mudlake wrote:
I’m not sure I understand when you say we don’t get background blur unless we are nearsighted. I’m looking at my phone right now typing this and the entire background is blurred because my eyes are focused on my phone. I’m not nearsighted. It’s simply physics. Cameras can exaggerate the out of focus, but whatever our eyes are not focused on is blurred to some extent.
I don't agree. If you are looking at your phone, you aren't paying much attention to the background. If you then shift your view to the background, your eyes focus on it. But okay, I looked at my phone and the background was maybe slightly burry...but only slightly.
RustyBug wrote:
Marksman training 101 includes focusing on the sights and learning to accept the distant target being blurred. The physics involved of optics ... human lens (eye) or camera lens, the physics remain the physics.
The "amount" of blur transitions at a rate that is slower, nearly same or more rapid provides psychological / physiological response that suggest perspective (distances) involvement. I wouldn't universally suggest that the blur tells its a picture, but when the blur is incongruous with the perspective we are accustomed to per our human vision (I'm heavily near sighted), we can have different transition rates for corrected vs. uncorrected. Some aspects of this varying level of correction are incorporated by lens designers ... all to varying degrees. That, and is coupled to our choices in perspective and aperture.
That said, massive amounts of blur doesn't automatically convey "3D-ish" for me. It might still, readily convey close perspective, though....Show more →
Yeah....nope. Accepting a blurry target is a bad idea. Your eyes can quickly shift between the sights on your rifle and your target. Your brain will stitch the two sharp images together. And that's what your brain will record, not the blurry image of the target while eyes are on the rifle sight. In addition, if the lighting is good, your eyes are equivalent to about f/8 and a focal length of 22-24mm. That's a pretty substantial depth of field.
evanhanded wrote:
eyes can quickly shift between the sights on your rifle and your target. Your brain will stitch the two sharp images together. And that's what your brain will record, not the blurry image of the target while eyes are on the rifle sight. In addition, if the lighting is good, your eyes are equivalent to about f/8 and a focal length of 22-24mm. That's a pretty substantial depth of field.
I was thinking more like the iron sights on a firearm with less than 5" barrel. If you're focused on the iron sights, the target will be blurred. I mean, heck just stick your thumb out at arms length, and focus on it. Objects across the room are blurry. Conversely, focus on the object across the room, the thumb becomes blurry. The amount of blur may be variable based on aperture of pupil, but it still remains different in CoC. DOF is predicated upon "acceptable blur" for a given viewing size / distance, not the absence of blur transitioning from the focal plane. The physics of the optics are well known for a very, very long time. It's been 50 years since it was first taught to me ... and I don't know diddly, jack-squat, boo compared to the likes of Karbe / Mandler / etc.
RustyBug wrote:
I was thinking more like the iron sights on a firearm with less than 5" barrel. If you're focused on the iron sights, the target will be blurred. I mean, heck just stick your thumb out at arms length, and focus on it. Objects across the room are blurry. Conversely, focus on the object across the room, the thumb becomes blurry. The amount of blur may be variable based on aperture of pupil, but it still remains different in CoC. DOF is predicated upon "acceptable blur" for a given viewing size / distance, not the absence of blur transitioning from the focal plane. The physics of the optics are well known for a very, very long time. It's been 50 years since it was first taught to me ... and I don't know diddly, jack-squat, boo compared to the likes of Karbe / Mandler / etc. ...Show more →
Point of reference obviously matters. I stick out my thumb arms length and the other end of the room is not very blurry for me. Maybe it is for you. And again, if you have any interest in the room, your eyes will focus on it and remember that look, not the fuzzy look beyond your thumb. Your brain does that automatically. You refocus your eyes constantly and your brain remembers the sharp images not the fuzzy ones.
3D - Everyone has opinions, some of them use formulas, it's a mysterious and almost mystical issue, it requires a new way of seeing, you might say. It's exercise for the imagination, and worth doing even for sceptics. Why reduce your world by a full dimension in the artistic product of your creativity and passion?
Anyway, dumb luck came to my rescue way back, when I found out about and decided to buy into Zeiss CY lenses, in 2007 when they were still plentiful, in good condition and affordable. They have a rich saturated character with graceful bokeh, minimal CA, balanced contrast and organic flowing color. They also came with the significant 'esoteric' quality of 3D. In spades, in fact.
They resemble the Simeras I use now, in key respects. I think it's the lead in the glass, also in the HRI glass in other Chinese lenses. They all seem to perform above their weight class. Lead oxide is valued highly for its ability to impart color fidelity, high refraction index measures (high optical correction and a balance factor to ED glass), contained CA, and sound color in low and high tones (color being primarily a mid-tone phenomenon).
I think a fair number of high end lenses still use it, instead of lanthanum maybe. Lead gives a thick full rendering with uncanny contrast. The industry media could start up an activist group to lobby legislators to rehabilitate lead in optics. Demonizing lead was a bad move we are all paying the price for.
And it's even worse for the enthusiast genre, people with an elevated appreciation of aesthetics in image production, more than the mainstream or pro, who are obsessed with and/or need sharpness alone, it often seems. At the least, I'd like to see it noted in lens literature. It's not a hanging offence. Kids can't eat your lenses' elements. (#1 is 28/2.8, rest are 35-70/3.4)
evanhanded wrote:
Yeah....nope. Accepting a blurry target is a bad idea. Your eyes can quickly shift between the sights on your rifle and your target. Your brain will stitch the two sharp images together. And that's what your brain will record, not the blurry image of the target while eyes are on the rifle sight. In addition, if the lighting is good, your eyes are equivalent to about f/8 and a focal length of 22-24mm. That's a pretty substantial depth of field.
As stated above, RustyBug was referring to shooting handguns. I’ve been shooting handguns for 40 years and the first rule of hitting your target is: focus 100% on the FRONT sight. Target will be blurry. Focusing on the target will ensure you’ll miss 50% of the time or more.
chez wrote:
Says the guy that has opened the thread again, posted to it...thus lifting it to the top of the heap...your answer is NO.
Are you blind or a liar? Or simply incapable of distinguishing between "bringing back to the top" and "reacting to bringing back to the top"?
I'm guessing it's a mix of all of that.
Nifty Fifty wrote:
I would venture to recommend one of, imho, extremely visually gorgeous recent examples of a film shot with Zeiss Supreme lenses - The Eight Mountains: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt14641542/
Wonderful movie, independently of the lenses they used.
mudlake wrote:
As stated above, RustyBug was referring to shooting handguns. I’ve been shooting handguns for 40 years and the first rule of hitting your target is: focus 100% on the FRONT sight. Target will be blurry. Focusing on the target will ensure you’ll miss 50% of the time or more.
Yep, this retired ol' soldier just chuckled when I saw those comments by evenhanded.
Nifty Fifty wrote:
Are you blind or a liar? Or simply incapable of distinguishing between "bringing back to the top" and "reacting to bringing back to the top"?
I'm guessing it's a mix of all of that.
And here you are again posting in a topic which you really don’t have any interest and want the thread to just go away.
RustyBug wrote:
I understand your point, but if it is a "slow" transition, it can still lack "pop" (defined as having an abrupt element / aspect to it), even if we abandon the 3 for a 2.
You didn't look at the link, did you? ;-)
- - -
philip_pj wrote:
3D - Everyone has opinions…
…(#1 is 28/2.8, rest are 35-70/3.4)
Those photos demonstrate the magical “3D Pop” produced by your special lenses?
gdanmitchell wrote: Those photos demonstrate the magical “3D Pop” produced by your special lenses?
You're not seriously expecting an answer to that question, are you? 😃
Incidentally, the guy who loves lenses with flowing colors and esoteric 3D quality, who rejects own 1:1 comparisons and ignores those of others, has already inadvertently and very thoroughly explained his own approach in another thread 😉: philip_pj wrote:
(...)
