>>4090377>Plus the image would look absolutely over-processed, exactly like pic related, the bottom imageOther than the shitty mask job i don't see much of a problem with bottom one, obviously it is more on the nose compared to the natural look of the upper image but i don't dislike it, some lenses do render like that when they have the means and fast glass.
But i do have to wrap my head around the falloff thing, i think i understand what you mean but i am not sure, do you mean the transitions? like when the light hits a surface in different forms depending on the shape?
It all goes down the drain if such optic features are not used in unison with composition and vision, it becomes like a tech demo: A cool novelty but only that.
>>4090386>2. more pronounced DoF falloff, you know where DoF ends and tonyature startsI would argue on the contrary, not knowing exactly where it ends and begins boosts the effect a lot, the "Pop" in 3D Pop but not the entire dish.
>3. gradiated out of focus areaYes, some 2.8 shots are more notorious than 1.4 ones. Depends on the focal length too and this thing correlates with the second point.
