Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: narikin on November 20, 2009, 07:37:20 pm
-
been reading people here talking about the '3D effect' of MF digital files.
now I'm not one for hocus pocus or mystical unmeasurable benefits of pricey MF backs over 35mm digital, or Leica images over anything else, or eastern 'Bokeh' mysticism... BUT... I have to admit I DO see it when I look at good MF files!
any ideas what is causing this - the lack of AA filter? the expanded Dynamic Range? great C1 raw processing of their own backs files?
or is it simply MF images taken at the right aperture, in the right light, mimic human vision.
-
I will get flamed for this:
My 2cw:
1) Is perception,like you want to see it after you paid $ for your MFDB
2) The shallow DOP will give you a more 3D look.
3) I can get the 3D look with my D3x with a fast lens as well
-
I will get flamed for this:
My 2cw:
1) Is perception,like you want to see it after you paid $ for your MFDB
2) The shallow DOP will give you a more 3D look.
3) I can get the 3D look with my D3x with a fast lens as well
I think that those who post espousing the MF 3D look and those denying it get flamed pretty equally, so don't worry Willem.
Steve Hendrix
-
been reading people here talking about the '3D effect' of MF digital files.
now I'm not one for hocus pocus or mystical unmeasurable benefits of pricey MF backs over 35mm digital, or Leica images over anything else, or eastern 'Bokeh' mysticism... BUT... I have to admit I DO see it when I look at good MF files!
any ideas what is causing this - the lack of AA filter? the expanded Dynamic Range? great C1 raw processing of their own backs files?
or is it simply MF images taken at the right aperture, in the right light, mimic human vision.
I think this is the combination of those. Mostly it's due to the clarity of details and smooth tonal gradations. The difference is very subtle if you look at it pragmatically but very significant for those who pay attention to details and 'feels' the photo.
But you cannot expect everyone to see this difference, and they tend to make fun of those who claim they can That's normal.
-
Thanks Steve,
I'm not that worried anyway
-
Willem: your D3x cures cancer too, right?
-
Narakin,
if id did cure cancer,I certainly wouldn't be shooting anymore.
I would be to busy curing cancer.
But really,what's the problem that I like my D3x?
The 3D subject has been discussed over and over.
Why don't you spend a few days searching the old post on this forum.
Best,
Willem.
N.B Can you see more 3D in the P65+ ?
http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....showtopic=39318 (http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=39318)
-
I do too. I can see the 3D effect right on my monitor. I can see it often from MF files and sometimes from D35. I think everything counts. Color depth, resolution, tonality, bokeh and cleanliness of files. I have a crazy theory that when the size of the capture matches or surpasses the distance between the eyes the 3D effect may be seen.
Eduardo
-
any ideas what is causing this?
The "3D effect" is one or more of the following:
- Thin DOF
- Wide angle of view
- Aliasing artifacts (MFDB users call it "detail")
- High contrast (MTF)
- High SNR over the dynamic range curve (i.e., color depth)
- Post processing
-
I don't see what angle of view has to do with it. Most MF users don't shoot very wide. And the angle of view with a 35mm DSLR using a 14mm lens is wider than anything you can put in front of an MFDB.
This discussion will invariably get heated. There was a huge thread a few months ago with lots of back an forth, although I don't think anybody demonstrably proved the "3D" advantage of MF digital.
-
Hi,
I'm one of those "believers" in the 3D effect, in fact it was the reason I bought the MF system in the first place.
You have to remember that the most important thing for seeing a good 3D like image is light use.
After that it's probably :
1. the quality of the glass.
2. the different distance and lens length with MF (different DOF/Circle of confusion), because when shooting film on the RZ I can see it even more.
3. more detail/sharpness due to a lack of AA filtering which gives you things like microcontrast and that contributes to the sense of realness.
4. better graduates and color, which will help a lot. Although for example the new 14 bits cameras are already a step upwarts.
And probably a lot more.
It's not an exact science I'm afraid, and in most cases with this kind of stuff it's always that there will be people that if you can't prove will be certain that it doesn't exists.
There are also people that read it and immediately believe it's there, so for both groups there is something to say.
For myself I'm 100% sure it's there but it's highly depended on the camera used.
When I did the beta testing for the Leaf Afi-II for example we did a shot with the Afi-II next to the RZ67ProII and the RZ gave with an identical back much more 3D effect in the same setup from the same position with the same kind of lens.
So it's I think more depended on the lenses within the MF system.
Also sensor size is important, the best example is the large amount of people seeing more 3D in their pictures when they change from a crop camera to a Full frame camera.
In the end we will never know what the 3D is for 100% certainty, what I do know for 100% is that there is a seeable difference in the different camera systems and lenses.
-
I don't see what angle of view has to do with it. Most MF users don't shoot very wide. And the angle of view with a 35mm DSLR using a 14mm lens is wider than anything you can put in front of an MFDB.
There are two separate issues:
1. The list of things that constitutes "3D effect".
2. The list of things that are advantages of MFDB.
The first list is not logical, and includes things like angle of view, in which MFDB has no advantage. The second of course does not contain angle of view, and is in fact a much smaller list.
The reason why "angle of view" has something to do with it is precisely because many people think that is part of the reason for MFDB "magic". It comes out in different ways. Some say that "since longer lenses are required for the same angle of view, MFDB results in a more pleasing perspective". That's of course totally wrong. Others say that since MFDB gives you a wider angle of view for the same focal length, it makes you move closer and get a more dynamic perspective (wrong again, of course).
You have people out there that go through a catalog of MFDB photos that all tend to be wide angle, then go through a catalog of 35mm photos that all tend to be telephoto. They happen to love wide angle, and they feel like it contributes to the "3D effect". That's just one example, but I assure you that people think illogical things all the time.
Same with depth of field. Some people think MFDB has an advantage in DOF when in fact 35mm allows more control over DOF for most angles of view (thanks to f/1.4 and f/1.2 lenses vs f/2.8 generally).
