Does it?

Not really, imo.

Graham,

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

Thanks.

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

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:

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.

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.

Sorry guys. I'm having technical issues.

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

-ron

My version
Click to view attachment

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

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

So Henry, how did you create the photo?

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.

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

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.

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

(I ask 'cos I don't know )

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.

Nice picture. Shot digitally ? What is "FM" ?

FM is Fred Miranda.com
Snook

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.

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.

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
Click to view attachment

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.

I guess you are now going to have the same moire problems that all owners of the Kodak14n had to contend with.

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

Just out of curiosity why is this in the Medium Format Digital Backs forum?

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

with the 1ds3 this AA remove thing certainly gets very interesting. how much it cost you?

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.

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.

I think they will mod any camera
Marc

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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 .

And, of course, capturing the reflection of your model in the reflection of your camera lens, which will be part of your own reflection . . .

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.

My idea of 3D-quality: Click to view attachment

I guess I'm an old guy. I don't get excited about "bokeh" or selective focus technique.

What always drew me into an image and made me think about great craftsmanship and artistic representation of our 3-D world in a 2-D art form is the use of light and shadow.

Whether a photographer created it or searched for it and captured it at the perfect moment, light and shadow is what makes me stop and admire a great photographic rendering of 3 dimensions.

The image can be sharp or soft–shallow or great depth of field–and it's the lighting that gives shape and contour and dimension that talks to me.

Gotta go rest now.

I fully agree with this, absolutely right.

Thierry

TechTalk, this thread is about the visible difference in 3D-rendering between format sizes. Not about how 3D-effects can be rendered artistically most pleasing. That is a totally different discussion. You are talking about a taste matter here. Lighting is format-independent, as is perspective and the use of color or B&W. I'm sure any format can be used to create visually attractive images (with a strong sense of depth), but for technical reasons they will look different. Maybe you should start a thread called: "Photographs that make you stop and admire".

I'm not convinced there is any. But then, we all have different perception.

Not really - this thread is about a 3D look - the title of this posts mentions nothing about a specific format size or limitations to what makes an image looks 3 dimensional.

Tech Talk makes a very good point... there are other ways to create an image with a '3D look'... specifically, one can still achieve a 3D look without a half mile of background.

In fact, I would argue if your example shot had more shadow/highlights on the model, the overall look would be far more 3D looking. To my eye, the background looks 3D, but the model looks 2 dimensional... my opinion of course, and no offence meant at all.


P.

I guess that TechTalk simply mentions the possibilities (unlimited, IMO) for light to create (much better than DOF in a given format) a 3-D feeling, in which I fully agree. There is no mention of format at the begining of this tread, simply a discussion about 3-D.

Thierry

The OP was asking if his sample looked like the 3D-look that "you guys" were talking about. I thought this question was asked in the vein of that huge DSLR vs MFDB war-thread, where the debate ran hot about the supposed inherent 3D look of the MFDBs. Then he showed a stitch that attempted to mimic a high resolution sensor from a MFDB. So for me this was essentially a discussion of that technical aspect of 3D in relation to format.

Paul, I fully agree with your observation about my sample. I do a lot of stereo photography which has a tendency to also show people as flat cardboard cutouts in deep space. This image comes as close as possible to that effect, which is nevertheless often called "3D". I posted the sample to show my definition of the subject discussed here. We are visually oriented after all, and an image can make things so much more clear than a thousand words to explain what we have in mind. Now if all others would be posting some of their own samples for discussion, this could still become an interesting thread.

IMO you are right about intention of this thread.

I didnt see the stitcher but the look should be creatable stittchng which (in terms of lenseleng FOV/DOF geomatry) is not different from having a large sensor

S

I also got the impression that the thread is focussed on the characteristics of MF which might appear to contibute to a sense of 3-dimensionality in addition to, or irrespective of, the other tricks of the trade which photographers in general will use to create a particular effect.

I would say the following factors are contributing to this 3-D effect with MF cameras.

(1) Greater clarity and sharpness at the plane of focus, which surely must be the main reason why anyone would buy such an expensive camera.

(2) Shallower DoF in general when using an MF lens within the range of f stops where the lens is sharpest, say f4 to f10.

(3) Enhanced shallowness of DoF compared to 35mm as a result of that additional sharpness at the plane of focus. This is something which the DoF calculators cannot address since there is no numerical input for system resolution.

We all know that a lens is precisely in focus only at one point, or at best one plane. If that precise point is not as sharp as it could be due to inadequate lens performance and/or inadequate sensor resolution, DoF will appear less shallow than it otherwise could be.

There is clearly going to be a difference between (1) an image which has great clarity and sharpness in the area of precise focus, set against a slightly OoF background and (2) an image which is simply not tack sharp at the plane of focus but which has a slightly greater OoF background in order to create the same shallow DoF as in example (1).

The creation of an image that is so real, sharp and tangible that you feel you could almost reach out and grab the target is surely one of the goals of photography and the reason why many of us want 40mp+ cameras with adequate lenses to match.