Integrated Twin Lens FULL HD 3D Camera Recorder from Panasonic

I can see this camera being picked up by corporate video producers for trade show displays. I guarantee if one of our clients wanted to display 3D at a trade show we'd order the camera tomorrow, and the cost (or a lot of it) would be passed on to the client. I wouldn't mess around trying to build my own when there's now an affordable solution to the problem.

Besides, $20,000 for a camera is still dirt cheap. We have an old DVCPro shoulder mount that's gathering dust and it was $40K without a lens. Then you needed a $20K deck to play the tapes back. But technology marches on, and Panasonic is saying you can shoot 3D for half the price of their older shoulder mounts, including the lens (two actually!).

There are a lot of untapped markets for 3D, and it's being adopted very quickly in Hollywood. Panasonic is providing a solution for 3D, and if you'd rather build your own then great, but don't bash the product just because you don't like the price.
 
Since I read that they are made to order, does that mean that you would be able to customize one for each customer? Like if one person wanted P2 cards instead of SD cards, or the format to be AVC-Intra instead of whatever you plan on using now?
 
Butcher said:
We have an old DVCPro shoulder mount that's gathering dust and it was $40K without a lens. Then you needed a $20K deck to play the tapes back.
Click to expand...

Those days are gone for the broadcast world, the big guys just don't want to realize it. The only cams pushing those numbers will be higher end digital cinema setups- like the epic. Even a fully configured S35 scarlet will come in under 20k. This doesn't even figure in the evolution of DSLRs into full DSMCs.
 
The big guys do realize it, which is why they have the EX1, EX3, the HPX300 and 500, etc... for a fraction of the cost of the DVPro cameras and Beta cams. But for people to complain that a $20K 3D camera is too expensive? It's nothing compared to what equipment used to cost, and considering the engineering R&D dedicated to something like that, it's cheap.

As technology marches on equipment gets cheaper and it gets better. Such is life. But there will always be someone to complain!
 
nobody complains that the panasonic it too expensive at 20k.
I just said that at the price i would not be the guy responsible for selling it.
There are too many solutions explored for years now that can offer higher image quality for better price. Today for $5000 you get a 2k resolution camera with big sensor. competition is unfair.
and if you are a lazy guy, you can mount them on this, for only $6100.
http://www.inition.co.uk/inition/pr..._stereovis_inition_prostereomount&SubCatID_=4
For sure, these are not "out of the box" solution like the Pana, but a camera made to order, that record on separate card each side does not looks to me as an so "out of the box" solution, more like a revived cold case from R&D dept. (canon was advertising for such lense 10 years ago and never build it )
canon_3d_lens_for_xl1.jpg

And there are thousand other problems to solve when you shoot 3D , that a synchronized lens will not solve, so i do not believe you can buy a 3D camera, pop it out of the box and shoot avatar the return.
For instance mastering you gear the hard way is still the best way to learn how to shoot 3D.
 
Last edited:
Clearly Panasonic sees a market here, and I assume they did their research in coming up with the specs and pricing. That said, nobody is infallible. Are there really that many people anxious to shoot 3D? As an indie filmmaker, I'm totally not seeing it, and I have a hard time seeing how this is going to appeal to many (based on all the people I know and talk to), but hey, what do I know, when it comes to running a business I couldn't run a lemonade stand, so there's that. I won't be a customer. The only reason I'm even commenting here is that I'm worried that Panasonic may be spreading themselves thin - hey guys, there's a heck of a lot more to do with your regular cameras and I'm waiting for the next edition of the HMC150, hint, hint :)
 
nosys70 said:
nobody complains that the panasonic it too expensive at 20k.
I just said that at the price i would not be the guy responsible for selling it.
There are too many solutions explored for years now that can offer higher image quality for better price. Today for $5000 you get a 2k resolution camera with big sensor. competition is unfair.
and if you are a lazy guy, you can mount them on this, for only $6100.
http://www.inition.co.uk/inition/pr..._stereovis_inition_prostereomount&SubCatID_=4
For sure, these are not "out of the box" solution like the Pana, but a camera made to order, that record on separate card each side does not looks to me as an so "out of the box" solution, more like a revived cold case from R&D dept. (canon was advertising for such lense 10 years ago and never build it )
canon_3d_lens_for_xl1.jpg

And there are thousand other problems to solve when you shoot 3D , that a synchronized lens will not solve, so i do not believe you can buy a 3D camera, pop it out of the box and shoot avatar the return.
For instance mastering you gear the hard way is still the best way to learn how to shoot 3D.
Click to expand...

