3D Pop Lenses - Are Older Better?

Started 9 months ago | Discussions thread
SpinOne Veteran Member • Posts: 3,679
Re: Objective or subjective?
3

fPrime wrote:

SpinOne wrote:

fPrime wrote:

ZodiacPhoto wrote:

Is there anything objective about this "3-d pop" perception? Something that can be measured (level of contrast, amount of blur, etc.)? Or, more likely, is it completely in the eyes of a viewer?

3D Pop is entirely an illusion formed in the mind tripped by enough concordant depth cues being present in a 2D image. Some people can’t see it at all, some require more depth cues than others.

And yet, there is no actual optical reason why older lenses should generate that illusion, while newer ones do not -- especially since so much can be done in post, and so many sample images are low resolution.

There's a perfect optical reason for why many older lenses render more 3D Pop than many newer lenses... they involve fewer glass elements, they transmit a fuller spectrum, and they don't attempt to correct for every aberration with aspheric or low dispersion glass.

We've gone over most of this already.

The "more elements" claim has no basis whatsoever, especially since you're ignoring the thickness of the lenses, the transmission, the design, and so on.

I have never seen the slightest bit of evidence that older lenses "transmit a fuller spectrum." Are you now using a sensor that extends into the UV spectrum? You do know that digital lenses extend into the infrared range, right?

There is no physical or optical reason whatsoever why allowing aberrations would create any additional illusion of depth -- especially since barrel or pincushion distortion can be easily added in post. A failure to correct for CA is just going to result in a worse image overall.

It's also optically easier to achieve 3D Pop with larger sensor formats. Medium format trumps full frame and full frame trumps APSC in that regard. At the bottom of the barrel are 1 inch sensors followed closely by m43.

And yet, you claim you can demonstrate "3d" with.... low-resolution JPEGs? How convenient.

And yet, it doesn't seem like that actually happens. Oh, but I forgot, anyone who disagrees with you about those cues just "can't see it." Even if they are seeing it when you do not. Hmmmmmmm.

That's explained by the fact that the illusion is unique to every person. But as the strength of the 3D Pop increases, it becomes undeniable to all but the most flat-eyed. People almost universally agree that Brenizer-style bokeh panoramas look 3D, for example.

Riiiiiiight

If every person has a different perception, then why would you proclaim that older lenses consistently produce more of the illusion? Where are the people who insist that newer lenses produce it?

Meanwhile, the Brenzier method doesn't produce subjective results that change with the wind. It's a method to replicate a shallow DoF with a wide angle of view. And guess what? Producing that effect has nothing to do with the number of elements or coatings in a lens. All you're doing to create that "3d effect" is producing an image with shallow DoF.

I’ve personally found it challenging to make the case for 3D Pop with ANY macro photo. This is mainly due to the distinct shallow DOF of macro lenses.

Well, if there is anything physical or lens-related about "3d Pop," then that doesn't make any sense.

The same depth cues should be present with macro as any other photo: DoF, saturation, contrast, composition, sharpness, you name it.

There are plenty of skilled macro photographers who use techniques like focus stacking to increase DoF.

But macro is most definitely not the same. The subject separation is within centimeters if not millimeters. Stack as much as you may, the scene isn't deep in real life so it also struggles to appear deep as a photo. Use macro's shallow DOF to create separation and it looks artificial.

You crack me up.

Consider the following image:

Snap, Crackle, Pop?

There should be no question this has all the "clues" you could ask for. Shallow DoF; the color of the eyes is a contrast to the background; the pattern of the eyes creates an impression of a sphere; the black ring around the eyes adds to the contrast; vignetting; you name it. There is no question that this image creates an illusion of depth. But because you know it's macro, it can't have 3d pop? Ludicrous.

Meanwhile: One second a stitching technique like Brenzier produces 3d, the next a stacking technique looks fake and artificial. How convenient.

You're just making up these things in your own head, and it's not based on any optical properties of lenses. Pass.

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
(unknown member)
tko
tko
tko
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow