Topics

Panasonic Lumix 3d lens with Close-up Lenses vs Spacers Test


Chuck
 

As promised last Sunday, I did comparison testing for the Panasonic Lumix 3d Lens using close-up lenses vs spacers in the lens. To keep things simple, I used components that I had on hand. They were not all exact apples to apples, but close enough to get a good sense of how image qualities from each of them compare to each other. Here are the three groups compared:

Lumix 3d Lens with +4 Singlet Close-up Lens (Vivitar - $9.99 for set on Amazon that includes: +1, +2,+4,+10)

Lumix 3d Lens with a +5 Achromat Close-up Lens (Kenko – $19.90 on Amazon)

Lumix 3d Lens with 1mm Spacers Installed

 

The test set-up details:

-         Panasonic GX7 Camera

-         Lumix 3d Close-up Adapter (any adapter can be used, this is the one I will be selling)

-         Focus distance was 8 and 8.5 inches respectively for the +4 and +5 lenses, but 6.5 inches for the lens with 1.0mm spacers. I only have .5mm washers, so I stacked two.

-         On-board flash used

-         Subject was a black butterfly. I selected it due to its limited depth of about 3/8” (wanted everything in focus) and dark edges wings and antenna (good for sharp defined edges, and dark edges where fringing can be prominent).  

 

Results:

As expected, the simple singlet Vivitar lens resulted in a less sharp image compared to the other two options. There was a little blue fringing on the edges of the wings, although not as noticeable as I had expected. The black of the butterfly was noticeably not as black as with the other two options.

 

The achromatic lens and the Lumix lens with 1mm spacers installed resulted in images that were practically equal in quality. The lens with spacers installed had a bit of a cheat advantage in my test though because its focusing distance was significantly closer at 6.5” vs the achromat which focused at 8.5”.

 

Other observation: Both the singlet and the doublet (achromat) close-up lenses resulted in exposures that were around 1/8 to 1/4 stop darker than the lens with spacers. This was expected as adding glass steals a little light, and the doublet was slightly darker than the singlet.

 

I’ve attached a comparison image with 4x and 10 blow-ups so you can easily compare the shots, along with stereo pairs from all three options.

 

My Conclusion:

While the simple singlet Vivitar lens resulted in a bit lower image quality than the other two, I regularly use them with my adapter because they are cheap and provide a really easy and quick method to change magnification when shooting in the field. I’ve gotten very nice images using them. After all, the great thing about the Panasonic 3d lens is its convenience. For really sharp close-up and macro shots there are much better options. After these tests however, I will mainly use the lower magnification +1 and +2 Vivitars with the Pany lens because I think the image sharpness of the lower magnifications will be better, and their greater focusing distance will also help that. I will certainly not stack them (i.e. use both +1 and +2 stacked to get +3). I will use the +5 achromat and a +10 achromat that I have for the greater magnifications (it’s a +10 Optima achromat lens, available on Amazon for $24.95). For those of you using spacers, that is a good option with quality on a par with the achromat lens. To easily change magnifications in the field, either using close-up lenses with an adapter to fit onto the Lumix lens, or having multiple Lumix 3d lenses set up with different spacers are both good options.

Within a day or two I will post photos of the adapter ready for sale.

-Chuck (I'll post this to the Lumix3d group also, but could not find a way to post to both at the same time).


+4 Vivitar


+5 Achromat Kenko


1.0mm Total Height Spacers installed in Lumix 3d lens


 
Edited

 
 
Thanks for posting the test shots and info, Chuck.
 
One thing I thought I remembered as a potential advantage of using closeup lenses (rather than washer spacers) was that there may be benefit from a  prismatic effect making the subject more similarly aligned in left and right images. Is that correct? Since you can only see one side while shooting, I have had problems on occasion where I thought the subject was framed properly but the non-visualized side had bad framing.
 
If anyone wants to experiment with closeup lenses before ordering one of these  spiffy 3D-printed filter holders for their panasonic 3D lens , it is pretty easy to use gaffers tape around the barrel of the 3d lens and the add-on, to secure it temporarily.
 
I do indeed have several of these 3D lenses with different washer spacings, since the lenses were pretty inexpensive at one point, and changing washers in the field obviously is not practical.  I tend to use the lens with 0.8mm washer spacing for most of my closeup subjects, mainly butterflies and flowers. But I also have lenses with  0.5 and  1.6 spacers that I use occasionally.  Many people  like the 1.0 spacing. These are achieved with various combinations of 0.5mm and 0.8 mm thick washers. I have not measured exactly what focusing distance these correlate to, and I do use the "focus peaking" feature on the GX7 (or GX8) to help tell when I am in focus, although it cannot always be seen well. 
 
I do have some achromatic closeups, and some wide angle add-on lenses, that I would like to experiment with sometime soon. Linda

On Sun, Sep 13, 2020 at 10:05 PM Chuck <3dpdinc@...> wrote:

As promised last Sunday, I did comparison testing for the Panasonic Lumix 3d Lens using close-up lenses vs spacers in the lens. To keep things simple, I used components that I had on hand. They were not all exact apples to apples, but close enough to get a good sense of how image qualities from each of them compare to each other. Here are the three groups compared:

Lumix 3d Lens with +4 Singlet Close-up Lens (Vivitar - $9.99 for set on Amazon that includes: +1, +2,+4,+10)

Lumix 3d Lens with a +5 Achromat Close-up Lens (Kenko – $19.90 on Amazon)

Lumix 3d Lens with 1mm Spacers Installed

 

The test set-up details:

-         Panasonic GX7 Camera

-         Lumix 3d Close-up Adapter (any adapter can be used, this is the one I will be selling)

-         Focus distance was 8 and 8.5 inches respectively for the +4 and +5 lenses, but 6.5 inches for the lens with 1.0mm spacers. I only have .5mm washers, so I stacked two.

-         On-board flash used

-         Subject was a black butterfly. I selected it due to its limited depth of about 3/8” (wanted everything in focus) and dark edges wings and antenna (good for sharp defined edges, and dark edges where fringing can be prominent).  

 

Results:

As expected, the simple singlet Vivitar lens resulted in a less sharp image compared to the other two options. There was a little blue fringing on the edges of the wings, although not as noticeable as I had expected. The black of the butterfly was noticeably not as black as with the other two options.

 

The achromatic lens and the Lumix lens with 1mm spacers installed resulted in images that were practically equal in quality. The lens with spacers installed had a bit of a cheat advantage in my test though because its focusing distance was significantly closer at 6.5” vs the achromat which focused at 8.5”.

 

Other observation: Both the singlet and the doublet (achromat) close-up lenses resulted in exposures that were around 1/8 to 1/4 stop darker than the lens with spacers. This was expected as adding glass steals a little light, and the doublet was slightly darker than the singlet.

 

I’ve attached a comparison image with 4x and 10 blow-ups so you can easily compare the shots, along with stereo pairs from all three options.

 

My Conclusion:

While the simple singlet Vivitar lens resulted in a bit lower image quality than the other two, I regularly use them with my adapter because they are cheap and provide a really easy and quick method to change magnification when shooting in the field. I’ve gotten very nice images using them. After all, the great thing about the Panasonic 3d lens is its convenience. For really sharp close-up and macro shots there are much better options. After these tests however, I will mainly use the lower magnification +1 and +2 Vivitars with the Pany lens because I think the image sharpness of the lower magnifications will be better, and their greater focusing distance will also help that. I will certainly not stack them (i.e. use both +1 and +2 stacked to get +3). I will use the +5 achromat and a +10 achromat that I have for the greater magnifications (it’s a +10 Optima achromat lens, available on Amazon for $24.95). For those of you using spacers, that is a good option with quality on a par with the achromat lens. To easily change magnifications in the field, either using close-up lenses with an adapter to fit onto the Lumix lens, or having multiple Lumix 3d lenses set up with different spacers are both good options.

Within a day or two I will post photos of the adapter ready for sale.

-Chuck (I'll post this to the Lumix3d group also, but could not find a way to post to both at the same time).


