Hi everyone ! Panasonic has a 3D lens. When equiped on a G2 or a GH2 does it support taking (and storing) a 3D picture as well as a 2D picture at the same time (guess it does). Does anyone of you have such lens?
Acc to Willkommen in der neuen Dimension the Fujifilm 3DW3 is superior to the 3D cameras from Pan (G2 and GH2 equiped with Pan 3D lens). Article in German!
Well, the Fuji is a dedicated 3d camera, built from the ground up to take 3d photos so I'm not that surprised. Would a regular camera, mounted on a tripod with a 'slideable' (left to right) tripod mount be able to take 3d photos (of static objects of course)? I suspect it could. I think I might give it a try.
My comments I was actually responding to the Panasonic 3D lens used with GH2. You obviously need a 3D TV. The lens is a fixed aperture, F11 I believe, so it's not a low light setup. The small aperture is required to maintain the depth of field and proper convergence. Shooting 3D is almost like learning composition from the start. Things we do in a 2D photo just don't look as good in 3D. Fourty-five degree angle shots and having subjects positioned between you main subject and the camera really make 3D shine. The GH2 only takes 3D stills - you would need Panasonic's 3D camcorder for motion video. I can say that I've compared my stills vs. the Fuji and the Panasonic's are better. Fuji allows the user to set the convergence which can easily be exagerated.
I wouldn't think the Panasonic lens would be that good since the separation is so small. The Fuji is pretty much eye distance apart.
Panasonic Conceptually, you are correct. In practice, the Fuji allows you to adjust the convergence point and I think that's where their design falls short. Using the method they recommend, the 3D effect was very much exaggerated where the Panasonic was more realistic. Their "sweet" spot is about 1.5-2 meters, so any closer and you'll see some exaggerated 3D. Beyond that distance looks very good. I think, this time, 3D will catch on and become more main stream. If you look back to VHS vs. Beta and later on to BluRay vs. HD DVD the winner was the format that the Adult video industry adopted. There are already over 25 titles in 3D and Hollywood has already started converting many classic movies. To me, this says they are in it for the long term. Soon I also think you'll see 3D w/o glasses.
That's been bubbling for decades. The LCD shutter/polarizer methods popular today isn't exactly new. It was mature even 25 years ago. 3D w/o glasses.... There's the cheap and cheesy way and the real way. The cheap and cheesy way is to use a lenticular lens like on the back of the Fuji camera. That's also not new, I first had a lenticular monitor about 25 years ago. The problem is that there is a sweet spot you have to have your head in. Not very good for group viewing. The real way is holographic video. That's also about 25 years old but hasn't gone really far since then. It's very computational intensive. This is the holy grail. Real 3D with motion parallal et al. There are a slew of mechanical methods but they won't scale to the quality people would expect for movies and photos. Although the TI omniview is on my short list of the most impressive things I've ever seen.
LCD There is a 3rd method.. Layered panels. I've seen a demo and it looks interesting. NEC was suppose to have a consumer model by this Christmas but the project was postponed. I think this years CES will show this technology.
