Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

World's First Integrated Twin-Lens 3D Camcorder

CmdrTaco posted more than 4 years ago | from the i'll-call-it-shamdora dept.

Movies 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.

cancel ×

162 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

furst p0st (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30684042)

ZOMG

yay 3d (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30684080)

wheres the 3d porn?

Yay! (2, Funny)

Jethro (14165) | more than 4 years ago | (#30684088)

I can't WAIT to see all those cute kitten videos in 3D!!!

Re:Yay! (1)

robinstar1574 (1472559) | more than 4 years ago | (#30684314)

Kitten movies in 3D? What is so special about kitten movies? Mabye I should put my black 19 year old cat taking a dump on youtube. Would that make you happy?

Re:Yay! (3, Interesting)

Jethro (14165) | more than 4 years ago | (#30684582)

Probably make SOMEone happy...

Re:Yay! (2)

cayenne8 (626475) | more than 4 years ago | (#30684746)

Kittens....Really??

My first thought was how this would REALLY revolutionize the pr0n industry!!!

Re:Yay! (2, Funny)

eltaco (1311561) | more than 4 years ago | (#30685096)

dito. I'm not looking forward to goatse in 3D though. it's bad enough without depth-perception of that bottomless pit.

Re:Yay! (2, Interesting)

tiedyejeremy (559815) | more than 4 years ago | (#30684472)

sweater kittens? POV will never be the same.

Re:Yay! (1)

Suki I (1546431) | more than 4 years ago | (#30684678)

Just what I was thinking and I can play them on my new 3D TV that I am probably not getting for five years!

Ohh, really? (4, Insightful)

Lars T. (470328) | more than 4 years ago | (#30684094)

So there ya go, get started making your own Avatar.

So where do I get the blue aliens and the monsters and the vehicles and ...

Re:Ohh, really? (1)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 4 years ago | (#30684166)

Here [autodesk.com]

Re:Ohh, really? (3, Insightful)

JWSmythe (446288) | more than 4 years ago | (#30684338)

    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:Ohh, really? (1)

ground.zero.612 (1563557) | more than 4 years ago | (#30684438)

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.

Thankfully I was born with 2 eyes and have yet to incur the loss of one, thus allowing me to perceive things around me in 3D without the aid of a stereoscopic recording device.

Re:Ohh, really? (4, Insightful)

quantumplacet (1195335) | more than 4 years ago | (#30684514)

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:Ohh, really? (1)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 4 years ago | (#30684640)

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. ::shrug:: dunno

Re:Ohh, really? (2, Funny)

SEWilco (27983) | more than 4 years ago | (#30685154)

Before using the viewfinder insert the Operator's SplitView Eye in your head.

Re:Ohh, really? (1)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 4 years ago | (#30685388)

"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? (3, Interesting)

JWSmythe (446288) | more than 4 years ago | (#30685204)

    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? (1)

TuringTest (533084) | more than 4 years ago | (#30684830)

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.

There's a trick for that - don't use the eyepiece! :-P

Re:Ohh, really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30685328)

    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.

Helpful to read the article. They are coming out with a monitor to view the 3D on an LCD screen.

Re:Ohh, really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30685546)

RTFA

"The Twin-lens Full HD 3D camcorder will be available in Q4 2010, and Panasonic plans to release a 3D Full HD LCD monitor for use in the field, and a digital mixer for live 3D broadcasting shortly after."

Easy (1)

LockeOnLogic (723968) | more than 4 years ago | (#30684652)

Go to Toys R' Us

Re:Ohh, really? (1)

MrMista_B (891430) | more than 4 years ago | (#30684818)

Special effects.

Putting the technology to use (-1, Redundant)

orudge (458780) | more than 4 years ago | (#30684126)

So how long before "3dporn.com" becomes a reality?

Re:Putting the technology to use (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30684156)

...some things don't need to be shooting off the screen at me.

Finally - 3D porn! (1, Interesting)

ugen (93902) | more than 4 years ago | (#30684136)

nuff said

Re:Finally - 3D porn! (4, Informative)

Faaln (1004586) | more than 4 years ago | (#30684460)

The porn industry is on this. [cnbc.com]

Now, if only... (0, Troll)

dsavi (1540343) | more than 4 years ago | (#30684180)

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. But no, focus development on something comparatively few people care about and are willing to pay for, not something that should have been done a couple of years ago.

Re:Now, if only... (1)

fprintf (82740) | more than 4 years ago | (#30684396)

I'd bet someone said this about color TV decades ago. "What do we need to see TV in color for? We need remote controls, larger screens, better sound yada yada"

Like any new technology, it is being built because manufacturers think there is a market for it. I believe 3D TV is going to be one of my generation's lasting contributions to our technology culture. Hopefully it will be as commonplace in 20 years as color TV had become in the 1960s. (or flat panels are today, I recall seeing my first Philips one in the late 80s in an upscale Boston electronic boutique priced on sale at $17,000)

Re:Now, if only... (1)

sznupi (719324) | more than 4 years ago | (#30684986)

The same way 3D photos, available for many decades, made a lasting contribution?

Re:Now, if only... (1)

b0bby (201198) | more than 4 years ago | (#30685802)

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:Now, if only... (3, Interesting)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 4 years ago | (#30684432)

This is not your father's cam corder. At USD21,000 or so, this is low end pro (or insane serious amateur) stuff. Mostly this is an engineering exercise to see how things work and get some presence in the market.

Expect to see something similar to this on you cell phone in about, let's say, 2038.

Re:Now, if only... (2, Insightful)

Dr_Barnowl (709838) | more than 4 years ago | (#30684738)

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:Now, if only... (1)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | more than 4 years ago | (#30684930)

The Linux drivers for it may be delayed since that's about when the Unix time rolls over.

2038? (1)

mister_playboy (1474163) | more than 4 years ago | (#30685376)

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... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30684542)

not sure if you've looked lately, but a 1080p camcorder is no longer an expensive device.

Re:Now, if only... (3, Informative)

Arthur Grumbine (1086397) | more than 4 years ago | (#30684682)

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. (1)

zippthorne (748122) | more than 4 years ago | (#30685272)

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 accurate the sensor is". You can only count the photons you receive, even a perfect sensor is going to have unappealing measurement uncertainty compared to a perfect sensor with a larger lens system.

Re:Now, if only... (1)

cayenne8 (626475) | more than 4 years ago | (#30684946)

"Maybe it's about time that the standard consumer camcorder takes video in full HD for a decent price?"

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:Now, if only... (1)

dsavi (1540343) | more than 4 years ago | (#30685488)

Never said that consumer HD camcorders do not exist- I'm just saying I am not willing to shell out 700$ for it, because anything less is sub-standard. A more realistic price is 400$. It's the future already!

Re:Now, if only... (1)

cayenne8 (626475) | more than 4 years ago | (#30685534)

"Never said that consumer HD camcorders do not exist- I'm just saying I am not willing to shell out 700$ for it, because anything less is sub-standard. A more realistic price is 400$. It's the future already!"

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 $1K to be a reasonable price for a quality HD camera, especially with HD still being relatively new still.

Re:Now, if only... (1)

dsavi (1540343) | more than 4 years ago | (#30685592)

Different points of view of economics I guess.

Yeah I suppose so. Of course, if I got paid to take videos, it would be a different story.

Re:Now, if only... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30685112)

Um hello. My JVC does FULL HD (1080i) just fine. in fact most PROFESSIONAL camcorders only do 1080i. Most are set at 720p because that is what broadcast WANTS.

Also, I have shot in 1080p, and it's a crapshoot. most lenses are shitty and cant record the difference between 720p and 1080p on consumer camcorders. Let me guess, you are the type that wants a 60 megapixel camera in your phone because more=better to you.

Re:Now, if only... (1)

dsavi (1540343) | more than 4 years ago | (#30685542)

You've guessed wrong. The 1mp camera on my phone is just fine for me because I don't shoot serious pictures with it. Again, I know that the market is full of consumer full HD camcorders. I'm just saying that the prices are ridiculous. In my original post I said nothing to (intentionally) imply that consumer-level 1080i/p cams don't exist.