+4 Vivitar


+5 Achromat Kenko


1.0mm Total Height Spacers installed in Lumix 3d lens

 

 


George Themelis
 

I have a couple of comments:

 

As Linda said, one of the biggest advantages of using close-up lenses vs. extension is that you need less cropping to set the stereo window. This is due to a prismatic effect of the lenses and it was first noticed and reported by Ken Burgess. When he tried using close-up lenses in 3D video cameras, he noticed that he did not need to adjust the stereo window as much or at all. He reported his findings here:

http://www.cyclopital3d.com/3D_Camera_Convergence_Adjustments.pdf

 

The higher the magnification, the more pronounced is this effect. One of the main issues at high magnifications is the amount of cropping required to set the stereo window. This is not (as much of) a problem when using close-up lenses.

 

In my standard setup, I have a 0.5mm extension which gives me the minimum magnification / close-focusing distance I can live with (anything less than that is nearly flat for me). From there, I use achromatic lenses to increase the magnification to take advantage of this effect.

 

Considering that the cost of the achromatic lenses is $20-$25 (according to the information here) why would anyone use a single lens? I would think that people would like the best image quality for a reasonable cost. If you start at a certain extension, as I do, then you only need one or two achromatic lenses.

 

Finally, I am surprised to hear that adding close-up lenses changes the exposure. If the lens is coated, the light loss should be minimal/negligible. I have never heard of exposure adjustments for using UV filters for example, even though these are an extra piece of glass too. Even if there was some minimal light loss, the achromatic lenses should not have more light loss. Adding glass does not steal light. It is the reflections on the surface that steal the light, but, with good coatings the light loss should be negligible. (In the achromatic lenses the two elements are cemented so there is no extra surface to reflect light).

 

George

 

 

=====

 

Results:

As expected, the simple singlet Vivitar lens resulted in a less sharp image compared to the other two options. There was a little blue fringing on the edges of the wings, although not as noticeable as I had expected. The black of the butterfly was noticeably not as black as with the other two options.

 

The achromatic lens and the Lumix lens with 1mm spacers installed resulted in images that were practically equal in quality. The lens with spacers installed had a bit of a cheat advantage in my test though because its focusing distance was significantly closer at 6.5” vs the achromat which focused at 8.5”.

 

Other observation: Both the singlet and the doublet (achromat) close-up lenses resulted in exposures that were around 1/8 to 1/4 stop darker than the lens with spacers. This was expected as adding glass steals a little light, and the doublet was slightly darker than the singlet.

 

I’ve attached a comparison image with 4x and 10 blow-ups so you can easily compare the shots, along with stereo pairs from all three options.

 

My Conclusion:

While the simple singlet Vivitar lens resulted in a bit lower image quality than the other two, I regularly use them with my adapter because they are cheap and provide a really easy and quick method to change magnification when shooting in the field. I’ve gotten very nice images using them. After all, the great thing about the Panasonic 3d lens is its convenience. For really sharp close-up and macro shots there are much better options. After these tests however, I will mainly use the lower magnification +1 and +2 Vivitars with the Pany lens because I think the image sharpness of the lower magnifications will be better, and their greater focusing distance will also help that. I will certainly not stack them (i.e. use both +1 and +2 stacked to get +3). I will use the +5 achromat and a +10 achromat that I have for the greater magnifications (it’s a +10 Optima achromat lens, available on Amazon for $24.95). For those of you using spacers, that is a good option with quality on a par with the achromat lens. To easily change magnifications in the field, either using close-up lenses with an adapter to fit onto the Lumix lens, or having multiple Lumix 3d lenses set up with different spacers are both good options.
.

Groups.io Links:

You receive all messages sent to this group.

View/Reply Online (#126914) | Reply To Group | Reply To Sender | Mute This Topic | New Topic

Your Subscription | Contact Group Owner | Unsubscribe [gathemelis@...]

_._,_._,_

 


Oktay
 

The effect of prism reflects resembles the prismatic add on lenses for the Belplasca, which are used for photographing close (1 - 2.5m) objects, so that excessive cropping is avoided.
The viewers which have larger than interocular distance use also the same type of wedge lenses.

Theoretically, using a Lumix 3D lens with 1mm washers is supposed the reduce the light 86% compared to the unmodified lens.

     12.5 X 12.5 / 13.5 X 13.5 = 0.86

The transparency of additional lenses on the other hand may not be 100% which may be the reason of the light fall of.

Oktay


George Themelis
 

Yes, it is a similar effect.

 

You only have one (close-up) lens but the two lenses of the stereo lens are in opposite sides of the lens that’s why you get this prismatic effect.

