Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
02-23-2013, 09:14 PM   #16
Veteran Member
scratchpaddy's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Phoenix
Posts: 2,360
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by rhodopsin Quote
3-D "pop" has more to do with position of subject within dof, distance from background, and lens drawing characteristics at the transition between in-focus and out-of-focus areas -- lenses with more micro-contrast seem to exhibit the pop more than those with less of it... IOW, ANY lens is capable of 3-D pop, given proper dof & distance to background.


edit:

Some lenses get known for 3-D pop more than others because they are more often used with dof setting, subject & background distances conducive to it...
I think you may have a point (same to you, Sagitta)... Maybe this thread would be better off in the "Photographic Technique" forum?

02-23-2013, 09:21 PM   #17
Veteran Member
scratchpaddy's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Phoenix
Posts: 2,360
Original Poster
Here's a thought: Is DOF even necessary? I was thinking of "3-D" as a more refined subset of "pop", but you don't even need a subject to demonstrate perspective. Would you consider this picture "3-D"? Everything's in focus here, which violates the DOF requirement pretty much everyone has mentioned.
Attached Images
 
02-23-2013, 10:06 PM   #18
Pentaxian
maxfield_photo's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 1,216
There is a real phenomenon behind the 3D effect. There was a paper written by master lens designer Hirakawa Jun that relates the design philosophy used in the manufacture of the FA Limited lenses. You can read it here (about 1/3rd of the way down there is a link to the older english translation). There are several things that set them apart from other lenses, but the most interesting I thought is the way field curvature was handled. Pentax chose to leave a certain amount of field curvature uncorrected which allowed them instead to correct for astigmatism, that is, the difference in the sagittal and meridional subject planes. Most lens designs try to flatten the field curvature as much as possible, which allows them to perform very favorably on two dimensional test charts, but less so on three dimensional subjects. I believe that it is this balanced approach to astigmatism vs. field curvature and an emphasis on center resolution that gives lenses a 3D effect.
02-24-2013, 12:19 AM   #19
Senior Member
Pontax's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Bornholm
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 160
QuoteOriginally posted by Adam Quote
It's a combination of bokeh, distortion, perspective distortion, and LBA IMO
QuoteOriginally posted by NitroDC Quote
I think some of it has to do with microcontrast/clarity
And foreground plus DOF, IMO.

I have made some microcontrast adjustment in camera for my CZ. 50/1,4 and have a dedicated user setting for 3D like pictures.

I have used this image before and I think it has some 3D.



@Sagitta your leaf image really has some pop to it.

02-24-2013, 01:03 AM   #20
Site Supporter
arnold's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Queensland
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,193
QuoteOriginally posted by TOUGEFC Quote
When people refer to a image being 3-D it more about the subject being able to "pop" or stand-out from the rest of the subject/background within the image. It also very subjective depending on the person, personally I dont see it in the photos posted above ( no offence)
Its a combination of DOF, whats in focus and whats not, focal lenghts and subject distance's and background distance's that acheives the effect.
The effect here is striking, almost as if the boy was photo-shopped in. the edges on him are so sharp.
02-24-2013, 01:34 AM   #21
Pentaxian
bossa's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Adelaide
Posts: 4,538
QuoteOriginally posted by arnold Quote
The effect here is striking, almost as if the boy was photo-shopped in. the edges on him are so sharp.
I agree. The affect is definitely produced by the relationship of the subject to the background focus. The background needs to be readable as spacial tension must exist between subject and background for it to work. Simon's shot has the subject and background as close as you can get in terms of contrast (they are right there in the middle) and the 3-D affect is obvious.
02-24-2013, 01:57 AM   #22
Veteran Member
TOUGEFC's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Brisbane
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,561
QuoteOriginally posted by bossa Quote
The background needs to be readable
Another key ingredient to acheive the effect in my book.
02-24-2013, 02:10 AM   #23
Pentaxian
Jonathan Mac's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Madrid, Spain
Posts: 3,907
I have to agree that most of the images posted in this thread do not have a 3D effect, Tougefc's photo though demonstrates a strong 3D effect and is an excellent example. This effect is due to a combination of depth of field, contrast & micro-contrast, sharpness and saturation. As such, it is mainly down to the lens being used, though the photographer will need to know how to make best use of it, and effective post-processing can help.

02-24-2013, 03:12 AM   #24
Pentaxian
bossa's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Adelaide
Posts: 4,538
QuoteOriginally posted by Jonathan Mac Quote
I have to agree that most of the images posted in this thread do not have a 3D effect, Tougefc's photo though demonstrates a strong 3D effect and is an excellent example. This effect is due to a combination of depth of field, contrast & micro-contrast, sharpness and saturation. As such, it is mainly down to the lens being used, though the photographer will need to know how to make best use of it, and effective post-processing can help.
I think it's more the distance ratio of camera to subject/camera to background that's the key and not so much the lens per se.
02-24-2013, 10:44 AM   #25
Veteran Member
scratchpaddy's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Phoenix
Posts: 2,360
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by arnold Quote
The effect here is striking, almost as if the boy was photo-shopped in. the edges on him are so sharp.
This seems to be the most important aspect of the subject to make the 3-D effect. I think the reason why the other pictures don't look 3-D is that the entire subject should be in focus, especially around the edges. Otherwise, the eyes are drawn to the part(s) of the subject that are in focus, while the rest melts away into the background. It doesn't jump out of the screen, spatially speaking. This, combined with some spatial tension in the background, really makes it seem 3-D.

The problem with my first picture is that my dog is only partly in focus. Around the edges, she fades away into the background. There's no "pop" there. I see the same issue with Pontax's fruit shot. Many of the others don't have enough spatial regression in the background. This was my original issue with telephotos: they tend to obliterate the background. You can't have spatial tension with a flat blur. No offense to anyone, I like these pictures, but I don't think they illustrate the effect I'm looking for.

I can kind of see the effect in Jody's picture of the girl in the diner, but it would be more pronounced if the whole subject was in the frame, and the background wasn't quite as busy.

I just realized that it was one of Simon's photos that first showed me how "3-D" a picture can look, and finally convinced me to buy the Sigma 30mm f/1.4. It was that picture of your boy dressed up like a pirate in front of a lake. Would you mind posting that here? I have the URL, but I'm not sure what the rules are for posting someone else's photos...
02-24-2013, 07:05 PM   #26
Veteran Member
TOUGEFC's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Brisbane
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,561
QuoteOriginally posted by scratchpaddy Quote
I just realized that it was one of Simon's photos that first showed me how "3-D" a picture can look, and finally convinced me to buy the Sigma 30mm f/1.4. It was that picture of your boy dressed up like a pirate in front of a lake. Would you mind posting that here? I have the URL, but I'm not sure what the rules are for posting someone else's photos...
Sure no worries, I think this is the one your talking about-

02-24-2013, 07:14 PM   #27
Veteran Member
selar's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Sydney, Australia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,035
Pixie Dust - without it theres no 3D!
02-24-2013, 08:10 PM   #28
Senior Member




Join Date: Sep 2011
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 268
Is this thread about the whole image looking 3d or a subject within the image looking 3d? Or are they the same thing. Isn't subject separation from the background different from 3d rendering of a subject. Confused? I am. I remember seeing an image by Pcarfan, posted on this forum, of a green frog taken with the 43ltd. It is an amazing image. For me that image is a good example of 3d rendering. Maybe it can be found in the FA Ltd thread. I will see if I can find it.
02-24-2013, 08:30 PM   #29
Veteran Member
selar's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Sydney, Australia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,035
QuoteOriginally posted by everydaylife Quote
Is this thread about the whole image looking 3d or a subject within the image looking 3d? Or are they the same thing. Isn't subject separation from the background different from 3d rendering of a subject. Confused? I am. I remember seeing an image by Pcarfan, posted on this forum, of a green frog taken with the 43ltd. It is an amazing image. For me that image is a good example of 3d rendering. Maybe it can be found in the FA Ltd thread. I will see if I can find it.

Here, very first review on page 4: SMC Pentax-FA 43mm F1.9 Limited Reviews - FA Prime Lenses - Pentax Lens Reviews & Lens Database
02-25-2013, 05:54 AM   #30
Pentaxian
hoanpham's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Strand
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,360
So, what is the conclusion about "what makes the lens 3D"?

TOUGEFC's photos are beautiful.
Also 3D effect may need to view it large.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
aps-c, depth, fa, k-mount, lens, pentax lens, picture, reviews, slr lens
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Don't say Pentax "Q" in French ... "Q" = "cul" = "A--" Jean Poitiers Pentax Q 52 11-10-2013 06:25 AM
What is a Q "Must Have" lens UncleRed Pentax Q 9 01-26-2013 10:37 AM
What exactly makes a lens a "MACRO"? wedge Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 19 04-26-2010 11:11 AM
What is difference "APO" and "ED" glass in a lens? kathyk Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 4 03-06-2008 08:59 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:08 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top