3D effect can be traced to post processing as well. If you do A/B comparisons of a shot with heavy sharpening and one with no sharpening, some people will identify the heavy sharpening image as the "3D effect" one.
-
2. the different distance and lens length with MF (different DOF/Circle of confusion), because when shooting film on the RZ I can see it even more.
FWIW, MFDB has no advantage over 35mm when it comes to focus distance, lens length, or DOF. 35mm can match almost any perspective, angle of view, and DOF. 50mm f/1.2 on 35mm and 80mm f/2 on MFDB, for example.
-
Hi,
Probably a combination...
If we discuss same print size a lower lp/mm is needed on MF, which would give much higher MTF for a given feature size, equal quality of lens assumed.
MFDBs don't have AA-filter, an approach which may increase perception of sharpness, even if some of the perceived sharpness is actually an artifact. Fortunately these artifacts are not very visible in normal pictures, they can show up as discontinous hair strains for instance.
Better photographer behind the lens?
Best regards
Erik
been reading people here talking about the '3D effect' of MF digital files.
now I'm not one for hocus pocus or mystical unmeasurable benefits of pricey MF backs over 35mm digital, or Leica images over anything else, or eastern 'Bokeh' mysticism... BUT... I have to admit I DO see it when I look at good MF files!
any ideas what is causing this - the lack of AA filter? the expanded Dynamic Range? great C1 raw processing of their own backs files?
or is it simply MF images taken at the right aperture, in the right light, mimic human vision.
-
What about another issue?
Do I see more 3D with my $3000 monitor?
Do I see more 3D in the printed matter?
The list goes on and yes I still like my D3x even if it doesn't cure cancer
-
IMO it's mostly BS and wishful thinking on the part of people who need to believe in the superiority of their pet system. If you look through the archives, a blind test was done about a year ago where somebody collected 50 DSLR images and 50 MFDB images and made a web quiz asking the quiz-taker to decide which images were shot with MFDB and which were shot with DSLR. The results were within the margin of error that could be expected if everyone simply guessed randomly (the average accuracy was <60% IIRC, with 50% being what one would expect if every user simply guessed randomly); the confidence level that the quiz-takers could actually tell the difference consistently was <25%.
I'm not disputing that MFDBs have some per-pixel quality advantages over DSLRs, at least at low ISO (high ISO is a different story) and generally higher pixel count, as well as more lens movements and shallower DOF capability in general than DSLR. But when the existence of the "3-D" effect was actually put to the test, the results didn't support the theory.
-
been reading people here talking about the '3D effect' of MF digital files.
now I'm not one for hocus pocus or mystical unmeasurable benefits of pricey MF backs over 35mm digital, or Leica images over anything else, or eastern 'Bokeh' mysticism... BUT... I have to admit I DO see it when I look at good MF files!
any ideas what is causing this - the lack of AA filter? the expanded Dynamic Range? great C1 raw processing of their own backs files?
or is it simply MF images taken at the right aperture, in the right light, mimic human vision.
Some the answer is post-processing or "hocus Phocus" with some of the best MF systems.
Narrow DOF can contribute, but with a MFDVC or t/s you can have everything in focus.
RES is important if their is fine detail in the picture ...snow should not look like icing sugar, and grass should not look indistinguishable from cloth.
A picture, IMHO, should look like the viewer is looking at the original scene through an open window, so you can visualise the stereo 3D scene.
-
I really think that it's down to the lenses, which are easily adaptable to 35mm. Man, I wish I still had my Leaf Valeo back, because I could do side to side tests with my A900...and that would be tricky, because the Valeo had a 24x36 sensor
-
Using longer lenses at shorter distances with for a given perspective.
If that makes any sense. It does to me-ish.
I've only ever shot MF film though, saw it in portraiture where the above would apply, never saw it with landscape stuff.
Could it be the famous 3D effect of Zeiss lenses contributes to MF=3D from the film days when so many used 'blad lenses or is the claim only post digital? There wasn't quite so much internet chatter in the days when I shot MF film so I don't remember
-
Reichmann must have a plant here in the audience. Every thirty days or so, the alarm goes off, and this plant has to stand up and (re)ask this same question again. Set your watch, I guarantee you in thirty days it'll happen again.
My take on it: It's only the size of the Capture Device. It's only optics. Nothing to do with film vs digital or post.
Take two tripods: set them up side by side. On one is 8x10 Deardorff, on the other is Canon G11. Note differences in size of "sensors". Take same photo, compare inherent depth of field. With G11, damn near everything is sharp even wide open. With Deardorff, you gotta stop down to f16 to get anything sharp.
What people are picking up on is the relationship of forward subject from background, and how much the focus falls away moreso with MF, versus CanonNikon.
The only exception, (and it's really a slightly different effect), is shooting the Canon 85 1.2 wide open, or the 50 1.2 wide open. It's sorta the same but slightly different, but I'm not optics guy but i have tested it with real photographs.
You think p65 is 3D? Imagine if there was a 6x8cm chip for Fuji 680, or a 6x9cm chip for Fuji rangefinder body, or 6x7 chip for RZ. Remember how much less is actually in focus with digital, compared to what you're seeing in viewfinder? Imagine that now, but then imagine how much more magnified that effect would be with a 6x8 or 6x9 chip. (There'll never be a consumer chip that size; CanonNikon will eat everyone else alive before MF can bring it to market).
My thought: p65 is biggest consumer chip you'll ever see. So if 3D is your Thang, then save that money and buy the P65.
Just one opinion. I might be wrong.
-
Reichmann must have a plant here in the audience. Every thirty days or so, the alarm goes off, and this plant has to stand up and (re)ask this same question again. Set your watch, I guarantee you in thirty days it'll happen again.
From real life.
Yesterday stopped at Samy's on Fairfax to pick up two repaired strobe heads. I wish I'd of carried on of those flip video things and taped it, from parking lot to back because it's interesting.
At first there is the rental counter. 45 art center and Brook's grads, all grabbing up Canons, Nikons and a few 7b's to do their big test on the weekend, cause weekend rental is counted as one day.
