Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!

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

Best 3d effect lenses...suggestion?
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Sun Aug 14, 2011 9:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote






3D ? Pop ?


PostPosted: Sun Aug 14, 2011 12:54 pm    Post subject: pentacon 29mm test Reply with quote

ok so i thought i would do a little test se see i i could get it when i want to get the effect.

ok so i tested out all the Fstops and il show you 3

first to clear things up this is shot on a nikon d7000 with a MC Pentacon auto 29mm f2.8 using an adapter with corrective glass.

so thats a crop factor of 1.5 1.5x29= 43.5 and that corective glass gives i beleve and extra 1.1 so 1.1x43.5= 47.85

so this would be equivalent to close to 48mm on ful frame.

first pic f2.8

so thats the first

second pic at f4.0

there we go
now from f4 to f5.6 there wasn't alot difference (the was a bit and i liked f4 better)
last one F8


i dont know what you guys see but to me it seems f4 pops the most
even the slight difference in DoF affects the pop effect a lot in my opinion.
and it might have something to do with the sharpness too.

sadly i dont have a wider lens except the tokina 11-16 but i think thats to wide but i could try i at 16mm[/img]


PostPosted: Sun Aug 14, 2011 1:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

humm i notice that once uploaded and viuwed on the forum the diffrences are smaller than wen viewed bigger in lightroom. >_<


PostPosted: Sun Aug 14, 2011 1:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thank you rwg!!! You are the first one to mention what I was thinking all along:
It's must appear like a "real" image to our eye.
I believe it is the right combination of subject (+ sharpness), transition zone and background, plus rendition of the background (bokeh) that gives images that appear "natural" to the eye!
To get all these things right needs not only good skill, but sometimes simply luck.

The focal lenght is not very important.
The aperture has to be chosen, so that the background is out of focus, but not too much, so this it totally dependent on focal length and distance, so use whatever Fstop is "required"! Even more important than background is the transition zone! There must be elements binding the subject and the background in this transition zone! The rendition of the zone and background are of course lens dependent, the lens is of extreme importance IMO! But don't forget; All the artistic decision considering perception must be met!

On Canon lenses:
I really enjoy my Canon lenses, but I don't think they do much 3D. (Don't confuse it with "pop", plenty of that possible with large aperture lenses.)
That's the reason I got into (old) MF lenses, there is just a something that modern lenses can't do Wink


PostPosted: Sun Aug 14, 2011 1:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I believe several things are needed:

1. Composition
2. High micro-contrast
3. Accurate focusing of the subject
4. An f stop which produces a sharp subject
5. Some shallowish depth of field somewhere in the image


PostPosted: Sun Aug 14, 2011 1:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

yeah i totaly agree manualfocus-g i think we got the ingredients (or at least a bunch of them)
now we can try to achieve it when we want the effect.

ah yes centaur i think you are right about the focal length i saw some 200mm shots of birds in flight with very ugly buildings in the background but the rending of these out of focus buildings seemed natural and made the birds pop. ofc the birds were sharp enough to look real.


PostPosted: Sun Aug 14, 2011 1:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

cooltouch wrote:
(...)
It's not quite that simple apparently. Think of a 3D movie that you have to wear the glasses to watch and how at times objects seem to reach out at you. That's what they mean. So it does not necessarily mean a hard separation between subject and background/foreground. Rather one where the subject seems to "grow" toward the viewer.
(...)


ManualFocus-G wrote:
That's certainly what I consider "pop" and many people consider "3D". I think others on here would describe 3D as an image where it appears that objects "pop" in what seems like different focal planes. That is REALLY difficult to do, but possible nonetheless Smile


Well in that case I would bet that we are purely talking about a mixture of clever composition and shallow depth of field.

On the other hand, if it's not something you can write into a couple of instructions than it is a bit of a stretch even to consider it a technique because so far I get the idea it is almost a lens-formula-specific effect.


PostPosted: Sun Aug 14, 2011 2:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

It is our eyes and brain that makes the impression of 3D, based on the perspective (i.e. the reduction in size of the background). If the background is so blurred it becomes indistinct, then the impression of 3D is lost.

I think the most important aspect, more than the depth of field, is the ratio of the distances from camera to subject and subject to background. The focal length has to be factored in as well.

Minolta Tele-Rokkor MC 3.5/135


Last edited by peterqd on Sun Aug 14, 2011 3:25 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Sun Aug 14, 2011 2:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

while lens formula probably a big factor in this. it determines how micro-contrast sharpness bokeh ect. ect. is handled.

It cant be just lens formula or els we would have had an answer to the OP question already. because in that case certain formulas would always generate 3d/pop pictures. And it would be easy to point out the different lenses.


PostPosted: Sun Aug 14, 2011 5:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote


Carl Zeiss Planar T* 1.4/50


PostPosted: Sun Aug 14, 2011 5:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ChromaticAberration wrote:


On the other hand, if it's not something you can write into a couple of instructions than it is a bit of a stretch even to consider it a technique because so far I get the idea it is almost a lens-formula-specific effect.


