But my point is that it isnt ***artistically*** or technically accurate. It's a pure misnomer that shouldn't be used IMHO. JCO
-----Original Message----- From: Paul Stenquist [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, November 12, 2004 9:19 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: 3D quality in a lens? I agree completely. But selective focus and good bokeh are the attributes that have led to the "3D" descriptor being applied to lenses that are obviously not capable of 3D. I don't think anyone thinks those lenses produce actual 3D images. It's just another example of how language takes on other meanings over time. Of course it's not "technically accurate," but much of our language is not. Artists generally have no problem with that. Scientists do. That's the way of the world. Paul On Nov 12, 2004, at 8:42 AM, J. C. O'Connell wrote: > What you describe is a selective focus effect > but the out of focus background is still viewed > on same plane as forground, it would look totally > different with 3D photograhy, the forground > would not only be in selective focus, it would > be "popped out" in front of the background. > > For those who have never seen 3D photography > or havent in seen it a long time, The thing > to remember is that with 3D photography, infinity > looks the same as 2D in 3D, objects that are > closer than infintity look "popped out" off the > infinity background. No 2D process does this with > any lenses no matter how good, so I simply do not > agree with saying any 2D lenses have a a "3D quality" > or effect. "Realistic Selective Focus" might me a better > term for the effect they are trying to describe. > JCO > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Paul Stenquist [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, November 12, 2004 8:15 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: 3D quality in a lens? > > > If you shoot a foreground object with a long lens wide open, it > separates from the background in such a way as to produce an apparent > "3D" effect. Of course, as JCO points out, it's not really 3D. It's > merely the eye recognizing a difference between a sharp foreground and > an out-of-focus background. Lenses with nice bokeh, like the 77 > limited, do this quite effectively. With extremely long lenses, like > my A-400/5.6, the effect is very easy to achieve. Here's an example: > http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2875014 > On Nov 11, 2004, at 10:33 PM, J. C. O'Connell wrote: > >> If you have ever done or seen any decent >> 3D photography you would know it's a really >> dumb way to describe any 2D image. I wouldnt >> read too much into it, or put too much trust >> in the writers of just descriptions... >> JCO >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Don Sanderson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Sent: Thursday, November 11, 2004 10:23 PM >> To: PDML >> Subject: 3D quality in a lens? >> >> >> What is meant when a lens is described as having >> a "great 3 dimensional quality"? >> Or "it gives photos a 3 dimensional feel"? >> I've heard this term used several times in describing lenses, mostly >> WA's. How does a lens lend a 3D quality to a photograph? >> >> TIA >> Don >> >
