Rikard
Established
I have shot quite a lot with my Mamiya 7ii and the 80mm F4. Never have I managed to get anything close to what I from time to time see in photographs made by other people with a Hasselblad. I don't really feel I need any scientific proof telling me things I can see with my bare eyes.
brbo
Well-known
Maybe Hasselblad users use faster than f4 lenses from time to time? Or longer len. Or get closer to subject. Or place the subject in a certain way...
sevo
Fokutorendaburando
Most of the lenses commonly identified with Hasselblads are f/3.5 or slower, for mechanical reasons - it was pretty late in the game that they managed to design faster leaf shutter lenses, and the FP shutter versions of the 'Blad never caught on.
And no, there was nothing that special or unique about Hasselblad lenses, as evident in that Zeiss supplied the Rollei SLRs with the same lens set - the SL66 or SLX never received the same credit for image quality as the Hasselblad. The reputation of the latter presumably was more due to the fact that it was a known brand among the great unwashed, while all other pro cameras were essentially anonymous...
Corran
Well-known
There's nothing special about the Hasselblad lenses. The Mamiya 80/4 I am sure is perfectly capable of rendering in a "3D" way.
I've found that stopping down a bit more than you might think is key. And using the proper focal length for a given subject/background relationship. To me all portraits made with a longer lens where the background is just a total wash of color might have "smooth" bokeh but is still a rather flat look (really good lighting can fix that though. I'd post an example but I don't want to put client work here).
I've found that stopping down a bit more than you might think is key. And using the proper focal length for a given subject/background relationship. To me all portraits made with a longer lens where the background is just a total wash of color might have "smooth" bokeh but is still a rather flat look (really good lighting can fix that though. I'd post an example but I don't want to put client work here).
Ranchu
Veteran
If the wavelength was shorter for the same amplitude, wouldn't the speed be greater for half the cycle?
mfogiel
Veteran
For who gets really excited about this story, there is an old thread on Fredmiranda:http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/530337
As far as I can remember, they've figured out that the 3d effect of some lenses is caused mainly by the way they reproduce light on the contours of objects, making them stand out more against the background.
As far as I can remember, they've figured out that the 3d effect of some lenses is caused mainly by the way they reproduce light on the contours of objects, making them stand out more against the background.
photomoof
Fischli & Weiss Sculpture
Learning to control light and focus requires observation and persistence, no one will find a magic 3D lens.
I think a good part of the 3d bs is all about lenses with strong field curvature: having near AND far planes in focus at the same time while intermediate distances are blurry. Makes for an image with an overall "threedeeness", as some would say. The 35 cron IV has this field curvature, which maybe is also the reason why it's called the king of Blurreh.
My personal explanation is as far as I'm willing to go on the subject.
My personal explanation is as far as I'm willing to go on the subject.
sreed2006
Well-known
That is how a prism works, actually. It's fundamental physics.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prism
The speed of light is constant IN A VACUUM, but not when changing from air to glass, or glass to glass. Otherwise, a lens wouldn't bend light at all and we'd only have pinhole cameras to argue about.
Edited to add: And we wouldn't have red sunsets, either.
pluton
Well-known
Just a note: so-called 3D movies are not really 3D: if they were, you'd be able to lean over in your theater seat and see behind the charcter in the shot.
They are stereography: two 2D images presented in a controlled relationship that mimics some properties of 3D vision. The so-called 3D movies, from 'Dial M' to 'Tron Legacy' look exactly GAF Viewmaster slides to me, because they use the same effect. The actors and sets and objects in the shots look like two flat cardboard cutouts viewed through separate eyeholes.
Oh, and for the record, there is no 3D effect created or transmitted by a single conventional lens, merely an illusion of the feeling of 3D created...you're not gonna like this---mainly by the lighting of the subject.
They are stereography: two 2D images presented in a controlled relationship that mimics some properties of 3D vision. The so-called 3D movies, from 'Dial M' to 'Tron Legacy' look exactly GAF Viewmaster slides to me, because they use the same effect. The actors and sets and objects in the shots look like two flat cardboard cutouts viewed through separate eyeholes.
Oh, and for the record, there is no 3D effect created or transmitted by a single conventional lens, merely an illusion of the feeling of 3D created...you're not gonna like this---mainly by the lighting of the subject.
Pete B
Well-known
willie_901
Veteran
Very funny. What about the other half?
Pherdinand
the snow must go on
Let's get something straight.
No old nor modern lenses 'reproduce 3D" on film or sensor.
They can only FAKE it.
No old nor modern lenses 'reproduce 3D" on film or sensor.
They can only FAKE it.
willie_901
Veteran
It's speed is frequency independent for any particular medium. Light only bends near extraordinarily strong gravitational fields.
The prism effect (angle) is freq. dependent, but all the freqs. arrive (someplace) at the same time after they exit the prism.
Trying to understand how light works and just enjoying making photographs are not mutually exclusive.
Pherdinand
the snow must go on
actually, THAT part is true
In vacuum c is c but in any other material, speed of light <c and it depends on the color (the frequency, the wavelength..whatever).
Violet light travels a bit slower than red light through glass. Not much tho, maybe some 1-2% slower depending on glass type.
Index of refraction is what gives the "light slowing down" effect of a transparent material and IoR is different for different colors.
So
Light sent into glass -> blue component slows down more than red -> dispersion -> prism effect, rainbow, color fringing, chromatic aberration, whatever.
Pherdinand
the snow must go on
c is defined as constant so of course it is constant
but c is only the speed of light in vacuum, i.e. not very realistic for any sort of photography ( except maybe Man Ray in space
)frequency differs with changes in wavelength - of course, since freq and WL is tied together by a constant (the speed of light in vacuum
) wavelength times frequency is = speed of light.It's as simple as saying, that the time you need to travel from Los Angeles to San Diego with a certain speed is different if you wanna go to New York instead
Pherdinand
the snow must go on
Agree, but also COLOR makes a huge difference. Depending on the foreground - background color difference, foreground in-focus subject can stand out more or less as well.
Pherdinand
the snow must go on
only true for vacuum (i.e. as the "constant" c is defined).
So again, not very relevant for photography.
I thoroughly believe that QGT is in fact predicting the compression/dilution of TIME, not the change in speed of light itself (in vacuum).
It's similar to saying, your running speed is slower than mine while in fact it's just my clock ticking slower than yours
pagpow
Well-known
I am sorely tempted to write nothing at all. Temptation has passed.
I agree with the first part of that sentence, we are talking about the illusion or feeling of 3D when we talk about a photo taken with one lens. Some also call it the plasticity of the image.
I do not agree that the impression is created mainly by lighting. It is true that lighting can contribute much to the feeling, some lenses seem to create this effect more than others.
Every time this topic comes up we have difficulties discussing it because all the comments made in this thread are made --
a) no two dimensional object (the photograph) can be three dimensional
b) no monocular (taken with one lens) image can create three dimensions
c) the illusion is largely the result of the subject, its placement relative to the other objects in the frame, and the lighting.
IMO:
a) is correct but misses the point
b) is correct and also misses the point
c) is correct in that the aspects mentioned can enhance the effect/feeling/illusion, but incorrect in attributing the whole effect to that.
In addition, our discussions of the topic are hampered because different people have different referents when we talk about the 3D effect. When examples are posted, many involve a foreground subject with san out of focus background which is seen to have "pop". These photos do, indeed, have pop, and that pop is enhanced by the differential focus, but that is not what I understand to be the 3D effect. The 3D effect I understand many, but not all people, to be referring to, manifest in photos where (nearly) everything is in focus.
My belief that some significant part of this effect is generated by the lens itself is supported by several points:
1) we talk about some lenses being "flat" -- that is, again in my understanding, as not producing any 3-dimensionality
2) by the fact that I perceived this illusion with some lenses and subjects when the lighting did not conform to the kind of lighting usually tied to the effect (cross lighting of some sort) but was, rather, uniform top lighting
3) folks more experienced (i.e. with exposure to more photographs and more lenses) than I refer to this property in some lenses and not in others.
I think if we want to break out of this cycle, and we may not, it would be helpful to view a number of photographs and agree on which ones exhibit the effect, and then examine the lenses involved. To gild the lily we could then shoot the same scene (same sensor, same lighting, etc) with the same lens and other lenses commonly taken to be "flat" and do a blind viewing (no pun intended) to see a) if most people discern such an effect and b) consistently attribute it to the "correct" lens.
End of rant, with added apologies for length.
Giorgio
Corran
Well-known
Mind posting an example? I can't think of anytime this has happened for me. I find the 3D-ness to be almost entirely a product of DOF/sharpness of a subject in front of a blurry (if even slightly) OOF background (such as the photos I posted).