3-D cameras

[Jack Harrison]

I was wasting time in a big department store and had a look at 3-D TVs, the effect being achieved with special polarising glasses. It was good but a little bit gimmicky. For example, footballers, while genuinely seeming to be at varying distances, were a little flat – almost like a set of 2-D figures – albeit at differing distances.

I’ve been wondering how easy 3-D might become for butterfly photography. I have already experimented but my method was only applicable to very still subjects and viewing required the cross-eyed method. So does anyone know much about the new generation of 3-D still cameras, eg Sony DSC-HX7V, and how the results can be viewed on a normal computer screen? (with glasses of course). Googling doesn’t adequately address the matter.

Jack

[celery]

I don't know much about 3D TVs and cameras that require glasses but I can point you in this (somewhat tangental) direction - http://www.nintendo.com/3ds/hardware

The new handeld portable console from Nintendo - the 3Ds, released in Europe this March - features a 3D stereoscopic effect that does not require the use of special glasses. Those who have seen it first hand say that the effect is actually much better than that which is achieved on current 3D televisions or at the cinema.

Here's what may be of interest to you - the device has two external cameras (similar to those found on mobile phones) which allow you to take your own photos and view them in 3D on the console's upper screen (it has two, the second is a touch screen) or save them to an SD card (though how you view them properly elsewhere would appear to be a mystery).

Obviously taking 3D photos is not the machine's primary function. And at £220 it's a heck of a lot to spend on a novelty... but the idea of 3D without those headache-inducing specs certainly appeals to my 'inner kid'.

[millerd]

I was wasting time in a big department store and had a look at 3-D TVs, the effect being achieved with special polarising glasses.Jack

How bizarre - exactly what I was doing earlier today in Birmingham in the store that doesn't actually sell refrigerators at all...
I wasn't too impressed with them either, though I'm usually open-mouthed like a kid with new technology. I like 3D films in the cinema, though.

Dave

[Bill S]

For me I can only see limited appeal of 3D moving images. Most of the demo footage used in shops has static (or more accurately fixed point in space) cameras - for good reason. The combination of moving cameras (like what would be mounted on a Steadicam) and 3D imagery is very difficult to execute without making some of the audience motion sick. The result is that 3D movies usually have to make so many concessions to normal film making techniques that they become an exercise to demonstrate the 3D effect. I would love to see F1 or even better MotoGP in 3D but that is the extent of my interest. Partly because I am very susceptible to visual motion sickness and even get it on normal TV programmes, in particular on The Thick Of It.

As for butterfly images, a lot of images go to great lengths to keep the backgrounds blurred or remove background detail all together, so as not to detract from the main subject. How that would be improved (if at all) by 3D I find hard to visualise so would be interested to see some examples. I would have thought that images containing both foreground and background detail would be most enhanced by 3D.

Bill

[Padfield]

I now own a 3D camera, though I haven't had the opportunity to try it out on butterflies yet.

The stills and movies are really excellent. There is a problem for close-up work, though, that won't be corrected in budget 3D cameras for some while. That is that when you look normally at something nearby you swivel your eyes inwards so the object you are focusing on is at the centre of the field of vision of both eyes. My camera cannnot swivel its objectives, so when you focus on something close the object appears in widely divergent parts of the field of each picture. The result is (a) a narrower effective resulting picture and (b) less easy viewing by the cross-eye method (on the camera screen, or on a 3D telly, you don't need to use any method to view, but for reaching a wide audience on the internet it is best to convert to cross-eye pictures and videos).

The two lenses of my camera are spaced at eye separation. For effective macro work you would need a camera with much closer lenses. Then you would be brought right up close as if you were viewing as a Lilliputian.

Here is a sample interior mid-distance pic, prepared for cross-eye viewing (comfortable distance from screen, head perfectly vertical, gently cross the eyes until the 3D resolves in the middle):

http://www.guypadfield.com/images2011/protectors.JPG

The white dust over everything is incense dust - that is the shelf I light incense on. I do sometimes clean my house.

Guy

[Paul]

a reminder of happy hours!

[ChrisC]

to go slightly off topic, I never had you down as a Buffy fan

Chris

[millerd]

My eyes won't go back...


Dave

[Lee Hurrell]

Did the wind change Dave?

Cheers

Lee

[Jack Harrison]

Dave commented:

My eyes won't go back...

Well, you should be able to catch twice as many illegal immigrants now

Jack

[Padfield]

Dave's now permanent squint is a reminder that the cross-eyed method of viewing is far from satisfactory. Apart from anything, it makes scenes look small and far away and the atmosphere is lost. But it's still worth taking pictures now, in anticipation of more universal 3D screens in the future. The difference between two side-by-side pictures and true 3D is only software.

The camera I use (Fujifilm) records the images as MPO, which looks set to be the standard format for 3D stills. These can be viewed on the camera screen (lenticular, with a parallax barrier) in 3D without glasses, and on any other 3D screen too. I use 3rd party software to extract the two images and combine them into anaglyph or side-by-side. More interestingly, Fujifilm has an online print service for 3D prints that do not require glasses or squinting. When I have some good pictures I'll try this service out - 3D prints would make good presents.

At the moment, 3D cameras are rather expensive (but very fun and super cool) toys. But as virtual reality technology becomes more and more commonplace I am sure 3D recording will too. We are the pioneers...

Guy

Oh - and yes, I'm a Buffy fan. Sad, but true.