>>4103384>3d pop is staging and compositionThis is the "issue", as long as 3d pop is not defined into something measurable, it just becomes cognitive dissonance and conformation bias about a thousand different things a person things they're seeing.
In the past, WWII and a bit before, Ι guess it described the different design philosophies between Leica and Zeiss.
Leica went for high resolution (higher 40lp/mm (and up) curve in the MTF chart) at the expense of contrast, while Zeiss went for higher contrast (higher 5-10lp/mm curve in the MTF) at the expense of resolution.
These different philosophies came with side effects, especially before modern coatings.
For Leica it meant using more lens groups (and hence glass-to-air surfaces), which meant lower contrast and more flaring.
For Zeiss it meant using as few lens groups as possible, which meant asymmetric designs with more field curvature.
The first look came to be known as the Leica "glow", the second as the Zeiss "3D pop".
Imo, all irrelevant today, cause after coatings, asphericals and CAD, everybody went for max resolution *and* max contrast *and* minimum field curvature at the same time, using the same basic optical formulas, with minimal differences between manufacturers wrt to lenses of the same caliber.
So my take is all that bullshit is mostly irrelevant today and used as autistic purchase rationalisations for expensive lenses.
The only thing I can "justify" as """"3D pop"""" is field curvature (throwing everything off centre out of focus), paired with a very high contrast and high res centre, and maybe quick drop off of the MTF as you move behind the focus point.
But that's quite measurable and no mainstream modern lens behaves like that.
