Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 3 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Does this have that "3D" look you guys talk about?  (Read 14550 times)
Henry Goh
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 574


« on: September 30, 2007, 07:27:30 PM »
ReplyReply

Does it?

Logged
Graham Mitchell
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2282



WWW
« Reply #1 on: September 30, 2007, 07:43:30 PM »
ReplyReply

Not really, imo.
Logged

Graham Mitchell - www.graham-mitchell.com
Henry Goh
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 574


« Reply #2 on: September 30, 2007, 07:46:17 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Not really, imo.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=143029\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Graham,

Would you have a landscape image shot with you back that you feel show the "3D" look that you can share?

Thanks.
Logged
pixjohn
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 672


« Reply #3 on: September 30, 2007, 07:51:19 PM »
ReplyReply

It looks like a bad stitch job with a line in the image.

Quote
Not really, imo.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=143029\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Logged
Graham Mitchell
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2282



WWW
« Reply #4 on: September 30, 2007, 07:57:12 PM »
ReplyReply

Sorry, I don't really do landscapes. I don't find that they generally have that 3D feel to them in any case. I also don't feel that the look is unique to medium format.

Here's a sample I saw recently on FM, courtesy of John Black:

Logged

Graham Mitchell - www.graham-mitchell.com
jpjespersen
Guest
« Reply #5 on: September 30, 2007, 08:07:24 PM »
ReplyReply

I don't get the term 3D effect.  I call it depth of field.  Not a bad image, not anything special.  IMO it looks better like this.
Logged
jpjespersen
Guest
« Reply #6 on: September 30, 2007, 08:10:49 PM »
ReplyReply

I don't get the term 3D effect.  I call it depth of field.  Not a bad image, not anything special.  IMO it looks better like this.
Logged
jpjespersen
Guest
« Reply #7 on: September 30, 2007, 08:13:24 PM »
ReplyReply

Sorry guys.  I'm having technical issues.
« Last Edit: September 30, 2007, 08:17:00 PM by jpjespersen » Logged
ronno
Guest
« Reply #8 on: September 30, 2007, 08:20:40 PM »
ReplyReply

This landscape photo appears to have a great sense of depth to me, even if it is stitched or whatnot. Nice job.

-ron
Logged
jpjespersen
Guest
« Reply #9 on: September 30, 2007, 09:26:35 PM »
ReplyReply

My version
[attachment=3438:attachment]
Logged
marcmccalmont
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1724



« Reply #10 on: September 30, 2007, 09:33:05 PM »
ReplyReply

I had the AA filter removed from my 5D by MAXMAX. When it came back the first thing I noticed was how three dimensional things looked, not depth of field but more shape to the object, palpable might be a good word to discribe it.
Marc
Logged

Marc McCalmont
Henry Goh
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 574


« Reply #11 on: September 30, 2007, 09:38:43 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I had the AA filter removed from my 5D by MAXMAX. When it came back the first thing I noticed was how three dimensional things looked, not depth of field but more shape to the object, palpable might be a good word to discribe it.
Marc
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=143051\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Marc,

I think that is possibly the key...

DOF blur to me is NOT "3D".

BTW how much did it cost you to have the filter removed and how long did it take?

Thanks.

Henry
Logged
ronno
Guest
« Reply #12 on: September 30, 2007, 10:57:24 PM »
ReplyReply

So Henry, how did you create the photo?
Logged
RobertJ
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 597


« Reply #13 on: September 30, 2007, 11:26:29 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi Marc,
Are you happy with the AA filter removal of your 5D?  Any excessive moire or stair stepping problems?  

I don't think the samples they have on their website show the potential of what you can really get from a 5D with no AA filter.  I'm thinking about doing the same thing, maybe with future DSLRs, or a used 5D.
Logged
Henry Goh
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 574


« Reply #14 on: October 01, 2007, 12:54:31 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
So Henry, how did you create the photo?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=143064\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Hello Ron,

The image was made using a D2X and a Nikon 85mm PC lens.  Camera was mounted in portrait position and the shift on PC lens swung to lateral direction.  3 captures were made and then assembled in PS CS3.  It was a quick job to see how good the already very sharp 85mm PC lens coupled with 12Mp can perform as a high-resolution capture.  File was around 100Mb in 8-bit and native print size @300ppi is around 14.5" x 27".

Print on Epson Pro 4000 at native size came out stunning.

Hope the info is useful.

Henry
« Last Edit: October 01, 2007, 07:03:13 AM by Henry Goh » Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8900


« Reply #15 on: October 01, 2007, 12:57:31 AM »
ReplyReply

Is the 1Ds3 going to have an AA filter? Why should high pixel density cameras like the Canon 40D and 400D need AA filters? The 14mp Kodak 14n managed without an AA filter. Why should a camera with almost double the pixel density of the 14n require an AA filter? Does the P45 with similar pixel density to the 1Ds3 have an AA filter?

Just curious! If there's an acceptable software solution to aliasing, wouldn't that be the better option? In any case, I would think that aliasing would never be a problem at apertures smaller than f8, such as f11 and f16 which are used quite often for landscapes.
Logged
jonstewart
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 435


« Reply #16 on: October 01, 2007, 02:06:06 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
In any case, I would think that aliasing would never be a problem at apertures smaller than f8, such as f11 and f16 which are used quite often for landscapes.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=143077\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

What about diffraction effect when there's no AA filter?

 (I ask 'cos I don't know  )
Logged

Jon Stewart

If only life were so simple...
Wayne Fox
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2883



WWW
« Reply #17 on: October 01, 2007, 11:43:19 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Is the 1Ds3 going to have an AA filter? Why should high pixel density cameras like the Canon 40D and 400D need AA filters? The 14mp Kodak 14n managed without an AA filter. Why should a camera with almost double the pixel density of the 14n require an AA filter? Does the P45 with similar pixel density to the 1Ds3 have an AA filter?

Just curious! If there's an acceptable software solution to aliasing, wouldn't that be the better option? In any case, I would think that aliasing would never be a problem at apertures smaller than f8, such as f11 and f16 which are used quite often for landscapes.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=143077\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Yes the kodak didn't have it.  We deployed 60 of them through our studio chain, and despite Kodaks claim,moire was frequently an issue.  They tried to fix it with sofware, which was somewhat effective, but still an issue with some fabrics.

I believe landscape work would be less prone to moire,since it seems to occur in tight repeating textures such as fabric.  It would be interesting to see how the 1dsMK3 would perform without one.
Logged

Bernd B.
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 260


« Reply #18 on: October 01, 2007, 12:17:12 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Sorry, I don't really do landscapes. I don't find that they generally have that 3D feel to them in any case. I also don't feel that the look is unique to medium format.

Here's a sample I saw recently on FM, courtesy of John Black:


[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=143032\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Nice picture. Shot digitally ? What is "FM" ?
Logged
Snook
Guest
« Reply #19 on: October 01, 2007, 12:21:54 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Nice picture. Shot digitally ? What is "FM" ?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=143186\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
FM is Fred Miranda.com
Snook
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad