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.
Yay! (Score:3, Funny)
I can't WAIT to see all those cute kitten videos in 3D!!!
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Yay! (Score:4, Interesting)
Probably make SOMEone happy...
Re: (Score:3)
My first thought was how this would REALLY revolutionize the pr0n industry!!!
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
I'm not looking forward to goatse in 3D though. it's bad enough without depth-perception of that bottomless pit.
Don't you mean pitiless bottom?
Re: (Score:2)
Haven't you ever heard of kitty pr0n?
Ohh, really? (Score:4, Insightful)
So where do I get the blue aliens and the monsters and the vehicles and ...
Re: (Score:2)
Here [autodesk.com]
Re:Ohh, really? (Score:4, Insightful)
I'd go original Star Trek style, and it would just be hot chicks in body paint, wearing not much of anything.
And then it goes into someone elses comment above "wheres the 3d porn?" :)
Funny thing about that camera. There's only one eyepiece. I guess you're not expected to see the scene as it's recorded. That's a shame.
Re: (Score:2)
There's a trick for that - don't use the eyepiece! :-P
Re: (Score:2)
I'd go original Star Trek style, and it would just be hot chicks in body paint, wearing not much of anything.
And where do I find these hot chicks? Oh wait, I think I remember a website that had to do with that...
Re: (Score:2)
Step 1) You get a bunch of money together.
Step 2) You go out to Hollywood and do a casting call.
Step 3) You pick the prettiest ones that are willing to have sex on camera.
Step 4) See previous post.
Aw, who cares about the profit step. I just got freaky with a bunch of hot chicks that thought they were in a movie. :)
Re:Ohh, really? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
I can't RTFA due to work firewall (yet they allow Slashdot? wtf?), but it's possible that both screens are viewable in the eyepiece either the way you mentioned (choosing which lens to view) or they could both be shown at the same time. It's also possible that the eyepiece shows a "middle" view, situated between the two lenses. The last possibility is that the eyepiece shows a 3D image as it will show up on a screen, and included in the eyepiece is whatever polarizing lens is necessary to view the image.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
"Surely this convenience entices you? Pornography and online gaming at hundreds the times of speed of your normal advertising service provider! It's so easy to use, and the surgery to implant it at the base of your skull is so painless it's no wonder I'm number one!" - The www.yzzerdd.com
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
IMAX still isn't most theaters, unfortunately. At least we've progressed beyond the old 16 fps silent movies. :)
I'll actually be a happy camper when 3d has finally broken into mainstream, and used in almost all theaters. I know once it gets a foothold, the modern 24fps color talkies will just be a memory.
Re: (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, i
Easy (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Special effects.
Finally - 3D porn! (Score:2, Interesting)
nuff said
Re:Finally - 3D porn! (Score:4, Informative)
W00t! (Score:3, Funny)
Now not only can our relatives bore us with their hours-long videos of their cruise, but they can also leave us with (worse) headaches and intense nausea! Now that's what I call progress!
Re: (Score:2)
Just think of what will happen when someone gets seasick, and hurls towards the camera! That's real family entertainment. "Play it again, I wanna see grandma puke again! Wow, I can almost taste it!"
{{shivers}}
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Whether you are joking or not, I wish people constantly complaining of nausea and headaches would just stop. I do not get headaches and nausea from viewing 3-D movies, nor does anyone I know. Yes, it may affect you, but quite complaining. There are people who get car sick, plane sick, boat sick, or in general motion sickness. Notice how most people do not complain about motion sickness every time a car, boat, or airplane is mentioned. And to handle the others that complain about people with only one eye not
Re: (Score:2)
Whether you are joking or not, I wish people constantly complaining of nausea and headaches would just stop. I do not get headaches and nausea from viewing 3-D movies, nor does anyone I know.
Congratulations! I envy you!
Yes, it may affect you, but quite complaining.
Umm... fuck you. :) The first few weeks of Avatar's release, I was excluded because I can't view 3D content. Basically, the studios and the theatres have decided to give me and anyone else who dislikes 3D content the middle finger, all so they
Re: (Score:2)
Hey, here is an idea: Quit complaining about people complaining.
A. I went to the amusement park over the weekend with my family.
B. Ride any good rides?
A. Yeah, that new rollercoaster they have is rather awesome.
B. Aw man, I can't do those things, they make me throw up every time.
Same fucking concept. Now, if person B in this situation annoyed you, then you are a jackass.
Re: (Score:2)
So no, the 3D itself doesn't make me ill - the illusion that it presents my brain kickstarts the general motion sickness I get whenever I'm dehydr
Cost prohibitive (Score:2)
At some point, yes, our relatives shall bore us with their hours-long videos of their cruise, and leave us with (worse) headaches and intense nausea.
But at a current price of US$21,000 it won't be soon.
Cheap 3D Viewing (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Depends on how you define "near". If you mean a store within a hundred miles will have on display, then yes. If you mean inside my house, not only no but hell no. I've got better things to waste my money on than the latest fad electronics. I'm upgrading only when the technology gets cheap and a current set goes bad. By that time--and if the format sticks--then we'll be past the "Oh, look what can be done" stage and onto some worthwhile content.
Re: (Score:2)
Depends on how you define "near". If you mean a store within a hundred miles will have on display, then yes. If you mean inside my house, not only no but hell no. I've got better things to waste my money on than the latest fad electronics.
I never said you should buy it. The OP asked where 3D was available. I told him. If you don't want it, bully for you (I don't, either, BTW).
Frankly, I'm not even sure who you're arguing with...
PROTIP (Score:2)
For the best reading experiance, imagine the post above is responding to a comment about color televisions.
Re: (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: (Score:2)
The technology you're looking for is called "Shutter Glasses". They've been around since the mid 80's (including being an accessory for the Sega Master System).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LCD_shutter_glasses [wikipedia.org]
They work by blocking one eye, then the other. It effectively halves your monitor refresh rate, as you have to display each frame twice (120 goes to a normal 60, 60 goes to 30), as well as your overall graphics output.
Quite frankly, any polarized glasses TV display device really has to be compared aga
Re: (Score:2)
Buy a 3D movie DVD, it comes with glasses. You can usually find a few cheap titles - Coraline is worth the investment just for the movie, glasses are a bonus.
however, Coraline's colors don't match the typical red/cyan anaglyph you'll find, so you'll have to decide which colors you want, and find that movie.
At that point, you can typically take side-by-side photos or whatever source and anaglyph them into the proper colors with free software.
Alternatively, go see Avatar with a friend and keep the glasses.
No 3D TV in the living room (Score:2)
For a 3D TV to work properly you should use it in a dark room (with dark walls) and preferably with a big screen otherwise you'll get insane headaches.
That's because otherwise you'll perceive not just the TV flipping but the whole environment around it and your body is not just used to that.
They should release just 3D glasses with lcd (oled) monitors within the glasses, that would be much cheaper and practical.
It's also better to expect the 240Hz TVs that are scheduled to release.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, great (Score:5, Funny)
3D handheld shaky-cam shots. My eyes can't wait!
Get the tarp (Score:3, Funny)
Great, now every porn flick is going to look like a Gallagher concert.
Re: (Score:2)
3D hot grits?
Monster Chiller Horror Theatre! (Score:3, Funny)
Dr. Tongue's 3D House of Stewardesses - now in actual 3D
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=87WgmGHz9U4 [youtube.com]
There may also be "other" applications. I'll get back to you on that.
$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: (Score:2)
Doesn't the $12,000 price tag rather defeat any savings in memory cards?
I dunno...P2's start around $450+ for the smaller sizes...I would rather spend the money saved elsewhere. Then again, if you are already spending $12,000 on a camera...
Re: (Score:2)
It's not the first, either. Several stereoscopic video systems already exist - although I'm not sure if they do HD, it would surprise me if at least one of them didn't already. In addition, this is a twin lens system. That means that unless it records at twice the frame rate and records LRLRLR or to two separate streams, you'll either lose half the frame rate for each eye, or you lose half the resolution somewhere due to recording of both views onto the same virtual frame (left/right or top/bottom as in
Re: (Score:2)
To date, stereoscopic video production has been limited to "rigs" that hold two video cameras.
The complications of trying to keep two physically seperate lenses and imaging systems properly aligned over a range of zooms and focusing has been incredibly complex.
Plus, rigs are fragile. If you are on the sidelines of a football game and someone runs into your rig, it could be out of stereoscopic alignment for the rest of he game.
Thus the existance of unified stereo cameras built from the ground up to be soli
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
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?
