Son 1080p 3d handheld cameras

[yuriythebest]

http://gizmodo.com/5726044/sonys-3d-cam ... 3d-bloggie" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;





Ahahaha Sony you are such a noob when it comes to 3d. Come back next year after you google "stereobase".

[cybereality]

Is this a joke? I think you'll get more of a 3D effect with these glasses than a IOD that small:

[tritosine5G]

... you know what I think, if sony uses 3d as a gimmick , they deserve the ps3 hack and all that.

[android78]

This actually depends on the zoom factor of the lens.
It won't ever actually look like real life, but if you have a zoom lens, then it will have close to the same amount of stereo as real life. The thing to remember is that, as you zoom in, for the same distance between the lenses, the separation seen will be increased. If you have 5 times zoom then you need to have the lenses approximately 1/5th the IPD of a human or else the objects in the distance will have your eyes diverging (causing terrible headaches and discomfort), so I think sony has it right in this case.
I think in time we will start to see cameras that, as you zoom, automatically adjust the lenses accordingly, but this is some ways away still.

[relaxman]

i dont recommend zooming in 3d.
object just looks flat, cardboard, etc.

[Likay]

i dont recommend zooming in 3d.
object just looks flat, cardboard, etc.

I agree. My separationbase for the cameras is a little too big (107mm's) which results in a bigger 3d-effect than in real life. By zooming in i can reduce it to look more natural. so: Zooming gives reduced depth.

[BlackShark]

If you google stereobase, you'll end up with idiots saying you need to mimic the human eye to produce 3D.
If you're Sony, you'll ask engineers and professional stereographers who know what they are doing and these say "don't mimic the human eye you idiot ! These are not eyes : they're cameras, it's not the same !"

The required stereobase depends on the scene, the directors requested depth effect and the size of the display. Filming stuff at close range is very common, do that with a 65mm stereobase and the 3D effect will often look too strong and uncomfortable, especially on a big living room TV (or worse : a giant projected picture). It happens a lot when I watch content shot with the Fuji W1/W3 camera.
These are devices with fixed stereobase, consumer camcorders need to be able to capture properly whatever you throw at it. Recording unwatchable content would be a failure of the product, it's better to produce mild and good 3D than to produce good 3D with sometimes screw ups. For a fixed stereobase product, Sony made the right choice.

[cybereality]

I agree that using a standard stereobase of 65mm does not always produce good results. I use something close to this with my dual Vado HD rig, and close up shots can look really bad. Some footage I have taken is downright un-viewable (your mind just can't fuse it together). So in certain cases like macro photography, up-close portrait shots, etc. then I think a lower stereobase is acceptable. But any shots with subjects further than maybe 2 meters is going to suffer. So other types of photography would not work well: expansive nature landscapes (documentary style, planet earth, etc.), shots of cityscapes (taken from a roof), pictures taken in a stadium (sports, concerts, etc.). So in these cases a low stereobase may result in little to no 3D effect at all. However, having a quick look at Flickr it appears most photos people take are indeed close-up portraits, so maybe Sony made a good choice. That said, I am still not interested in buying it. I would much rather have a high stereobase (even hyper-stereo) and then adjust it in post to get a more comfortable image.

Ideally, though, I would like a camera with a variable stereobase and convergence adjustments. This may be possible using some assortment of mirrors and lenses but is probably out of the scope of anything that will make it to the consumer market. I guy can hope though.

[yuriythebest]

I agree that using a standard stereobase of 65mm does not always produce good results. I use something close to this with my dual Vado HD rig, and close up shots can look really bad. Some footage I have taken is downright un-viewable (your mind just can't fuse it together). So in certain cases like macro photography, up-close portrait shots, etc. then I think a lower stereobase is acceptable. But any shots with subjects further than maybe 2 meters is going to suffer. So other types of photography would not work well: expansive nature landscapes (documentary style, planet earth, etc.), shots of cityscapes (taken from a roof), pictures taken in a stadium (sports, concerts, etc.). So in these cases a low stereobase may result in little to no 3D effect at all. However, having a quick look at Flickr it appears most photos people take are indeed close-up portraits, so maybe Sony made a good choice. That said, I am still not interested in buying it. I would much rather have a high stereobase (even hyper-stereo) and then adjust it in post to get a more comfortable image.

in close up shots where the separation is very high it does take a few seconds for my mind to fuse it- I think my crosseyed training helped a lot with this. the rule is, as long as the 2 scenes have some area that overlaps it should be possible (of couse the area has to be reasonable- anything below 50% would be hard to view I think)- that's like extreme closeness.

Ideally, though, I would like a camera with a variable stereobase and convergence adjustments. This may be possible using some assortment of mirrors and lenses but is probably out of the scope of anything that will make it to the consumer market. I guy can hope though.

Another way would be for the second camera to be on a rail or something that would allow it to extend from it's default position. (so it would be the same in size as a normal handheld, but you'd be able to slide one of the cameras a few cm more from the camera) - of course this would lead to all sorts of problems with vertical alignment and it being easy to break that would have to be overcome.

[Likay]

I wouldn't like a camera for everyday use to have anything else than about 65mm separationbase. I agree this is a problem since closeups must have less separationbase than deeper scenes with far away objects to produce a comfortable image. Shooting your standard photos when objects are 3 metres or more away then 65mm sep.base gives no problem. Shooting objects from 20 metres with sep.base like the sony here will give a dull and very close to monoscopic image while 65mm's still do a great job. In quite some movies/images shot in the beginning, the 3d-effect was ruined while learning to have some distance to the objects. I still think a small sep.base like this will produce a lot worse 3d-result in the long line but people also need to learn how to take stereophotos.
Bigger screens/smaller screens: If the images from a stereocamera are sent to the screen without any horisontal adjustment, then everything of the scene will popout. This could be fixed by set a horisontal offset for the screensize in the viewing software to make the scene pleasant to view. A small 1280x720 22" screen might need 130 pixel horisontal adjustment while a 100" screen works better using 40 pixels (figures are fictive but relations are relatively correct).
This is based on the experience i have with taking my own stereophotos and batchmerging them. If i merge every photos with the same parameters i get a perfect sense of depth with no extra need to adjust one single photo. However, doing this will suit only one displaysize for viewing. Merging with 22" size as preference will make quite a deal of images unwatchable/straining in 3d on 100" (far away objects overseparated). The other way when merging for 100" screen the images actually looks flat with too much popout when watching them on the 22"er. All images can be adjusted in the viewer but of course has to be done for every image...
If this is true and others experience the same then store all photos as original side-by-side and then view with a viewer with horisontal offset set for the actual displaysize in the viewer. It still doesn't help if you shoot scenes with too much close-up objects though. Just a theory but try it if you have a stereocamera.