"3D" effect?

kuuan · Expire: 2014-12-26

this recent photo taken with the Auto Tak f2/55 surprised me with quite some 3D effect even though the lens was stopped down quite a bit:

one with the S-M-C 1.4/50

this one with the Zeiss Ultron 1.8/50 which has very good 3D rendering, hope to have better samples soon

( some may have seen one or the other of these photos before, I already had shown them in other threads, so they had been hosted already and ready to be added here. An interesting theme, I will add more later )

torbod · Joined: 31 Jan 2010 Posts: 379 Location: Sweden

My first experiments with 3D shooting.

CZJ 35 2.4. The white shoe, although not so white any more, is really popping out of my screen.

Be sure to open this image at original size, otherwise the effect is all gone.

torbod · Joined: 31 Jan 2010 Posts: 379 Location: Sweden

Another try with something nicer than a dirty shoe perhaps.

Leitz 60 mm Elmarit-R macro 2.8. I tried to check as much as possible off the list. High micro contrast, colorful subject, lateral light, short DOF, dark background, sharp. What can be improved for even more 3D in the composition? Even more foreground details perhaps? (Open image in correct size)

Excalibur · Expire: 2014-04-21

My Helios 44m and Vivitar were in the mood for 3Dish shots, tried to exploit it more in Photoshop but haven't the skill yet.

http://i304.photobucket.com/albums/nn172/chakrata/helios58mmgold14.jpg
http://i304.photobucket.com/albums/nn172/chakrata/Viv28-105gold10.jpg

spleenone · Joined: 26 Dec 2009 Posts: 1130 Location: Slovakia

mine for examination
Zeiss classic with plasticity look... old Biometar 80/2.8 from P6 ... love those old glasses
f5.6 with some 12mm ring burned on Provia 100F

bluecove · Joined: 11 Apr 2009 Posts: 31 Location: Germany

Wow! Some really nice popout 3D pictures. Nice! Smile

Greetings,
bluecove

mmelvis · Expire: 2015-05-09

Sears 28mm 2.8

ZoneV · Expire: 2011-12-02

For me some of the images here have no 3D but a small DOF.
I think Orios "concept of perception of roundness" is more the thing I would call 3D - and for that a small DOF with total blurred background seems not to work well.

I think I have few 3D images - if there is 3D at all.

Zeiss 85/1.4 AE (C/Y) on EOS 5D, ~f/5.6

Orio · Expire: 2012-12-04

Zone V
I absolutely agree with you. And your photos (especially the first one) sure have the 3D the way I mean it: a combination of light direction, composition, sharpness, and gradual transition from IF to OOF, in a way that is perceptible not as an "on-off switch" but rather through a sequence of differently rendered "planes".

But it seems that the large majority of people does not perceive it the way we do. Most people seem to think that an IF subject over an OOF background makes for the best 3D effect. I personally instead consider that as a "pasted-on" look, or I also call it a "binoculars effect", because that is the type of perception one usually gets when using strong enlargement binoculars.

FernandoB12 · Posted: Wed Jan 12, 2011 11:49 pm Post subject:

3D or "binocular effect"? I guess both...

Vivitar series 1 Macro 105mm f/2.5 at 2.5.

ZoneV · Expire: 2011-12-02

I would think not 3D.
But: I have not the ability to make a safe discrimination between 3D pictures and "flat" pictures. Probably it is too late in the evening to see 3D Smile

martinsmith99 · Expire: 2013-11-18

ZoneV · Expire: 2011-12-02

Sometimes I see a kind of 3D (not real 3D) in an flat image - but in most images in the thread I see none of that. In some images I see a bit 3D, but not reliable.

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

I find this a very good example of perceived 3D. It's a short movie clip shot with the SMC PENTAX 1:2/28 (same as the Zeiss Distagon "Hollywood").

http://vimeo.com/7028401

Orio · Expire: 2012-12-04

Here's the image (a photo I took in Lucca) that I post whenever there is a thread about "3d" Laughing

Distagon 2/28 on 5D

I choose this image because it breaks a couple of myths about 3D effect:

1) that it has to be wide open - as you can see, this photo is not. You have to go very far into the background to see a noticeable blur;

2) that it needs strong directional light - as you can see, here the day was overcast and dull and the light had no direction (and no shadows) what so ever.

What surfaces from the analisys of this photo, is that we have 5 different planes:

A) Foreground (the ad stand)
B) 2nd foreground (the car and street lamp)
C) middle ground (the bike and stop sign)
D) background (the trees and busses)
E) far background (houses in the distance)

The central foreground element (ad stand) creates two perspective "fugues": one at the right, the strongest one due to the many visual elements, that follows an imaginary path that goes through the "wings" provided by the ad stand, street lamp, bike, stop sign, first tree, second tree. These elements are placed alternatively (left-right-left-right-left-right) which creates the feeling of the imaginary path.
The other, weaker, perspective fugue is at the left, and follows the main road. The reason is weaker is because it has less elements of interest and also because the blue bus blocks the view in a crucial point.

As we learned from school, the perspective in a 2D image helps creating an illusion of depth. but what it does is, it mainly provides the proportions that make the scene realistic. To be really 3D, to "pop", as they say, the drawing, that is the way the elements are represented, is crucial.

And here is where the character of the lens comes in.
I always found that lenses with a smooth bokeh provide less pop and "3D" than lenses with a busier bokeh. Not super busy (as it would be distracting), but "lively" enough to create the feeling that we are still looking at a real object (although blurred) and not at a painted blur or "wash".

