3D Pop: WHAT IS IT? How To See It!
Вставка
- Опубліковано 29 вер 2024
- Some people think 3D pop doesn't exist. It can be hard to see, I'll admit. Certain scenes show it more than others. Here I will try to demonstrate a 3D pop lens vs a flat lens. Canon EF 135mm f2 and EF 85mm f1.2 vs a new modern 135mm f1.8 which is a secret. Nikon Z6 III with fringer adapter using RED luts.
If you buy today's gear through my affiliate links, you can sense the depth of your sandwich better.
Thank you for your Bitcoin donations :) bc1qacvd72s9565hpat4jueeultha3qvrv4kznyl3f
Nikon Z6 III amzn.to/4eiMrFZ
Fringer EF-NZ II amzn.to/3NltmXX
Canon EF 85mm f1.2 amzn.to/4ezrLZU
Canon EF 135mm f2 amzn.to/3BliNkG
Sony ZVE1 amzn.to/3ZL9YLd
Tascam DR10-L amzn.to/3TOfF7q
All my gear and recommended products can be found in my affiliate shop, thanks for shopping around! www.amazon.com...
Instagram / vegetablepolice
Topaz Video AI for enhancing and slowing down footage! www.topazlabs....
Remove Mucoid Plaque in 1 DAY to improve digestion! zencleanz.com/...
My Monkey Strength ebook payhip.com/b/VyEG
My Music from videos! Entire Discography 15% off vegetablepolic...
Patreon for Monthly Q&A Videos / vegetablepolice
T-shirts and merch! vegetablepolic...
Random ass donations to paypal.me/vegetablepolice Thank you!
Q-Link Products changed my life! share.shopqlin...
My Health Channel Vegetable Police / @vegetablepolice
My MMA channel UFC Conspiracies / @ufcconspiracies
If you buy today's gear through my affiliate links, you can sense the depth of your sandwich better.
Thank you for your Bitcoin donations :) bc1qacvd72s9565hpat4jueeultha3qvrv4kznyl3f
Nikon Z6 III amzn.to/4eiMrFZ
Fringer EF-NZ II amzn.to/3NltmXX
Canon EF 85mm f1.2 amzn.to/4ezrLZU
Canon EF 135mm f2 amzn.to/3BliNkG
Sony ZVE1 amzn.to/3ZL9YLd
Tascam DR10-L amzn.to/3TOfF7q
All my gear and recommended products can be found in my affiliate shop, thanks for shopping around! www.amazon.com/shop/vegetablepolice
Hottie
Your a 3D pop...🎉
Sonys sharpness and color is definitely better but I did see the flat affect you were talking about.
*when up close I can DEFINATLY tell that the Sony 135mm isn't as sharp as the Nikon 135mm, BUIT from a Distance I can't really tell, but I shoot mostly f1.4 & 1.5 and My Sigma 18-50mm f2.8, I don't really do Photography but from an close up perspective I can tell tell the Nikon is much sharper, but that's me*
It’s all about focus falloff. Smooth focus falloff equals 3d pop. Abrupt focus falloff equals green screen.
Exactly, almost linear, close to ideal diffraction pattern near focus plane.
It was my impression as well. Thant and less obliteration of background if you ask me.
Focus fall-off which matches our personal experience is what creates the impression of natural looking depth of field.
I think you hit the nail on the head. It is almost like less Toneh at the same f-stop. Also, the way it blends from sharp to out of focus or as you said Focus fall off.
Just like flat Earth,
the harder you explain, the less convinced I am.
to speak clearer the 3d pop is basically when you have little corrective elements that make the background transition smoothier and have a circular distortion within the defocused area, sort of like a petzval lens. Because of low element count the lenses also have better light transmission but are generally less sharp. New lenses try to reproduce as much sharpness as possible in sacrifice of pure light transmission and flatness of plane of focus.
In essence, the 3d pop makes images look like they're seen through the human eye, since our peripheral vision is creamier but can see detail, while the new lenses just try to keep all detail within the focus area and obliterate anything behind or in front of it.
The more 3d pop, the less sharp usually a lens is and the more aberrations it has.
@@kingghidorah8106sounds like BS to me lol
Lol
@@kingghidorah8106 if you claim that canons 135/2 is not well corrected, you are wrong. Its highly corrected lens. And 135 lenses do not have much of all of field curvature, you can check canons MTF curves.. the field is quite flat. "Because of low element count the lenses also have better light transmission but are generally less sharp" This is also absolute nonsense, as modern coatings reduce light loss to irrelevant amounts. And claiming that Canons 135/2 is not sharp is also nonsese, you can again look at the MTF curves.
contrarianism is no fun. u might as well be post-modern.speak what u see n hear by ur conscience n you'd have a better shot i'd think. but i could be wrong. may be speaking complete opposite of what you think and believe is actually real. who knows? may be usa will save you.
If I look at the 2 images on screen with my eyes crossed in such a way as to make a superimposed image in the middle, then THAT image is literally in 3D.
Ha ha, now that’s hilarious!
OMG yeah! He created a magic eye 3d video
This is perfect hahahaha
now eat a tide pod and do it
it litterally works ! it's poppin !! Do it on your phone everybody it's much easier
We all know its the viltrox 135mm on the sony lol
Viltrox would never give you these colors
in a previous video he said, no company send me any product, except Viltrox :) I'm with you , he said he changed the sony colors so the colors you are seeing are not out of the lens
The Northrops say they don’t talk to people who think 3D pop is real. I’m not sad. I see the pop.
Yeah what can we expect from Squarespace merchant 😭
Probably a jab at the bald guy with all the tattoos.
Ken?
Northrops also have too much toneh so no wonder they cannot see 3D Pop.
Northrops are the lizard people
If I was Toneh Northrop I’d 💯 make a video titled ’Camera Conspiracies 3D pop addiction intervention’. My question what could we call 3D pop that would be the equivalent of toneh but based on your name? Or just say Bokeh, Toneh, and Popeh?
Kaseh
This is crazy I can actually see the pop in the nikon vs the no pop Sony damn
Yes It is real and I finally get exactly what you mean! Subject looks green screened onto a flat background on the new sharp many element lens. Unlike the nice natural depth look of the classic lens. When your quite far away it really shows the flat background vs the 3D (like looking into the screen as if we were actually there) Nikkor 3D look I agree is worth the drop in lens sharpness
What you have is clearly different contrast curves on both. Just need a steeper curve on the dark on the right one and it should look quite same. So of course more contrast gives more "pop".
When it comes to sharpness, i dont think you will ever see much difference when recording video. 4k is just 8MP, the lens should be really poor quality not to look sharp on 8MP. Those lenses are designed for 20-60MP.
There is one thing that could cause some sort of 3d effect, that would be having curved focus plane. This would create the effect that things on the side would be in focus closer than the center. I think this is called field curvature.
I said similar things about the contrast. The lens on the Nikon does seem to be less clinically sharp, which, even at 8MP can look different.
@@Nobody-Nowhere
Yes. And my 15€ 25mm C-mount lens off Amazon has it 😂 I love that little cripple glass
@@3dtrip870 That canon lens is extremely high-quality lens, if that's an 135/2 L lens. Its probably much sharper than some f1.8 lens.
It's more the focus fall-off. On the nikon it looks gradual and on the sony it looks sudden.
I see the pop, I think... but can't decide if it's down to the better centre contrast of the Nikon Canon combo
And 3D Pop MATTERS. I used to love all my viltrox lenses but they are flat af. The small nikon 40mm f2 has the POP. I love it. The 135mm Plena from Nikon is so flat... Super sharp but flat like the earth (thats a joke).
Btw in this comparison the z6iii image is popping. Colors are also beautiful. Sony is good. Nice bokeh but it is flat.
Clients wont care at all at the end of the day. We chose these lenses for us
Time to go TTArtisan
@@UP209D I have a few TTartisan lenses but I use them for my personal work. For professional work I need good AF
The emperor's clothes have so much 3d pop.
It's 100% real. It's almost like something you feel, not see. I was using clinical glass for a long time just because I wanted to test out the new stuff coming out over the last few years, and then I bought that cheap TTArtisan 23mm 1.4 and looked at my first photo taken with it and I was like, "Well, sh*t. That was the best $70 I've spent in a long time." The pop is immediately apparent, especially if you are accustomed to clinical glass. The difference is quite stark. I went back to Voigtlander, old Fujinon, and adapting my old Soviet lenses. I don't think I'll ever buy another new lens.
Maybe people who don't see it are lacking in some type of spatial awareness. I don't understand why people argue against the existence of certain lens characteristics. Blind men will try to persuade you that the sun doesn't exist.
You can tell very well by looking at the rails, the '3D pop' comes from the smoother focus falloff on the nikon lens, keeping more in focus and smoothly transitioning to out of focus. On the sony lens on the other hand, you can tell the focus goes from in to out of focus in a straight line, creating a 'greenscreen effect' with the paperthin focusplane.
Anyone notice that the super "sharp" new lens is less sharp?
The Nikon with the Canon lens looks more natural and film-like. The Sony just looks like video… 🤷🏻♂️
Don't let color grading fool you
Gotta say this was the first video I actually saw the pop. After you said looks like your in front of the green screen I can no longer unsee the crap of flat lenses. Thanks for making me sell my crap lenses and getting some pop in my life. Good bye money in my wallet. 😡
Most engaging camera equipment reviews! You've got a very original style amigo. You already persuaded me and ended up getting the ZV E1, but I just couldnt get rid of my A7S3. I love it too! I also got the Sony 20mm thanks to your videos. Sony should be paying you some $ for referring people to their products! Anyway. I now watch your video because they're so enterteining!And I learn so much about cams and video equipment for YT. Keep up the good job!
Definitely see the pop. This is a great way to show the difference between lenses. Sell your Sony lenses immediately!
There is a big difference in contrast curves, that's why you see a clear difference. If the contrast curves were identical, i dont think you would really notice much.
Left one has much higher contrast in the darker areas, right has lower overall contrast so it has less "pop".
The only thing that can cause "3d pop" is field curvature, but contrast gives much more noticeable pop. This is why this is quite misleading.
@@Nobody-Nowhere so what you are saying is if you add contrast in the shadows you can fake "3d pop" ? or that there is no at all in any way?
and both have awful donut circles instead of uniform or Gaussian. Right one have it a bit more.
3D Pop is my new favorite, unless it goes flat. Never, ever shake it or it will go all over you.
The Nikon colors look fantastic
Once you adjust the White balance the footage would be indistinguishable.
OETF curves very different, same for post processing, Kasey seems to edit curves heavily. Beside, both lenses have awful donut pattern and far from ideal.
3D pop is definitely there with the 85/1.2, and the differences between the 135's was interesting to see side-by-side. The Canon was better. Those EF's on the Z6iii with Red LUTs is fire! Who'da thunk we'd ever be living in that world?!
To be honest i really like it when people watch an angry photographer video and then get obsessed with '3d pop' lol. i always think "well, there goes all this guys attention away from creativity and effort in to making actual good composition, poses, lighting, etc all the other important things related to photography, and let him just focus on '3d pop' instead " haha. so, yeah, keep going!!
People on their viewing devices will not see it - only people with high bandwidth internet connections or good quality devices will. So knock yourself out spending a lot on cameras - most viewers won't even notice as the scroll through you content quickly on their phones or after UA-cam has crashed the viewing experience based on the quality of the internet connection.
For example - today my connection crushed you to 720p!
I was 480 but i changed it to max
Oh wow, the Sony shot looked like you are floating in mid air, not standing on anything, in front of a green screen
I see why you like the older glass better. The character of it is beautiful, and I understand what you mean about the 3D pop. Unfortunately our world today arrives for perfection instead of character, which is why so much bad media is being produced.
falloff makes a huge difference...the more gradual change from in focus to out of focus feels more realistic....but the most impactful 3d effect is always dimensionality...where the curvature of an object is more apparent...this is so apparent on some Zeiss lenses it almost surreal...a mix of gentle falloff with intense field curvature...very "imperfect" lenses that create a visual effect that's hard to ignore.
Ah have seeen the pop! Hallelujah! Ah have been REDEEMED!
The pop is definitely real. I bought the zeiss 55 for my a7s iii. Though the pop was more defined in your first railroad video where you were sitting down, I see it clearly here as well. I am a believer.
I can see that there is more depth behind you, the transition seems longer while the sony just straight flattens out at some point. The canon also has a nice swirly and slightly busier bokeh, which I personally prefer. And of course the Nikon color science is way superior in this shot.
I've seen it. As my Sony Carl Zeiss 85mm 1.4 ZA and 135mm 1.8 A-mount with La-ea4 adaptor. I absolutely adore them.
That Canon 135mm looks incredible
With the new Nikon 1.4's, the softer look will be fine as long as it retains its rich colours, focus speed and overall image quality, but without the clinical look.
GOOD GOD! The pop is real ! . Today it hit me and I seen it ! . He is right . I'm fuckin tripping bslls
I see dead people in 3D pop.
BT dubs, the Viltrox isn't a secret anymore! Also, it doesn't pop. Or lock.
my favorite letter from that alphabet song was somewhere in the middle "eleminno"
one's organic, one's for flat earthers
Wow now I can see what your talking about wow.😊3 D pop is real.
Oh man that Canon 135 with the z6iii ❤❤
When You see it, YOU SEE IT! Trained eye . I learned about image fidelity(3D--Pop) some time ago. When you also a see the subtle characteristics of a black n White photgraph and all the grey tonalities in between, You too will feel the power of 'TONEH'. Tone on my friends....tone on....Namaste
You know what's the worst part is? I didn't see it. I sold some "bad" lens. Now I do see it on my old pictures and I'm like: Damn. That lens is now very expensive.
Maybe you should use similar colors, because the Sony and Nikon colors are widely different. To me, the Sony looks much better, but I don't see 3D pop on either (maybe on the Sony)
edit: I can see it on 5:42. Notice how the leaves at the bottom right have much more definition on the Nikon than on the Sony
Thanks this all makes sense
There is a spectrum of poppiness, and the Canon lens here is noticeably poppier, but perhaps not the best example of maximum pop. When I was a kid, Viewmasters were popular, and since we didn’t have video games, we spent hours looking at stereo views of tourist attractions. Maybe that experience trained my brain to see 3D pop. Or maybe we need modern digital stereo cameras to create real 3D effects…
I am willing to admit that Zeiss pop and Leica glow are really just particular blends of lens defects. When lens design was always a compromise, and designers chose the compromise that gave them their signature look. Now those defects have been eliminated, leaving us with no character. I’m happy that I can just say no to perfection, and embrace the old imperfect lens designs.
Viewmasters were POP ular
Oh, the pop is very much real!
I discovered it myself in the now distant 2009 with the exact same 135 toneh 2 L. There were no youtubers or anything like that back then to cast doubt on my sanity.
It's indescribable and ethereal in nature. You feel it, but you can't quantify it in a measurable way. It's elusive like that. It comes to sprinkle its magic over our images, winks and is gone, like photons moving through two slits.
You can never quite put your finger on it. But it's there!
The Sony seems a little over saturated. IMHO.
The video I've been waiting for!! The flat lens is like watching an old movie where they physically painted the background (matte painting), checkout the wizard of oz. A green screen effect is a great description!
Best 3D pop lens with Auto Focus is the Sony Zeiss 55mm f1.8. On paper it is so boring and way over priced because in your brain you think "its a nifty50!" But its not at all. Its a lens so good that it rivals GM lenses but has 3D pop. Never would have got it except for this channel ranting and raving about it and so glad I listened. 😊
I can see a slight difference. The Canon EF 135mm f2 and the "new modern" 135mm f1.8 have a really similar look, with subject separation. If I weren't looking at them side by side, I'd probably have no idea. I do have to say the Sony colors look better here. And that makes more of a difference to me than the 3D pop. Which is just weird to think about. I'm surprised neither camera lost you. Focus win?
This was an exceptionally good demonstration. Bravo. I would point out that the Canon 135 T2 is a good bit sharper, too, which is saying something at video resolution even compressed over YT.
"...what kind of photography do you do? And why isn't it video?..." LOL!! I would love to see you do a video with some of FD lenses. I have a couple and really like the look for photography(FD135mm f3.5, FD28mm f2.8). I would love to get a wider FD like the 17mm or 24mm but they are really expensive these days. I'm told it's because videographers like them. So, I'd love to see you do a video about them just to see why they are loved so much. I see it too. The image is more real because the glass isn't clinically perfect. I do think that it's more acceptable for video than for photography to have that classic look with various imperfections. Thanks for the lesson today!!