They all have that wide eyed look, almost happy almost scared like a kid before he goes onto the roller coaster. He wants to do it more than he wants to breath, but you can just feel that thought of "damn I hope I don't puke and embarress myself." There is a line of them dragging the rentals out and trying to stuff them in their Audi's and BMW 3 series. Kind of funny to see kids with $45,000 cars, but it is LA and they did go to Art Center.
Then up to the camera department and on the left is the Leica guy, I kid you not the guy with the blue sweater on his shoulders in the you tube videos. He's all by himself, not a customer within 50 feet, standing in front of these little red boxes with a camera on top of each one. An M-8, M-9 and some little bitty camera that looks cell phone size. These boxes are kind of Cartier looking, except Samy's doesn't look like Cartier so it's kind of strange to see someone selling jewelry in a camera store.
I swear to the heavens he's still got a sweater on his shoulder, but this time it's bright orange, tasteful european orange, not wallmart ugly orange. Not an S-2 to be seen. Behind him is all this Leica stuff they use to make that Samy's must have pulled from stock. A brand new film R-9 with that dark titanium metal look and God that camera is beautiful. It takes everything I got not to buy that camera until I think oh, yea, that's a film camera and uh yea, it's manual focus and uh yea, it probably would take 6 weeks to get it fixed and when's the next time I'm gonna shoot 35mm film?
I ask him about the S-2 and he mentions some demo day in December, but I just kid of think huh, demo day, uh ok,
Then the Canon and Nikon counters are pretty full, mostly amateurs buying lenses and flash to go on their d700's and 5d's.
Now I round the corner to the "Pro" section where the medium format cameras are and there are 5 "customers" holding cameras, mostly Hasselblads. All have that big half guilty smile, like the wife is out of town and I'm gonna spend some serious money. If this was three years earlier they'd all be at the Porsche, Harley, or Ferrari dealership, but nobody that has to look respectable is gonna buy a $180,000 sports car today, not in LA, not with all the talk about global melting and the economy, not when every neighbor drives a Prius. So instead of a Carerra they're gonna buy a camera.
None are holding a Leaf, or a Phase, in fact the phase cameras are on the bottom of the case one of them on it's side. They all are holding those blads and I could be wrong but they don't look like photographers to me at least not professional photographers.
Guys that do what I do kind of look road weary, kind of beat up and these guys are a little pudgy, but have those clean hands and pink smooth cheeks like Dentists or Heart Surgeons. They don't look like Gordon Gecko types either (those guys are still buying the Ferraris), just nice happy rich guys that live in Brentwood.
I could take those guys into a studio and shoot a Canon next to the blad or the Phase and prove to them the difference is about 4%, or show them how to tether, rename, batch process, but they don't care cause they ain't gonna tether, rename, or batch process. They don't want a Canon cause none of their friends knows that a $7,000 Canon is not a $900 Canon, they want a Hasselblad.
Those guys believe in the 3d look.
Now I could take them into a studio or location with a real crew, a real model, (probably in Lingerie and not one of those camera company models) and with a briese light hand them that blad and say see, see, the 3d look, see how this "big" camera renders the image, or better yet "draws" the image and they'd go "yea, yea, man that's it".
These are believers and the wife is outta town.
BC
-
They don't want a Canon cause none of their friends knows that a $7,000 Canon is not a $900 Canon, they want a Hasselblad.
That's excellent. For once, I'm on the right side of the equation. 'Cause I got a P45+ for sale, along with an entire H2 system. And two 1ds3's to boot. I'm cleaning them up right now, getting them back in the box, and I'm wearing my sweater tied around my neck and my shiny Loafers, just for Good Luck.
-
That's excellent. For once, I'm on the right side of the equation. 'Cause I got a P45+ for sale, along with an entire H2 system. And two 1ds3's to boot. I'm cleaning them up right now, getting them back in the box, and I'm wearing my sweater tied around my neck and my shiny Loafers, just for Good Luck.
Samy is one smart cat.
He's got the "pro" department around the corner from the Nikons and Canons. This is important, cause yesterday, all those guys are taking snaps with the H3dII dash whatever and pushing all those little buttons on the back, staring into that weird oled or lcd or whatever screen it has on the back.
They're just smiling ear to ear, cause the only thing they could compare it to was that tiny little Phase lcd. They could compare it to the Sinar/HY6 lcd, but those batteries haven't been charged in 14 months, so on that side of the store, that Blad sure looks good.
Now if their was a 5d2 sitting there and they did the same thing, they'd go "oh shit, why is the screen on the Hasselblad broke?", but since the 5d2 is around the corner, stuffed in a box, they don't see the comparison.
Samy is smart.
So when you sell that Hasselblad/Phase, make sure you don't sell it to the same guy that buys your Canons.
BC
-
Now I could take them into a studio or location with a real crew, a real model, (probably in Lingerie and not one of those camera company models) and with a briese light hand them that blad and say see, see, the 3d look, see how this "big" camera renders the image, or better yet "draws" the image and they'd go "yea, yea, man that's it".
These are believers and the wife is outta town.
I got what you're saying and I know (at least assume) you wouldn't stretch the story to excess.
But - maybe just once in a while - don't forget that there are a lot of photographers who don't need to batch process or rename or whatever.
Because they shoot 2-3 images in a day… or 1 in 3 days… or 1 in 2 months (plus, maybe, the LCC shots, but I don't count them).
You'll find some of them here on the board and you'll find them in galleries.
It would be strange not to call them "professionals" just because they produce low volumes and appreciate to focus manually.
These guys care about 4%. Even 2%. But in their respective genres it's more than just 4%... because they don't shoot fashion/beauty (which gets retouching anyway... so for this genre you can actually use any current medicore DSLR that is fast enough and can be tethered to C1).
Well, I'm sure I don't tell you any news. But, sorry, the generalized story of the dentists is getting old… at least little bit ;-)
-
Samy is one smart cat.
He's got the "pro" department around the corner from the Nikons and Canons. This is important, cause yesterday, all those guys are taking snaps with the H3dII dash whatever and pushing all those little buttons on the back, staring into that weird oled or lcd or whatever screen it has on the back.
Hmm, the pro dept in the Fairfax store is on the fourth floor, except on Sundays, where they have a lone "pro" guy on the third floor with the Nikons and Canons. Is Samy only smart on Sunday?
-
I've been curious about this MFDB mystique myself, and asked a related question on what is tonality (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/lofiversion/index.php/t36690.html), which is another phrase being thrown around in pretty much every discussion about the superiority of the medium.
But as I conceded in my post linked above (IIRC), I see something "different" in my medium format film shots. Whether it's placebo effect - since I know which ones are taken with MF -, or whether it's quantifiable is a whole another matter. I'm pretty sure it's pure placebo, but would be glad to be proven wrong.
-
I don't know what causes the 3D look either. There is a big thread on FM and before that, there was another. The best we could come up with is that it has something to do with micro-contrast, and something to do with the way that sharpness rolls off as you run out of depth of field. The Leicas are very abrupt in the rolloff, and they have more subject isolation. The Zeiss lenses have a more gradual rolloff, and more details left in the boke, and they seem to have the 3D look more often.
MF has more, I don't know why. I don't think it necessarily has much to do with optics, although there is that. I think that it just has to do with the size of the capture area, i.e. the sensor or the film. 8x10 has even more. One glance at the Acute Matte screen on my Hasselblad with the 110/2 on and I see it, a lot of the time. The 120/4 Macro Contax 645 also shows it, and even the 80/2. Again, I see it, I like it, but I don't know where it comes from.
-
took a photo of a woman
it was 3d for real
i walked into the photo and kissed her, she kissed back
then i woke up
3d my ass!
btw the shot was taken with a hassy
-
took a photo of a woman
it was 3d for real
i walked into the photo and kissed her, she kissed back
then i woke up
3d my ass!
btw the shot was taken with a hassy
I am curious how you got the photo of your ass with your Hassie, but please don't show the photo.
Personally, I am referring to my ancient 2000FC/M, btw. I own no modern Hassie, and have a lot more invested in Leica M than in MF, so I have no horse in this race, I just see it.
-
arent these 3d arguings exactly the same attributes people found in film days in the leica m shots ?
there have been written books about it b e.putt. koma, form of the blades, sort of glass , everythink.
m guys often claimed that its not visible in the r shots and ofcorse not in canon or nikon glass ...
i have shot both systems at that time ( r+m ) aside my 4x5" linhof and this discussions have been as boring for me in that times than they are in this days.
-
arent these 3d arguings exactly the same attributes people found in film days in the leica m shots ?
there have been written books about it b e.putt. koma, form of the blades, sort of glass , everythink.
m guys often claimed that its not visible in the r shots and ofcorse not in canon or nikon glass ...
i have shot both systems at that time ( r+m ) aside my 4x5" linhof and this discussions have been as boring for me in that times than they are in this days.
Hmm.... I'm not sure I can quantify the effect...but....
My early personal work was mostly shot around decaying Chicago industrial sites, steel mills more often than not. It was all shot on 4x5 Tri X. I would make contact prints on Agfa Portriga, do selective bleaching and then drop them in a strong selenium bath until the hilights and midtones had gone magenta, but pull them while the shadows were still that sort of olive colored base that was inherent to Portriga (beautiful paper). Those prints were absolutely 3 dimensional. Actually most of my contact prints felt that way to me. I think it does have a lot to do with tonality. What I mean when I say good tonality is not just that the image utilizes the full range of tones between pure black and pure white, but also that there are very smooth transitions between the varying tones, AND good contrast, the effect of which is achieved through the clarity in details (via good glass). The black and white conversions I've done from my P65+ files capture this feeling for me, even more so than the film I was shooting previously on the same project. Btw, if you wanna try to figure out which is which, go here (http://christopherbarrett.net/personal/housing_berwyn/). The digitals were with the Phase 645, 45mm D and P65+ and the film shots were on a 'Blad 500c, 50mm Distagon on Efke 25 processed in Pyro and drum scanned.
Did I have a point? Did I make it?
-C
-
Samy is one smart cat.
He's got the "pro" department around the corner from the Nikons and Canons. This is important, cause yesterday, all those guys are taking snaps with the H3dII dash whatever and pushing all those little buttons on the back, staring into that weird oled or lcd or whatever screen it has on the back.
Samy is smart.
So when you sell that Hasselblad/Phase, make sure you don't sell it to the same guy that buys your Canons.
BC
You bet Samy is smart, look at the empire he's built here in LA . I know cause up until the beginning of this year(January) I worked for him, in the Pasadena store behind the film counter.
He's a very generous guy too, with a really big heart. And a fucking good businessman!!!
I'm in preparation to transfer to Art Center in the next year, getting some gen. ed out of the way before applying. Leaving more time to shoot while there.
but yes, Samy is super smart
-Dan
-
You bet Samy is smart, look at the empire he's built here in LA . I know cause up until the beginning of this year(January) I worked for him, in the Pasadena store behind the film counter.
He's a very generous guy too, with a really big heart. And a fucking good businessman!!!
I'm in preparation to transfer to Art Center in the next year, getting some gen. ed out of the way before applying. Leaving more time to shoot while there.
but yes, Samy is super smart
-Dan
every coin has a flip side ... that's not
always as shiny as the other side
-
every coin has a flip side ... that's not
always as shiny as the other side
Sure, not always, but sometimes the other side is just as shiny. Was there a point you were trying to make?
-
been reading people here talking about the '3D effect' of MF digital files.
now I'm not one for hocus pocus or mystical unmeasurable benefits of pricey MF backs over 35mm digital, or Leica images over anything else, or eastern 'Bokeh' mysticism... BUT... I have to admit I DO see it when I look at good MF files!
any ideas what is causing this - the lack of AA filter? the expanded Dynamic Range? great C1 raw processing of their own backs files?
or is it simply MF images taken at the right aperture, in the right light, mimic human vision.