 

When you have prisms, you would expect to see some chromatic aberrations. This happens if you use single lenses, like in most stereoscopes and the Belplasca and other add on lenses (one less known prismatic lens used for close ups is the Anglelens, developed by Kenneth Tydings in his Realist and Revere Guide books).

 

But with good quality achromatic lenses, you don’t see chromatic aberration. For example the lenses of the Keystone Visual Survey Telebinocular.

 

George

 

 

From: akdens2 via groups.io
Sent: Monday, September 14, 2020 9:37 AM
To: main@photo-3d.groups.io
Subject: Re: [Photo-3d] Panasonic Lumix 3d lens with Close-up Lenses vs Spacers Test

 

The effect of prism reflects resembles the prismatic add on lenses for the Belplasca, which are used for photographing close (1 - 2.5m) objects, so that excessive cropping is avoided.
The viewers which have larger than interocular distance use also the same type of wedge lenses.

Oktay

 


Chuck
 

Light loss with close-up lenses is a known effect. On a quick internet search, the first of numerous articles explains it simply: "Light loss occurs in macro and close-up photography because the lens is so far from the digital sensor in order to achieve focus at close ranges. The image produced by the lens (known as the circle of illumination) becomes larger than usual and is spread out beyond the borders of the sensor." by Thomas Clark. So in other words, the close-up lenses are further out from the sensor than the primary lens and thus they spread the light out beyond the surface of the sensor, or further beyond the circle of light that would be provided by the primary lens.

I am not at all concerned about the light loss.1/8 to 1/4 stop is really minimal and nothing to be concerned about I think. It is merely a phenomenon that I noticed and thought that I would mention.

Linda and George, I did mean to mention that the +4 and +5 CL lenses yield MPO files that were pretty well aligned, whereas the lens with spacers required significant x axis alignment; thank you for bringing this up. Not a problem to quickly align them, but certainly there is some real estate of the image that will be lost. It's a good reason to have your camera aspect ratio set to wider than you may need if you are using the lens with spacers.

It appears that once you upload a photo to a message here, you can delete the in-line photo prior to posting, but the image-linked photos with thumbnails that appear below those cannot be deleted. Is that correct Linda? I uploaded the multi-image comparison photo and realized it had been formatted improperly, so i deleted it, but the link with thumbnail remained. I did the same with the stereo pairs. I wanted to upload them in a specific order but did that incorrectly the first time, so I deleted those and re-uploaded them. Gosh, sorry, it resulted in a mess of thumbnails attached!

-Chuck


Chuck
 
Edited

I think the light loss explanation that I quoted may not explain it properly or with the entire reason. The particular article that I quoted was probably in reference to using extensions or bellows although it actually did not say! I bench tested it and found that adding a close-up lens onto the Lumix 3d lens did in fact increase the size of the 2 circles of light from the Lumix3d, but they did not increase further when the close-up lens was moved further out from the Lumix. The +10 lens resulted in larger circles than the +5 which makes sense since you see a smaller angle of view after the sensor cropping, hence the greater magnification, right? Adding spacers into the lens is like using an extension, so the quote is more appropriate to that. In the future, I'm going to leave any optics explanations to those of you more knowledgeable about optics than me! -Chuck


George Themelis
 

I just want to clarify something:
 
There is nothing wrong with using extension to increase the magnification. It can be shown that the “image loss” (amount of image that needs to be cropped to set the stereo window) is proportional to B x M, where B is the stereo base and M is the magnification.
 
So, no matter how you increase the magnification, you get the same image loss. The “prismatic effect” is something like a happy coincidence that happens only when cover both lenses with the same close-up lens. It shifts the images to reduce the image loss. It is unique to using one lens to cover both stereo lenses.
 
Also, I don’t think the advice to use the aspect ratio to wide to minimize the image loss is correct. The different aspect ratios allowed by the camera when it recognizes the lens only affect the vertical resolution, as shown in this table:
 
• 1824 x 1368 (4:3 - With 3D lens)
• 1824 x 1216 (3:2 - With 3D lens)
• 1824 x 1024 (16:9 - With 3D lens)
• 1712 x 1712 (1:1 - With 3D lens)

The widest aspect ratio (16:9) gives the same horizontal resolution (1840 pixels) but the smallest vertical resolution (1024 pixels). I think the 4:3 ratio is the best. Unless if you really want vertical aspect, then the 1:1 is better.
 
