World's First Integrated Twin-Lens 3D Camcorder 162
ElectricSteve writes "Shooting in 3D has traditionally required a complex, bulky and fragile rig using two cameras and additional hardware to calibrate and adjust them. Panasonic's straight-forwardly-named Twin-lens Full HD 3D camcorder looks to radically change the 3D game, with integrated lenses and dual SDHC memory card slots allowing you to capture 3D footage immediately, with just one device." So there ya go, get started making your own Avatar.
Finally - 3D porn! (Score:2, Interesting)
nuff said
Re:Cheap 3D Viewing (Score:5, Interesting)
It's coming to a TV near you in the next year or so (3D-capable TVs are the new hotness now that HDTVs have becoming commonplace in the market). Samsung, in particular, has announced models that will use RealD technology (ie, the same thing used in movie theatres) to display 3D on your TV using standard circularly polarized glasses. In fact, the technology itself is pretty straight forward, you just need a TV capable of a relatively high frame rate (RealD is 144hz) combined with a polarizing overlay which switches at the same rate.
$12,000 !!! (Score:5, Interesting)
The hype claims "While it's far cheaper than building your own 3D rig, the SRP of US$21,000... ", but that is far from accurate. You can build your own quite decent 3D system with two inexpensive (around $100 bucks each) Canon cameras, some free open source software, and very simple hardware. See http://stereo.jpn.org/eng/sdm/index.htm [jpn.org] for details.
Plus, adding insult to injury, the article raves about this $12,000 camera working with two inexpensive SDHC memory cards rather than more expensive P2 memory cards. Doesn't the $12,000 price tag rather defeat any savings in memory cards?
Re:Now, if only... (Score:4, Interesting)
Expect to see something similar to this on you cell phone in about, let's say, 2038.
Re:Yay! (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Yay! (Score:4, Interesting)
Probably make SOMEone happy...
Re:$12,000 !!! (Score:1, Interesting)
I'm wondering: What's the target market is for this camera? Is it in preparation for the supposed upcoming 3D TV stuff? It's too pricey for casual users, but it seems to me that if you're trying to do something professional you'd probably better off spending the money on a higher-quality regular camera (and lights and sound... so many indie productions are ruined by poor lighting or sound). Is this just for people who want 3D for very niche purposes, or as a gimmick, or is this price point where you really can't buy any meaningful improvement in visual quality without a huge jump in cost? I used to be into video production in college, but this is above the price range of prosumer cameras where prices were readily available.
Re:Cheap 3D Viewing (Score:3, Interesting)
Have you looked into NVidia's offering? If you've got a good enough monitor (needs 120Hz) and a decent NVidia card already, the glasses are only 200USD, and I'd imagine you could find somewhere in the UK selling them as well. But again, that assumes you already have the graphics card (probably not _too_ expensive) and a 120Hz monitor (more expensive)
Re:Ohh, really? (Score:4, Interesting)
I actually have shot photos professionally on occasion. :) I know exactly what you mean. That's why I absolutely love the DSLR cameras now. There's no waiting to develop the film to figure out if my shots turned out the way I expected. I can shoot, and then check through the screen on the camera, to if the shots came out to be something resembling what I wanted. Not that ever shot comes out perfectly, but they never do. That's why I burn through shots there's no tomorrow. It's never the "Oh that's perfect" picture that was perfect. It's her real smile after the fake posed one and you started to laugh with her.
But, back to TFA. Without dual eyepieces, you have to guess if that 3D shot is really what you wanted. Did it jump out of the screen, or did it just become part of the background? You won't know until it's reviewed later. Maybe it can hook directly to a 3d capable monitor, so it can be viewed live. 2 monitors would be nice for composition of the frame from each view, but it will never compensate for the depth which is what 3d is all about.
Disney World has a 3D movie, Mickey's PhilharMagic, that was really good. It is a completely animated movie though, but the idea still applies. I saw it with my 2 year old daughter. It kind of freaked her out because things were popping out at her. Once I started encouraging her to grab the things out of the air, she really enjoyed it. There's a huge difference for the audience if an object may have come half way towards them, or right up to them. We felt that we could reach out and touch things through the whole movie. They reinforced it with blasts of scented air and sprinkling water, which is a bit beyond anything that'll show up in most theaters anytime soon.
Re:Ohh, really? (Score:2, Interesting)
if you've ever shot anything professionally you'd know that what you see and what the camera sees are never quite the same thing. the parent has a legitimate point, and I don't think many professionals would make use of this camera. although the article is a little light on details, and in my opinion what you'd really want instead of a dual eyepiece is the ability to display each shot individually by hooking up two monitors. its also possible there's a button or something to allow you to choose which frame is displayed on the eyepiece or an external monitor.
I've never photographed anything professionally. I've also never seen a 3D movie other some of the old 1980's films with the red and blue cardboard glasses. It never occurred to me that there was a problem to be solved in the first place. It also never occurred to me that there was a large demand for this. I made my previous post as a joke, that every photography nerd on here completely WOOSHED.
3D in my humble opinion is hologram technology, something I'm not sure is technically possible in 2010. To me, it simply is not stereoscopic photography and light polarization tricks. A true 3D "image" is what I see when I open my eyes, thus a display technology that truly fills a 3-dimensional space will be the only one that (IMHO) qualifies as 3D.