Another important feature is the microcontrast, that is the ability of the lens to differentiate between the smallest light-dark transitions in an image. Microcontrast is 50% of what we call "sharpness". The other 50% of sharpness is resolvance (the amount of information that is recorded in a given unit of flat photo space). For sharpness, both elements must be present. But for 3D, the resolvance is not that important. Microcontrast is what counts.
A good example of why microcontrast is important for 3D, is the bike.
In this photo, the bike is in the middle ground. The distance from the shooting point and the relatively small size of the bike make it impossible for it to have a lot of detail displayed. But what counts for the 3D effect is not that all wheel rays are rendered. What counts, is that what is rendered of the bike stands out clearly from the image plane following it. And this happens well here because the Hollywood lens has an excellent microcontrast.

The aperture, as we can see, does not have to be wide open. Actually, I find that on the contrary, in most cases wide open makes 3D more difficult. The reason is that wide open tends to give detail only to the object in the foreground, while all the following image planes (we have counted 5 of them in this photo) tend to end up equally blurred - so for instance in this scene the background and far background would look uniformly blurred with no distinction, and the middle ground (bike, stop sign) would lose a lof of the microcontrast benefit, because the higher blur caused by the wide open aperture would smear the smaller contrasts into a larger more confused image.

The key of 3D perception in an image is to provide the image with the right amount of differentiation between the different image planes. This is up to the photographer. The photographer must be able to "read" the scene and understand which of the available apertures will give him the most differentiation between the different image planes.

Another element that is important in 3D perception is the so called "curvature of field" of the lens. This is not very evident in this image. To be evident, we should have a near foreground object that has some important depth (like an automobile seen from the front or the back) and that takes at least half of the frame, from the centre to one edge.
In my photo, the ad stand is too small and not enough deep to illustrate the curvature of field visibly.
Technically speaking, curvature of field in a lens is a defect. A shortcoming. It means that the lens does not represent with an equal amount of focusing two points that are at the same distance from the lens but in different places of the frame.
Most fast lenses have some curvature of field. But some have more than others. Being strictly related to the spherical aberrations, Zeiss lenses tend to have more curvature of field than Japanese lenses, for instance. This because the "philosophy" of lens building at Zeiss privileges a classic optical design, that uses only spherical elements and corrects the aberrations through the use of expensive optical glass and the careful design of the optical elements. Japanese lenses, instead, tend to use a lot more ashpherical elements, which are able to correct the aberrations without the need to resort to expensive optical glass formulas.
As a result of this philosophy, the fast lenses in the Zess catalogue tend to have a significant and visible curvature of field at wide open apertures. Curvature of field attenuates as the iris is stopped down, but in fast lenses there are usually some traces of it also in the range of the first two or so stops after wide open. This is the reason why I often use apertures that are between 1 and 2,5 stops after wide open when I want to give the most 3D effect - of course, the choice must also take into account the scene and how the elements of the scene are placed, like I described above.

I hope that I have described sufficiently what is my own perception of 3D in a flat image and which are the "rules" that in my vision help to create it.
In this image that I posted, there is no objects that strikingly "pops out" of the scene. But if I imagine that my eyes are my feet, and if with them I imaginarily start to walk the sidewalk on the right, and move through it, passing by the ad stand, then the street lamp, then the car, then the bike, then the stop sign, then I cross the road and reach the trees, then farther more and I reach the busses... if I do that path with my eyes, I can clearly perceive, as I go through it, the distance and the "air" between the elements.

That may be subtle, and perhaps not apparent for everyone, but that is when I call a picture to have the "3D".
_

LucisPictor · Expire: 2013-12-03

Look at this post in a German forum.
Amazing!

Orio · Expire: 2012-12-04

Excalibur · Expire: 2014-04-21

I've noticed how colour can make a subject pop:-

BC1 and Praktica CZJ 28mm

Canon FDN 200mm f4

ManualFocus-G · Expire: 2014-11-24

Yes, colour and contrast definately help.

I shot a roll of CF yesterday with my Meyer Optik 135/2.8 and was amazed by the pop! I think the bright sunshine helped Smile

Nice samples BTW!

dude163 · Posted: Mon Apr 18, 2011 12:19 pm Post subject:

1958 elmar 90 F4

LucisPictor · Expire: 2013-12-03

This also shows a nice 3D effect:

Zeiss Distagon 1.4/35 @ EOS 5D

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

Lordcamel · Joined: 10 Jul 2011 Posts: 70

Hello there everyone,

First post for me here, and I think this picture might contribute to this post as I think it shows nice 3D effect.

I particularly agree with Orio post about 3D, I think small aperture will give you less IF and makes you think it's 3D whereas it's only the DOF effect and hier apeture will just help idstinguish what's really in focus and fade smoothly OOF and that (+the composition ) will give you 3D effect.

Also to note there are a lot of Zeiss lens in this post or other post regarding 3D effect it's really impressive, Wide angle or short tele but really lots of Zeiss.

Sorry for my english I'm a french MF fan Smile

my_photography · Expire: 2016-12-25

Nice photo of the cat. What lens did you use?

Welcome to the forum, Lordcamel. Perhaps you can introduce yourself a bit at the Photographer's Cafe forum.

Lordcamel · Joined: 10 Jul 2011 Posts: 70

Thank you, I ll go and introduce myself asap.

The picture was taken using a D700 and 24 2.8 AF lens unfortunately it is not a manual focus lens, and I didn't focus manually on this one (as I was already crouching) ... but I wanted to show some 3D effect so .. Smile