Low Element Count Lenses, 3D pop, and Micro-contrast -- My Theory

[icebear]

Yeah, well ... outdoor shooting comparision under changing light conditions (clouds). Very solid test.🙄

QUOTE:
[The micro-contrast of the headland is higher on the 200ais image.
Don't see it? Don't care? Not the end of the world. Be Happy]

No, I don't see the headland and I don't care.
And I am happy with the results of my 2/75 asph.
And I don't even know how many elements it has.😀

 

[shawn]

However, the ITV for the Nikon remains 100% with zero loss of information and a 0% ILV. ....If detail information isn't lost -- this lens is off the charts in terms of sharpness, then what information -- 18% of it, IS being lost?

There is no way that Nikon lens is passing 100% of light through it. If you can see that there is glass in the lens (which you can) that is only possible because some of the light hitting the lens is being reflected off the glass. Any light reflected is light not passing through it and therefor it does not have 100% transmission.

A loss of light transmission is loss of brightness. Same as a ND filter, same as stopping down. Depending upon the lens it might also reduce contrast somewhat.

Shawn

 

[NickTrop]

While on the subject of ND fliters. What if I put an 1/3 stop ND filter on the front of lens as normal? 1/3 less light is gathered but I can compensate for that by increasing esposure time or adjusting aperture setting.

But what if one of the internal elements or the rear element was a 1/3 stop ND filter? Is that the same thing?

No! It isn't! Because...

If a 1/3 less light enters the front element than 100% of that 1/3 less light should pass through the rest of the elements in the chain at a consistent value (at least theoretically) and reach the sensor. BUT if I had a fixed 1/3 stop ND filter as a fixed INTERNAL element or REAR element -- it's not the same thing. I can't compensate because it introduces a disparity between the light entering the front element and hitting the sensor. Where this light loss occurs in the chain matters.

And that's what high element glass does. It acts as if your lens had an internal ND filter as one of the elements in the chain you can't compensate for.

 

[NickTrop]

There is no way that Nikon lens is passing 100% of light through it. If you can see that there is glass in the lens (which you can) that is only possible because some of the light hitting the lens is being reflected off the glass. Any light reflected is light not passing through it and therefor it does not have 100% transmission.

A loss of light transmission is loss of brightness. Same as a ND filter, same as stopping down. Depending upon the lens it might also reduce contrast somewhat.

Shawn

What can I tell ya? I'm surprised by this too -- and wouldn't be shocked if it was an error. Go to DXOmark and see for yourself. The values I posted were a cut-n-paste from their site.

 

[shawn]

What can I tell ya? I'm surprised by this too -- and wouldn't be shocked if it was an error. Go to DXOmark and see for yourself. The values I posted were a cut-n-paste from their site.

I understand. But it isn't correct. Either the lenses actual aperture is slightly bigger than specified or there is some other error. Nobody has 100% transmission glass and certainly not in a camera lens that cost a few hundred dollars new.

Shawn

 

[shawn]

While on the subject of ND fliters. What if I put an 1/3 stop ND filter on the front of lens as normal? 1/3 less light is gathered but I can compensate for that by increasing esposure time or adjusting aperture setting.

But what if one of the internal elements or the rear element was a 1/3 stop ND filter? Is that the same thing?

No! It isn't! Because...

If a 1/3 less light enters the front element than 100% of that 1/3 less light should pass through the rest of the elements in the chain at a consistent value (at least theoretically) and reach the sensor. BUT if I had a fixed 1/3 stop ND filter as a fixed INTERNAL element or REAR element -- it's not the same thing. I can't compensate because it introduces a disparity between the light entering the front element and hitting the sensor. Where this light loss occurs in the chain matters.

That isn't correct. Of course you can compensate for a filter added in the middle of a lens. There are lenses that have this. I have a Nikon that does this.

No different then your aperture. It is in the middle of the optic group in your lens. *Any* camera with TTL metering already compensates for this.


Shawn

 

[michaelwj]

Couple things. Firstly, where did I say "types of information"? I effectively agreed with your characterization of "type of information" and we also agreed that light is a medium. What I am saying as that the informaiton being carried by the light is possibly being lost in high element count lenses where the aperture value is greater by than the t-stop value (such as the Sigma Art), and the additive effect of the loss of "this information" (not "new type of information") COULD BE causing a loss of perceived dimensionality in the image. Secondly, I never said that what I floated was "fact", I suggested it as a "possibility" and was careful with my word choice and reiterated this as "possiblity" on several subsequent posts. Therefore, no "tin foil hat" as nothing was stated as irrefutable fact. "UFOs HAVE landed" -- tin foul hat. "There is ample evidence, seems to me, to leave open the possibility of UFO visitation" -- no tin foil hat. And thanks for the unnecessary line about critical thinking skills. Not necessary, mind you, but the it's always nice to reinforce them.

And, really, what fun would the internet and blogs like this be without its malaperts?

Okay. You said that “tonality” was a type of information carried by light, that was somehow lost when the transmission and f-stop were different. It’s not even a possibility, it’s flat out 100% incorrect.
Your thesis is that when the transmission of a lens is reduced the optical properties drop - we lose tonality. Again, there is not even the slightest chance that this might be even the tiniest bit of a possibility. If your thesis is correct, then every lens shot wide open would have higher contrast and better tonality than the same lens at f/5.6. We know this is totally untrue from MTF curves (which measure contrast and resolution, and therefore tonality), and from experience.
In short, your possibility is not even that, it is merely a rambling presented as a possible truth.
As to your last sentence, spreading misinformation like it is true only serves to dumb down the population. Without it the internet might actually be useful.

The only things you presented that are of value are;
1) Lenses with fewer elements are pleasing to you and many others
2) Modern highly corrected lenses are less pleasing
3) In some modern highly corrected lens the T-stop and F-stop are not the same value. (I would love to see the T-stop of some of the uncoated lenses with 3-4 lenses - I bet that they’re nowhere near the F-stop).

Like I said in my previous post, correlation does not imply causation. But, it would be interesting to explore the points I summarized above in a more scientific or logical way.

 

[NickTrop]

I understand. But it isn't correct. Either the lenses actual aperture is slightly bigger than specified or there is some other error. Nobody has 100% transmission glass and certainly not in a camera lens that cost a few hundred dollars new.

Shawn

It may be correct, actually. The Nikon AF-S Nikkor 50mm f/1.4G has a 1.5 transmission value, also very high. It could also be a case of rounding on the part of DXO.

 

[Contarama]

There is a reason movies are still made with tried and true Cookes and why people love Crons and such. 🙂

 

[shawn]

It may be correct, actually. The Nikon AF-S Nikkor 50mm f/1.4G has a 1.5 transmission value, also very high. It could also be a case of rounding on the part of DXO.

You can see the glass in the lens. It is reflecting some light. If some of the light is reflecting off the glass you do not have 100% transmission.

BTW, when tested for green channel the Nikon 50mm 1.4d tested at about 91% light transmission.

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/33785655


It also tested to have a fairly significant color cast in that the lens transmits different frequencies of light by differing amounts.

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/34091681

Shawn

 

[Contarama]

Nothing's better than the real thang haha

 

[peterm1]

On reflection after more consideration, I think that much of the preference that some people (myself included) have for more simple lenses comes down to the fact that these lenses have a lot more in the way of uncorrected aberrations (spherical aberration especially) which render in an interesting manner by comparison with the cold clinical perfection of modern lenses which are highly corrected.

In fact I quite often add faults into my pictures in post. This includes blur, "glow" vignetting and even some distortion etc. And I do it because the images needed to be less technically good to render in the manner I want. Fake it till you make it!

 

[michaelwj]

On reflection after more consideration, I think that much of the preference that some people (myself included) have for more simple lenses comes down to the fact that these lenses have a lot more in the way of uncorrected aberrations (spherical aberration especially) which render in an interesting manner by comparison with the cold clinical perfection of modern lenses which are highly corrected.

In fact I quite often add faults into my pictures in post. This includes blur, "glow" vignetting and even some distortion etc. And I do it because the images needed to be less technically good to render in the manner I want. Fake it till you make it!

This is exactly correct Peter (and has nothing to do with T-stops), however and unfortunately, these traits are harder to measure. And sales and marketing love metrics.

 

[NickTrop]

That isn't correct.

I don't see how you can argue this. If thinking of a lens as an input-output device that processes light... if I put an ND filter on the front element, the reduction in light occurs before the light is processed and output. If an ND filtered is included as an internal element, it occurs during -- is a part of-- the process. Not the same thing. Addiing an ND filter is no different than walking into a different room with less light. Many elements within a lens take the light from the room and reduces it as part of the process -- always. Because it's part of the I/O device.

Before the front element it IS the input and ideally should go through the process and exit as output unaltered. Within the process device (lens) light entering the front element is altered during the proces and what exits the process is altered from when it was input.

Different.

 

[NickTrop]

For one reason or other we all have our favorite lens; in my case it is the final product: the print. The 'pop' factor is something I like, and I care less about crazy edge to edge sharpness. I even like this lens: a Brownie Hawkeye Flash lens mounted on my 6x7:


Ektar 100 by John Carter, on Flickr

Not much 'pop' but some.

Oh -- this totally has "pop". Biggest pop factor is film plane size, actually. In small format, you have to squeeze pop out of them. This is why I have (and forever shall) pitched all my other gear and only shoot full frame. APS-C and smaller, forget it. Zero pop. Might as well shoot with your cell phone, especially if you're not making prints.

Recently I attended a funeral service. In the collage of the departed in the vestibule right in the center was a 6X6 color I took of the departed in a group shot. Stood out. Had pop. That's the medium format advantage.

Pics that pop. If I was to shoot film again, medium format only.

 

[michaelwj]

I don't see how you can argue this. If thinking of a lens as an input-output device that processes light... if I put an ND filter on the front element, the reduction in light occurs before the light is processed and output. If an ND filtered is included as an internal element, it occurs during -- is a part of-- the process. Not the same thing. Addiing an ND filter is no different than walking into a different room with less light. Many elements within a lens take the light from the room and reduces it as part of the process -- always. Because it's part of the I/O device.

Before the front element it IS the input and ideally should go through the process and exit as output unaltered. Within the process device (lens) light entering the front element is altered during the proces and what exits the process is altered from when it was input.

Different.

The problem with your reasoning is that light isn’t altered by the lens. If ten identical horizontally polarised photons with a wavelength of 532nm enter the lens and we have 80% transmission then 8 identical horizontally polarised photons with a wavelength of 532nm will exit the lens. The ONLY alteration that occurs is that they change direction. If we put a one stop ND filter in front of the lens then instead of getting 8 photons out we now get 4. They are still travelling in the same direction with the exact same properties as before we put the ND filter on. So we expose for 2x as long and we’re back to 8 photons.

No offence intended, but I don’t think you know enough about the topic, and a better topic to start might have been to ask questions to increase your understanding rather than propose a theory that highlights your lack of it. If you are happy to learn, then ask questions, we are happy to teach.

 

[ForestCap]

Low "Micro Contrast" -> High "Micro Contrast"

 

[mich rassena]

Shallow depth of field can certainly play a part on this. Lighting is a huge part too. Take two outdoor shots with the same lens. For the second shot use a fill flash to boost your subject 1/2 or a stop above the rest of the scene. There will be way more 3d pop in the second picture, even though the lens (DOF, focus point, perspective and so on) is the same.

Shawn

But the foreground / background separation that comes from having a subject lit brighter than the background isn't a feature of the lens in that case. That's just lighting.

 

[mich rassena]

Oh -- this totally has "pop". Biggest pop factor is film plane size, actually. In small format, you have to squeeze pop out of them. This is why I have (and forever shall) pitched all my other gear and only shoot full frame. APS-C and smaller, forget it. Zero pop. Might as well shoot with your cell phone, especially if you're not making prints.

Recently I attended a funeral service. In the collage of the departed in the vestibule right in the center was a 6X6 color I took of the departed in a group shot. Stood out. Had pop. That's the medium format advantage.

Pics that pop. If I was to shoot film again, medium format only.

I think the photo you're referring to is just blurry on the left and right quarters of the image due to field curvature. Only the center is in focus. I don't see much if any separation between near and far portions of the scene.

The thing you notice about medium format having more pop, well that's all dependent on the focal length of the lens. A normal lens on full frame, that's 45-50mm, on 6x6, it's 80mm. Longer focal lengths have a shallower depth of field. It's as simple as that.

 

[mich rassena]

There is no way that Nikon lens is passing 100% of light through it. If you can see that there is glass in the lens (which you can) that is only possible because some of the light hitting the lens is being reflected off the glass. Any light reflected is light not passing through it and therefor it does not have 100% transmission.

A loss of light transmission is loss of brightness. Same as a ND filter, same as stopping down. Depending upon the lens it might also reduce contrast somewhat.

Shawn

I agree. 100% light transmission would be impossible. Just the fact you can see the glass with your eyes indicates that some light is being reflected.

I don't think OP has any idea about the history of lenses. So to hinge their argument on the light transmission of modern lenses somehow being worse than older lenses with a much smaller number of elements misses the point entirely. They have it entirely backwards.