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

The "3D" thread
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Oversized Gallery
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Mon Oct 15, 2012 9:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
The picture from peter has indeed an amazing 3D effect Shocked .....
Here is one from me which on my eyes has also some 3D effect, but may be only on my eyes Laughing


PostPosted: Mon Oct 15, 2012 10:10 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote:
It's a combination of factors (composition, object shape, light, aperture setting, focal lenght, even object materials sometimes, and lens quality too).
Some of these factors you can select, some you can set, some just happen. They all help (more or less), none of them is indispensable, but some are more important than others.
To the list I would add also the ability of the photographer to manage all these factors. One may have them available, but not be able to arrange them properly to take advantage of them.
Lens quality is not all, and it's not enough, but it helps. Quality here does not mean (necessarily) expensive, it's more related to the lens character.
Canon lenses usually suck at 3D. Yet some of them are very expensive.
Other lenses like the 3.5/50 Jena Tessar (aluminium, M42 or Exakta) give fantastic 3D yet cost only a few dozen Euros. Smile


Well I thought again about the Nikon 105 lens and put a bid in...erm lets hope I get better chance of pop compared to my CZJ 135mm Sonnar Wink of course it's not the only reason as I find a 100/105mm lens more useful than a 135mm lens.


PostPosted: Mon Oct 15, 2012 12:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Excalibur wrote:

Well I thought again about the Nikon 105 lens and put a bid in...erm lets hope I get better chance of pop compared to my CZJ 135mm Sonnar Wink of course it's not the only reason as I find a 100/105mm lens more useful than a 135mm lens.


For the way I mean the "3D effect", a wide angle lens is much better than a tele lens (it is difficult to obtain what I mean with a tele lens).
But the majority of people here mean "3D effect" in a different way (the way that I call "binoculars effect"), for that effect tele lenses are best and the longer the tele, the better.


PostPosted: Mon Oct 15, 2012 12:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote:
Excalibur wrote:

Well I thought again about the Nikon 105 lens and put a bid in...erm lets hope I get better chance of pop compared to my CZJ 135mm Sonnar Wink of course it's not the only reason as I find a 100/105mm lens more useful than a 135mm lens.


For the way I mean the "3D effect", a wide angle lens is much better than a tele lens (it is difficult to obtain what I mean with a tele lens).
But the majority of people here mean "3D effect" in a different way (the way that I call "binoculars effect"), for that effect tele lenses are best and the longer the tele, the better.


Well I know your view and it's "3d in depth" and you have produced some excellent examples....for me I prefer the word "pop" which means "any effect that make the subject (or subjects) leapt out to you from the background.
The only reasonable example that might be accepted as 3d in depth was the shot you have already seen taken by a cheap Vivitar 135mm f2.8:-



PostPosted: Mon Oct 15, 2012 1:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
It's a good result for a 135mm, mostly obtained thanks to the statuary effect caused by the contrast, but it's almost impossible to obtain what I mean with a 135mm tele,
because it's a type of lens that flattens the different levels (and the frontal perspective does not help).
If you take a look at the first image of the whole thread, it was obtained with a 28mm lens. It's a type of lens whose depth of field is quite deep, but used at certain apertures,
you are able to obtain from a 28mm lens a gradation of focus that is longer than with a tele lens; and the longer the tele, the more it creates an abrupt "switch"
from the focused plane to the rest of the image, which appears uniformly blurred.
Instead, the gradation of the blur in a 28mm lens is such that you can perceive (if you are in an opportune situation) at least 2-3 different focus planes (levels of focus).
The image that I posted also has the additional advantage that I used a lens with a strong curvature of field, which keeps in focus areas at the edge of the frame that belong
to the same distance plane of other objects that in the centre of the frame look more blurred. This way the focus of the image sort of "envelops" the main subject, adding to the effect.


PostPosted: Mon Oct 15, 2012 3:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote:
It's a good result for a 135mm, mostly obtained thanks to the statuary effect caused by the contrast, but it's almost impossible to obtain what I mean with a 135mm tele,
because it's a type of lens that flattens the different levels (and the frontal perspective does not help).
If you take a look at the first image of the whole thread, it was obtained with a 28mm lens. It's a type of lens whose depth of field is quite deep, but used at certain apertures,
you are able to obtain from a 28mm lens a gradation of focus that is longer than with a tele lens; and the longer the tele, the more it creates an abrupt "switch"
from the focused plane to the rest of the image, which appears uniformly blurred.
Instead, the gradation of the blur in a 28mm lens is such that you can perceive (if you are in an opportune situation) at least 2-3 different focus planes (levels of focus).
The image that I posted also has the additional advantage that I used a lens with a strong curvature of field, which keeps in focus areas at the edge of the frame that belong
to the same distance plane of other objects that in the centre of the frame look more blurred. This way the focus of the image sort of "envelops" the main subject, adding to the effect.


So can we say that in some lenses (I suppose Zeiss would be a good example) it was an unexpected attribute that their lenses gave more chance of 3d/pop but actually it was never designed for this effect and probably surprised the lens designers many years ago when testing their lenses? erm IIRC it's a selling point in their adverts now.


PostPosted: Mon Oct 15, 2012 4:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Excalibur wrote:

So can we say that in some lenses (I suppose Zeiss would be a good example) it was an unexpected attribute that their lenses gave more chance of 3d/pop but actually it was never designed for this effect and probably surprised the lens designers many years ago when testing their lenses? erm IIRC it's a selling point in their adverts now.


What I know for sure (because I read it somewhere), is that in the recent refresh of the "hollywood" 2/28 lens, Zeiss did not correct the lens' obvious curvature of field on purpose.
The reason is that this characteristic, which in strictly technical view is a defect, is a major contributor to the specific look of the images generated by that lens - including the 3D.
The customers looked for that when shopping for the new 2/28 Distagon, they wanted to find the same image fingerprint of the classic Glatzel' lens.

Looking at the image characteristics of the Contax line, and of the Z line as well, I guess we can safely say that the characteristics that better serve the "3D look", such as the micro-contrast
and the type of bokeh, are intentionally implemented in the lenses, and not simply there by chance.

In general, you can see that Zeiss is very conservative about their lens designs. Aspherical elements, which other makers use abundantly,
are used by Zeiss very scarcely, and only in specific lenses. A classic portrait lens like the Planar 1.4/85 was ported over to the Z line with all it's chromatic aberration and focus shift problems intact,
because correcting them would have meant to alter the character of the classic lens that the Zeiss customers still want.
Photographers that don't want those problems and that look, simply would buy for contemporary autofocus lenses.


PostPosted: Mon Oct 15, 2012 5:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote:
Excalibur wrote:

So can we say that in some lenses (I suppose Zeiss would be a good example) it was an unexpected attribute that their lenses gave more chance of 3d/pop but actually it was never designed for this effect and probably surprised the lens designers many years ago when testing their lenses? erm IIRC it's a selling point in their adverts now.


What I know for sure (because I read it somewhere), is that in the recent refresh of the "hollywood" 2/28 lens, Zeiss did not correct the lens' obvious curvature of field on purpose.
The reason is that this characteristic, which in strictly technical view is a defect, is a major contributor to the specific look of the images generated by that lens - including the 3D.
The customers looked for that when shopping for the new 2/28 Distagon, they wanted to find the same image fingerprint of the classic Glatzel' lens.

Looking at the image characteristics of the Contax line, and of the Z line as well, I guess we can safely say that the characteristics that better serve the "3D look", such as the micro-contrast
and the type of bokeh, are intentionally implemented in the lenses, and not simply there by chance.

In general, you can see that Zeiss is very conservative about their lens designs. Aspherical elements, which other makers use abundantly,
are used by Zeiss very scarcely, and only in specific lenses. A classic portrait lens like the Planar 1.4/85 was ported over to the Z line with all it's chromatic aberration and focus shift problems intact,
because correcting them would have meant to alter the character of the classic lens that the Zeiss customers still want.
Photographers that don't want those problems and that look, simply would buy for contemporary autofocus lenses.


Thanks Orio I could wear you out asking questions.. Wink


PostPosted: Mon Oct 15, 2012 9:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Excalibur wrote:

Thanks Orio I could wear you out asking questions.. Wink


You're welcome, it's a pleasure to talk to you. Smile
You know something? I have gotten recently some old issues of "Il Progresso Fotografico", an Italian magazine.
In an issue of 1932, I found something incredible: a whole article dedicated to why and how some lenses create "plasticità"
a word which I don't think has a direct equivalent in English, it basically means three-dimensionality.
I couldn't believe my eyes! An article about 3D effect by lenses written in 1932!! Shocked
I will scan it and publish it here.
By the way: in the article, the reviewer starts with the observation that bigger format cameras with big lenses produce more "plasticità" in the images than small format cameras and lenses.
He however does not attribute this to the size of the format, but explains it with a different theory: he says that bigger diameter lenses create better "plasticità" because the same point of an object
is seen from more distant points of view than in a lens with small diameter; those lateral rays would "wrap" the object in a way that creates the effect of dimensionality.
I don't think this strange theory has a real scientific basis Rolling Eyes In fact I think that what the reviewer explained with his eccentric
theory is really nothing else than the curvature of field effect that I mentioned before about the hollywood distagon.

