chosen) position of sharpness and the deviation from that across the flower which makes it "pop". I use this always in my own flower work...independent of which lens I use, but indeed there are some candidates
which doe this better than others.


PostPosted: Mon Oct 09, 2017 4:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I took that 24mm Yashica lens out on a walk yesterday to see what it can do, particularly in regards to colors and tonality. Here is a straight jpg from the camera (neutral setting, by the way) with no pp.



PostPosted: Mon Oct 09, 2017 4:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ray Parkhurst wrote:
All the images I've seen with "3D Pop" show "quick contrast reduction" as someone said above. What I've noticed about a couple of lenses I own is that they don't focus "linearly". They are lenses which are optimized for a particular magnification range (I am a macro photographer) and within a narrow range around that optimum magnification the lenses show a flatter focus vs magnification than outside the range.

Magnification translates to working distance, so that objects a certain working distance from such an optimized lens have this quality of stable focus. Lenses with "close range correction" like the 55/3.5 or 55/2.8 Micro Nikkors have moving elements to help to optimize the lens to improve performance at higher magnification. These moving elements improve performance at close range, but what is their effect on objects farther away? From what I've seen, they show good 3D Pop when used in their optimum range of around 0.5:1 magnification. Depth of field is getting shallow here, and the fall-off seems very quick, perhaps due to the CRC corrections.

Another lens with this quality is the Zeiss 74mm S-Planar. It is not a full-range macro lens, but one specifically optimized at 1:1. So its "CRC" is designed-in to the lens formula. It has the strongest nonlinearity of focus of any lens I own.

Applying this principle to a portrait lens, which is often where I see the most 3D Pop going on, if the lens is optimized for best performance at middle distances, and allowed to fall-off a bit especially toward infinity, wouldn't that create 3D Pop?

I'm also curious about the Nikon "defocus control" lenses. These seem to have a variable control to the focus fall-off. Do they show better 3D Pop? I have no experience with them but the principle seems to be consistent.


We're in the same game Ray, and I do agree with a lot what you have stated here: there are indeed specific lenses which show a specific "sharpness fall-off" and when and if that point of sharpness is selected well, it does generate then a cartain "3D pop".