When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
But here we see the issue with the all phone camera's "Portrait Mode" that tries to add blur to the background/foreground to simulate a shallow Depth of Field. It makes the cars look very small, like models, and the blur is confusing.
Generally, turning it on leads to terrible photos.
Why do these look like models? Why is the blur incorrect and confusing?
Because real sized cars are actually decently far away, and there is almost no way to get that much blur, even on a very fast lens (large aperture, shallow depth of field). Any pictures that you generally see with that much foreground/background blur are from Macro-photography. Macro-photography is used for taking very close range pictures of small objects and models, those photos generally have a very shallow Depth of Field, where only the object at the actual focus depth is in focus and the foreground and background are very blurry.
Also, looking at this photo, the blur is completely incorrect versus what actual Depth of Field will do. For instance, the tires of your 996 are in focus, but the roof is blurry? Why? They are at the same depth. If the Depth of Field was actually that shallow to blur the roof, then why are the van tires, far behind, in focus? But the rest of the minivan, also at the same depth as it's tires, is completely blurry. Also the wall is in focus at the bottom, but extremely out of focus towards the top.
The phone camera "Portrait Mode" algorithms are usually terrible at simulating real photography.
Sorry, not trying to be too negative. I love the array of cars, and the colors are nice. But I can't look at these kinds of photos and not see the algorithmic travesty.
Here's a good example of what is probably a real professional or pro-sumer level camera/lens with a nice large aperture and a shallow Depth of Field. The closest headlight is in perfect focus, and there is a smooth gradient where the farther away, or closer, from that point, the more blurry the image is. For a full size car in a room, this is still a very shallow Depth of Field, so it's probably an F/2.8 or larger (i.e. an expensive lens). Very nice.
If diddy2003 replies that this was a phone, I'll concede that the algorithm gets lucky sometimes, and eat my hat. There isn't a lot of depth complexity here, so the algorithm's tendency to make the center of the image in-focus and to blur outwards is somewhat compatible, but I still don't think so.
Here's a good example of what is probably a real professional or pro-sumer level camera/lens with a nice large aperture and a shallow Depth of Field. The closest headlight is in perfect focus, and there is a smooth gradient where the farther away, or closer, from that point, the more blurry the image is. For a full size car in a room, this is still a very shallow Depth of Field, so it's probably an F/2.8 or larger (i.e. an expensive lens). Very nice.
If diddy2003 replies that this was a phone, I'll concede that the algorithm gets lucky sometimes, and eat my hat. There isn't a lot of depth complexity here, so the algorithm's tendency to make the center of the image in-focus and to blur outwards is somewhat compatible, but I still don't think so.
Well I'm not a Photographer and I don't know anything about photography but I do see the blurs and don't know what they mean, but I definitely see a lot of "camber" in that pic and I certainly know what that means...lol
Here's a good example of what is probably a real professional or pro-sumer level camera/lens with a nice large aperture and a shallow Depth of Field. The closest headlight is in perfect focus, and there is a smooth gradient where the farther away, or closer, from that point, the more blurry the image is. For a full size car in a room, this is still a very shallow Depth of Field, so it's probably an F/2.8 or larger (i.e. an expensive lens). Very nice.
If diddy2003 replies that this was a phone, I'll concede that the algorithm gets lucky sometimes, and eat my hat. There isn't a lot of depth complexity here, so the algorithm's tendency to make the center of the image in-focus and to blur outwards is somewhat compatible, but I still don't think so.
It didn't take it, but I agree regarding the picture quality. Phones are good for what they are, but for taking large "wallpaper" type pictures, phones aren't the tool for the job. Nothing will replace a good DSLR for depth. The only issue I have, is that the sharing websites compress photos. Not really sure how to get around that. The photos I shared are far better on my computer, vs the imgur links. A few more. One more of the cup, because its awesome, and a few I took with a Cannon 6D DSLR in Acadia national park and other parts of Maine. Very minimal editing in light room.
I didn't see a dedicated thread for 996 wallpapers. (Except for one that was specific to the 4s)
So I thought I would start one, and begin it with a cool minimalist photo I took of my 185k mile '99 C4.
You would never guess that the car is white.. but the early morning light works in strange ways. I love the image.
I took it on Cape Canaveral FL this morning.
Please share cool 996 wallpaper. Your car, or just one you found on the internet.
11-05-2023, 11:40 AM