George
 
 

From: Chuck
Sent: Monday, September 14, 2020 11:01 AM
Subject: Re: [Photo-3d] Panasonic Lumix 3d lens with Close-up Lenses vs Spacers Test
 

Linda and George, I did mean to mention that the +4 and +5 CL lenses yield MPO files that were pretty well aligned, whereas the lens with spacers required significant x axis alignment; thank you for bringing this up. Not a problem to quickly align them, but certainly there is some real estate of the image that will be lost. It's a good reason to have your camera aspect ratio set to wider than you may need if you are using the lens with spacers.


George Themelis
 

• 1824 x 1368 (4:3 - With 3D lens)
• 1824 x 1216 (3:2 - With 3D lens)
• 1824 x 1024 (16:9 - With 3D lens)
• 1712 x 1712 (1:1 - With 3D lens)

"Unless if you really want vertical aspect, then the 1:1 is better”
 
That was not correct, obviously. Apparently, by cropping the image you get 1824 pixels maximum horizontal resolution.  To fit these this resolution into the different aspect ratios (4:3, 3:2, 16:9, 1:1) the camera gives you the resolutions listed above when it recognizes the lens. The 4:3 setting appears to be the most sensible choice.
 
The get the maximum resolution the lens can give, you have to mask/disable the contacts. Then you get something in the order of 2000x3000 pixels (it is reported). I am lazy and I like to get MPO files from this lens.
 
George
 
 

From: Chuck
Sent: Monday, September 14, 2020 11:01 AM
Subject: Re: [Photo-3d] Panasonic Lumix 3d lens with Close-up Lenses vs Spacers Test
 

Linda and George, I did mean to mention that the +4 and +5 CL lenses yield MPO files that were pretty well aligned, whereas the lens with spacers required significant x axis alignment; thank you for bringing this up. Not a problem to quickly align them, but certainly there is some real estate of the image that will be lost. It's a good reason to have your camera aspect ratio set to wider than you may need if you are using the lens with spacers.


 

I use 1:1 when shooting for stereocards since ultimate print images will be 3x3”.  Also my experience with trying the taped contacts was that you did not gain much if anything in resolution (except in height) by the time you set the window and crop the vignetting and fuzzy septum. Not worth the trouble unless you want RAW images to work with rather than jpg/mpo quality. Linda


On Sep 14, 2020, at 8:28 PM, George Themelis <gathemelis@...> wrote:


• 1824 x 1368 (4:3 - With 3D lens)
• 1824 x 1216 (3:2 - With 3D lens)
• 1824 x 1024 (16:9 - With 3D lens)
• 1712 x 1712 (1:1 - With 3D lens)

"Unless if you really want vertical aspect, then the 1:1 is better”
 
That was not correct, obviously. Apparently, by cropping the image you get 1824 pixels maximum horizontal resolution.  To fit these this resolution into the different aspect ratios (4:3, 3:2, 16:9, 1:1) the camera gives you the resolutions listed above when it recognizes the lens. The 4:3 setting appears to be the most sensible choice.
 
The get the maximum resolution the lens can give, you have to mask/disable the contacts. Then you get something in the order of 2000x3000 pixels (it is reported). I am lazy and I like to get MPO files from this lens.
 
George
 
 
From: Chuck
Sent: Monday, September 14, 2020 11:01 AM
Subject: Re: [Photo-3d] Panasonic Lumix 3d lens with Close-up Lenses vs Spacers Test
 

Linda and George, I did mean to mention that the +4 and +5 CL lenses yield MPO files that were pretty well aligned, whereas the lens with spacers required significant x axis alignment; thank you for bringing this up. Not a problem to quickly align them, but certainly there is some real estate of the image that will be lost. It's a good reason to have your camera aspect ratio set to wider than you may need if you are using the lens with spacers.


timo@guildwood.net
 

One advantage of using the Lumix 3D lens on a non-Panasonic camera (or taping the contacts) is that you see the whole stereo image on the camera screen, in crossview no less. This lets you better frame the image. With the Panasonic camera, you only see what is on one of the lenses, and this can result in part of your subject being cropped off. You won’t know this until you remove the memory card and put the MPO on a separate device. 