I would bet that either the article writer or the target audience are the kind of people that will drive 10 miles across town to save $.02/gal on gas. Cost benefit analysis is much too complicated for most people.
I would have posted this link instead (Score:2)
Stereo Movie Maker [jpn.org]
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
> Doesn't the $12,000 price tag rather defeat any savings in memory cards?
No. HD video fills up those $500+ P2 memory cards in minutes. They must then be swapped out for the next shot. If you can't afford $80,000 worth of video cards, you will need a person pulling the contents of those video cards onto hard drives full time during the shoot so that they can be reused.
Take a picture, step to the left, take another (Score:2)
If you are doing still shots or landscape, then that is more than sufficient. I have a collection somewhere of a bunch of stereo pairs I took during a vacation that way. They seem to be as good as any more expensive method. And if the 3d-ness isn't what you had hoped for, then you still have two shots.
video vs. still (Score:2)
The site is focusing on still 3D, but the cameras will do video as well and there is nothing to stop you from taking the two stereo videos and putting together a 3D video, it's not much different than combining 3D still pictures. Pick a supported Canon camera that does HD video any you can get 3D HD (or go cheap for 3D standard video).
In fact, that the Panasonic uses two separate SDHC memory cards rather tham on card makes me suspect that the Panasonic system is doing pretty much what this much less expens
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, let me correct myself on this. The site goes into a lot of stuff about making sure that the two cameras are in sync while taking still shots. It is not certain that the cameras would be in as precise of sync when doing 3D work. And depending on how your 3D video is displayed you might not even want them in sync (if doing alternate frames for LCD 3D shutter glasses you might want them completely out of sync, but if doing alternate forms of 3D viewing you might want them in sync).
So a lot of this
Not getting it... (Score:3, Insightful)
I really just don't understand this whole 3D movie thing. It's about as interesting as VR gloves in the late 90s; a neat idea, but really nothing but an expensive, impractical gimmick.
I think I'll sit this out until someone invents the Holodeck, or at the very least, makes something that doesn't hurt my eyes or make me wear glasses.
Re: (Score:2)
I really just don't understand this whole 3D movie thing. It's about as interesting as VR gloves in the late 90s; a neat idea, but really nothing but an expensive, impractical gimmick.
I think I'll sit this out until someone invents the Holodeck, or at the very least, makes something that doesn't hurt my eyes or make me wear glasses.
I have no doubt that this movement is being strongly supported by the TV manufacturers who need to have some new selling point (read: gimmick) now that the whole HD thing has slowed. I'm holding out for Smell-o-Vision. Or stylish goggles.
Re: (Score:2)
I really just don't understand this whole 3D movie thing. It's about as interesting as VR gloves in the late 90s
Avatar grossed $1 billion dollars in eighteen days. Up and Monsters vs Aliens about $300 million each in theatrical release.
Not so many years back, the geek-in-embryo couldn't see any value in surround-sound.
It took his dad or grandad quite some time to come around to the idea - and expense - of investing in FM and stereo Hi-Fi.
Re:Not getting it... (Score:5, Insightful)
3D adds texture. It's often gimicky, because producers (I assume it's producers) demand excuses to show of "it's 3D!" usually by having something pointy come out of the frame too far (as in, too close for normal people to adjust their eyes to it quickly).
But it's a perfectly useful tool for adding texture to projects if you avoid the gimmicky "throw stuff at you" tricks. It really does add to the immersion on films where they're not playing "look, it's 3D!" all the time.
No one calls greek friezes "gimmky" just because they have some relief (although they would if every frieze had a spear sticking way out to remind you). It's just another tool for artists to use to evoke emotion.
Now, I'd challenge you to watch one of the films where it wasn't just a gimmick, but I'd be hard pressed to actually name one. "Monsters vs. Aliens" wasn't too bad, though.
Re:Not getting it... (Score:4, Insightful)
Which was the part I liked the most about Avatar, the 3D was there but not a gimmick.
Re: (Score:2)
Huh? With the exception of "3D coolness", everyone I know would have skipped the movie. It was like the Wizard of Oz for color, Star Wars for CG and the Matrix for bullet-time: the movie that does a new technology well and frees the rest of the world to use it without having to make the movie about it.
Re: (Score:2)
>>Now, I'd challenge you to watch one of the films where it wasn't just a gimmick, but I'd be hard pressed to actually name one. "Monsters vs. Aliens" wasn't too bad, though.
