[257 / 35 / 1]
Quoted By: >>4380210 >>4380215 >>4380599 >>4380860 >>4380997 >>4381002 >>4381127 >>4381187 >>4381389 >>4381753 >>4381875 >>4385709 >>4385730 >>4386210
Micro contrast is not real. 3D pop is not real.
Well, they may be real phenomena of an image, but they are not imparted by certain lenses due to certain optical designs.
Anyone who supports the idea of 3D pop, Zeiss pop, or micro contrast is an anti-science luddite or a grifter.
Watch any of these people try to explain what 3D pop or micro contrast is and their bullshit is self evident. If a phenomenon cannot be described using scientific language and measured objectively, it isn't real.
Every time you see an A/B test for 3D pop or microcontrast, the tester is using different camera bodies, or the composition is different, the color grade is different, different exposure levels or the lighting has changed.
The only other area that has so much peasant level superstition has got to be pro audio.
Well, they may be real phenomena of an image, but they are not imparted by certain lenses due to certain optical designs.
Anyone who supports the idea of 3D pop, Zeiss pop, or micro contrast is an anti-science luddite or a grifter.
Watch any of these people try to explain what 3D pop or micro contrast is and their bullshit is self evident. If a phenomenon cannot be described using scientific language and measured objectively, it isn't real.
Every time you see an A/B test for 3D pop or microcontrast, the tester is using different camera bodies, or the composition is different, the color grade is different, different exposure levels or the lighting has changed.
The only other area that has so much peasant level superstition has got to be pro audio.
