>>4088782>Pro-tip: 3D is not the same as Popexactly. you can get ''pop'' with any shitty lens. you don't need good rendering of depth to get the ''pop'' effect. you can get the ''pop'' with either boosting the contrast and saturation to hell or by simply lowering down to f1.2, both will give you subject separation. or you can do both and get even more ''pop''
>3Das for ''3D'' rendering, that's all about how a lens renders objects in the image aka. how it renders depth. that can't be fixed/added in post. look at the images this anon posted
>>4086690 especially the first two images of trees, in one image you can clearly tell which leaf is behind/in front of other leaves on the tree, leaves relative distance to each other, their shapes, their separation and you can clearly tell apart each leaf from one another without straining your eyes or without having to resort to pixel peeping.
cant do the same on the sigma tree. in fact, on the sigma tree example, you can barely tell the tree in front from that one tree in the back.
same with the fruits images
THAT'S what 3D rendering is. a lens will render objects in the image separate from each other, in the same way you see it with your eyes, in a ''3D'' manner.
now how are you meaning to put a number or a mathematical equation to that, i dont know, im not a mathematician or a physicist or whatever
