RustyBug wrote:
"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. ...Show more →
So, condensing down your verbose defense of the "Appeal to authority", you are now using the "everyone knows this" argument. Yeah, that's another logical fallacy.
RustyBug wrote:
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.
Obviously, vision varies widely among people. If you have particularly sharp vision and can spot a bird that 99% of people cannot see...that doesn't make what you see any less real. However, you should not act like the bird is obvious and anyone who can't see it is somehow inferior in more than just eyesight. I wrote earlier about a wine connoisseur's ability to detect notes in wine that others would miss. Same deal. Everyone's sense of taste and smell vary. If you can detect odors that the majority cannot, it doesn't make you superior in anything but those senses. So, what's a connoisseur to do? If the taste/odor is pretty obvious, but the people at a wine tasting are just not connecting it, then give them obvious relevant odors as examples. Or hand out binoculars so others can see the bird you've found.
No one here is arguing that every lens produces the same image. There is plenty of lens variation even among copies of the same product. If you can see a difference between lenses, and you believe the difference amounts to more 3 dimensionality in one of the lenses, then show it with pictures. Otherwise, this thread is nothing more than beating a dead horse.
One thing this thread does show in spades is the ability of people to see what they want to see and believe what they want to believe. I will hazard a guess that the ability to see 3D pop variance between lenses is at least as much due to the person's belief as it is in their eye's acuity...and probably much more dependent on the belief.
mudlake wrote:
Once again, these images are incredibly beautiful.
Thanks again!
mudlake wrote:
Your subject is lovely.
Yes, I should have taken more pictures back then. Unfortunately, laziness got the better of me in everyday life. It definitely wasn't her fault. Oh well, that's life. But you can also look at it positively. That makes the few pictures I have all the more precious.
RustyBug wrote:
But one of numerous potential references. The interesting point is that the video presents "switching" as something beginners do, vs. Olympic talent, that holds their sight, blur included. That's not to suggest who is / isn't a beginner ... just that there are those who indeed, do hold their focus on the sights (allowing target blur) ... and they include shooters at the highest level(s) in the world.
The point regarding our binary vision (made elsewhere) requires additional "reprocessing" time for making the switch, parallax variance for the different distances, notwithstanding. Hence, the presented variance in grouping. Sure, the video is a bit crude in presentation, but the principle is duly noted. While not mentioned, it also is correlated to wobble control.
I suppose, however ... if you like ... you can categorize this as more "appeal to authority".
It may be that someone prefers "switching" ... but, it's not generally, regarded as proper training. This thread is the first time I've ever heard of anyone advocating for "switching" as being good technique. But, if you're shooting 100% X's by doing it, good job.
I'd just never advocate, nor train someone that way. Nor, have I ever heard of anyone else advocating / training folks to utilize "switching" as a means for improving their marksmanship.
You are misinterpreting my comments. I'm not advocating for a technique of switching back and forth. My comments actually suggested that switching isn't necessary. You FIRST identify the target. You then find the sight on your weapon and focus on it while pointing it at the target. You don't need to refocus on the target because your brain remembers what it looks like. But again, for me, the target will not be all that blurry. Slightly out of focus, but readily identifiable so that I don't need to refocus on it.
Nifty Fifty wrote:
Yes, I should have taken more pictures back then. Unfortunately, laziness got the better of me in everyday life. It definitely wasn't her fault. Oh well, that's life. But you can also look at it positively. That makes the few pictures I have all the more precious.
Because I'm currently reminiscing so much, here are two 35mm photos. Both are scans of prints on Fomatone MG FB.
If I remember correctly, it was taken with the Nikkor 1.8 50.
evanhanded wrote:
Wrong again. You did misread my post. And you're wrong about how to shoot a gun. The first rule of shooting any weapon is to identify your target. It had better not look blurry.
That’s good to know. Thank you for that instruction. I would have never known that someone who had never fired a gun before could teach me something new after 40 years of shooting and reloading my own ammunition. It’s amazing who you meet on the internet! 🙂
Obviously for full frame with the proper lighting its the Zeiss APO Sonnar 135mm f/2 or the Sigma 135mm f/1.8 art But for 50mm the Leica APO-Summiron-M 50/2 ASPH bur its so clinically sharp and/or my favorite the Zeiss Otus 55 1.4 a beast of a lens, heavy Manual focus only, flat field, low distortion and smooth but not the dreamy bokeh. No glow or character so you will see every pore a models nightmare...(depending on your subject you might want Zeiss Milvus Planar or the Voigtlander 50mm f 1.2 Nokton a modern lens but has plenty of character .
Like the HC 100mm f2.2 and the HC80mm don't sharpen ever and shoot young skin the older the model the less sharp lens you want.
Water drops on leaves, Landscapes, Architecture and Environmental scenes is were todays sharpest lenses shine.
gdanmitchell wrote:
So, have we decided yet whether the lens with the most 3D pop is a pistol or a rifle? ;-)
For me it's at least a 12-gauge shotgun with a slug. It pops that shoulder back in like nothing else. I don't need to see the chiropractor for adjustments anymore.
"I find myself most interested in the optimization of image formation characteristics. I have studied image formation characteristics in the three-dimensional domain of the optical systems that are a physical phenomenon, and reported my findings at Nikon and elsewhere.
My lectures have been extremely well received by my peers. I am of the opinion that current evaluation methods for imaging optics are not sufficient to judge the performance of lenses for the video age sure to come.
As we all know, the subjects of both photos and video are three dimensional. That means that image formation should also be evaluated in three dimensions. The performance of imaging optics must be evaluated based on their three-dimensional characteristics. As for optical design as well, I had thought that a time when we are able to completely control three-dimensional optical characteristics would naturally come. For example, the study of "psychological colors" has become popular.