I would say it's both. I think it's really only possible with a limited number of lenses but I do think there's a recipy for the artistic part:

I only came up with this recipy recently, and with my limited experience it seems a little early to share, but it works well for me...

.The subject in the foreground needs to be decently sharp (no glow, etc).
.The trasition zone needs elements blending the subject with background.
.The background needs to be only slighty blurred. (This is the hardest part, which is most up to the photographer)..
.The light is not so important (but diffuse light works better, IMHO)
.The effect only really shows with less-than perfect bokeh (not "cream"). I find totally smooth bokeh does not work as good as "character" bokeh. But this is totally lens dependent. I realized my CZJ 180/2.8 produces visible outlining on OOF highlight, but renders with more depth than smoother Orestor 135.

Two examples with CZJ 180/2.8:





To finally make things complicated: Another experience that I made (but is totally unresearched) is that slight motion blur (to long exposure, eg. 1/40sec on 85mm lens) can make some very good 3D feeling, even with lenses not otherwise suitable for this. But I'll have to investigate this better..


PostPosted: Sun Aug 14, 2011 7:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Centaur wrote:
But I'll have to investigate this better..

That's the best advice I think. Don't rush into buying a lens just for 3D pictures until you understand the principles. Keep experimenting until you know how to create good 3D pictures, what are the best focal lengths, distances, aperture settings, light direction, etc etc. Only when you understand it can you decide what lens is best, and I'm betting we could all produce pretty good 3D pictures with some of the lenses we already have.


PostPosted: Fri Aug 19, 2011 11:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

How about this for 3d?

Distagon 35 1.4 Wide open. This is not only separation of the main subject...I can feel the space between everything in this picture.



PostPosted: Sat Aug 20, 2011 2:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote


nikkor 55/2.8

you don't have to try hard with that one


impressive since there is so little contrast--- pen 42/1.2 @ f/8 +


1956 canon LTM 85/1.5

one last:

leica 50/2 M v4

when shaded subjects pop.....

the newer CV RF lenses really pop---the 50/1.1 is a real 3D machine stopped down some.


PostPosted: Sat Aug 20, 2011 7:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Here is my thought:




Leitz Summicron-R 2/50 wide open. Shot was captured with K10D stitched from 2 images.

Timo


PostPosted: Sat Aug 20, 2011 8:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Omar wrote:
How about this for 3d?

Distagon 35 1.4 Wide open. This is not only separation of the main subject...I can feel the space between everything in this picture.



Now that is what I call 3D! Damn! Very, very nice.


PostPosted: Mon Aug 22, 2011 12:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote



3D?


PostPosted: Tue Aug 23, 2011 7:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Plasticity is the ability of a lens to convey the images exposed on the film the precise sense of photographed volume (a ball looks like a sphere or a circle?).

Difficult to explain in words (but only a few minutes and two lenses, one plastic and the other not-plastic, to make it clear to anyone what I'm talking about)

So plasticity is an objective parameter ... impossible to measure.

i think you mean plasticity not 3d


PostPosted: Wed Aug 24, 2011 3:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Great thread and some wonderful shots !

One of my first shots with my new C.Zeiss 85/1.4. Sat at a cafe waiting for a client. Shot at f2.8.




PostPosted: Thu Aug 25, 2011 9:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote


Orestor 2.8/100
the bokeh!!!!

O.O


Last edited by metallaro1980 on Fri Sep 02, 2011 2:07 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Thu Aug 25, 2011 9:40 pm    Post subject: Re: pentacon 29mm test Reply with quote

rwg wrote:


...

second pic at f4.0


....

i dont know what you guys see but to me it seems f4 pops the most
even the slight difference in DoF affects the pop effect a lot in my opinion.
and it might have something to do with the sharpness too.

[/img]


Yes, for my eyes, the f/4 shot looks more popped-out than at wide-open. I think the blur quality of out of focus area can make a different. Maybe a more natural blur level that mimic our sight could add a more pop-out look (the blur not to creamy or too soft). Maybe. Smile


PostPosted: Fri Aug 26, 2011 1:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

OM 28/2 A nice landscape lens.



PostPosted: Mon Aug 29, 2011 12:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote



Orestor 2.8/100


Last edited by metallaro1980 on Fri Sep 02, 2011 2:07 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Mon Aug 29, 2011 10:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Very interesting topic!
Well, it isn't a MF lens, but i really love the 3D rendering of my Pentax 31mm Limited. The best lens I've ever used:



Closer:



Even closer:



Samyang 85mm f1.4 is very good for subject isolaction, but not so good for 3d, because of the longer focal length and the telephoto compression -I think- compared with the 31mm, but a I can get what I consider a "3d effect" image from time to time, especially with far subjects:



PostPosted: Mon Aug 29, 2011 11:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Awesome!

Omar wrote:
How about this for 3d?

Distagon 35 1.4 Wide open. This is not only separation of the main subject...I can feel the space between everything in this picture.