There is a scientific reason for that. If you have bigger sensor you have bigger FOV (Field of View) and more perspective. There is a tradeoff between pixel size to focal length and smaller pixel size is increasing the equivalent focal length
(http://www.robots.ox.ac.uk/~vgg/hzbook/all_figs/gif/fig5.7a.gif)
-
been reading people here talking about the '3D effect' of MF digital files.
now I'm not one for hocus pocus or mystical unmeasurable benefits of pricey MF backs over 35mm digital, or Leica images over anything else, or eastern 'Bokeh' mysticism... BUT... I have to admit I DO see it when I look at good MF files!
any ideas what is causing this - the lack of AA filter? the expanded Dynamic Range? great C1 raw processing of their own backs files?
or is it simply MF images taken at the right aperture, in the right light, mimic human vision.
-
For all the arguing that goes on about this subject, the funny thing is that you're both right, hahaha! MFD has clear advantages over 35mm, and 35mm has clear advantages over MFD. If you can't see the difference I personally could care less (I'd really like to see more actual pictures), but the differences are certainly there. In most cases when using strobes or when shooting anything that doesn't move when the light is good, MFD is better. Customers can't tell the difference (yet), but I don't care because I get a warm feeling shooting with it knowing the files meet MY expectations. Usually when shooting events the lights go dim and there is no substitute for high ISO with 35mm, and that's when I make the switch. For me the answer is yes, there is a 3D effect with MFD, but at the same time for any professional who needs to be versatile, the real solution is to have both. I do.
Alex
-
I would guess it has something to do with mid tones and detail, that under the right circumstances cause an image to look more 'real' or have a depth that other images don't seem to have. I know when I use my Leica R lenses on my Canon's there is definitely more of a 3D feel.
Many call it 'microcontrast' that Leica, as well as Zeiss has in a similar but definitely different fashion. The optics on the MF cameras combined with the larger sensors also exhibit that mid-tone detail that seems to have the same properties. I think it is described as contrast vs. resolution in inferior optical design. In other words, when designing cheap optics, (read: canon, nikon etc.), manufactures have to choose contrast to make up for poor rendering of detail. Leica, and Zeiss etc. have a different customer base and can build better optics without and or less of this compromise. I would imagine that the MF cameras all have optics that measure up to this higher standard. Please forgive me if I have the terms contrast, sharpness, detail, resolution mixed up, but I think you get my meaning.
So no I don't think it's in the mind of the MF customers, but I don't think you always need a MF camera to achieve it. But it's probably easier with one. After shooting with the S2 the other day, MF may have finally reached the level of convenience that Canon and Nikon have had a monopoly on for a decade now.
IMO.
-
...
In other words, when designing cheap optics, (read: canon, nikon etc.), manufactures have to choose contrast to make up for poor rendering of detail. Leica, and Zeiss etc. have a different customer base and can build better optics without and or less of this compromise. I would imagine that the MF cameras all have optics that measure up to this higher standard.
To be fair Nikon and Canon make some great glass. The Canon 50mm f/1.2 has a great look. However you're right in that Canon and Nikon more often are making lenses intended for a market where attention to minute aesthetics like the shape of out of focus highlights wouldn't increase sales enough to justify the cost of development, refinement, and production costs of those attributes.
No company has the corner on the market of intelligent R+D or designers. However, targeting different markets does naturally influence your priorities.
Doug Peterson ()
__________________
Head of Technical Services, Capture Integration
Phase One, Leaf, Cambo, Canon, Apple, Profoto, Eizo & More
National: 877.217.9870 | Cell: 740.707.2183
Newsletter: Read Latest or Sign Up (http://www.captureintegration.com/our-company/newsletters/)
RSS Feed: Subscribe (http://www.captureintegration.com/2008/08/11/rss-feeds/)
Buy Capture One at 10% off (http://www.captureintegration.com/phase-one/buy-capture-one/)
-
There is a scientific reason for that. If you have bigger sensor you have bigger FOV (Field of View) and more perspective. There is a tradeoff between pixel size to focal length and smaller pixel size is increasing the equivalent focal length
http://www.robots.ox.ac.uk/~vgg/hzbook/all...gif/fig5.7a.gif (http://www.robots.ox.ac.uk/~vgg/hzbook/all_figs/gif/fig5.7a.gif)
This is nonsense. Perspective is determined by camera location. Focal length and format size have absolutely nothing to do with perspective. FOV is determined by a combination of focal length and format size, but there is no difference between a 100-degree FOV on 35mm-format versus 100-degree FOV on MF.
-
The optics on the MF cameras combined with the larger sensors also exhibit that mid-tone detail that seems to have the same properties. I think it is described as contrast vs. resolution in inferior optical design. In other words, when designing cheap optics, (read: canon, nikon etc.), manufactures have to choose contrast to make up for poor rendering of detail. Leica, and Zeiss etc. have a different customer base and can build better optics without and or less of this compromise. I would imagine that the MF cameras all have optics that measure up to this higher standard. Please forgive me if I have the terms contrast, sharpness, detail, resolution mixed up, but I think you get my meaning.
I guess if you're talking about cheap consumer kit lenses you may have a point. But there are plenty of 35mm-format optics that out-resolve the typical MF lenses as far as pure lp/mm, made not only by Nikon and Canon in their professional glass, but also Zeiss et al.
-
This is certainly true. Years ago, we compared a "35" Nikkor 105 to a LF 105 El-Nikkor. Shot same place, same view, same hour, same tripod. Both processing were made within the hour. F stops I can't exactly remember but I'm positive they were around optimal. We put both Velvia transparencies on the light table. Appart from the different perspectives (one was mild telephoto and the other one mild wide-angle), sheer lp/mm was vastly superior from the 35mm transparency. Being from a telephoto lens I gave it a slight advantage but not enough to compensate for the huge superiority in resolution from the 35 slide. Suffice to say, the 4X5 transparency was way superior to the 35 slide both printed at 16X20".