W00t! (2, Funny)

Abcd1234 (188840) | more than 4 years ago | (#30684216)

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:W00t! (1)

JWSmythe (446288) | more than 4 years ago | (#30684378)

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:W00t! (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30684846)

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 being able to take advantage of this...enough! There are people born, or inflicted, everyday with multiple kinds of disabilities that preclude them from doing numerous tasks, such as driving, flying an airplane, etc. If you get headaches, or have some ocular disability That prevents you from viewing 3-D tv, I'm sorry to hear that, but shut it. Recognize that there are most likely things that you can do that others can't. Imagine if every time you mention one of these things someone chimes in complain that they can't...

E.g
A. How was your day?
B. Well, I was thinking, as I was driving home...
A. Driving, yeah you mean that thing that makes me throw-up everytime I do it.
B. Okay, Work was fine. What should we do for dinner?
A. Chicken sounds good, but we need some peas.
B. I'll drive to....
A. Yeah, yeah...you'll DRIVE to the store. I hope you don't throw up, like I do...

Annoying, isn't it?

Re:W00t! (1)

Abcd1234 (188840) | more than 4 years ago | (#30685730)

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 can use their fancy new gimmick to wow audiences so they don't notice the shitty plot that underpins their pretty new movie.

There are people born, or inflicted, everyday with multiple kinds of disabilities that preclude them from doing numerous tasks, such as driving, flying an airplane, etc. If you get headaches, or have some ocular disability That prevents you from viewing 3-D tv, I'm sorry to hear that, but shut it.

I'm sorry, what? Are you saying blind people should refrain from complaining if a movie or TV studio refuses to broadcast with descriptive video? That deaf people should refrain from complaining because they refuse to broadcast subtitles?

Seriously, fuck you, buddy.

Cost prohibitive (1)

dazedNconfuzed (154242) | more than 4 years ago | (#30685522)

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 (1)

FinchWorld (845331) | more than 4 years ago | (#30684228)

Does anyone know of decent suppliers of 3d viewing equipment? Say glasses/monitors? I've found some sites in the US but they aren't cheap (especially with shipping to UK).

Re:Cheap 3D Viewing (4, Interesting)

Abcd1234 (188840) | more than 4 years ago | (#30684288)

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:Cheap 3D Viewing (1)

Eevee (535658) | more than 4 years ago | (#30685160)

It's coming to a TV near you in the next year or so

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:Cheap 3D Viewing (1)

Abcd1234 (188840) | more than 4 years ago | (#30685766)

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...

Re:Cheap 3D Viewing (2, Interesting)

Urza9814 (883915) | more than 4 years ago | (#30684918)

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:Cheap 3D Viewing (1)

b4dc0d3r (1268512) | more than 4 years ago | (#30685530)

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. Buy some cheap projectors and you'll probably need a grey screen to preserve the polarization, but put the left lens over the left projector, the right lens over the right one, and wear the other pair. Full color 3D. Especially with some of the pocket-sized projectors that cost a couple hundred dollars max, you can get a decent cheap effect. This experiment is currently in progress chez moi, having accomplished the first.

Next is typing the power and trigger lines of a cheap digicam to create a master/slave, giving me cheap 3D photo/video acquisition. The trick is to use fixed-focus or you'll suffer.

No 3D TV in the living room (1)

Via_Patrino (702161) | more than 4 years ago | (#30685584)

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.

Oh, great (4, Funny)

Sockatume (732728) | more than 4 years ago | (#30684250)

3D handheld shaky-cam shots. My eyes can't wait!

Get the tarp (2, Funny)

paiute (550198) | more than 4 years ago | (#30684254)

Great, now every porn flick is going to look like a Gallagher concert.

Re:Get the tarp (1)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 4 years ago | (#30684354)

3D hot grits?

