RustyBug
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
|
 p.49 #5 · Voigtlander 28mm f/1.5 Nokton Review | |
Ripolini wrote:
The sharpness of the lens has its influence. A less sharp lens should reproduce a point (0 dimensional) with a larger size both on the focus plane and on out-of-focus planes as well, thus giving rise to more blurred oof subjects. Does this influence the 3D rendering? I'm not so sure.
As you correctly stated, the APO has more realism; i.e., a 3D look closer to reality. Unfortunately, people think that lenses with residual aberrations have a larger 3D pop. This might depend on their assumption that a more pictorial rendering translates into 3D pop. Actually, it's the opposite 
+1
I think our terminology is a bit of an issue when folks talk about this.
To your point ... (imo) more "pop", means a more rapid, abrupt rate of transition from the focal plane.
In comparison that those folks who are talking about having a slower, longer or "more natural" transition as being more closely equitable to human vision's natural interpretation, their use of the term "3D" isn't the same as someone who is advocated for the abrupt "3D pop".
And, to that, I'll add that the "rate of transition" may encompass various attributes. To wit:
Focus vs. Blur
Contrast vs. Haze / Flare
Saturation vs. Haze / Flare
Luminance
Hue vs. Hue
Neutral vs. Cast
I mention this because the more "acute" something is, the greater the ability to depart from that acuteness. So, where APO has a more "acute" alignment of color wavelengths, the ability to deconstruct from that precision alignment is (potentially) more substantial than how rapidly we can depart from something that starts out with "less acute" aberrations (SA, etc.) as a means to control the rate of change.
The preference of folks regarding what / how / why they regard a "3D rendering" being defined as an abrupt, rapid rate of change vs. a longer slower natural rendering is highly subjective. Similarly, the amount of bokeh deconstruction of the BG is similarly a matter of taste, as some folks want the BG melted away, while others want it to retain more identity.
It would help the dialogue if we had better defined terms for discussion, moreover than the ubiquitous "3D" or "pop" (pop having a sudden, rapid or abrupt element to it, by definition).
Imo, folks are often more "impressed" by how rapidly a lens can differentiate planes in the scene. Classically, this is illustrated by a single subject, in a single focal plane, and a rapid rate of falloff. But, I think the discussion becomes divided when this gets assigned the moniker of "3D", whereas other scenes that depict the transitional depth of the scene are also given a moniker of "3D", as they reveal the differentiated planes (including when the DOF extends into multiple planes).
In that regard, Phillip's image doesn't show much of an abrupt, rapid rate of transition, "pop" to me, but it shows a more natural rendering of transition. Whether, one ascribes the term "3D" to the former vs. the latter is matter of ambiguous semantics. Some folks like a more intense, "fast and furious" pop, while others prefer the gentler, "long and slow" natural vision ... and yet, different folks call each "3D".
|
