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: Sun May 17, 2009 9:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
WOW!! that's a fascinating set!

tf


PostPosted: Sun May 17, 2009 9:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I agree with trifox, it's a great set (Loule).

Personally, I see 3D effect as coming from a combination of light, aperture and lens. All three have to be right. I have certainly seen strong 3D in virtually all formats. I cannot say if it is easier in one format or another, but I would point out that the medium and large formats tend to have very good quality lenses as a norm (unlike 35mm).


patrickh


PostPosted: Sun May 17, 2009 10:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Carlsson, your Loule' images are fantastic!


PostPosted: Mon May 18, 2009 4:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Laurence wrote:
Carlsson, your Loule' images are fantastic!

wow! such color & bokeh! almost only keeper in this series
perfection of focusing at f2.8-4, and the 100mp is not easy to focus, heavy precise but slow barrel
impressive & fantastic

Patrick wrote:
but I would point out that the medium and large formats tend to have very good quality lenses as a norm (unlike 35mm)

exactly! I was always impressed by Hasselblad quality. later I understood that biggest part of this magic come from Zeiss lenses


PostPosted: Mon May 18, 2009 4:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Here's a hasty shot I took today for my "Project 365" that's ongoing on my Flickr account, and I had this thread in mind:





I stopped down enough (f2.8) to get most of the camera inside the DoF (the left edge is slightly outside; darn!). I think it did OK in the 3D department. What do you think?


Oh, BTW, that's my new toy, just got it yesterday :-)


PostPosted: Mon May 18, 2009 4:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Love the pic love the toy


patrickh


PostPosted: Mon May 18, 2009 6:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
A G Photography wrote:
Hmmm... I think the most important factor to achieve a good tridimensionality in a shot is not the aperture, it's the light.
Look how in a lot of portraits it's used a backlight or a kicker to keep the subject separated from the background.
This issue was already well known by the good painters of the past. If you notice the paintings that really comes alive are the ones where the artist managed to work with light to create a "live 3d effect" on a bidimensional surface. Just a name: Caravaggio.


But Alessandro, in my pictures of the flags in the air, the light would be perfect for a 3D effect, but the fact that I used a very stopped down aperture makes it lost, because the two planes (that of the flags and that of the castle wall) have the same quality of detail, with the result that the perceived space is flattened.

This is why I think aperture is the decisive factor. The other factors concur, but they are not enough by themselves.


PostPosted: Mon May 18, 2009 7:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
@ Sandy : great to see some Carnival again. Excellent series! Please post it in a Gallery forum, they deserve it.

@ Rawhead : you asked for an opinion, so I give mine (I hope you will not be angry) the camera does not look 3D to me. You have a strong separation from the background (too blurred I think), which is nice to have in a portrait image, but that is more what I call the "binoculars effect".
If I concentrate on the camera itself (not minding the background), I do not see much volume.
First problem I see, there is perhaps a bit of sharpness issue. Secondly, there seems to be (but I might be wrong) some type of shadow compensation, like HDR, or curves, or similar procedure, because if you look at the values of the highlights (the chrome parts) and of the shadows (the black parts) they are not distant as they would be in reality, they look quite near. This is a major "flattening" cause.
To have dimensionality, objects should have both great sharpness and the widest possible spectrum from highlights to shadows.
If you closed more the aperture, you would have obtained two benefits: more sharpness in the focused object, and less blur in the background.
Like I wrote in a previous message, it seems to me that too blurred backgrounds do not help with "3D" perception, because the subject should not stand like in front of a flat "matte" painting, it should "stay" in a virtual space that has depth.
All this, in my humble opinion of course.
BTW gorgeous camera!
P.S. I was forgetting: it is much harder to get "3D" from a macro or closeup shot. This I know from experience.
Try with a normal distance shot instead.


PostPosted: Mon May 18, 2009 7:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote:
@ Sandy : great to see some Carnival again. Excellent series! Please post it in a Gallery forum, they deserve it.

@ Rawhead : you asked for an opinion, so I give mine (I hope you will not be angry) the camera does not look 3D to me. You have a strong separation from the background (too blurred I think), which is nice to have in a portrait image, but that is more what I call the "binoculars effect".
If I concentrate on the camera itself (not minding the background), I do not see much volume.
First problem I see, there is perhaps a bit of sharpness issue. Secondly, there seems to be (but I might be wrong) some type of shadow compensation, like HDR, or curves, or similar procedure, because if you look at the values of the highlights (the chrome parts) and of the shadows (the black parts) they are not distant as they would be in reality, they look quite near. This is a major "flattening" cause.
To have dimensionality, objects should have both great sharpness and the widest possible spectrum from highlights to shadows.
If you closed more the aperture, you would have obtained two benefits: more sharpness in the focused object, and less blur in the background.
Like I wrote in a previous message, it seems to me that too blurred backgrounds do not help with "3D" perception, because the subject should not stand like in front of a flat "matte" painting, it should "stay" in a virtual space that has depth.
All this, in my humble opinion of course.
BTW gorgeous camera!
P.S. I was forgetting: it is much harder to get "3D" from a macro or closeup shot. This I know from experience.
Try with a normal distance shot instead.


Why should I be angry? Laughing That would be hypocritical to ask for an opinion and then be angry with criticism.

Anyway, I think you are right. This shot was taken about 1 m away with a Zuiko 50/1.2 stopped down to f2.8. Seeing the lack of sharpness (especially visible near the left edge of the camera), I should have stopped down more, maybe f4. One problem was this was handheld (more like "pressed agains the desk with left hand while shooting the shutter with the right"), shot indoors, at night, with a couple of American-style indirect-lighting by compact fluorescent light bulbs, so shutter speed was a limiting factor.

Anyway, enough with excuses. There was actually, however, almost no postprocessing; I think I upped the exposure about 1 stop worth during RAW processing, and applied a small amount of unsharp mask in Photoshop to hide some of the softness.


PostPosted: Mon May 18, 2009 8:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
rawhead wrote:

Why should I be angry? Laughing


Good Smile
To add some candy, I would say that I rarely managed to get any 3D look from a macro or closeup shot.
The reason is simple I think: when focusing so close, it is impossible to avoid background blur without stopping down to a value that would affect negatively a 3D perception.
I think composition would help to obtain 3D in closeup shots: place different objects along the way to the background, not just the main subject. This will help define the space that is between the object and the background.
But it remains a difficult task.


PostPosted: Mon May 18, 2009 9:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
poilu wrote:
and the 100mp is not easy to focus, heavy precise but slow barrel


Thanks friends! Yep, it was work, but the MP was a good decision.
Felt like a little boy between all the "L" Pros with their great gear - nah, actually I did not! Just kidding. Wink

I'll post the set later in the gallery, with some more pictures from the carnaval infante.


PostPosted: Mon May 18, 2009 9:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote:
A G Photography wrote:
Hmmm... I think the most important factor to achieve a good tridimensionality in a shot is not the aperture, it's the light.
Look how in a lot of portraits it's used a backlight or a kicker to keep the subject separated from the background.
This issue was already well known by the good painters of the past. If you notice the paintings that really comes alive are the ones where the artist managed to work with light to create a "live 3d effect" on a bidimensional surface. Just a name: Caravaggio.


But Alessandro, in my pictures of the flags in the air, the light would be perfect for a 3D effect, but the fact that I used a very stopped down aperture makes it lost, because the two planes (that of the flags and that of the castle wall) have the same quality of detail, with the result that the perceived space is flattened.

This is why I think aperture is the decisive factor. The other factors concur, but they are not enough by themselves.


The light wasn't perfect at all, reason why you had to separate the planes using the aperture. It's a photographical trick.

It's light that put in evidence shapes, textures and depth, if it weren't for light to create a tridimensional quality in bidimensional images there would haven't been any great painters.

Anyway you can test it by yourself, get an object on a white plane and shoot it while moving a light around it, use reflectors or black flags to change the contrast and the shadows and look at the results. It will be pretty evident.


PostPosted: Mon May 18, 2009 10:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
A G Photography wrote:

The light wasn't perfect at all


Lateral direction, strong contrast: what was wrong in that light?


PostPosted: Mon May 18, 2009 10:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote:
A G Photography wrote:

The light wasn't perfect at all


Lateral direction, strong contrast: what was wrong in that light?


Cloudy day, light was too much diffused. It flats out shapes.


PostPosted: Mon May 18, 2009 10:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
A G Photography wrote:
Cloudy day, light was too much diffused. It flats out shapes.


Interesting point, but I'm not sure if it's right.
I had some good results creating a 3D look on overcast days.


PostPosted: Mon May 18, 2009 10:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Carlsson wrote:
A G Photography wrote:
Cloudy day, light was too much diffused. It flats out shapes.


Interesting point, but I'm not sure if it's right.
I had some good results creating a 3D look on overcast days.


A good 3d effect is created by light that exalts shapes. So you need a strong directional light, usually from lateral and/or back (frontal light flats out) and not coming from zenith.

On a cloud day you can achieve it, but not under the sky which scatters light everywhere. You need walls, or other "flags", to make the diffuse light directional.

Anyway it's simple, it just takes a window, an object and a white plane. Put the plane near the window, the object on it and move yourself around the object, up and down and you'll see the differences.


PostPosted: Mon May 18, 2009 11:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
not the best sample, but to argument about light
the light is coming from diffused artificial neon light
wide open, 400 iso, 1/60s not very sharp
I still see 3D in this shot and for me only the lens did it
distagon 28:2


PostPosted: Mon May 18, 2009 11:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
A G Photography wrote:
Orio wrote:
A G Photography wrote:

The light wasn't perfect at all


Lateral direction, strong contrast: what was wrong in that light?


Cloudy day, light was too much diffused. It flats out shapes.


Absolutely not what you say. There were clouds on the background, but not on the sun. There was direct sunlight, and if you look at the shadow on the wall, you can see it clearly.


PostPosted: Mon May 18, 2009 11:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
A G Photography wrote:
Carlsson wrote:
A G Photography wrote:
Cloudy day, light was too much diffused. It flats out shapes.


Interesting point, but I'm not sure if it's right.
I had some good results creating a 3D look on overcast days.


A good 3d effect is created by light that exalts shapes. So you need a strong directional light,


The first picture I posted in this thread, was taken on a dull overcast day. Yet, there is 3D look.


PostPosted: Mon May 18, 2009 11:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
poilu wrote:
not the best sample, but to argument about light
the light is coming from diffused artificial neon light
wide open, 400 iso, 1/60s not very sharp
I still see 3D in this shot and for me only the lens did it
distagon 28:2


yes, the lens is very important, but the right aperture value is also very important. If you shoot this image at f/11, no more 3D look.


PostPosted: Mon May 18, 2009 2:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Here is a less conventional 3D pic.
Sometimes the realities of a digital sensor and grainy high ISO can come into play with Perspective and lighting to create some unusual 3D effect.
My feeling is this shot on film........would not look so.
This shot was in very poor light and the subject was too close to get focus with the lens fully open.
It may not seem to look right here as a small jpg so I add a link also.
RD1 CV1.4/40





PostPosted: Mon May 18, 2009 2:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Here I think is more conventional "Zeiss style" 3D.

M8 Hexanon Dual FL 21/35 no UV?IR cut filter




PostPosted: Mon May 18, 2009 3:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
On this one you have to tell me. I think the image is 3D but as to it showing lots of microcontrast maybe well....you tell me Laughing
The perspective coming from the boy in the LH bottom corner gives my the 3D effect.
Also the acidic colors of mid-afternoon really create a lot of Bang!.
Look at the signs of the food stands.
I think the extended range of UV and IR from the M8 sensor plays a role in here somewhere.
Please go to the full size by clicking thumb and then click image again in next window.

M8 Hex Dual FL 21/35 at 21




PostPosted: Mon May 18, 2009 3:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
One more.
This one is a pretty big crop so please go to full size.
Again the extended and acidic colors make extra pop.
M8 Hex Dual 21/35 at 35




PostPosted: Mon May 18, 2009 4:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
sunshine, color pop is not exactly the same as 3D pop
3D is difficult to obtain when very stopped down and sun is coming from zenith
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Oversized Gallery
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next
Page 2 of 8