Slashdot Mirror


World's First Integrated Twin-Lens 3D Camcorder

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.

34 of 162 comments (clear)

  1. Yay! by Jethro · · Score: 2, Funny

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

    --


    In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is kinky.
    1. Re:Yay! by tiedyejeremy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      sweater kittens? POV will never be the same.

      --
      Anything you say will be held against you. ... "tits"
    2. Re:Yay! by Jethro · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Probably make SOMEone happy...

      --


      In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is kinky.
    3. Re:Yay! by cayenne8 · · Score: 2
      Kittens....Really??

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

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    4. Re:Yay! by eltaco · · Score: 2, Funny

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

      --
      It's not about fate, it's about character.
      there be no shelter here, the frontline is everywhere!
    5. Re:Yay! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

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

      Don't you mean pitiless bottom?

  2. Ohh, really? by Lars+T. · · Score: 4, Insightful
    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 ...

    --

    Lars T.

    To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

    1. Re:Ohh, really? by JWSmythe · · Score: 3, Insightful

          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.

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    2. Re:Ohh, really? by quantumplacet · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    3. Re:Ohh, really? by SEWilco · · Score: 2, Funny

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

    4. Re:Ohh, really? by JWSmythe · · Score: 3, Interesting

          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.

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    5. Re:Ohh, really? by ground.zero.612 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.

      I've never photographed anything professionally. I've also never seen a 3D movie other some of the old 1980's films with the red and blue cardboard glasses. It never occurred to me that there was a problem to be solved in the first place. It also never occurred to me that there was a large demand for this. I made my previous post as a joke, that every photography nerd on here completely WOOSHED.

      3D in my humble opinion is hologram technology, something I'm not sure is technically possible in 2010. To me, it simply is not stereoscopic photography and light polarization tricks. A true 3D "image" is what I see when I open my eyes, thus a display technology that truly fills a 3-dimensional space will be the only one that (IMHO) qualifies as 3D.

      --
      "Be prepared, son. That's my motto. Be prepared." --Joe Hallenbeck
  3. W00t! by Abcd1234 · · Score: 2, Funny

    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!

    1. Re:W00t! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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?

  4. Oh, great by Sockatume · · Score: 4, Funny

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

    --
    No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
  5. Get the tarp by paiute · · Score: 2, Funny

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

    --
    If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
  6. Re:Cheap 3D Viewing by Abcd1234 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

  7. Monster Chiller Horror Theatre! by jakedata · · Score: 2, Funny

    Dr. Tongue's 3D House of Stewardesses - now in actual 3D

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=87WgmGHz9U4

    There may also be "other" applications. I'll get back to you on that.

  8. $12,000 !!! by frovingslosh · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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 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?

    --
    I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
    1. Re:$12,000 !!! by VisiX · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:$12,000 !!! by Elwood+P+Dowd · · Score: 2, Informative

      > 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.

      --

      There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
  9. Not getting it... by Thoreauly+Nuts · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    --
    "Disobedience is the true foundation of liberty. The obedient must be slaves. " ---Henry David Thoreau
    1. Re:Not getting it... by zippthorne · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    2. Re:Not getting it... by jgtg32a · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Which was the part I liked the most about Avatar, the 3D was there but not a gimmick.

  10. Re:Now, if only... by ColdWetDog · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

    --
    Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
  11. Re:Finally - 3D porn! by Faaln · · Score: 4, Informative

    The porn industry is on this.

  12. Re:Next step, Ocular upgrades by Monkeedude1212 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Or you could go watch a play.

    (Just kidding. Sort of)

  13. Re:Now, if only... by Arthur+Grumbine · · Score: 3, Informative

    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 is my command. So how was this last year you spent in a cave?

    Tigerdirect has that first model on sale for $500. 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".

    --
    Now that I think about it, I'm pretty sure everything I just said is completely wrong.
  14. Re:Now, if only... by Dr_Barnowl · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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!

  15. Amazing HD, Awesome 3D, Cutting Edge Mono Sound! by sexconker · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Cameras need better mic options.

  16. Re:Cheap 3D Viewing by Urza9814 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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)

  17. there ya go by roc97007 · · Score: 2, Insightful

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

    But with a better plot, please.

    --
    Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
  18. Re:Too close to each other? by Aladrin · · Score: 2, Informative

    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.

    --
    "If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you." - DM
  19. 3-D won't take off as a serious tech until.... by jameskojiro · · Score: 2, Funny

    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".

    --
    Tsukasa: All I really want, is to be left alone...