Avatar in 3D... sure, there were a couple scenes where it was over-used, but by far it was the best use of 3D I've ever seen. I was very skeptical, especially after watching 5 really annoying 3D trailers before the movie (oxymoron...), but it was not distracting in the least.
MadCow.
Re: (Score:2)
And the Wizard of Oz used super-saturated colors for the same reason. But imagine trying to view any movie in black and white now. 3D will be less gimmacky soon as well.
Re: (Score:2)
Nightmare Before Christmas was very pleasant as a 3D film, but that's largely because it was originally 2D and the 3D effect was added in later for a re-release.
Re: (Score:2)
You beat me to it!
The Nightmare Before Christmas was very well done in my opinion. I seem to recall that every scene was noticably 3D and the only one that stood out with objects close to the viewer was near the begining with falling snow flakes.
Re: (Score:2)
I really just don't understand this whole 3D movie thing.
Ok, I get your sentiment, but the same was said about sound and color. 3D, by itself, won't make a good movie. At the worst you'll get something that's a crappy movie with crappy 3D effects. At the middle you'd get something like "The Mind's Eye", except in 3D and even that bar would be raised as the technology trickles down so regular folks can do those effects (e.g., the Terminator liquid metal man can now be done with $2,000 software). And the ve
Next step, Ocular upgrades (Score:2)
I've always thought it would be pretty awesome to have a 3D HUD to life without having any goggles; it would just be built right into my synapses! I suppose the challenges would be streaming the data to the ocular implants; I have a feeling bluetooth wouldn't have enough bandwidth to handle the feeds.
Re: (Score:2)
I wouldn't
the MAFIAA would slip in some copy-Protection
like they did with HDMI
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Or you could go watch a play.
(Just kidding. Sort of)
Still 3D images from the Victorian Era (Score:2)
It is good to see that the digital video world has caught up with the Victorian era, in which stereo photos were extremely popular.
Of course, it did take a while before the RealD technology became available, making high quality COLOR 3D video possible. It would be interesting to see someone do a steampunked version of the camera.
Re: (Score:2)
It would be interesting to see someone do a steampunked version of the camera.
No, there's nothing interesting about "steampunk."
Amazing HD, Awesome 3D, Cutting Edge Mono Sound! (Score:3, Insightful)
Cameras need better mic options.
Re: (Score:2)
There's a reason professional cameras have mic in lines - sometimes even two. You can't stuff a little piezo mic into the camera body and then think you're going to get marvellous sound quality; and most people aren't going to care either.
The people who would use these types of (semi-)professional (3D or otherwise) HD cameras are going to have a boom mic dangling above the people they need to get on track - you could try and stick directional microphones to your camera with duct tape and you still wouldn't
So there ya go, get started making your own Avatar (Score:2)
there ya go (Score:3, Insightful)
> So there ya go, get started making your own Avatar.
But with a better plot, please.
Too close to each other? (Score:2)
Did anyone else notice, how the lenses seem too close to each other?
Looks like everything recorded by that thing will look like a dog’s perspective (eye-distance-wise).
YOU’RE WINNER! ;)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Look at the size of the handstrap on the side, then use that to judge the size and distance of the lenses. I think you'll find that it's rather large.
The size of the tripod throws you off, but that's a solid, professional tripod and not some tiny kid's toy.
Re: (Score:2)
Looks about right to me. The typical lens separation used for standard stereoscopic photography is around 6-7cm. The rule of thumb is that you separate the lenses approximately 1/30th of the distance from lens to subject. Having them wider exaggerates the 3D effect, at the expense of realism, and also makes it harder for the brain to fuse the images together.
Ideally, you'd use an adjustable rig - but that's a lot more work, and a lot more bulk and impracticality.
3-D won't take off as a serious tech until.... (Score:3, Funny)
3-D won't take off as a serious tech until two way brain computer interfaces are as commonplace as cell phones are today. No one want's to have to deal with 3-D that requires you wear glasses or contact lenses or what not, it would be more easily accepted if you could just stream the data to your visual cortex along with all of the other sensations that "realistic fantasy reality" entails.
Flittery jittery images in bulky headache producing glasses that appears somewhat 3-D won't compare to simulated optic nerve data being fed by a computer.