Timo

On Sep 14, 2020, at 9:27 PM, George Themelis <gathemelis@...> wrote:

 I am lazy and I like to get MPO files from this lens.
 
George
 
 
From: Chuck
Sent: Monday, September 14, 2020 11:01 AM
Subject: Re: [Photo-3d] Panasonic Lumix 3d lens with Close-up Lenses vs Spacers Test
 

Linda and George, I did mean to mention that the +4 and +5 CL lenses yield MPO files that were pretty well aligned, whereas the lens with spacers required significant x axis alignment; thank you for bringing this up. Not a problem to quickly align them, but certainly there is some real estate of the image that will be lost. It's a good reason to have your camera aspect ratio set to wider than you may need if you are using the lens with spacers.


 

I agree that framing the right  image is a problem when you can only see the left. So using a closeup lens to help compensate and  keep framing similar between l&r is an attractive option. Linda


On Sep 15, 2020, at 9:45 AM, "timo@..." <timo@...> wrote:

One advantage of using the Lumix 3D lens on a non-Panasonic camera (or taping the contacts) is that you see the whole stereo image on the camera screen, in crossview no less. This lets you better frame the image. With the Panasonic camera, you only see what is on one of the lenses, and this can result in part of your subject being cropped off. You won’t know this until you remove the memory card and put the MPO on a separate device. 

Timo

On Sep 14, 2020, at 9:27 PM, George Themelis <gathemelis@...> wrote:

 I am lazy and I like to get MPO files from this lens.
 
George
 
 
From: Chuck
Sent: Monday, September 14, 2020 11:01 AM
Subject: Re: [Photo-3d] Panasonic Lumix 3d lens with Close-up Lenses vs Spacers Test
 

Linda and George, I did mean to mention that the +4 and +5 CL lenses yield MPO files that were pretty well aligned, whereas the lens with spacers required significant x axis alignment; thank you for bringing this up. Not a problem to quickly align them, but certainly there is some real estate of the image that will be lost. It's a good reason to have your camera aspect ratio set to wider than you may need if you are using the lens with spacers.


Depthcam
 

On Mon, Sep 14, 2020 at 08:12 PM, George Themelis wrote:
Also, I don’t think the advice to use the aspect ratio to wide to minimize the image loss is correct. The different aspect ratios allowed by the camera when it recognizes the lens only affect the vertical resolution, as shown in this table:
 
• 1824 x 1368 (4:3 - With 3D lens)
• 1824 x 1216 (3:2 - With 3D lens)
• 1824 x 1024 (16:9 - With 3D lens)
• 1712 x 1712 (1:1 - With 3D lens)

Hi George,

I am a bit puzzled by the low resolution values you list above.

Based on what I had found on the internet, with the GX series, 4:3 should be 2048x1536 for GX series cameras as below:



The same value shown here:




But interestingly, I just checked a sample MPO sent to me that was taken with a GX7 and the resolution is indeed 1824x1024.  Kinda disappointed to see it's under 1080p !

I wonder how the posters above ended up with a value of 2048x1536 ?

Francois


Oktay
 

1024 is given in case a 16:9 image is desired.
I think you can still extract a 1824x1824 image if you want. 
Why it decreased from 2048 to 1824 could be side cropping necessities due to various reasons.

Oktay


Oktay
 

A reason here could be stereo window adjustment because of inclusion of a near object.
Oktay


Depthcam
 

On Tue, Sep 15, 2020 at 01:26 PM, akdens2 wrote:
1024 is given in case a 16:9 image is desired.

The cropping shown in the images I copied is 4:3 and that corresponds to 1824 x 1368.  Therefore the width is less than 1920p.

The value to remember here is the maximum 1824x1024 when the image is cropped for 16:9.  And that is less that the 1080p standard (1920x1080p)


> I think you can still extract a 1824x1824 image if you want.


As I understand it, when the 1:1 aspect ratio is chosen, the width is further reduced to 1712 x 1712 - possibly so as to avoid any risk of vignetting at the top and bottom edges ??


> Why it decreased from 2048 to 1824 could be side cropping necessities due to various reasons.


The point is these values were put up on the net in two places with the same wrong information.

