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.

Comments

Ohh, really?

[Lars T.]

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 ...

Re:Ohh, really?

[JWSmythe]

    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.

Re:Ohh, really?

[quantumplacet]

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.

Re:Ohh, really?

[JWSmythe]

    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.

Oh, great

[Sockatume]

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

Re:Cheap 3D Viewing

[Abcd1234]

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.

$12,000 !!!

[frovingslosh]

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?

Not getting it...

[Thoreauly Nuts]

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.

Re:Not getting it...

[zippthorne]

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.

Re:Not getting it...

[jgtg32a]

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

Re:Now, if only...

[ColdWetDog]

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.

Re:Finally - 3D porn!

[Faaln]

The porn industry is on this.

Re:Yay!

[Jethro]

Probably make SOMEone happy...

Re:Now, if only...

[Arthur Grumbine]

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".

Amazing HD, Awesome 3D, Cutting Edge Mono Sound!

[sexconker]

Cameras need better mic options.