Monster Chiller Horror Theatre! (2, Funny)

jakedata (585566) | more than 4 years ago | (#30684296)

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 !!! (4, Interesting)

frovingslosh (582462) | more than 4 years ago | (#30684366)

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:$12,000 !!! (1)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 4 years ago | (#30684404)

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:$12,000 !!! (1)

Animaether (411575) | more than 4 years ago | (#30684586)

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 HDMI 1.4).

People who use dSLRs can go google '3d lens in a cap' for existing solutions for stereo photography and - as the summary mentions - video recording if the dSLR supports video recording.

Re:$12,000 !!! (1)

TheSync (5291) | more than 4 years ago | (#30684990)

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 solid, stable, and a supported product from a major manufacturer is a breakthrough.

Re:$12,000 !!! (1)

C64 (130005) | more than 4 years ago | (#30684698)

Perhaps I missed something, but the link you supplied to demonstrate why the Panasonic camcorder is overpriced seems to only provides information for 3D still photography, not 3D video. An apples to oranges comparison.

video vs. still (1)

frovingslosh (582462) | more than 4 years ago | (#30684922)

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 expensive system is doing; recording each camera to a different card and then putting the 3D images back together later in software.

Re:video vs. still (1)

frovingslosh (582462) | more than 4 years ago | (#30685168)

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 seems to depend on the target 3D display system. And that may be true for the $12,000 camera also. One thing for sure, if I want to experiment with this, at least before 3D TV is a well established technology with very well defined specs, I'll do it with the much less expensive home brew system.

Re:$12,000 !!! (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30684842)

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:$12,000 !!! (2, Insightful)

VisiX (765225) | more than 4 years ago | (#30685090)

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 (1)

WormholeFiend (674934) | more than 4 years ago | (#30685212)

Re:$12,000 !!! (2, Informative)

Elwood P Dowd (16933) | more than 4 years ago | (#30685526)

> 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.

Re:$12,000 !!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30685930)

Well said. $21,000 is a rip off. (And you put this as $12,000 by mistake twice, even in the title - you fool!)

It's a piece of piss for a company like this to put two camcorders together to make 3D recording, give it a year and 3D camcorders will be well under $200.

Not getting it... (3, Insightful)

Thoreauly Nuts (1701246) | more than 4 years ago | (#30684376)

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:Not getting it... (0, Offtopic)

Khan (19367) | more than 4 years ago | (#30684770)

I'm with you there, Nuts. This whole 3-D thing is still mostly a gimmick IMO. Besides, I can get 3D p0rn with tactical sensations anytime. One of the many benefits of being married ;-)

Re:Not getting it... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30685222)

... I can get 3D p0rn with tactical sensations anytime. One of the many benefits of being married ;-)

Clearly, you haven't been married for very long...

Re:Not getting it... (0, Offtopic)

cayenne8 (626475) | more than 4 years ago | (#30685280)

"Besides, I can get 3D p0rn with tactical sensations anytime. One of the many benefits of being married ;-)"

You can do the same at a bar.....and you don't get tired of having the same old chick every night.

That and when you get tired of her (or she gets fat), you can upgrade to a better model, and not risk losing half your shit you own.

:)

But hey...to each his own!!

Re:Not getting it... (1)

Arthur Grumbine (1086397) | more than 4 years ago | (#30684774)

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:Not getting it... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30685852)

I'm holding out for Smell-o-Vision.

So's the goatse guy...

Re:Not getting it... (1)

westlake (615356) | more than 4 years ago | (#30685558)

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... (4, Insightful)

zippthorne (748122) | more than 4 years ago | (#30685872)

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.

At last! Hollywood remakes, arise! ARISE!!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30684394)

"Dr. Tongue's Evil House of Wax" [youtube.com]
"Dr. Tongue's 3D House of Stewerdesses" [youtube.com] [marginally NSFW]
And, of course, "Dr. Tongue's 3D House of Pancakes".

Re:At last! Hollywood remakes, arise! ARISE!!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30684558)

Ah, found the third one. Actually it was "Dr. Tongue's Evil House of Pancakes" [youtube.com] .

"Would you like some more ... PANCAKES?"

