3D Digital Cameras?

Have you guys been following the 3D digital camera and movie tech developments over the past year or so? Fujifilm has been showing off 3D digital photos and cameras for over a year now; Sony just came out with three point-and-shoots that can capture 3D photos (announcement); and Panasonic just anounced a camcorder with a 3D adapter lens (Panasonic 3D camcorder article)and they're also making a 3D lens for the Micro Four Thirds system cameras.

I got to check out some 3D sample photography at the Fujifilm booth at PMA this spring and I have to admit I was impressed. However, I'm not sure I really care. How about you? Is 3D capture in a digital camera something that interests you? Is it something you'd consider buying? I know the electronics companies are interested - it's something new to sell us and they're investing heavily in 3D TV sets and related gear. I don't know if the buying public is really interested, though. What do you think? Let us know in the new Quick Poll:

What do you think of 3D digital cameras?

The photo below is Alan "kafin8ed" Davis, checking out the Fujifilm's 3D photos at the 2010 PMA tradeshow. You can read about his experience at PMA here:

Alan Davis - One Day At PMA >>

I'm with you: don't care. It's like hdr to me. Until we get holodecks where we can touch, feel and interact with entertainment, it will be inherently abstract. 3d movies just look off. Anything past 10 feet isn't 3d in our vision anyway. The beauty of photography and videography comes from that abstraction. In my opinion...

Once they have holodecks, I'm totally getting one!

-M

My only experience with 3D is movies in the theater (Avatar and Avatar-Last Air Bender) and checking out the 3D TV display in the local mall.

While I was highly impressed with Avatar, the 3D TVs (they were Samsungs) were a total disappointment. The 3D effect was not even close to the theater experience and even blurry in certain sections of the screen.

I have not seen 3D stills, but would be very interested in checking them out.

However, making the leap from a viewer of 3D images or movies, to a producer of 3D movies or stills is not something that I feel the need to jump on right away. I will stick to my point and shoots and HD camcorder for now, as I think most consumers will.

The need/desire to make the leap into this new technology just isn't that strong and the reasons to make that jump just aren't that compelling right now. I am content to sit back and see how the technology pans out, at this point.

You have to admit, Alan does look pretty hip in those 3D glasses. Maybe I just need some glasses :D

I'm not really interested in 3D...

I have a friend who has been making 3D photographs for several years using a home made 2 camera rig. He actually got a grant from the state to go around and photograph historic places in 3D. His 3D anaglyph and photograms require the cyan/magenta glasses to view. He has also told me that anything larger than 5x7 with them and they start to fall apart and not look very good. I find them interesting in small doses, but not something I would want to view a lot of. Kind of like a Lensbaby or a fisheye lens.

You can see some of his work here: http://www.djmstudios.net/

I wouldn't even be remotely interested until they can achieve these effects without glasses. Really what is the point???

I think this is more a novelty than anything else. Kind of like a fisheye. I had a film camera years ago that took 3d pictures. It took twice much film and only a couple of labs would make prints and they all were high. There is nothing like plain old fashion photography.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greg McCary

I think this is more a novelty than anything else. Kind of like a fisheye.

---

Way more of a novelty than a fisheye lens, in my opinion.

Well, like any art, the point is to explore. I, too, think 3d is mostly a gimmick until we have holographic displays, but that does not mean it can't be fun to play with. I would if it could be done cheaply. As for HDR, I think that is way more than a gimmick. I think in a very few years, most point and shoot cameras will have in-camera tone mapping enhancement.

I think at the moment 3d for video is becoming an option as 3d televisions become more commonplace and the technology is more user friendly. Those glasses may look cool, but it is still a hassle to go and put them on everytime you want to watch tv.

3d still photography is an entirely different prospect. stereoscopic photography has been around for a long long time, but it has mostly remained a nieche. Until there is a convenient way of displaying 3d stills without the need for glasses, then it will remain a fringe technique. I don't think it will remain a novelty for long. I am sure fields like fine art, forensic and medical photography will be as much a force in this field as the novelty factor. 3d still photography will become mainstream when appropriate display technology become commonplace. Lets face it most people still print their photos rather than using digital picture frames so that would need to change and then those screens would need to become capable of displaying 3d without glasses before it becomes a serious option.

Funny - I read your comments yesterday, Skyman, while I was working on an article about the new Fujifilm W3 3D camera. That article, written by Robert Burns, echos a lot of the stuff you said in your post. Burns also shared a few links for some current low-tech 3D photo techniques.

New Fujifilm 3D Camera & 3D Photography >>

I am still not really interested in 3D still or video technology. I think it's just a new thing that the electronics companies are hoping to sell us. I posted the poll to find out of I was in the minority in my lack of interest. There aren't a lot of voters in the poll so far. But the general response so far pretty much agrees with me - who cares.

My sister n law had a camera that took 3d pictures and you did not need any glasses or anything else special to view them. See had a photo album full of them and I thought they looked great! I for one would be interested in one if the prints were at a reasonable price. When you looked at a photo it looked like you could just reach in and grab something and pick it up.

I guess I'm the lone ranger here, but I'm interested in it, Jeff

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Grandpaw

My sister n law had a camera that took 3d pictures and you did not need any glasses or anything else special to view them. See had a photo album full of them and I thought they looked great!

---

How long ago was that, Jeff? How did the 3D effect work without any glasses?

Does smell count as a 3rd dimension? If so then I have lots of 3D photos. I have tons of photos that stink! :ciappa:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Photo-John

How long ago was that, Jeff? How did the 3D effect work without any glasses?

---

I can't explain how it worked because I don't know but I can tell you no glasses of any kind were needed and it looked just like a 3d movie would have looked. It was several years ago but here is one of the cameras. They can be purchased off ebay brand new very cheap, Jeff

http://cgi.ebay.com/Nishika-N8000-35...t=Film_Cameras

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Grandpaw

I can't explain how it worked because I don't know but I can tell you no glasses of any kind were needed and it looked just like a 3d movie would have looked. It was several years ago but here is one of the cameras. They can be purchased off ebay brand new very cheap, Jeff

http://cgi.ebay.com/Nishika-N8000-35...t=Film_Cameras

---

Ah, these types of cameras produced a series of images that required a lenticular print process. Basically the images are interlaced and then a layer of lenses are placed over the top of the. I'm sure you have seen something like this before. The types of images that have a rough plastic coating on them and may give you a completely different image if looked at from a different angle. By interlacing a series of similar images (this camera takes 4 images) and viewing them through this thin layer of lenses over the top it gives the image a 3D look.

So although you don't need to wear special glasses to get the 3D effect, you are looking through a series of lenses.

Sometimes the beauty and interest of a scene is almost entirely in it's depth. It would be great to have a reliable capacity to capture the size of things using good 3d. I agree, present 3D tv suffers from the fact that the glasses don't switch fast enough to capture the 3d in moving objects, but stills may work just fine with that technology.

Not sure if anyone does lenticular printing any more, it was always specialist.
We used it for medical imaging for a while, our problem was the speed (or lack of it) in producing the prints.