Eduardo
I guess if you're talking about cheap consumer kit lenses you may have a point. But there are plenty of 35mm-format optics that out-resolve the typical MF lenses as far as pure lp/mm, made not only by Nikon and Canon in their professional glass, but also Zeiss et al.
-
Was there a point you were trying to make?
yes. there is a flip side to the characterization presented.
... and it's not as shiny as the presented characterization.
-
This is certainly true. Years ago, we compared a "35" Nikkor 105 to a LF 105 El-Nikkor. Shot same place, same view, same hour, same tripod. Both processing were made within the hour. F stops I can't exactly remember but I'm positive they were around optimal. We put both Velvia transparencies on the light table. Appart from the different perspectives (one was mild telephoto and the other one mild wide-angle), sheer lp/mm was vastly superior from the 35mm transparency. Being from a telephoto lens I gave it a slight advantage but not enough to compensate for the huge superiority in resolution from the 35 slide. Suffice to say, the 4X5 transparency was way superior to the 35 slide both printed at 16X20".
Eduardo
No doubt the larger format has an advantage in resolution, whether we're talking film or digital. I'm not saying 35mm is just as good as MF. But the question this thread asks is about the "3D quality" some say MF has over smaller formats, and I don't think it can be argued that this has anything to do with MF lenses being sharper.
My personal feeling is that if there's a 3D quality, it comes down to DOF and really only applies to shots with shallow DOF. It's easier to get a shallow DOF with a larger format, and with the longer lenses that MF uses for a given FOV, the transition from in-focus to out-of-focus will be different than with a smaller format using a shorter lens (even if that shorter lens has a very fast aperture).
For shots where the DOF goes pretty much to infinity (eg landscapes shot with stopped-down aperture), I don't think the "3D advantage" is there. I am not saying the MF shot won't be better in some ways (it will certainly print larger before the detail starts to fall apart), but I don't think it's a matter of the MF landscape being more "3D".
-
Well, I'm sure I don't tell you any news. But, sorry, the generalized story of the dentists is getting old… at least little bit ;-)
I also mentioned heart surgeons.
Be cool, I'm not knocking dentists, heck one of the best photographers I've ever seen was a dentist and I've heard that Howard Schatz was an eye surgeon or something like that.
It brings up the ol' joke, how to make a small fortune in photography . . . start with a large fortune.
One of the kids that works for me said his girlfriend is trying to decide to run in At-Edge, or Le-Book or both. Heck she's 4 years old and she's got the family money to drop $20,000 in marketing, hoping to get a rep, hoping to get famous, etc. etc. etc.
In fact most of the photographers I know would love to just go have fun with cameras but the toothpaste is out of the tube and professional photography, even simple professional photography that is good enough to move you forward costs money.
So when you think, OK, I'm going to shoot ___(fill in the blanks here)____and go out to the desert, then you start thinking, ok well, I guess I should take some models, yea and we also need a stylist, props, wardrobe, then that fun idea becomes a $5,000 to $10,000 idea and money starts to screw up everything, cause then you think crap if I'm going to spend 10 grand then I guess they better be wearing jeans, or bras, or maybe carrying a prop because then I can present to Nike, or Levi's or somebody that pays real money, then of course now your shooting a spec job, no matter how you cut it and once your brain is full of that, then you have to make sure they're smiling, at least sometimes, so it becomes marginalized and any professional that doesn't go through this thought process is either an heir to Pepsico or is stoned.
So, as a professional, when I see those guys stomping around in the woods all the tripods 6 feet from each other it looks like fun, though I think it probably would be a good idea if they moved away from each other and found their own shot, but hey, it's their gig, not mine.
But let's be realistic these expensive specialty cameras are becoming much less a tool for professionals and much more a hobby for rich guys (and girls). Leica has know this forever (that's why that Lecia guy wears his signature shoulder sweater), I'm positive Hasselblad sells a lot of cameras to the Brentwood group and Phase has recognized this, that's why that Podas thing happened.
There is only three things wrong with the Podas marketing effort and first is the name. I just can't help but think podass which sounds like some kind of underground, alternative music group from Louisiana. "Tonight's musical guest . . . PODASS." The second thing Phase missed on was the production values. If your gonna take a some well heeled guys out on the road with some models, take a few assistants, some foam core, a generator and maybe a stylist so they can shoot something really interesting, not just a small softbox and a battery flash. In fact try to make it so they can get the shot of their lifetime. The third thing with Podas is that blog. Somebody needs to tell whoever did that blog to make sure all the production stills are in black and white and labeled production stills. That way none of the pixel boys looks at those photos and says "huh, a $50,000 camera for snapshots".
But back to the original point of this thread, the 3d thing. I don't believe in the 3d thing, never have unless your printing an art book in gravure with spot varnish. That looks almost 3d but still cameras don't shoot 3d and the difference between a ok photo, a good photo and a great photo has a lot less to do with the camera than most people think.
In fact I believe the digital era of photography will be known as the over detailed, over sharpened generation.
Even if your a dentist.
IMO
BC
-
I also mentioned heart surgeons.
Hey BC... funny post, but I'm not sure you got the gist of the original disagreement with your "dentists" post... ie, there are guys who don't just shoot fashion/people out there, to whom that last little, nearly imperceptible, 2% of quality matters for their subject matter. Landscape and Architectural photography comes to mind.
So, throwing the whole vibe that MF only exists to serve dentists and heart surgeons is demeaning to those who are actually served by its advantages. Besides, who cares what a bunch of amateurs are doing around the MF camera department at Samy's? Does a synopsis of who stands around the MF camera department there dictate who should be using the gear? I love your posts, but man, they are like throwing a wet blanket on the folks who actually like using that gear (for reasons not in your rubric of correct camera usage).
But we're getting away from the discussion about "3d effect".
I can see it and have never owned anything digital but 35mm stuff. Using the ZA 135/1.8 or the Sigma 50/1.4 on a Sony a900 always got me wwwaaayyyy more "3d-ness" than anything else on the canon system... save the 85/1.2 (kind of). So I do believe the lenses are a serious contributor to the look as well. That doesn't help the case for MF being more 3D... but the a900 does have a pretty dense CFA (like MF digital), so color separation probably also plays a role as well.
