Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
05-08-2008, 12:28 PM   #1
Senior Member




Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Posts: 131
question about lenses rendering depth/3d

I am wondering what properties of a lens and which lenses can give that 3d/pop/depth feeling or is it a technique? Can anyone help on this?

Edit: Please see post number 3 for what I mean. Thanks.


Last edited by jake123; 05-08-2008 at 12:53 PM.
05-08-2008, 12:33 PM   #2
Forum Member




Join Date: Jan 2008
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 53
-Low F number (f/2.8[moderate] to f/1.2[extreme] )
-Long focal length and large sensor
-Close distance to the subject
05-08-2008, 12:51 PM   #3
Senior Member




Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Posts: 131
Original Poster
Oh, I mean a 3d like this:

Is the 14-54 really an upgrade?? [Page 1]: Olympus SLR Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review

If you read flat it is about halfway into the page, a set of 4 photos. In the last photo of the church or something, it is very apparent, and depth of field is really deep.
05-08-2008, 01:01 PM   #4
Veteran Member
aegisphan's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: New Mexico
Posts: 815
I started this thread.
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/everything-else/24444-can-you-please-post...ish-photo.html

After a bit side study, what quantum said is more a "binocular effect", not a real 3D effect (or Perception of Roundness). General, you can achieve POR with:

- High F number (f/5.6 and higher)
- Wide angle lens
- Lens with good micro-contrast and good bokeh rendition.
- Certain composition can bring it out. The key is to see the transition between foreground, subject, and background to establish the depth.

POR is more difficult to achieve than binocular effect.

05-08-2008, 04:15 PM   #5
Veteran Member
Nesster's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: NJ USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 13,047
Interesting observations, and some great photos in that other thread... But I hate to say it, I think this 3d thing is less about gear and more about conditions...

Or I should say: the lens needs to be capable of excellent resolution, pass on micro contrast, and have a good focus/oof characterisitc. And then the actual conditions of the photograph must be able to maximize these in practice.

Here's an example I feel is farily good with the 3d - I could have picked several images from the other thread as well to illustrate what I'm saying.



This is one of the first photos I took with the 70 Ltd.

1) there is enough resolution and the photo wasn't ruined by relative motion between camera and subject.

2) I took this at my mother in law's apartment. This apt is an amazing place to shoot - one entire wall is windows, though they have a dark sun film on them, so there isn't glare. And her walls are a sort of mottled (high style) grey, so light from that side is also diffused. I've made many 3d photos there, using different equipment and lenses, all in a zone roughly 6 feet to 18 feet from the windows.

What I'm heading for here is that the lighting needs to be even yet alive - too much contrast or too little, and you lose the effect. The light itself 'reaches around' the subject! Then all you do is capture this.

3) This shot is at f/2.8. This is significant because in my opinion, the DOF of the aperture/focal length needs to match the depth of the subject. If the transition to OOF begins to the rear (or front) of the subject and is gentle, you get a feeling of roundness. This is why some of the old portraits are so good - and why people even now use large format (or medium format) equipment for portraiture. The DOF scale with the equipment simply matches the human scale well. (Ie. I'd use maybe f/5.6 and back away obviously, if I were to shoot a head and shoulders shot) Actually, for this shot I probably should have stopped down another stop too...

I'll also say, going for those 'good bokeh' shots often is at war against getting a 3d, rounded subject.
05-08-2008, 10:33 PM   #6
Senior Member




Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Posts: 131
Original Poster
@Nesster: the problem is that dpreview forum photo has deep depth of field and the 3dness is not achieved by oof...

@aegispan: which lenses would have good micro contrast?
05-08-2008, 10:47 PM   #7
Veteran Member
aegisphan's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: New Mexico
Posts: 815
I would say the 31LTD has the good amount of micro contrast. Certain Zeiss is also known for their microcontrast, so you might want to try the Zeiss ZK line. Like I said, going with shallow DOF is like a "cheap" way to achieve 3D ness. If you're really into POR, I would suggest you to shoot film. Or go rangefinder, in my original post, you can see the digital RF forums samples. Those just have very deep DOF and excellent POR. Afterall, RF is better than SLR at wideangle lenses.
05-09-2008, 01:19 AM   #8
Forum Member




Join Date: Jan 2008
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 53
Does this image count as 3d looking?


05-09-2008, 04:09 AM   #9
Veteran Member
Nesster's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: NJ USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 13,047
QuoteQuote:
@Nesster: the problem is that dpreview forum photo has deep depth of field and the 3dness is not achieved by oof...
Jake, LOL you're right, and I actually regretted my positive statements - I'd say the first two things hold in that church pic. While there are strong shadows, the sun is almost directly behind the camera so the lighting is lively and even. In this case yes, the DOF is vast... those gravestones are almost psychedelic! The resolution the lens is capable of is achieved in the photo.
05-09-2008, 05:50 AM   #10
Pentaxian
Lowell Goudge's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 15,312
QuoteOriginally posted by jake123 Quote
Oh, I mean a 3d like this:

Is the 14-54 really an upgrade?? [Page 1]: Olympus SLR Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review

If you read flat it is about halfway into the page, a set of 4 photos. In the last photo of the church or something, it is very apparent, and depth of field is really deep.
Jake

As others have said, this is really a question about finding the righr composition to illustrate the depth of the subject.

What makes the photo work is the separation of foreground and background vertically in the frame.

The natural change in elevation as the subject moves back in the frame gives much more apparent depth than if the ground was level.

This, combined with a slight wide angle shot establishes the depth you want. Any lens in the normal to wide range will give you this. Note that the shot you see is an olympus camera with 4/3 frame, 31mm is actually slightly "longer" than normal for that format.
05-09-2008, 06:38 AM   #11
Veteran Member
Nesster's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: NJ USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 13,047
Some additional thoughts about where the 'magic' qualities of a given lens arise from.

The idea is this: starting from the theoretical resolution and in focus/oof curve of a given lens, subtract some information at each stage - relative movement of camera and subject, atmospheric conditions (dust, wind and thermals, etc), where actual focus falls, the state of the recording medium, any further conversions or manipulations of the captured image, etc etc.

Imagine, say, that after all that 80% of the theoretical info remains. A lens that's capable of significantly more resolution than another will perhaps amplify its advantage, if the lesser lens starts to reach the point where the human eye starts to see degration.

Or, put more simply: the Pop Photo lens test charts have something to them!
05-09-2008, 10:54 AM   #12
Inactive Account




Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Barrie, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 421
One thing not mentioned yet is a proper black level, which I find goes a long way to setting the graduation of colours from light to dark while wrapping around an object. I'm a touch busy right now but I'll see if I can dig up a before and after example.


- Andrew
05-10-2008, 01:31 PM   #13
Senior Member




Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Posts: 131
Original Poster
After all your replies I suppose that the effect is caused by lighting... not lens as much.

Thanks for all your replies, and any other insights will still be appreciated.
05-10-2008, 02:24 PM   #14
Veteran Member
aegisphan's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: New Mexico
Posts: 815
I don't think lighting would be that significant, though, admittedly, low contrast scene would be harder to create the effect (same with a low contrast lens). The reason why microcontrast is important is because you will be able to discern two different focal planes of the subject, and subsequently, you are able to perceive depth. And definitely, composition is very important as well. If you shoot straight into a subject, don't expect to have much 3Dish. Instead you can angle the shot so that the viewer can see the contrast between the planes.
05-10-2008, 05:52 PM   #15
Inactive Account




Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Barrie, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 421
My attempt at the 3D effect, starting with a rather flat picture due to head-on flash.



I added localized contrast (USM), selective sharpening and adjusted the black-level to "wrap" the colour around my son.

The effect would be more pronounced had the flash come from the side ( I think ).

BTW: I over-did the processing on purpose

Show with a K10D and Sigma 17-70

- Andrew
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!
k-mount, lenses, pentax lens, question about lenses, slr lens
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Macro Rendering Barnster Post Your Photos! 1 12-31-2009 07:41 AM
3D-like Rendering and XYZ Lenses? Frank Fletcher Pentax DSLR Discussion 6 07-03-2008 11:15 PM
Camera Raw and bit depth question molarade Pentax DSLR Discussion 7 04-07-2008 06:15 PM
Depth of feild Question Captain Photographic Technique 4 12-03-2007 06:46 AM
Depth of Field of 50mm prime lenses fevbusch Pentax DSLR Discussion 22 02-14-2007 04:20 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:41 AM. | 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