Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Does this have that "3D" look you guys talk about?  (Read 14319 times)
russell a
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 389


WWW
« Reply #20 on: October 01, 2007, 12:37:45 PM »
ReplyReply

The photo from FM's site, of the woman on the rocks appears to me as if the figure had been cut out of another shot and placed in a blurry shot at the seashore.  Even the lighting angles appear different to my eye.  In any case, I would not term this pasted-in look, however achieved, as "3-D".  My red/green glasses or antique stereo viewer must be around here somewhere.
Logged
Frank Doorhof
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1521


WWW
« Reply #21 on: October 01, 2007, 01:00:15 PM »
ReplyReply

When you look at the focusplane you can see she's in the focus plane.
don't know if it's pasted but I think not, would be a very good job if it was.
Logged
marcmccalmont
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1724



« Reply #22 on: October 02, 2007, 02:49:49 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
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
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=143052\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


About $450 and 2 weeks, seems like a lot but it is a noticeable improvement. Much less software sharpening and more micro detail. I did not have the foresight to take an identical before and after shot but this one was taken a day or so after I got the camera back and there is a noticeable improvement to the shape of objects. When I look through a pair of binoculars, in focus things are sharp but paper thin. removing the AA filter had the opposite effect, Objects now have more shape to them.
Marc
[attachment=3453:attachment]
Logged

Marc McCalmont
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8883


« Reply #23 on: October 02, 2007, 03:07:10 AM »
ReplyReply

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

 (I ask 'cos I don't know  )
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=143084\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Owners of the Kodak 14n should be able to answer that. I would guess that at apertures where diffraction begins to be noticeable (f11 onwards) an AA filter serves no purpose.
Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8883


« Reply #24 on: October 02, 2007, 03:09:45 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
When I look through a pair of binoculars, in focus things are sharp but paper thin. removing the AA filter had the opposite effect, Objects now have more shape to them.
Marc
[attachment=3453:attachment]
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=143334\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I guess you are now going to have the same moire problems that all owners of the Kodak14n had to contend with.
Logged
marcmccalmont
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1724



« Reply #25 on: October 02, 2007, 03:24:24 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I guess you are now going to have the same moire problems that all owners of the Kodak14n had to contend with.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=143340\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Yes but I estimate that it is in less than 1% of my images and a small amount of Gaussian blur fixes it nicely. For landscapes and nature I rarely see it. If I were doing portrait work I would not recommend the mod. But it gets a DSLR closer to the look of medium format.
Marc
Logged

Marc McCalmont
pixjohn
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 672


« Reply #26 on: October 02, 2007, 04:15:17 AM »
ReplyReply

Just out of curiosity why is this in the  Medium Format Digital Backs forum?
Logged
marcmccalmont
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1724



« Reply #27 on: October 02, 2007, 04:59:37 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
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.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=143069\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I'm very happy with the results the pictures are better can't quantify the amount but if my notices without being asked it is an improvement. I think the lack of AA filter is part of what people like about the MFDB look.
Marc
Logged

Marc McCalmont
rainer_v
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1130


WWW
« Reply #28 on: October 02, 2007, 06:37:03 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I'm very happy with the results the pictures are better can't quantify the amount but if my notices without being asked it is an improvement. I think the lack of AA filter is part of what people like about the MFDB look.
Marc
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=143459\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
with the 1ds3 this AA remove thing certainly gets very interesting. how much it cost you?
« Last Edit: October 02, 2007, 06:37:23 PM by rainer_v » Logged

rainer viertlböck
architecture photographer
munich / germany

www.tangential.de
RobertJ
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 591


« Reply #29 on: October 02, 2007, 07:05:22 PM »
ReplyReply

At the moment, I don't think the company will remove the AA filter from any 1 series cameras.  The only full-frame camera they will work on is the 5D, from what I can see from their website.
Logged
John_Black
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 263


WWW
« Reply #30 on: October 03, 2007, 03:00:41 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Nice picture. Shot digitally ? What is "FM" ?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=143186\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

The picture was taken with a Canon 1Ds2 and Contax C/Y 100 F2.  Probably shot at F4 (don't know for sure since aperture data is lost with with manual lenses).  BTW, that had about a 1/3 of the image cropped, so it's even less than full-frame.

I use the 100/2 because it does an excellent job with subject isolation; its DOF is about 33-50% less than a Canon lens at the same aperture.  Sometimes the narrow DOF happens to result in a 3D feel - which depends heavily on light & subsequent contrast and graduations.
Logged

marcmccalmont
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1724



« Reply #31 on: October 03, 2007, 08:46:15 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
At the moment, I don't think the company will remove the AA filter from any 1 series cameras.  The only full-frame camera they will work on is the 5D, from what I can see from their website.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=143471\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I think they will mod any camera
Marc
Logged

Marc McCalmont
NikosR
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 622


WWW
« Reply #32 on: October 03, 2007, 09:12:14 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
The picture was taken with a Canon 1Ds2 and Contax C/Y 100 F2.  Probably shot at F4 (don't know for sure since aperture data is lost with with manual lenses).  BTW, that had about a 1/3 of the image cropped, so it's even less than full-frame.

I use the 100/2 because it does an excellent job with subject isolation; its DOF is about 33-50% less than a Canon lens at the same aperture.  Sometimes the narrow DOF happens to result in a 3D feel - which depends heavily on light & subsequent contrast and graduations.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=143531\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I think what's working for this picture, apart from the very good contrast, tonal gradations and microcontrast is the fact that you have two isolated planes. Near, being in focus and far being uniformly out of focus but still clearly recognisable, with the middle part that would normally get gradually out of focus missing due to subject matter and shooting angle
« Last Edit: October 03, 2007, 09:17:45 AM by NikosR » Logged

Nikos
John_Black
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 263


WWW
« Reply #33 on: October 03, 2007, 10:27:43 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I think what's working for this picture, apart from the very good contrast, tonal gradations and microcontrast is the fact that you have two isolated planes. Near, being in focus and far being uniformly out of focus but still clearly recognisable, with the middle part that would normally get gradually out of focus missing due to subject matter and shooting angle
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=143581\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Yep.

Many threads lately on the 3D look and many theories.  There has to be (IMO) a couple planes of in focus and out of focus to provide a reference mark.  This gives the eye something to lock onto and then can figure out better what's behind and ahead of the subject with some type of distance scale.  From there light, contrast, etc., enhance (or degrade) the 3D qualities.  

I do think the 3D works better with some compression - for example, 16mm can be difficult, 100mm is pretty easy.  I think medium format reproduces a 3D look more consistently because of usually thinner DOF (relative to the frame & overall FOV) and the use of longer lenses (more compression).  The 3D look is probably possible on any camera, but I do feel medium format gets the look more often.
Logged

Morgan_Moore
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2217


WWW
« Reply #34 on: October 03, 2007, 10:44:42 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
use of longer lenses (more compression)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=143601\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Longer lenses dont have more compression

Stand at point A with a 24mm and a 100

shoot two images of subject at point B

crop the 24 to the FOV of the 100 and the 'image' is exactly the same

(likely not enough pixels due to the crop though)

Distant subject are compressed

 and to fill the frame with a distant subject you need a long lens

----

In term of 'the 3d look' I think it is really visible with a certain set of parameters

reasonable apperture, say 4 or 5.6 (enough to get sharpness across the subject)

and reasonable ditance say shooting a full length maybe 3 meters

and a reasonably close background say 3m behind the subject

A TYPICAL INDOOR FASHION MAGAZINE IMAGE IN OTHER WORDS

at super close say a cropped headshot shot wide, or near infinity stopped down, say a landscape, the DOF or lack of it is apparent in all formats

hence why MF Dig and also 67 etc is loved by fashion shooters in the main

IMO

SMM
Logged

Sam Morgan Moore Cornwall
www.sammorganmoore.com -photography
jing q
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 594


WWW
« Reply #35 on: October 03, 2007, 11:07:15 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Longer lenses dont have more compression

Stand at point A with a 24mm and a 100

shoot two images of subject at point B

crop the 24 to the FOV of the 100 and the 'image' is exactly the same

(likely not enough pixels due to the crop though)

Distant subject are compressed

 and to fill the frame with a distant subject you need a long lens

----

In term of 'the 3d look' I think it is really visible with a certain set of parameters

reasonable apperture, say 4 or 5.6 (enough to get sharpness across the subject)

and reasonable ditance say shooting a full length maybe 3 meters

and a reasonably close background say 3m behind the subject

A TYPICAL INDOOR FASHION MAGAZINE IMAGE IN OTHER WORDS

at super close say a cropped headshot shot wide, or near infinity stopped down, say a landscape, the DOF or lack of it is apparent in all formats

hence why MF Dig and also 67 etc is loved by fashion shooters in the main

IMO

SMM
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=143605\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


what's with all this depth of field stuff...
I shoot at f11 minimum and I can still tell the difference between a
it's partly a certain gradiation between tones also that give more "roundness" or volume to an object
Shooting two similar shots of groups of people with my 1dsmkII and an aptus 75s I get seemingly more sharpness overall from the 1dsMkII but when printed out the difference in tonalities add more "body" to the MF images.

As much as depth of field is one of the defining points of MF, I think there's more to the so called 3d look than depth of field.
Logged
jing q
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 594


WWW
« Reply #36 on: October 03, 2007, 11:11:04 AM »
ReplyReply

and looking at Henry Goh's image, there's no denying that's some incredible quality going on there.
Look at the detail and separation between elements like the foilage


more sensor surface area  = better, period.
Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8883


« Reply #37 on: October 04, 2007, 12:19:03 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Yes but I estimate that it is in less than 1% of my images and a small amount of Gaussian blur fixes it nicely. For landscapes and nature I rarely see it. If I were doing portrait work I would not recommend the mod. But it gets a DSLR closer to the look of medium format.
Marc
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=143343\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

To reinforce your point about 3-dimensionality, I think you should now take a close-up of a model's face with sharp 85mm or 100mm lens at f8, focussing on an eye and lashes so the surrounding skin is slightly out of focus but the veins in the whites of the eye clearly delineated.

Also try capturing your own reflection in the iris for greater effect   .
Logged
Eric Myrvaagnes
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7961



WWW
« Reply #38 on: October 04, 2007, 09:46:29 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Also try capturing your own reflection in the iris for greater effect   .
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=143743\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
And, of course, capturing the reflection of your model in the reflection of your camera lens, which will be part of your own reflection . . .  
Logged

-Eric Myrvaagnes

http://myrvaagnes.com  Visit my website. New images each season.
Dinarius
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 709


« Reply #39 on: October 05, 2007, 10:12:51 AM »
ReplyReply

Seems like people have a problem agreeing on what is meant by "3D".

Anyone who has a copy of Irving Penn's book of still lives will see immediately what is meant by the term, as I understand it.

Equally, in any high quality glossy, ads featuring shoes (for example, or jewellery) regularly display that "reach in an touch it" quality.

What I'd like to know is this: how much of this is down to pixels, and how much of it is down to bit depth?

In the UK edition of the Sunday Times newspaper last week there was an interview with Ralph Lauren. This was accompanied by a full-bleed, double page spread shot of Lauren standing next to a vintage motor car. The article is here>

http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_an...icle2538098.ece

but, I can't find the pic. The photo typified that 3D quality, in my view. Rich and rounded and the kind of shot that could only be achieved, I think (though open to correction) either through MFDB or scanned large format tranny.

Since top SLRs have more than enough pixels (@ 300ppi), and yet still lack that fully rounded look, is some of the look and feel due to greater bit depth of scans and MFDB?

What do others think?

D.
« Last Edit: October 05, 2007, 10:15:25 AM by Dinarius » Logged
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad