1. Reminder: Please use our affiliate links for holiday shopping!

Samsung coming with 3D as well

Discussion in 'Other Systems' started by JoepLX3, Sep 23, 2010.

  1. JoepLX3

    JoepLX3 Mu-43 Top Veteran

    509
    Jun 13, 2010
    Japan
    Samsung disrupts camera market hierarchy

    I am curious on 3D experience on the GH2...
    - Will Samsung re-enforce cooperation with Pentax?
     
  2. bilzmale

    bilzmale Mu-43 All-Pro

    The most expensive bit of 3D hardware is the TV - and you probably have to match the brand to your camera. Buy a $250 lens and a $2000 TV to view pics.

    I think the technology has a long way to go yet.
     
  3. JoepLX3

    JoepLX3 Mu-43 Top Veteran

    509
    Jun 13, 2010
    Japan
    I agree and am personally not in a big need/hurry to go for 3D at all.
    - Anybody any idea which media segment is most interested in this?
    - I don't think the cartoon business, although it will be most easy for them...
     
  4. Herman

    Herman Mu-43 All-Pro

    Feb 7, 2010
    The Netherlands
    Acc. to me the G2 and GH2 can shoot 3D stills at poor quality (2 or 3MP?), they don't even support 3D shooting !
    Guess that you can extract 2D images from 3D images.
    You can store 3D images for future use.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  5. mauve

    mauve Mu-43 Top Veteran

    892
    Mar 9, 2010
    Paris, France
    In my opinion, the major problem with 3D, and the reason it's been an amateur niche forever, is you can't have less than sharp images from first plan to background. Smooth bokeh ? Forget it. Composition tricks to merge together paradoxical elements : forget it, depth will take them apart.

    3D is purely technical. There's almost no need for a photographer, you just need an operator. No wonder the split 3D lens from Pana is coming at f/12 only.

    As a novelty, it's fun, and I've indulged too in anaglyphs and such. But it's very, very limited as a means of expressing feelings.
     
  6. JoepLX3

    JoepLX3 Mu-43 Top Veteran

    509
    Jun 13, 2010
    Japan
    Like the iPhone camera's, you can take picture's, but you can hardly call it photography!!!
     
  7. Herman

    Herman Mu-43 All-Pro

    Feb 7, 2010
    The Netherlands
    I will take a look at the real 3D W3 camera from Fujifilm.
    Might be a nice camera which captures 2D and 3D both stills and HD video.
    The Pan F12 lens is fixed focus...
     
    • Like Like x 1
  8. antithetic

    antithetic Mu-43 Regular

    150
    Jun 7, 2010
    City of Angels
    Don't dismiss taking pictures with the iPhone as not being considered photography that quickly....:wink:

    4918008637_4d28dca4ba_z.

    Sure I tend to use it more for snapshots and to capture my GPS coordinates so I can tag them to the pictures taken with my "real" camera later. Just like pinhole cameras, lomography, etc... any ways to express the interplay of light, shadows and shapes is all good. =]
     
    • Like Like x 2
  9. mauve

    mauve Mu-43 Top Veteran

    892
    Mar 9, 2010
    Paris, France

    I'm no scientist, so don't quote me here, but I have a feeling the human vision is much more complex than what's usually described. Sure, we see volumes because we have 2 converging eyes, and traditional photography is desperately 2D. Therefore, it only seems logical 3D would be much closer to our real life perception of the world.

    But there's much more than that. Our real world focus is much narrower than the usual angles used in photography. In 35mm film terms, I'd say we focus about like a 135mm lens. But we also have a degraded perception around that FOV, and combined with quick eyeball movements, this is giving us the ability to 'get' a 40~50mm lens FOV.

    For example, when we see a landscape from a good point of view, we get the full scene in 3D. But when we follow a meeting and we face 2 persons alternatively speaking at close range, we only see the speaker sharp until the other starts speaking and we shift focus.

    2D photography is very good at blurring out of focus elements. 3D photography on the other hand is sharp all across the range, giving the feeling we're always watching perfect landscapes, even if the scene displayed is of more intimate nature, hence creating discomfort for the viewer who suddenly lose clues of what is important to watch.

    This is why, IMO, 3D doesn't work too well at the human scale in films or photography. It's great to depict landscape and big structures, but it's poor to convey inter human relationships.

    Of course, I don't dismiss the fact that talented individuals can find ways to achieve artistic endeavour with 3D, much like they would with any other technique. But I'm convinced it's more difficult for the general public to use 3D well.

    Cheers,

    Mauve
     
    • Like Like x 2
  10. JoepLX3

    JoepLX3 Mu-43 Top Veteran

    509
    Jun 13, 2010
    Japan
    Mauve, I don't think you said any incorrect things:
    - But does this explain the indeed pretty nice shot above of an iPod is easy to take? :wink:

    (Of course any camera is photography, that is if the artist uses it that way)
     
    • Like Like x 1
  11. deirdre

    deirdre Mu-43 Top Veteran

    661
    Aug 9, 2010
    • Like Like x 2
  12. Jamus

    Jamus Mu-43 Regular

    128
    Apr 18, 2010
    Well, we can't act THAT surprised, can we? They already make the TVs...
     
    • Like Like x 1