However, the psychological evaluation that has been cultivated, involving many people,
..is still insufficient for the photo and imaging world..
..Even in the world of optics, there is very little research that goes beyond that of point formation. I think that there is a pressing need for further study in the area of defocus..
I hope that in another 100 years, future study of images that are psychologically pleasing will have borne fruit. We are looking forward to the next 100 years and the future of the imaging world."
RustyBug wrote:
An interesting link that expands on the differences in acuity that people can have and how that equates to resolving capability. I find it interesting that in the development of the math from the arc, the number(s) that are derived correlate to 40 lpmm, and other numbers that are consistent with certain standards, and is somewhat presented in the context of cinema vs. non-cinema. This contrasted with human vision ranges to detect micro-contrast are variable.
With "normal" at 20/20 and some at 20/12 (I'm between 12-15 ... well, 800 actually, but corrected to 20/15 or better, with help from doc and the lab), with a few rare at 20/8 ... it suggests that the ability to differentiate the micro-contrasts between lenses greater than 30 lpmm may not be detectable for all individuals. Thus, not everyone picks up on all the cues, the same way, and if 20/20 is "normal", there are those individuals, also who may be less acute than normal (20/25, etc.).
I've often found it interesting how many lens mfr's only test / present to 30 lpmm data, while others present to 40 lpmm. In the realm of "hmmm, why's that" ... I think the article gives us a clue wrt to average vs. exceptional visual acuity targets, that folks can differentiate. It doesn't state so empirically, but I think it is a reasonable extrapolation to consider. That, and the cinema vs. non-cinema considerations referenced / inferred.
Yes, I agree that people with different vision can discern different levels of detail in the same scenario. I also think that above a certain lp/mm threshold, I stop seeing the differences between the best lenses in real life (even when pixel peeping).
Still, I don't think this has much to do with the subject of this thread . As 3d pop is a general impression our eyes+brain produce when looking at a certain 2d image.
I still need to read the whole link, but as it mentions cinema, I have to say that I think for video, the requirements on resolution are a lot lower, because it's a "motion picture" . When things are moving, you don't have the time to study the individual pixels...
evanhanded wrote:
You are misinterpreting my comments. I'm not advocating for a technique of switching back and forth. My comments actually suggested that switching isn't necessary. You FIRST identify the target. You then find the sight on your weapon and focus on it while pointing it at the target. You don't need to refocus on the target because your brain remembers what it looks like. But again, for me, the target will not be all that blurry. Slightly out of focus, but readily identifiable so that I don't need to refocus on it.
Hmmm ... Cybercomm's can be tough sometimes.
It sounded like (previously) you WERE advocating for SWITCHING. This sounds a lot more in line with the point of focus is supposed to be on your sight ... which is exactly what I / others have been saying. If so, then we are in agreement.
It (now) seems that you were trying (previously) to suggest (as a means of explaining why target oof is acceptable) that because the mind does have the ability to retain the memory of the (previously seen target), the ensuing blur attained from the eye's visual optics of focusing on the sight is not a big deal (learned to expect / accept / train for), and OOF, yet still identifiable. I don't think there is any disagreement to this. Apologies if I misunderstood you to be advocating for switching ... no intent to "misrepresent", but if your comments were misunderstood, it was an honest misunderstanding.
The salient point to my reference is that the associated perspective wrt to the plane of focus has influence on the oof through distance (both in front of / behind).
If that plane of focus is 0.5m vs. 2m vs. 20m, the optical angles are different and the resulting CoC / oof is different, etc. (So, yes, focusing on the sights of a rifle will yield a "less blurry" oof target, than proper sighting with a handgun (where the sight plane of focus is closer).
Nothing new here (long understood optical trigonometry), but it is a factor that lens designers (particularly when designing with aspherical elements) can harness to accelerate / decelerate the rate of change, by "bending" the rays from their nominal (spherical) path. This differences in rate of change, combined with "where" they are peak (i.e. a given distance) can yield different amounts change ... and some folks will seek out the "sweet spot" to understand where this is optimized (for a given lens). Of course, the amount of "bending" can then impart distortion ... and then we can get into multiples and the ensuing "mustache" etc. Imo, Zeiss harnessed this the most, and yet, they also made lenses that had the most cases of mustache ... choose your poison(s) kind of thing.
philip_pj wrote:
"I find myself most interested in the optimization of image formation characteristics. I have studied image formation characteristics in the three-dimensional domain of the optical systems that are a physical phenomenon, and reported my findings at Nikon and elsewhere.
My lectures have been extremely well received by my peers. I am of the opinion that current evaluation methods for imaging optics are not sufficient to judge the performance of lenses for the video age sure to come.
As we all know, the subjects of both photos and video are three dimensional. That means that image formation should also be evaluated in three dimensions. The performance of imaging optics must be evaluated based on their three-dimensional characteristics. As for optical design as well, I had thought that a time when we are able to completely control three-dimensional optical characteristics would naturally come. For example, the study of "psychological colors" has become popular.
However, the psychological evaluation that has been cultivated, involving many people,
..is still insufficient for the photo and imaging world..
..Even in the world of optics, there is very little research that goes beyond that of point formation. I think that there is a pressing need for further study in the area of defocus..
I hope that in another 100 years, future study of images that are psychologically pleasing will have borne fruit. We are looking forward to the next 100 years and the future of the imaging world."
That's a great example and it shows how much lighting and contrast are important in perception of this effect.
Though, some will probably say that's the cut-out look ...
j4nu wrote:
That's a great example and it shows how much lighting and contrast are important in perception of this effect.
Though, some will probably say that's the cut-out look ...
Can I put it this way in English: The image is easy on the eye to look at. it resembles the cut-out look but for me it isn't that at all; here i can see things continously from close to the camera to a more distant background.