I will wait for the iBrain or the iMind before I go "Full 3-D".
Re: (Score:2)
No one want's to have to deal with 3-D that requires you wear glasses or contact lenses or what not,
The expectation is that in roughly 5 years consumer-grade displays will be able to do 3D without the need for any glasses.
http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/16/hitachi-exhibits-10-inch-glasses-free-3d-display/ [engadget.com]
http://hd.engadget.com/2009/05/11/ny-storefront-hosts-the-first-no-glasses-3d-lcd-ad/ [engadget.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe it's because I've worn glasses my whole life but wearing the polarized glasses they hand out at the theatre has never bothered me all that much. I've had a fwe pairs that were poorly constructed and had burrs from the molding but that's about it. I'd far rather wear glasses like that then shell out thousands of dollars more.
And I don't get how the double layer tv's are supposed to work, won't both of my eyes see the same pictures and so it'll all just be blurry like watching a current 3d movie at the
Will there be a way to view without glasses? (Score:2)
Glasses are fine in the theater but I don't think this is going to take off at home until we can view stereoscopic content without glasses. As far as I know, this is impossible because it requires each eye to receive a slightly different image. That's the whole point of the glasses, to show one eye something different from the other. Anyone got suggestions as to how it could be done?
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
Expect to see something similar to this on you cell phone in about, let's say, 2038.
In 2038, you won't need a camera phone, you'll just need a subscription to the Panopticon Drone Network®, filming everything, everywhere, for your fun and pleasure, since 2031!
Re: (Score:2)
2038? (Score:2)
I use 64-bit Linux, and my Unix time doesn't roll over until Sunday, December 4, 292,277,026,596, you insensitive clod!
Re:Now, if only... (Score:4, Informative)
Maybe it's about time that the standard consumer camcorder takes video in full HD for a decent price? I'd like to see that first.
Your wish [cnet.com] is my command. So how was this last year [cnet.com] you spent in a cave?
Tigerdirect has that first model on sale for $500 [tigerdirect.com]. That seems to me to be a pretty decent price... unless you're one of those "Let me know when I can get [product X] with [feature Q], [feature R], and two [feature S] for $99".
Yup. Take what you can get, I guess. (Score:2)
Yeah, there won't ever be a good consumer HD video camera as long as they have to be portable. Packing it into that size, you're not going to have enough light-gathering ability without resorting to a small, noisy sensor.
Your pixels are just over a tenth the size of SD pixels (due to wide-screen aspect), and SD camcorders are already struggling to gather enough photons.
The solutions are to use wider field of view or larger lenses. That's it, really. The problem is fundamental, not limited to "how accurat
Re: (Score:2)
Mod Parent Up. I can't tell you the number of "HD" consumer grade camcorders I've seen that output the requisite number of pixels, but they're so noisy and flat with improper color separation that you might as well be grabbing video in 320x240 and upscaling to 1080p. In fact, not seeing what the insides of these camcorders look like, that's what they may very well be doing.
Most DVD's look amazing on high end TV's, and that's because the original SD signal is so clean and crisp. HD level consumer camcorde
Re: (Score:2)
I'm seeing HD camcorders for standard consumers all over the place? I'm looking at good Cannon ones (Vixia series), in the $499(refurb) to $699 price range. From what I can tell from the specs...they do take images in full HD???
I guess I'm missing you point....looks to me like there are several HD camcorders out there and decent prices...
Re: (Score:2)
Different points of view of economics I guess.
I'd never think $400-$700 was too much for a quality video camera. I'm not what I'd consider an early adopter, but, seems most all of my video cameras over the years, especially the early ones..were in the $1K or so range.
So, I'd consider anything sub $
Re: (Score:2)
The same way 3D photos, available for many decades, made a lasting contribution?
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is, there's a fundamental difference between adding color and adding the ability to trick our brains into seeing depth where there is none. Aside from the "needing special glasses" problem, there's a disconnect between the perceived focal planes and what your eyes can really focus on which isn't going to be solved by anything short of 3d displays with real depth to them, which won't be cheap or convenient. It may happen, but it's not inevitable either.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
3D is really like HD. How much would you be missing out on by watching the ball game (or whatever) on a 50" CRT vs. a 50" HDTV? It's not like you need to see the individual blades of grass to enjoy the game, right?
That said, it's hard to go back to lower quality once you've upped your standards.