Jonas B wrote:
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.
Hmm, I don't think I agree. Looking around subjects faces, there's basically nothing there, except the distant blurred background. So, for me it's exactly what people call cut-out, but I like that look most of the time.
Jonas B wrote:
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.
j4nu wrote:
Hmm, I don't think I agree. Looking around subjects faces, there's basically nothing there, except the distant blurred background. So, for me it's exactly what people call cut-out, but I like that look most of the time.
Then we are seeing this differently. Interesting.
I see the ground, the asphalt as a clear path towards the distant background. The ground keeps it all together and for my brain the people and everything else in the city environment falls nicely at place. I don't dare to say 3D but there is a nice depth in the image (to my eyes/brain).
gdanmitchell wrote:
So, have we decided yet whether the lens with the most 3D pop is a pistol or a rifle? ;-)
Actually, it's a shotgun. But that begs the question...what size shot gives the most 3D pop? Not to worry, as we are so lucky to have someone who's spent 40 years reloading...40...if you didn't get it, 40 years. He knows everything that it's even possible to know about it. Just ask him.
mudlake wrote:
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! 🙂
40 years and not a dram of humility. I wish I could say I was surprised.
j4nu wrote:
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......Show more →
This thread has failed in multiple ways, but most importantly to the supposed subject. Which lenses have the most 3D pop?...unanswered. Has even one lens been identified to consistently out 3D pop another? Nope. Has a rigorous definition of 3D pop even been proposed, much less agreed to? What we are left with is subjective individual opinions. That picture seems to pop for me...so it must be at least partly due to the lens. And maybe I can even make out a unicorn in the bokeh.
Many things can affect perceived depth in an image. Rapid focus fall off will contribute to a "cut out" effect or perception. But sometimes it can be composition.
Planetwide wrote:
Back to images, Leica SL3 & SL 50mm Lux @f1.4@
Things that contribute to the effect of this photograph:
Lighter in the center of the frame and some vignetting (or at least darker subjects) in much of the background and near corners and edges.
Rim lighting from back left on the subjects makes them stand out a bit.
It appears that there is a bit of fill lighting on the subjects, too — see the woman’s face. Perhaps reflected from a nearby building?
Positioning the subjects on white triangle draws attention to them, too. (Note that this triangle “points” the direction that the predominant light travels.)
More saturated colors on the primary subjects and less saturation in the background.
Slight OOF in the background adds “subjective sharpness” to the front group.
The angled shadows add a sense of perspective/depth.
A subtle (maybe?) band of light from upper left toward lower right intercepts the primary subjects.
- - -
Aside from its focal length, the specific lens used here has virtually nothing to do with the effect. It is all that other stuff.
If it were my photograph, I might consider cropping a bit at left and right to eliminate the distracting people right at the frame edges, particularly the one in the red jacket.
- - -
Excellent point in a thread a bit up from this one: After something like 1034pages (over 2000 posts) it is clear that a) there is no answer to the “best 3D pop” lens question, b) that there is no single thing that produces this effect called “3D pop,” c) there is no real agreement as to quite what it even is.
Things that contribute to the effect of this photograph:
Lighter in the center of the frame and some vignetting (or at least darker subjects) in much of the background and near corners and edges.
Rim lighting from back left on the subjects makes them stand out a bit.
It appears that there is a bit of fill lighting on the subjects, too — see the woman’s face. Perhaps reflected from a nearby building?
Positioning the subjects on white triangle draws attention to them, too. (Note that this triangle “points” the direction that the predominant light travels.)
More saturated colors on the primary subjects and less saturation in the background.
Slight OOF in the background adds “subjective sharpness” to the front group.
The angled shadows add a sense of perspective/depth.
A subtle (maybe?) band of light from upper left toward lower right intercepts the primary subjects.
- - -
Aside from its focal length, the specific lens used here has virtually nothing to do with the effect. It is all that other stuff.
If it were my photograph, I might consider cropping a bit at left and right to eliminate the distracting people right at the frame edges, particularly the one in the red jacket.
- - -
Excellent point in a thread a bit up from this one: After something like 1034pages (over 2000 posts) it is clear that a) there is no answer to the “best 3D pop” lens question, b) that there is no single thing that produces this effect called “3D pop,” c) there is no real agreement as to quite what it even is....Show more →
Also the vignetting helps a lot (does it come from the lens or add in post)
I don't get all the complaining to close the thread. A lot of people are having fun with it. If you don't want to play, just don't participate. Why is this so hard to understand?
j4nu wrote:
I knew it! It was always about the (not excessive) blur ...
Or bokeh...
In all, there are lenses and mostly conditions that allow that impression of a 3D effect, but there are also two people that can't perceive it, and not just as not seeing but also by over-seeing it
Impressions of 3D exist even without 3D pop (which, by the way, isn't defined, so one person understands this and another understands that term differently). In some cases, 3D pop is almost the exact opposite of an impression of 3D. This is precisely what makes this thread so utterly pointless. And nothing will change in the coming years. It will continue to go around in circles, just like in the countless posts on the past 100 pages.
. As 3d pop is a general impression our eyes+brain produce when looking at a certain 2d image.
. When things are moving, you don't have the time to study the individual pixels...
...