-
Wayne Maser was a dentist. At least when I was involved in the fashion world (long long ago) that's what the assistants all called him. The Dentist.
The majority of long term successful commercial photogs I know came from money. Most of the top fashion photogs, the ones who have been on top for more than 10 years, came from money. Or they were bankrolled by someone. It takes a lot of money and years of paying out just to start out. What I've seen happen is young photogs break out and all of a sudden make $300k+/year, only to be broke again 3 or 4 years after when their lull came. If they didn't come from money they didn't survive. (yes $300k is a lot, but not to some people, and when you get "there" it's not so hard to make that much. Or at least it didn't use to be.)
I don't know for sure, but am willing to bet the majority of people Shelby is referring to do not make their incomes with photography. Or maybe I should say they aren't making the kind of money to buy Alpa's and p65's selling shots of the desert they took standing next to 20 other tripods and photo vests. Photography didn't get them there. Some other endeavor payed for it. Whether that's dentistry or something else doesn't really matter.
I know a fair share of pro's and have never known one who would participate in a fun shoot. Maybe it's because the ones I know are in NY, London and Paris and aren't easy going gear geeks. We don't talk much about gear and shooting, if we talk about work at all we talk about clients and campaigns. The first time I heard anyone mention 3d effect is on this website, and still it's the only place.
That said if there is such a thing, if you want to get it, you'll see it on 8x10, maybe sometimes on 4x5. Not so much with these little sensors we use on MF digital.
-
I've never seen the 3D effect. But then again, I've never seen the green flash and, living in San Diego, I've seen more ocean sunsets than I can count. (There's supposed to be a green flash from the sun just as it slips below the horizon on a clear evening.)
I like shooting with MFDB cause of the angle of view, the faster sync speed, the pace of shooting. There's so many other things that go into creating a great photo - and getting hired to create more - that some mythical 3D effect doesn't even make it onto my radar.
John
-
I've never seen the 3D effect.
Would you consider the following 2 images to have what might be described as an enhanced 3D effect, considering the shots are completely 2D?
[attachment=18135:1635.jpg] [attachment=18136:6028.jpg]
-
Would you consider the following 2 images to have what might be described as an enhanced 3D effect, considering the shots are completely 2D?
I can see what you're talking about with the image of the woman. The contrast and sharpness on the face makes her pop. There's a heck of a lot of PS work that went into that shot though so I don't know how much if any of that effect is attributable to the camera.
John
-
The artist who painted/drew these portraits mimicked the effect photographers get when using little DoF - so to this artist finds there is some 3D effect in at least some photographs. Why otherwise try to get the same in a painting/drawing?
-
First post here for a while, hi everyone.
I've been thinking alot about this elusive '3D effect' lately, and the work of one photographer I've been following lately comes to mind, his name is Pierre Hebert and here's a gallery of his large format work I quickly put together:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/mrbend/galler...57622860373978/ (http://www.flickr.com/photos/mrbend/galleries/72157622860373978/)
For me each one of these shots just nails it, even just looking at an 800 pixel jpeg on a monitor. I'm inclined to agree with gwhitf that it has alot to do with the diagonal of the capture area. The relationship of angle of view with inherently narrow DOF creates seemingly endless layers of depth in some of those images. I'm sure theres some more complicated pseudo-science going on, as well as the obvious skill of the photographer.
Thoughts?
-Rick
-
Somewhat related (long but good) article, in that Ockenfels shot a lot of Type 55, so you can see the nice optical effect of 4x5, (and why it's so unfortunate that Polaroid is gone, and why it's unfortunate that we're stuck with these tiny, soulless, technically-perfect sensors, which to me, is similar to having sex with a robot):
http://tinyurl.com/y9ch5r5 (http://tinyurl.com/y9ch5r5)
After that, scroll thru about five or six pages of this site, and then look down at your second-mortgage P65+, and look me in the eye, and tell me that we're making progress. Ten thousand guys, all shooting the same basic sensor, wondering why their pictures all look alike, and then after having to sell a kidney pay for the P65, they've got to pay a retoucher more, to give their work any degree of individuality.
Progress?
http://myparentswereawesome.tumblr.com (http://myparentswereawesome.tumblr.com)
-
which to me, is similar to having sex with a robot):
Don't knock it til you've tried it...
-
The relationship of angle of view with inherently narrow DOF creates seemingly endless layers of depth in some of those images.
Getting thin DOF at wide-to-normal angles of view on 35mm is uncommon. Most people use deep DOF in their wide to normal shots. But with f/1.2 and f/1.4 lenses, the DOF in the shots you see could be repeated on 35mm. They will not be able to match the high contrast and low aberration of the large format when both are at the same DOF.
Those small web images are riddled to death with nasty aliasing artifacts, similar to what you get from MFDB, except this time it had to be added in post processing.
-
Ten thousand guys, all shooting the same basic sensor, wondering why their pictures all look alike, and then after having to sell a kidney pay for
http://myparentswereawesome.tumblr.com (http://myparentswereawesome.tumblr.com)
to some extent I agree.
For most of us that moved from film to digital, we went to almost "medium format" looking for that holy grail, mucho mojo of 6x9, 4x5 or 8x10, where whatever came out of the camera looked much different than the standard hand held cameras.
It didn't, it doesn't, it probably never will, at least without a great deal of post processing.
When you read that Ockenfells' interview you have to take to heart when he says you just gotta look in the mirror and decide with digital, this is just the way it is and the world ain't going to spin backwards for anyone. (well, he didn't exactly say that, but you get my point).
The thing I find most interesting about all of the "professional" digital cameras is Canon is beating at Nikon, Nikon is beating on Phase, Phase is beating on Hasselblad, but they are all pretty much making the same thing and the real development in photography (or should I say image capture) today is with an I-phone.
There a dozens of apps that you just push a button and you got sx-70 polaroid, or black and white, or flared transparency film or . . .
But I guess that's the new deal. The Iphone shoot. if only they made one with a manual exposure control.
I just saw an Iphone app where you take a picture of your room, then press a button and change the color of the walls, so home decorating is now automatic.
I wonder how long until there is an Pascal, digital box, Iphone app, where you take a picture of your girlfriend and with a few pushes of a button she looks like a retouched image of Sarah Jessica Parker.
BC
-
"
My take on it: It's only the size of the Capture Device. It's only optics. Nothing to do with film vs digital or post.
Take two tripods: set them up side by side. On one is 8x10 Deardorff, on the other is Canon G11. Note differences in size of "sensors". Take same photo, compare inherent depth of field. With G11, damn near everything is sharp even wide open. With Deardorff, you gotta stop down to f16 to get anything sharp.
That is exactly my experience. Years ago, when economics was not so hard we made a b+w portrait of a business lady on 8x10 polaroids. That image was only printed in about 1,5x2,5 and even in this small size it´s 3D was blowing away all other stuff. We also did fashion shots on 4x5 size at this time. This all had its own taste and I also believe its a matter of size. MFDB is at least a bit nearer to size, that´s why we prefer working MFDB.
When I was starting photography many years ago I thought everything could be done with my 35 Nikon, today there might be less that 1% of our work that is done with "35"DSLR. But as mentioned before the most important thing is how you use your gear, I´m sure there are a lot of well equipped "photographers" out there that produce a lot of megapixel-junk that could have been done better with any camera.
Cheers, Ulf
-
Ten thousand guys, all shooting the same basic sensor, wondering why their pictures all look alike
And if those same 10,000 guys all shot 4x5 Velvia their pictures wouldn't look the same?
-
3D look ? Hysterical !
-
If the "greater 3D effect" is real, I doubt that it has anything to do with either sensor design differences or shallow DOF.
It might be due to higher resolution, in the sense of more lines per mm on the final displayed image, related to the lower degree of enlargement needed to get a print of a given size and so on.
Not sensor technology differences, because the 3D effect claim for MF and LF was made with film too. There, the identical "sensors technology was used, just with different lenses and different degree of enlargement.
Not shallow DOF, because it is very often claimed for images taken at apertures f/2.8 or smaller (most MF lenses do not go beyond f/2.8!), and many good 35mm format primes can give give shallower DOF that f/2.8 in medium format. Unless the "MF 3D effect" claimants have simply never looked much at images made with good 35mm format cameras and lenses at large apertures.
-
If the "greater 3D effect" is real, I doubt that it has anything to do with either sensor design differences or shallow DOF.
It might be due to higher resolution, in the sense of more lines per mm on the final displayed image, related to the lower degree of enlargement needed to get a print of a given size and so on.
Not sensor technology differences, because the 3D effect claim for MF and LF was made with film too. There, the identical "sensors technology was used, just with different lenses and different degree of enlargement.
Not shallow DOF, because it is very often claimed for images taken at apertures f/2.8 or smaller (most MF lenses do not go beyond f/2.8!), and many good 35mm format primes can give give shallower DOF that f/2.8 in medium format. Unless the "MF 3D effect" claimants have simply never looked much at images made with good 35mm format cameras and lenses at large apertures.
i just visited the "bangkok noir" exhibition of my friend ralf tooten from bangkok. exposed have been prints with a size of app. 100 till 150cm, many shot at night with largest apertures with a nikon 3d and a kodak slr. so beautyfull, atmospheric, 3 dimensional shots, not any miss for more details ( 12mp cameras .... ) , not any miss for more 3d.
i am a no believer of 3d look made by mf sensors. but i am a believer in good photographers.
-
i just visited the "bangkok noir" exhibition of my friend ralf tooten from bangkok. exposed have been prints with a size of app. 100 till 150cm, many shot at night with largest apertures with a nikon 3d and a kodak slr. so beautyfull, atmospheric, 3 dimensional shots, not any miss for more details ( 12mp cameras .... ) , not any miss for more 3d.
i am a no believer of 3d look made by mf sensors. but i am a believer in good photographers.
+ 1
-
The artist who painted/drew these portraits mimicked the effect photographers get when using little DoF - so to this artist finds there is some 3D effect in at least some photographs. Why otherwise try to get the same in a painting/drawing?
Correct! Those portraits are in fact photos of drawings of photos of real people. There's a thriving industry in the night markets of Chiang Mai where a small group of artists specialise in reproducing as faithfully as possible, with pencil and charcoal brush, any photograph you give them. They'll attempt to reproduce every hair and wrinkle, and the results are often quite amazing.
[attachment=18143:6074.jpg]
In my opinion, some of these drawings give a clue as to the nature of that 'enhanced' 3D effect that some people tend to notice in MF images. Shallow DoF certainly plays a role, but also a sense of greater accutance in the parts of the image that are in focus. This combination of greater accutance and shallow DoF would result from use of a good MF lens at wide apertures which is also sharp at such wide apertures.
Even though a particular MF lens at, say F4, may be no sharper than an equivalent 35mm format lens at F2.8, the larger sensor of MFDB will ensure equally shallow DoF and the wider pixel spacing (or larger sensor) will result in a higher MTF (than 35mm) at the same 'picture' resolution ( ie. same number of line widths per picture height).
In addition, the lack of an AA filter on the MFDB, will extend such resolution to the Nyquist limit and even create a bit of additional, 'false' resolution which may also contribute the the 'enhanced' 3D effect.
-
In addition, the lack of an AA filter on the MFDB, will extend such resolution to the Nyquist limit and even create a bit of additional, 'false' resolution which may also contribute the the 'enhanced' 3D effect.
I cannot tell you the number of my clients who book me for my Nyquist limit.
-
I cannot tell you the number of my clients who book me for my Nyquist limit.
Your clients don't need to know such technical details, but it surely helps if the photographer understands the reason for the results he produces. It's doubtful that any 35mm DSLR could produce quite the same 3-D effect as the best MFDB with a good lens, no matter how sharp the 35mm lens, simply because of the AA filter which limits resolution.