the 3D effect in MF digital

[narikin]

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.

[rethmeier]

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

[Steve Hendrix]

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

[AlexM]

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.

[rethmeier]

Thanks Steve,
I'm not that worried anyway

[narikin]

Willem: your D3x cures cancer too, right?

[rethmeier]

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

[uaiomex]

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

[Daniel Browning]

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

[JeffKohn]

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.

[Frank Doorhof]

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.

[Daniel Browning]

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.

[Daniel Browning]

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.

[ErikKaffehr]

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.

[rethmeier]

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  

[Jonathan Wienke]

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.

[Dick Roadnight]

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.

[douglasf13]

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

[Ben Rubinstein]

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  

[gwhitf]

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.