How good is the built-in 3D mode in these cameras?

LowriderS10

Monkey with a camera.
Joined
May 19, 2013
Messages
2,482
Location
Canada
Hi guys,

I have an OM-D and I'm trying to decide whether to get the Panasonic 3D lens or to stick with what the camera has. I want the Pan lens, BUT, I don't want to carry an extra lens, I'm not crazy about lens changes, and I'm not crazy about either the effective focal length or the constant f8 on it.

So, if the built-in 3D mode is good enough, I'd rather go with that. I know I could try this myself, but I don't have a 3D capable TV, nor do I know anyone who has one (well, my brother...but he's about 12,000 km away, give or take). :D

Thanks in advance!
Tamas
 

oldsweng

Mu-43 Regular
Joined
Apr 21, 2011
Messages
60
Location
Oregon
1) The resulting image is of low pixel count.
2) You can get free software to make the 3D images visible with red/blue glasses.
3) The lens is tiny.
4) I wish I hadn't bought the lens, even though it was only $50.
Edit:
5) It is a constant f12 not f8. For 3D this is good. For low light this is bad.
 

tuanies

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
Jun 13, 2011
Messages
227
Location
Graham, WA
Real Name
Tuan Huynh
I think I took one shot with mine and put it back on the shelf, despite it being $50. I forget I own it most of the time.
 

LowriderS10

Monkey with a camera.
Joined
May 19, 2013
Messages
2,482
Location
Canada
Thanks guys, I appreciate that, but I'm really looking for answers on how good the built-in 3D mode (which uses whichever lens you have mounted on the camera) is on these cameras! :)

On the OM-D (and I suspect other cameras) there's a function where you take one picture, then it gives you a "ghost" image to match up your second picture to, you take that and it puts it together into the same MPO 3D file as it would with the 3D lens...I'm wondering how well this function works. :)

Still, it's good to know I wouldn't miss much if I didn't get the lens, especially since it's about $200 here!
 

riverr02

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
May 2, 2011
Messages
261
Location
New York
Real Name
Rafael
Completely agree. Don't waste your money. I purchased one for not much money, but found it to be useless for me. Too dark of a lens for anything but reasonably bright outdoor conditions and the 3D effect was frankly disappointing. No surprise that it didn't sell well.
 

LowriderS10

Monkey with a camera.
Joined
May 19, 2013
Messages
2,482
Location
Canada
Awesome, thanks!! :) Too bad, because it could have been a fun lens! However, this saves me $200 and leaves the budget open for some other fun stuff! :D

Now...how about the in-camera 3D...how well does that work? :)
 

pxpaulx

Mu-43 All-Pro
Joined
Jan 19, 2010
Messages
1,265
Location
Midwest
Real Name
Paul
Awesome, thanks!! :) Too bad, because it could have been a fun lens! However, this saves me $200 and leaves the budget open for some other fun stuff! :D

Now...how about the in-camera 3D...how well does that work? :)
All that 3d is, is 2 images placed and layered so that when used with proper eyewear they come together to create perceived depth. If it works it works, if it doesn't it doesn't! My guess would be that the amount of perceived depth would have to do with the amount of shift between the two combined shots and the focal length used (i.e. was the camera moved 2 inches or a foot). If my TV can do 2d to 3d conversion pretty well on the fly, I don't think it is a very taxing task for the E-m5 to combine 2 images into a single file to accomplish the same thing :)
 

LowriderS10

Monkey with a camera.
Joined
May 19, 2013
Messages
2,482
Location
Canada
All that 3d is, is 2 images placed and layered so that when used with proper eyewear they come together to create perceived depth. If it works it works, if it doesn't it doesn't! My guess would be that the amount of perceived depth would have to do with the amount of shift between the two combined shots and the focal length used (i.e. was the camera moved 2 inches or a foot). If my TV can do 2d to 3d conversion pretty well on the fly, I don't think it is a very taxing task for the E-m5 to combine 2 images into a single file to accomplish the same thing :)
Haha thanks, I know how it works and what it is, I'm just wondering if it actually works in practice! :)
 

BAKatz

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
Sep 9, 2010
Messages
247
Location
Riverdale, NY
I don't know about the in camera 3D, but here are two options. The Loreo 3D lens for your particular camera. Looks goofy on the camera, but is really good for stereo ( side by side ) images. You'll of course need a viewer. The other is a new lens, a series of lenses actually from Holga. The base fits on the camera, and there are two other sets of lenses on magnetic wheels. One set is filters, the other is effects. One of the effects is a paired image. This also gives a side by side image. You can import either images to an IPad, or print them out at 4 x. 6. No matter what you'll need the stereo viewer. The latter is at HolgaDirect.com. The former is at Loreo.com. Both have really good service.
 

oldsweng

Mu-43 Regular
Joined
Apr 21, 2011
Messages
60
Location
Oregon
The in-camera 3D appears to have some serious limitations. Image size is limited to 1920x1080 - jut slightly larger than the image size using the 3D lens. My opinion is it won't be all that great. There is no advantage to using the OMD over using two cheap point and shoot Canons with CHDK installed and mounted with their lenses 2.5" apart. The two Canon configuration would be significantly cheaper and provide better quality! I have a number of co-workers using this setup and producing some great 3D.
 

Latest posts

Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Mu-43 is a fan site and not associated with Olympus, Panasonic, or other manufacturers mentioned on this site.
Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemoji
Copyright © 2009-2019 Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom