The "3D" thread

F16SUNSHINE · Expire: 2011-11-18

OK here he is Laughing

I'll pull some others up later.
I still think you miss my point but maybe I miss yours Wink

If the image has an effect of dimension and space and feels like you look out a window.
I find this to be a 3D effect.
I understand Micro contrast 3D. But other factors can come in to play to give you a lifelike effect. Color, light, shadow, PP, film or sensor failures etc...
Maybe I'm talking about 3D photos and the subject is about 3D lenses Confused

I don't know.

Here's Paco click on image in next window until full size. Very Happy

magnet-2009 · Joined: 22 Apr 2009 Posts: 505 Location: Greece, Athens

I watch your discussion and I'll try to express - simplify in order to check if I've understood something.

1. The 3d comes easy [if you know the way] using zeiss glass but this is not necessary.

2. The aperture choice must be in the range between max- better bokeh [>=5.6 ] and min - maximum dof [ <= 11]

3. The light must hit the subject area making an angle < 90 degrees with the ground / back lit may be good / front lit with dark back area may be good.

4. A FF sensor may be work better.

Right or WRONG? Embarassed

In my opinion the photo with the kid drinking water gives no 3d effect, It is just an opinion. The "air" boy's back to infinity looks narrow.

Hey, I am proud to be a >100 posts member..... Laughing

Spotmatic · Joined: 18 Aug 2008 Posts: 4045 Location: Netherlands

Don't know... maybe this one shows a little 3D too? (Sorry, the SMC Pentax 1:2/28 is a Zeiss as some of you know Very Happy

)

magnet-2009 · Joined: 22 Apr 2009 Posts: 505 Location: Greece, Athens

no-X · Posted: Mon May 18, 2009 10:07 pm Post subject:

Very nice demonstration! Thank to all Smile

I quite like these 2 shots of my last set. Not sure, if it's 3D, or anything else, but to me, both appears to be a bit more realistic, than the others...

I also like this one in full resolution - however it's completely uninteresting shot Smile

Orio · Expire: 2012-12-04

@ no-x
your photos indeed show 3D to my eye.
The "problem" so to say, is that it seems to me that different people have different concept of what 3D in a photo is.
For me is the dimensionality of objects and the "air" between them.
For others, it's how the foreground object stands out from a blurred background.

I think your last picture displays this possible misunderstanding.
The subject stands out above blurred background.
But I do not care about the foreground-background effect, I care about how dimensional the subject is.
And I can feel the volume of the right hand holding the gun... and I can feel the space between the base of the gun and the cheeck.
And the space between the open mouth and the shoulder behind.

@ magnet
I don't think that Zeiss lenses are required for "3D".
I have gotten excellent 3D effect from Leica lenses and from Russian lenses as well (especially the Jupiter-37 and the MIR-24)
I think that a lens with high microcontrast is surely very important, no matter what brand.
One thing I have noticed in my experience, is that often Japanese lenses, which have excellent resolution, tend to have less microcontrast
compared to German and Russian lenses. This is not an absolute truth, but I find it to be true in many cases.
I think it's a philosophical difference, and I don't think that German and Russian lenses are necessarily better because of that -
there is people who prefers "quieter" lenses with more resolvance and less contrast. Indeed this type of lens (I would call it "Japanese lens")
is more flexible in the digital darkroom. You can "model" its images easier.
On the contrary, German and Russian lenses are more "commanding", they tend to "drive" the processing instead of "serving" it.
They impose their character and it's harder to get out of it.
It's really two worlds - to every one his own.

Orio · Expire: 2012-12-04

I would like to post this other example.
Perspective is frontal, and the lighting, although not diffused, is coming from straight above, so there is no lateral shadow that might help define shapes.
And yet... 3D is there.

Thanks to two factors in this case, I think:
- aperture's DOF (as always)
- and microcontrast.

The focus is set in a way that we have slightly out of focus baskets both before and after the focused one.
This is a trick I often use when I want to communicate depth.

But of course in this particular image, the microcontrast plays a key role, almost of the same importance.
Without that "pop" that differentiates one straw thread from the other, the 3D perception would have been weaker

P.S. camera is 5D, lens is Distagon 1.4/35
photo taken in 2007

yalcinaydin · Joined: 20 May 2008 Posts: 825 Location: Izmir, Turkey

I feel that additional light to pop out the subject and sharpness creates the 3D feeling.

Some double flash used Zuiko 3.5/28 samples, probably at f:11:

Sigma 12-24@f:11 (Leica or zeiss would be even better) plus full power 550EX fill light with contra strong sun-light (it adds the 3D to the clouds and improves the overall 3D feelings):

poilu · Expire: 2019-08-29

Orio · Expire: 2012-12-04

Yalçın
I don't know about how others do view, but your photos (especially the first three) look extremely dark on my monitor, of the order to -say- 1,5 stops underexposure.

Orio · Expire: 2012-12-04

magnet-2009 · Joined: 22 Apr 2009 Posts: 505 Location: Greece, Athens

I agree with Orio.

Tele lens destroy the "air" between the 2nd-3d etc.....planes in the photo.

The first teacher's example [the "orange" landscape] is not 3D at all.

A cropping of the 3d - 4th "plane" will give us the impression of just a 2 dimensional color synthesis.

yalcinaydin · Joined: 20 May 2008 Posts: 825 Location: Izmir, Turkey

madamasu · Posted: Tue May 19, 2009 5:45 pm Post subject:

I don't know, if this qualifies as 3D, is just another play with the DOF of a micro-lense, or whatsoever.
I took this picture 3 or 4 years ago at the Frankfurt Zoo with the Micro-Nikkor 105/2.8 (non VR), which unfortunately was stolen later. MF-focussed, if my memory doesn't completely fail me. The camera was my first digital SLR, the Nikon D70.

rawhead · Expire: 2014-04-29

Orio · Expire: 2012-12-04

tobbsman · Joined: 25 Jul 2008 Posts: 2578 Location: Austria

3D ????

Maybe this has a little 3D too ...

SMC K 135/2.5
more of this lens:
http://forum.mflenses.com/smc-k135-2-5-green-power-t17065.html

tobbsman · Joined: 25 Jul 2008 Posts: 2578 Location: Austria

and one more SMC 135/2.3

Cheers
Tobias

Orio · Expire: 2012-12-04

Tobias,
in my opinion, all three pictures have the potential but the iris should have been stopped a bit more in all of them, in order to create more solid space in the perspective. As they are, the focus end abruptly after the main characters, making them stand over a flat background. The characters look 3D, but the space looks 2D.

In a nutshell I would say, if you want to create the illusion of a solid 3D space, you need to give more focus also to the environment not only to the foreground subjects.
As good as the characters are, if they have to look dimensional they have to be inserted in a space that is also dimensional.

I hope I have been able to explain what I mean...

no-X · Posted: Sat May 23, 2009 8:58 pm Post subject:

The first one (squirrel) works for me as is Smile

Btw. Does this random shot count?

Attila · Expire: 2025-11-18

Excellent 3D captures Tobias!

estudleon · Joined: 15 May 2008 Posts: 3754 Location: Argentina

Really 3 D images for me. And excelents too.

Rino.

lahnet · Joined: 10 Apr 2007 Posts: 1164 Location: Denmark

What about using a fisheye, here a 16mm...3D?