I feel like all I can see in this is that the Sony has way more saturated colours. The difference in sharpness isn't even really noticeable and I definitely am not noticing much difference in my perception of the 'depth'. Maybe youtube compression is making it harder to tell but that begs the question - if you can barely tell through UA-cam then what is the point.
The color differences are what I notice on the railroad shot, the bokeh is nearly identical. I think what looks good is shot composition and having multiple layers of objects within the frame at different distances offering multiple levels of blur. You did this in another video where you were squatting down on a trail. It had 3 levels at least. But as far as me understanding a quality that you see in an image which you describe as “3D pop” I am still unsure, but that’s okay. Wet plate portraits on Petzval lenses are very 3D to me, but that can be excessive. If your depth of focus is shorter than a human head it’s too much toneh imho.
I wonder how many people will actually know what m.k. Ultra is or operation paper clip? I thought it was common sense but I’m shocked that most are unaware.
I have the feeling that the future of Nikon (z6 III and others) will really shine, when they release a "Red-Log" for Nikon Cameras to use with these LUTs.
I saw it, but maybe that’s because you pointed it out. We need a blind test.
funny that you have to put 3D or FLAT text in each corner. If it was real than why would you do that?
I'm guessing it's the same reason they label butterflies and moths in nature exhibits.
Very nice effort but for me sony image has less contrast. i personally think that was the main difference that made it really hard to appreciate the 3d pop. However there was a video on this channel with photos that you were revieving. Fuji photo of praying mantis looked poppy (it won) and it was followed by photo of some guys with guns on a mule that lacked 3d pop to a degree that they looked as if they were glued on the image in post. so i generally can spot 3d pop, not that much in this video . nikon does look more real to me though...
I definitely see it. It's almost like the older lens is blurring out things around you in a spherical way and the newer one is blurring out everything linearly. For example, on the newer lens on the right, it's blurring everything behind you but the older lens is blurring things less as you move to the edges, although I'm not sure it isn't that extra .2 Toneh. It seems like on the older lens, the tree that is slightly closer to you is in focus but on the right it's out of focus, which leads to it appearing less 3D. Maybe there's like a sweet spot for an aperture setting that gives the most 3d pop because it blurs the right things in the foreground vs background. Is that a thing? Front Toneh vs Back Toneh? That's my theory. I don't have the lenses to test that theory though.
exactly, this is what I thought too. i think lenses with that swirly kind of bokeh are causing the pop, I think many older lenses have it.
Started shooting f4 because it all looked greenscreened and not like I was actually at location. And yes, it definitly varies between lenses even at the same f-stop. Sure, I can stop down a bit more, tweak the contrast and get a similar look but not the same and more work.
I'm gonna admit i haven't found the pop in previous videos, but this time there is defenitely some pop, but have u tried stopping down the sony one? even just to f2? would love to see the difference then....
Now I’m a believer, the 3D pop is real, in my following shoots I’ll aim to pop hard… 😂😂😂😂😂 your reviews are hilarious
The colour and contrast difference is so distracting it makes me wonder if you could make the 'flat' image pop just by grading /matching .
I've looked at the side by side a few times. Honestly, I just see more contrast on the left side, which I guess might make it look like there's more POP.
I see the 3D pop, guess the world isn’t flat after all 😊
Both seemed 3dish but niky boy has a lot nicer colors and focus.. Sony appears cartoonish..
I do see it but only just. I think the UA-cam compression ruins it and renders it difficult to really see it and appreciate it
No idea what is this 3d pop, but Canon 135mm F2 seems to have a bit of a swirly bokeh .... or maybe I'm tripping. Both looks ok for me.
I guess I'm blind. I don't see it.
The Nikon actually looks sharper. It also doesnt have that yellow-green color shift.
Okay so this is why I've been disliking certain lenses. It just feels wrong.
To be honest 3D pop is much easier to compare when the lenses are stepped down so that everything is in focus. Wide open with toneh it's harder to tell the difference.
Agreed. For example I have a lens, the Super-Takumar 35mm f/3.5, obviously not a fast lens but the '3D pop' is evident around f/5.6.
@@karlowma he should know this, because he talks about 3D pop all the time. In fact it's not only expensive Leica/Voigtländer/Zeiss glass that have it. Many chinese lenses like TTartisan pop like hell.
I can't believe people don't see the pop. Yet people claim they don't hear separation in audio recordings.
You're right it is zee and not zed.
I don’t see the pop. What i see is left side is sharper and the Nikon background color contrasts more with your shirt.
I'm sort of weird
I could see the flatness
but the pop maybe 🤔😂
11:01 that's really strong, excellent 3D pop on the Sony 135mn best in the whole video. It was when you were really far away and there was scenery in front of you that the 3D pop on the Sony really took off.
Here are the other times where there is good 3D pop on the Sony.
I swear that you have GOOD 3D pop at 5:42 when you are standing near the tree
And again at 7:44
It's when the Sony lens can grab onto part of the background and focus on it as well as you. When you are near part of the scenery it makes you pop out.
Again at 7:55 you pop on the Sony (but the effects are MUCH better on the Nikon)
Again at 8:37 Sony 3D pop!
Yes, because 3d pop is strongest when there is actually less blur (that's why it's starts to pop once he's much farther away). He needs to stop down his lenses. The pop is strongest when the subject is just stlighly sharper, contrasty against the background/foreground. It also helps when the background has muted colors, the scene has depth cues (like the railroad in this example), etc..
Thanks to Christopher Frost for revealing the lens before he was allowed.
I admit I can't see 3D pop on my 27 inch monitor, either in hd or 4k. Maybe it's a UA-cam problem. But I do see lots of background blur and wonder if I would have stopped the lens down to f5.6 or f8.
I can see the pop if I strap my iPad to my head.
Most definitely saw it in that shot with you sitting on the old train tracks
3D pop = sharpness + good falloff/separation
i see someone has been watching the angry photographer lately
I ain't seeing 5H1T...
But this lens must be straight out of the lab
Thats cool to see that good old Canon EF have the Pop too!!
Damn that Nikon lens has somethin special lookin to it
But its a Canon lens
When you said green screen effect, I finally saw it.
2:26 "I'm now green screened" while wearing a green shirt and in front of green plants. Hmmmm....
Look past the colors. You're not seeing it yet.
@@Warrior_Resisting_Colonialism you can't wear a green shirt in front of a green screen without errors
@@iamionscat9035 True statement, but it's irreverent here. If this is what you're focusing on; you're going to miss it.
@@Warrior_Resisting_Colonialism it's a joke man. Look at my other comments if you are focused on the 3D Pop.
Of course I can see it. Close up too.
You are the expert!
I see it close up also.
How does a Canon work on a Nikon with auto-focus? Isn't that illegal or something?
Yes, the FBI is working on the case
I still see pop even with close up headshots.
4:59 composition, lighting, lens choice 10/10
That's some serious 3D pop! - Must be a Viltrox lens.
I see a bit of pop on the Nikon but its almost a bit like less Toneh along with better blending. What matters to me more though, every time, I see Sony footage, in certain environments, it looks yellow and the greens look too warm.
Sony videos really make me want a Panny S5 iix even more. Throw all the rocks you want. LOL :-)
Canon 135mm for the win on 3D pop
Guys admit it pop is real!!!!!!!
For the 1st 5min the Viltrox popped - and for the last 5min so did the Nikkor ;-) Because for whatever reason, the contrast rendering changed between these time periods.
I use my Minolta MD lenses on my S5 for that pop. The Panny-boy colors combined with Minolta MD and MC glass is magical, especially the 135mm f2.8. They take shots that made me go, "Ooooo."
I don´t see any difference between the two shots, maybe some in color and sharpness. Camera Mystique made a video about 3d pop some time ago and he said it has nothing to do with chromatic aborrations or imperfections of the lens... at this point i believe 3d pop is in the same category like homeopathy, snake oil, religion etc.
Edit: After reading some comments, if your background is obliterated, you look on both like out of place and green screened. Again, Camera Mystique made the point that in portraits the whole face of the subject should be in focus, not just one eye. In full body portraits with background, also the background should be somewhat in focus, not obliterated, because then you could just go to a studio and make better portraits there and greenscreen the background in post.
Personally i don´t like heavy out of focus backgrounds in the first place, so... whatever :D
Perfect demonstration.