Francois


Ronald Schalekamp <info@...>
 

The prismatic effect of the closeup lenses was mentioned for a long time by Loreo, with their macro 3d lens:

' Closeup lenses allow the camera to be brought in closer to the subject, and also help correct parallax.'


Also, where could i buy this mentioned adapter for the Pana 3d lens?

And, someone mentions there are far better quality options for good macro 3D; wich ones would those be?
I can thnk of doing the chacha, but thats a hassle and not for moving critters.

How does the Lore Macro lens compare to the Pana 3D lens?

Greets, Ronald






robert mcafee
 

Yes you can find a 49mm +5 Kenko Achromatic close up lens for $23.15 including shipping. For me I would pay additional $1.85 tax bringing delivered price to $25. 

Currently the next cheapest Kenko AC CU lens on eBay is $40 with shipping ($43.20 delivered with tax for me) and I think that one ships from Japan. Other brands of AC close up lenses of similar size can easily cost $100+. 

For me I noticed much more chromatic aberration with the non-achromat Kenko +10 lens than I observed with achromatic +3, +4 or +5 lenses. 


I too have a couple sets of close up diopters sold in sets of 4 from film days. These close up lens sets in that time frame were not that cheap. I seem to recall paying in the range of $20-$40 for a set. For what I was doing they were fine. However it has been my experience that I have more of a problem with chromatic aberration with digital than with film.  I have a Nikon 35mm f/2 lens for my DX format camera. I have very significant issues of purple fringing around areas of high contrast (not to mention back focus on my camera). 



 

Francois, I did look at the original site from your first image, and this was from a review of the lens done BEFORE they had the actual lens, so not sure where they got the info they did. But in the illustrations you included from this review, it appears to be a pretty flat image pair, as far as I can tell. The second image (not sure what the source is ) is still effectively flat since the depth in the foreground grass is cropped out. So there is no loss of width in horizontal alignment for setting the window in these examples. Perhaps one can theoretically get this amount of width if you shoot with taped contacts or a camera that does not recognize the lens? And if you shoot a composition with little depth, such as with an unmodified lens and distant subject.  When I personally tried the "taped contacts" method in the past, I was not able to get significantly larger (wider) images than the default ones (in my approximate 1:1 or 4:3 crop), after window adjustment and avoiding the vignetted area and septum as I cropped. Maybe one could get 1920 but I was not looking for a particular pixel dimension when I tried it. One could definitely get a taller portrait (or even  taller) image, with the taped contacts method. But 1:1 is as tall an aspect ratio as I need. 

https://m43photo.blogspot.com/search?q=3d This search of the M43 blogspot showed the pre-release review you reference near the bottom, a later review further up, one on use of the 3D lens for video and stills with taped contacts, and a 3D1 camera review as well. The article about video also addresses stills, and the large image with the elephant statues that shows the automatic crop illustrates well to me that the width limitation is mainly due to horizontal alignment for stereo window position. But obviously  there is a lot of vertical real estate that someone who wants a portrait or tall aspect ratio could take advantage of  with the taped-contacts method.  https://m43photo.blogspot.com/2012/09/3d-video-recording-with-lumix-125mm-f12.html

I noticed that this author was using GH1 and GH2 cameras. https://m43photo.blogspot.com/2012/08/lumix-g-125mm-f12-3d-lens-review.html 
Some of  their posted LR pairs from the GH2 seemed to have 2000 pixel width, and the review has a diagram indicating a 1920 x 1440 "sensor area" used, but I don't know where they got these numbers, or whether they used the taped contacts for the images? I know that the GX1, GX7 and GX8 all give the pixel dimensions that George cited. But can users of this lens with GH2 etc confirm that their mpo images are the same dimensions? 

In any case, I don't know what your second source was, Francois. But it is not unusual to have an inaccurate statement on the web quoted elsewhere by others. 8-) Especially when the information sources are scarce. Even the manufacture site does not seem to give this info. It would be nice if users of other cameras with this lens could confirm empirically what dimension mpo images they are getting from their cameras. Linda



On Tue, Sep 15, 2020 at 11:20 PM Depthcam via groups.io <depthcam=yahoo.ca@groups.io> wrote:
On Tue, Sep 15, 2020 at 01:26 PM, akdens2 wrote:
1024 is given in case a 16:9 image is desired.

The cropping shown in the images I copied is 4:3 and that corresponds to 1824 x 1368.  Therefore the width is less than 1920p.

The value to remember here is the maximum 1824x1024 when the image is cropped for 16:9.  And that is less that the 1080p standard (1920x1080p)


> I think you can still extract a 1824x1824 image if you want.


As I understand it, when the 1:1 aspect ratio is chosen, the width is further reduced to 1712 x 1712 - possibly so as to avoid any risk of vignetting at the top and bottom edges ??


> Why it decreased from 2048 to 1824 could be side cropping necessities due to various reasons.


The point is these values were put up on the net in two places with the same wrong information.

Francois


3DBob
 

On Wednesday, September 16, 2020, 11:47:02 AM EDT, Linda N <ljnygren@...> wrote:


Francois, I did look at the original site from your first image, and this was from a review of the lens done BEFORE they had the actual lens, so not sure where they got the info they did. But in the illustrations you included from this review, it appears to be a pretty flat image pair, as far as I can tell. The second image (not sure what the source is ) is still effectively flat since the depth in the foreground grass is cropped out. So there is no loss of width in horizontal alignment for setting the window in these examples. Perhaps one can theoretically get this amount of width if you shoot with taped contacts or a camera that does not recognize the lens? And if you shoot a composition with little depth, such as with an unmodified lens and distant subject.  When I personally tried the "taped contacts" method in the past, I was not able to get significantly larger (wider) images than the default ones (in my approximate 1:1 or 4:3 crop), after window adjustment and avoiding the vignetted area and septum as I cropped. Maybe one could get 1920 but I was not looking for a particular pixel dimension when I tried it. One could definitely get a taller portrait (or even  taller) image, with the taped contacts method. But 1:1 is as tall an aspect ratio as I need. 

https://m43photo.blogspot.com/search?q=3d This search of the M43 blogspot showed the pre-release review you reference near the bottom, a later review further up, one on use of the 3D lens for video and stills with taped contacts, and a 3D1 camera review as well. The article about video also addresses stills, and the large image with the elephant statues that shows the automatic crop illustrates well to me that the width limitation is mainly due to horizontal alignment for stereo window position. But obviously  there is a lot of vertical real estate that someone who wants a portrait or tall aspect ratio could take advantage of  with the taped-contacts method.  https://m43photo.blogspot.com/2012/09/3d-video-recording-with-lumix-125mm-f12.html

I noticed that this author was using GH1 and GH2 cameras. https://m43photo.blogspot.com/2012/08/lumix-g-125mm-f12-3d-lens-review.html 
Some of  their posted LR pairs from the GH2 seemed to have 2000 pixel width, and the review has a diagram indicating a 1920 x 1440 "sensor area" used, but I don't know where they got these numbers, or whether they used the taped contacts for the images? I know that the GX1, GX7 and GX8 all give the pixel dimensions that George cited. But can users of this lens with GH2 etc confirm that their mpo images are the same dimensions? 

In any case, I don't know what your second source was, Francois. But it is not unusual to have an inaccurate statement on the web quoted elsewhere by others. 8-) Especially when the information sources are scarce. Even the manufacture site does not seem to give this info. It would be nice if users of other cameras with this lens could confirm empirically what dimension mpo images they are getting from their cameras. Linda



On Tue, Sep 15, 2020 at 11:20 PM Depthcam via groups.io <depthcam=yahoo.ca@groups.io> wrote:
On Tue, Sep 15, 2020 at 01:26 PM, akdens2 wrote:
1024 is given in case a 16:9 image is desired.

The cropping shown in the images I copied is 4:3 and that corresponds to 1824 x 1368.  Therefore the width is less than 1920p.

The value to remember here is the maximum 1824x1024 when the image is cropped for 16:9.  And that is less that the 1080p standard (1920x1080p)


> I think you can still extract a 1824x1824 image if you want.


As I understand it, when the 1:1 aspect ratio is chosen, the width is further reduced to 1712 x 1712 - possibly so as to avoid any risk of vignetting at the top and bottom edges ??


> Why it decreased from 2048 to 1824 could be side cropping necessities due to various reasons.


The point is these values were put up on the net in two places with the same wrong information.

Francois