Next step, Ocular upgrades (1)

Azureflare (645778) | more than 4 years ago | (#30684428)

Now that we have a consumer-grade method of creating 3D footage, I'm waiting for ocular implants so the 3D footage can be streamed directly to my brain!

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:Next step, Ocular upgrades (1)

denis-The-menace (471988) | more than 4 years ago | (#30684522)

I wouldn't
the MAFIAA would slip in some copy-Protection
like they did with HDMI

Re:Next step, Ocular upgrades (2, Insightful)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 4 years ago | (#30684624)

Or you could go watch a play.

(Just kidding. Sort of)

Still 3D images from the Victorian Era (1)

geek2k5 (882748) | more than 4 years ago | (#30684568)

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.

It is only a matter of time (0, Redundant)

Kolie (1012967) | more than 4 years ago | (#30684602)

Before we receive some epic amateur porn.

pr0n (0, Redundant)

Soiden (1029534) | more than 4 years ago | (#30684694)

Now, this is perfect for some homemade pr0n videos.

Evolutionary, not revolutionary (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30684718)

Panasonic was demonstrating a stereo NTSC camcorder at the NSA (National Stereoscopic Association) convention in Portland in 1987. It used LCD shutter glasses to view the video on a standard NTSC monitor. They were showing video shot at the Viewmaster factory in Portland (since closed).

Amazing HD, Awesome 3D, Cutting Edge Mono Sound! (3, Insightful)

sexconker (1179573) | more than 4 years ago | (#30684786)

Cameras need better mic options.

So there ya go, get started making your own Avatar (1)

kungfugleek (1314949) | more than 4 years ago | (#30684944)

With hookers, and blackjack...

there ya go (2, Insightful)

roc97007 (608802) | more than 4 years ago | (#30685052)

> So there ya go, get started making your own Avatar.

But with a better plot, please.

Re:there ya go (1)

arachnoprobe (945081) | more than 4 years ago | (#30685352)

> So there ya go, get started making your own Avatar.

But with a better plot, please.

Won't be that hard to accomplish. Every story is. Even 2012.

Too close to each other? (1)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 4 years ago | (#30685108)

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:Too close to each other? (2, Informative)

Aladrin (926209) | more than 4 years ago | (#30685410)

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.

Is 3D really THAT great? (1)

a0schweitzer (1702404) | more than 4 years ago | (#30685348)

I have some vision issues (wear glasses, have had surgery, was born cross-eyed, etc). I can't for the life of me remember the exact medical term, but I don't have depth perception like average folks. When the optometrist does the depth-perception test with the little dots, and one is supposed to pop out at you, I see no popping.

Now, I've watched Avatar (twice - once in non-3D and once in RealD) and thought it was great. I could see the 3D, but it wasn't anything crazy. It really just emphasized the focus point of the camera, and made things appropriately blurry if they were not the thing being focussed on. Trees closer to the camera loooked like they were closer to the camera. But I already knew that, because they're, well, bigger. I guess it added a bit of perspective, but nothing spectacular.

My question, thus, being: Is 3D really THAT great, that we want 3D TVs and camcorders? Or am I missing out on the full AWESOME of 3D becasue of my vision issues?

To me 3D still seems really gimmikey and more of a distraction than an actual addition to a film

Cheap 3D Camera = Next Gen Homemade Pornography (1)

relaxinparadise (943965) | more than 4 years ago | (#30685404)

It's not too hard to imagine a glut of really bad homemade porn with this new camera, but maybe someone will make something interesting out if it.

Does it/Do they look bigger in 3D?

Re:Cheap 3D Camera = Next Gen Homemade Pornography (1)

PPH (736903) | more than 4 years ago | (#30685610)

They look like you could just reach out and touch them .... for $50.

Key Missing Feature (0)

MBoffin (259181) | more than 4 years ago | (#30685658)

It only has one eyepiece! Talk about a huge oversight for a 3D camera! With all the engineering that went into this camera, it's amazing they missed this one.

3-D won't take off as a serious tech until.... (2, Funny)

jameskojiro (705701) | more than 4 years ago | (#30685806)

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".

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>