If you know a little about mind control, repetition and message simplicity are all-important to achieving the goal. People can be convinced of almost anything, but you have to keep clear and straightforward information 'nuggets' for them to grasp - it's akin to the receptors in the human brain.
Nuance and context (and of course alternative messaging) are anathema to the process, because doubt has to be expunged from the take up stage. Propaganda is a fascinating and complex field, if somewhat depressing for the unprepared. One big tell: layering of flowery prose extolling superiority with abstract ill-defined terms, to the point where supporting material, let alone evidence or comparisons, is no longer required. (...)...Show more →
mudlake wrote:
As stated above, RustyBug was referring to shooting handguns. I’ve been shooting handguns for 40 years and the first rule of hitting your target is: focus 100% on the FRONT sight. Target will be blurry. Focusing on the target will ensure you’ll miss 50% of the time or more.
Logical fallacy: appealing to authority. Your claim of shooting for 40 yrs. I don't know if you've actually done that, but I don't care if true. I never said to shoot while focusing on the target. Your reading comprehension skills are also lacking.
evanhanded wrote:
Logical fallacy: appealing to authority. Your claim of shooting for 40 yrs. I don't know if you've actually done that, but I don't care if true. I never said to shoot while focusing on the target. Your reading comprehension skills are also lacking.
Got it. You didn't do one bit of research on your own about how to shoot a handgun. I didn't misread your post when you stated, "Yeah...nope. Accepting a blurry target is a bad idea." Admitting you are ignorant about a subject isn't anything to be ashamed of. The older I get the more I understand that I don't know much about anything. And I read 2-3 books on various topics a week. Peace.
According to https://camera-wiki.org/wiki/Waltax, the Kolex 75mm f/3.5 lens was a classic 4-element Tessar design - a favorite for its sharpness and neutral blur rendition. The compact design with comparatively few air/glass surfaces made it the perfect choice for a folding camera.
Here's a photo made on 4x5 with a 135mm Tessar: stopped-down a bit, but the many-bladed aperture is round at all settings. Hence the smooth blur.
Ah, if analog photos are being posted here, I have one too. Taken with a Rolleiflex 6x6 and Zeiss Planar 2.8 80. Scan from a baryta print on Fomatone MG FB and slightly toned with sulfur. S (31) by Werner Wurst, on Flickr
evanhanded wrote:
Logical fallacy: appealing to authority. Your claim of shooting for 40 yrs. I don't know if you've actually done that, but I don't care if true. I never said to shoot while focusing on the target. Your reading comprehension skills are also lacking.
"Appeal to authority" ... yes, it is a potential use as a logical fallacy.
But, I don't think that was really the point being made. I didn't take it as a claim of authority, rather a matter of historical context, that is a long-standing, well known fact, that the training existing long ago, and this is how millions (my add) have been trained for eons, as it pertains to the way the human eye functions relative the task of focus at a given distance, and that the ensuing distance will be out of focus (and to accept / expect / train for).
Cybercomms can be a tough gig, sometimes.
The salient point is (imo) that the human eye (lens) functions with the similar properties of optical physics as lenses. The CoC / DOF / rate of transition / blur are all pieces of the depth / spatial cues. There is the difference in terms of accommodation that the eye / brain relationship offers vs. our beloved optics. The irony here being that since the accommodation of the eye / brain varies among individuals, it also infers that different people will have different abilities to discern / respond to those physiological cues.
Some folks can discern subtleties in hue better than others, some can't see a color cast for the very reasons of accommodation that they perceive a hue different than it actually is. Similar can be said for those who have the ear of a master tuner vs. those who are "tone deaf" ... in that, their sensory detection abilities are refined at different levels. The visual cues associated to spatial reference likewise vary among individuals. So, for those who can / can't tell the difference in XYZ ... yes, there will always be those who can't. But, I'm not among those who are going to try and tell a master tuner than he / she can't hear the differences in pitch, just because they are too refined for my ear.