The existence of this article, confirms two things:

- this perception of "plasticità", or 3D, is not a recent awareness, but was an issue very present in the mind of the photographers
even as far as in the early 30s;

- if there was a common perception about this, also the makers must have taken it into consideration; I think this somehow crushes
the hypothesis that it was a casual finding.


PostPosted: Mon Oct 15, 2012 9:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote:
Excalibur wrote:

Thanks Orio I could wear you out asking questions.. Wink


You're welcome, it's a pleasure to talk to you. Smile
You know something? I have gotten recently some old issues of "Il Progresso Fotografico", an Italian magazine.
In an issue of 1932, I found something incredible: a whole article dedicated to why and how some lenses create "plasticità"
a word which I don't think has a direct equivalent in English, it basically means three-dimensionality.
I couldn't believe my eyes! An article about 3D effect by lenses written in 1932!! Shocked
I will scan it and publish it here.
By the way: in the article, the reviewer starts with the observation that bigger format cameras with big lenses produce more "plasticità" in the images than small format cameras and lenses.
He however does not attribute this to the size of the format, but explains it with a different theory: he says that bigger diameter lenses create better "plasticità" because the same point of an object
is seen from more distant points of view than in a lens with small diameter; those lateral rays would "wrap" the object in a way that creates the effect of dimensionality.
I don't think this strange theory has a real scientific basis Rolling Eyes In fact I think that what the reviewer explained with his eccentric
theory is really nothing else than the curvature of field effect that I mentioned before about the hollywood distagon.

The existence of this article, confirms two things:

- this perception of "plasticità", or 3D, is not a recent awareness, but was an issue very present in the mind of the photographers
even as far as in the early 30s;

- if there was a common perception about this, also the makers must have taken it into consideration; I think this somehow crushes
the hypothesis that it was a casual finding.


Really interesting topic! Cool


PostPosted: Mon Oct 15, 2012 11:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote:
Excalibur wrote:

Thanks Orio I could wear you out asking questions.. Wink


You're welcome, it's a pleasure to talk to you. Smile
You know something? I have gotten recently some old issues of "Il Progresso Fotografico", an Italian magazine.
In an issue of 1932, I found something incredible: a whole article dedicated to why and how some lenses create "plasticità"
a word which I don't think has a direct equivalent in English, it basically means three-dimensionality.
I couldn't believe my eyes! An article about 3D effect by lenses written in 1932!! Shocked
I will scan it and publish it here.
By the way: in the article, the reviewer starts with the observation that bigger format cameras with big lenses produce more "plasticità" in the images than small format cameras and lenses.
He however does not attribute this to the size of the format, but explains it with a different theory: he says that bigger diameter lenses create better "plasticità" because the same point of an object
is seen from more distant points of view than in a lens with small diameter; those lateral rays would "wrap" the object in a way that creates the effect of dimensionality.
I don't think this strange theory has a real scientific basis Rolling Eyes In fact I think that what the reviewer explained with his eccentric
theory is really nothing else than the curvature of field effect that I mentioned before about the hollywood distagon.

The existence of this article, confirms two things:

- this perception of "plasticità", or 3D, is not a recent awareness, but was an issue very present in the mind of the photographers
even as far as in the early 30s;

- if there was a common perception about this, also the makers must have taken it into consideration; I think this somehow crushes
the hypothesis that it was a casual finding.


Before 35mm was invented photographers might have known about 3d/pop with their large format cameras and it could go back to the 19th century Question


PostPosted: Tue Oct 16, 2012 4:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Excalibur wrote:

Before 35mm was invented photographers might have known about 3d/pop with their large format cameras and it could go back to the 19th century Question


Maybe yes Smile Although back in the XIX century the main photographic concern appeared to be pictorialism (which somehow goes to the opposite direction).
But I suspect that the improvement of the photographic materials (both glasses and emulsions) made of this more of a XX century issue.
furniture). Materials in XIX century were probably not yet advanced in contrast and resolution abilities.


PostPosted: Tue Oct 16, 2012 7:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote:
Excalibur wrote:

Before 35mm was invented photographers might have known about 3d/pop with their large format cameras and it could go back to the 19th century Question


Maybe yes Smile Although back in the XIX century the main photographic concern appeared to be pictorialism (which somehow goes to the opposite direction).
But I suspect that the improvement of the photographic materials (both glasses and emulsions) made of this more of a XX century issue.
furniture). Materials in XIX century were probably not yet advanced in contrast and resolution abilities.


Good point.


PostPosted: Tue Oct 16, 2012 8:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Well i think the Samyang 14mm F2.8 can do 3d very well this was taken at F2.8



PostPosted: Sat Oct 20, 2012 4:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote:
Excalibur wrote:

Thanks Orio I could wear you out asking questions.. Wink


You're welcome, it's a pleasure to talk to you. Smile
You know something? I have gotten recently some old issues of "Il Progresso Fotografico", an Italian magazine.
In an issue of 1932, I found something incredible: a whole article dedicated to why and how some lenses create "plasticità"
a word which I don't think has a direct equivalent in English, it basically means three-dimensionality.
I couldn't believe my eyes! An article about 3D effect by lenses written in 1932!! Shocked
I will scan it and publish it here.
By the way: in the article, the reviewer starts with the observation that bigger format cameras with big lenses produce more "plasticità" in the images than small format cameras and lenses.
He however does not attribute this to the size of the format, but explains it with a different theory: he says that bigger diameter lenses create better "plasticità" because the same point of an object
is seen from more distant points of view than in a lens with small diameter; those lateral rays would "wrap" the object in a way that creates the effect of dimensionality.
I don't think this strange theory has a real scientific basis Rolling Eyes In fact I think that what the reviewer explained with his eccentric
theory is really nothing else than the curvature of field effect that I mentioned before about the hollywood distagon.

The existence of this article, confirms two things:

- this perception of "plasticità", or 3D, is not a recent awareness, but was an issue very present in the mind of the photographers
even as far as in the early 30s;

- if there was a common perception about this, also the makers must have taken it into consideration; I think this somehow crushes
the hypothesis that it was a casual finding.


These large format shots had some pop in 1902
http://www.shorpy.com/


PostPosted: Sat Oct 20, 2012 4:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Large format images have had quite amazing pop since the 19th century. Don't know why but it's common to see really old 19th century plates that have people really popping out of the frame. I've even seen Crimean war plates that had strong pop.


PostPosted: Sat Oct 20, 2012 5:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I have uploaded this shot already in another thread, but what do you think about this one?



PostPosted: Sat Oct 20, 2012 6:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Excalibur wrote:

These large format shots had some pop in 1902
http://www.shorpy.com/


Wow... fantastic photos! Not sure if the "pop" after all, but they are damn good and very detailed, lifelike, totally love them!


PostPosted: Sat Oct 20, 2012 6:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
LucisPictor wrote:
I have uploaded this shot already in another thread, but what do you think about this one?


I think that the potential is there, but probably the bikes are too close to each other for the effect to become noticeable.
I't difficult to find an aperture that would differentiate between bikes that are so near to each other, and the frontal point of view does not help either.
If you could move the second and third bike somewhere half way between the first bike and the scooter, I think that it would have been more evident.


PostPosted: Sat Oct 20, 2012 7:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
Large format images have had quite amazing pop since the 19th century. Don't know why but it's common to see really old 19th century plates that have people really popping out of the frame. I've even seen Crimean war plates that had strong pop.


...well I am old enough that I could have asked old photographers if they knew about 3d/pop at least back to 1910, but didn't think of it. Sad ....


PostPosted: Sat Oct 20, 2012 7:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
pich900 wrote:
The picture from peter has indeed an amazing 3D effect Shocked .....
Here is one from me which on my eyes has also some 3D effect, but may be only on my eyes Laughing

My eyes too Shocked the guy in the middle really pops IMO.


PostPosted: Sat Oct 20, 2012 9:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote:
LucisPictor wrote:
I have uploaded this shot already in another thread, but what do you think about this one?


I think that the potential is there, but probably the bikes are too close to each other for the effect to become noticeable.
I't difficult to find an aperture that would differentiate between bikes that are so near to each other, and the frontal point of view does not help either.
If you could move the second and third bike somewhere half way between the first bike and the scooter, I think that it would have been more evident.


Thanks, Orio.
I mainly refer to the rear wheel of the bike in the front. I think it really "pops".


PostPosted: Fri Jan 25, 2013 12:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
This picture was uploaded from my Facebook account as I don't have access to my picture library just now. Will try to remember to upload in better quality later on.

Please do open up at full resolution, the effect is more noticeable then.



PostPosted: Fri Jan 25, 2013 2:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I've been reading about 3D effect. It is greater the larger the format, you can find many examples of 19th century photos that have massive pop. The reason is microcontrast.

Another factor is the size of the input pupil of the lens, a lens with a pupil of 10cm or greater will have a lot of pop because the distance between the human eyes is less than 10cm and the lens can 'see' round either side of an object to an extent human vision can't.


PostPosted: Fri Jan 25, 2013 2:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Input pupil?
Do you mean the front element?
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Oversized Gallery
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next
Page 7 of 8