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

Zeiss 3D Pop?
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Oversized Gallery
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Thu Mar 31, 2011 5:32 pm    Post subject: Zeiss 3D Pop? Reply with quote
On another forum there's a discussion going on that many Zeiss lenses have that "3D Pop" that other brand's lenses do not have. It can't be measured, but do these quick wide open snaps (with a Planar 50mm f/1.7 T* on Canon 5D) show it? Or is it just a combination of me, the photographer, shooting wide open, with a lens that vignettes?







PostPosted: Thu Mar 31, 2011 5:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Before replying we should agree on what is the "pop", because, as the many open threads about "3D" are proving, people has very different concepts of that. For most people, "pop" or "3D" is when you have a focused object on a blurred background. For me it isn't, because all lenses can give that. Rolling Eyes
I call that the "binoculars" effect, and for me it's as flat as it can be.


PostPosted: Thu Mar 31, 2011 5:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
you just make the big mistake spot, there is no return from Zeissland Laughing


PostPosted: Thu Mar 31, 2011 5:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote:
Before replying we should agree on what is the "pop", because, as the many open threads about "3D" are proving, people has very different concepts of that. For most people, "pop" or "3D" is when you have a focused object on a blurred background. For me it isn't, because all lenses can give that. Rolling Eyes
I call that the "binoculars" effect, and for me it's as flat as it can be.


Orio, for me the binocular effect is no 3D either. In my example shots all parts of the picture are still discernible.

A few examples come to mind. First the shot you made with the Zeiss ZS 50/1.4 and showed today. Next, your billboard shot (still a benchmark for me). Lastly it's this Vimeo video: http://vimeo.com/7028401


PostPosted: Thu Mar 31, 2011 5:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
poilu wrote:
you just make the big mistake spot, there is no return from Zeissland Laughing


Trust me, I can resist Zeiss. I can resist Zeiss. I can resist Zeiss. I can resist Zeiss... Aaarrrgghhhhh Laughing


PostPosted: Thu Mar 31, 2011 7:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Looks quite good to me Peter, but other lenses have that "effect" too.
It quite depends who uses a lens and when and how, that makes a
(big) difference too IMHO.


PostPosted: Thu Mar 31, 2011 7:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Given the perspective we look at the World; ie. our human eye, we will perceive 3D look in any lens that can give the same or similar "fingerprint" to the one our brain is used to. 3D lenses paint images like our eyes do.

What I consider "3D pop" I rarely or ever see in photos taken with

- wide open shots with "binocular effect"
- complex lens designs, for example 15 elements in 11 groups
- 180mm or longer lenses (on 35mm)
- swirl bokeh effect most commonly associated with Biotar
- focal lengths that distort perspective too much (fisheye, superwide, supertele)
- images with too much depth of field

What I do consider as "3D pop" I often see in images taken with apertures f/2.8 to f/5.6. I don't find "3D pop" something that is only the rendering of certain Zeiss designs but any lens that renders images with a natural look to them. True, Biogon, Planar give very realistic look. I often see 3D pop in medium to normal teles, and even 135mm when stopped down enough.


PostPosted: Thu Mar 31, 2011 8:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
To me, the 3D pop is a well focused subject that really stands out from the background. However, as others have already stated, most lenses can do this. The Zeiss pop is different to me though, and I think it's a combination of colour, contrast and sharpness.

I find my fast lenses don't show this until f2.8. The sonnars do it from wide open though.


PostPosted: Thu Mar 31, 2011 10:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Spotmatic wrote:

Orio, for me the binocular effect is no 3D either.


Indeed Peter, but if you look at the threads on the subject, here and elsewhere, you'll notice that for 90% of the people, that is what they call "3D" or "pop", and the proof is, most of them find it in telephoto lens pictures, whereas in my opinion what I mean as "3D" happens mostly with wide or normal lenses, because they allow for gradual transition of different image planes.


PostPosted: Fri Apr 01, 2011 2:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote:
Spotmatic wrote:

Orio, for me the binocular effect is no 3D either.


Indeed Peter, but if you look at the threads on the subject, here and elsewhere, you'll notice that for 90% of the people, that is what they call "3D" or "pop", and the proof is, most of them find it in telephoto lens pictures, whereas in my opinion what I mean as "3D" happens mostly with wide or normal lenses, because they allow for gradual transition of different image planes.

I use 20mm flektogon. Is this image fill your definiton?
bird
I'm still learning of this 3Dness.


PostPosted: Fri Apr 01, 2011 5:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
ManualFocus-G wrote:
To me, the 3D pop is a well focused subject that really stands out from the background. However, as others have already stated, most lenses can do this. The Zeiss pop is different to me though, and I think it's a combination of colour, contrast and sharpness.

I find my fast lenses don't show this until f2.8. The sonnars do it from wide open though.


Shhhh... don't tell other people, I am still trying to get my hands on a 85/2.8

But I agree, Sonnar lens seem to have a special something, perhaps is the way of the in-and-out focus transition that makes it more 3D.


PostPosted: Fri Apr 01, 2011 5:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Peter, you photos looks "3D" enough for me.

Why resist zeiss if you can afford and like the result? We only live once after all. Oops ... Rolling Eyes


PostPosted: Sun Apr 03, 2011 10:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Just found one which might fit in here, referring to what I had said earlier about it here.



PostPosted: Tue Aug 23, 2011 8:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote:
Before replying we should agree on what is the "pop", because, as the many open threads about "3D" are proving, people has very different concepts of that. For most people, "pop" or "3D" is when you have a focused object on a blurred background. For me it isn't, because all lenses can give that. Rolling Eyes
I call that the "binoculars" effect, and for me it's as flat as it can be.


i think than we can call "pop" also with this term: plasticity....
the focused subject tends to exit from shot/monitor... with less words!


PostPosted: Wed Aug 24, 2011 1:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I have a pretty simple way of defining 3D. If the photo's 3Dness makes me queasy, then it's 3D. If not, it's just nifty DoF control. That flower picture made me dizzier than an amusement park ride! nothing against the photo, just my weird brain perceiving depth in inexplicable ways.


PostPosted: Wed Aug 24, 2011 2:53 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
kds315* wrote:
Just found one which might fit in here, referring to what I had said earlier about it here.




This is my idea of 3d. A shot can have "pop" and not be 3d. Atleast for me 3d meens the shot has to have dimension and this shot does.


PostPosted: Wed Aug 24, 2011 9:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
plasticity.... Rolling Eyes


PostPosted: Wed Aug 24, 2011 9:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Omar wrote:
metallaro1980 wrote:
plasticity.... Rolling Eyes


What are you talking about?


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.

the focused subject tends to exit from shot/monitor... with less words!

i think you mean plasticity not 3d


PostPosted: Wed Aug 24, 2011 1:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Could it be that this effect comes mostly from a combination of composition (distance between different subjects), chosen focal length and chosen aperture rather than a specific lens?

My point being that it's created by the photographer and circumstances, and with the right photographer and circumstances could be created with any lens?

shoot me if i'm wrong because i have no experience what so ever with this effect.


PostPosted: Fri Nov 25, 2011 2:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

maybe this?


PostPosted: Fri Nov 25, 2011 2:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Omar wrote:
I also posted this in the 3D thread in manual focus lenses. I think it shows great dimensionality.


Distagon 35 1.4 @1.4 or 2.0... I can't remember.



I think the dimensionality shown in that image came from the composition (i.e. from the photographer's vision) an not the lens.


PostPosted: Fri Nov 25, 2011 2:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
metallaro1980 wrote:

maybe this?

plasticity....... Rolling Eyes


PostPosted: Fri Nov 25, 2011 3:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
i don't understand you...


PostPosted: Fri Nov 25, 2011 4:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Well, that's what you said to the picture of omar but it was more a joke Wink .......
I think your picture has a nice "plasticity" like you said but not really a 3D effect...but that’s very subjective of course!


PostPosted: Fri Nov 25, 2011 4:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
for me, Plasticity and 3d-effect live together
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Oversized Gallery
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2