The link you posted is interesting, but I'm not sure what the $5000 2k resolution large sensor camera is that you mentioned. Presumably the camera must have wire remote control in order to synch up the zoom/focus. You could use 2 HMC150s but they only have 1/3 inch sensors, not sure if that's what you meant?

Even then, with the cost of that rig plus attachments you must be at about 13k? But the panasonic all in one solution is much easier to use, more compact, can be hand held and is full HD. Still don't really understand your beef? Are you upset that they are making things 'too easy'?
 
Would it be unreasonable to ask that you at least wait for the product to exist, before pointing out why it doesn't work? Sheesh.

Once it's out, test it -- if it works, great. If it doesn't, tell us. But bashing something based solely on an announcement ... over and over ... that's called trolling, so knock it off.
 
My boss just bought 2 of these cameras for full list.
We finish / distribute a lot of 3D features.
The cameras he bought are just intended for additional content, interviews, fun, not principal photography of same features. The ease of use is a big selling point for that reason. Similar to the what the hvx200 market is for - eng, epk, indie shorts/features, fun personal projects.
 
nosys70 said:
"this is to complex for you simple human, we just need you as believer"
Click to expand...

I did not say that. I said you were overlooking the fact that there is technology in the camera that resolves certain known issues when shooting in 3D.

this is the kind of answer i expect from Marketing reps, but unfortunately, i am
particularly gifted about techologies so i am not in position to take you word
for definitive truth, but i sincerely hope it will work for the others so you can make a success out of this project.
Click to expand...

This answer is borderline, but I can only say I do not have a definitive truth. James Cameron/ Vince Pace would be closer to knowing all of the really difficulties in shooting 3D. But what I have learned is that there is a lot of opportunities to go wrong, and the bigger the image the more issues arise.

just for history, Avatar has been shot with "something" made out of two separate cameras as all the 3D movies existing up today. and well , it seems it was not so bad.
Click to expand...

Just for history, Avatar was shot with a rig that with cameras, lenses and rig included cost over $300,000. Of course it was owned by Vince Pace.

t
he problem is the way you see the problem.
ask an engineer if he can slave a lense to an other one, he will answer "yeah, that's easy"
Click to expand...

Ask an engineer if he can slave a free floating electronic lens and there will be a long hesitation. Ask him to also resolve Chroma aberrations while doing that at the same time, a longer hesitation. Ask him to remotely do all of this and combine it with convergence and well it is a whole other level of complexity.
ask a marketing guy if he can build a 3D lense, the answer will be be" Mmmh, you know, it is not that easy and it will cost the hell"

I know i am on the wrong side, since engineers are usually poor and marketing reps are usually richer.
But i am pretty sure i have a lot more fun.
Click to expand...

Well the engineers I know are rich and the marketers are not so much, ;-)

Best,

Jan
 
Jan_Crittenden said:
Just for history, Avatar was shot with a rig that with cameras, lenses and rig included cost over $300,000. Of course it was owned by Vince Pace.
Click to expand...

:shocked: It was 2 Sony F950s with specifically designed Fujinon glass (designed to be smaller and slimmer for putting the 2 cameras side by side) and specially designed camera rigs (one for the two to be next to each other, the other was an inverted "half mirror system" where one camera, instead of being on top of the other, was placed below it to allow for shoulder mounting). Plus all the fiber optic systems to tie the camera heads to HDCAM SR decks. $300,000 seems cheap for a system like that.
 
Joe Calabrese said:
:shocked: It was 2 Sony F950s with specifically designed Fujinon glass (designed to be smaller and slimmer for putting the 2 cameras side by side) and specially designed camera rigs (one for the two to be next to each other, the other was an inverted "half mirror system" where one camera, instead of being on top of the other, was placed below it to allow for shoulder mounting). Plus all the fiber optic systems to tie the camera heads to HDCAM SR decks. $300,000 seems cheap for a system like that.
Click to expand...


I think you missed the key word in my post, OVER. It cost Over $300,000. I mean I didn't, get out my calculator, and since Vince pace doesn't sell his rig, that i am aware of, I just gave it a high figure. None the less, this little camera is not meant to shoot films like Avatar. It does have its applications, and it might be used on a big film much like the HVX200A is used in combination with the Varicams.

Best,

Jan
 
When I interviewed some major 3D players for an upcoming article, several mentioned porn, off of the record, as in they had been approached by producers. Let's put it this way, there are already several titles that have been shot in 3D. It will be interesting to see if porn becomes a legitimate driver of the technology as they have been for some many other forward looking technologies.

Dan
 
I just don't see 3D taking off as much as the push seems to be for it. You still need those glasses, and I don't think 3D works for most movies. Sports would be cool in theory, but do you really want to watch the game while wearing those glasses?
 
We'd better wait until April 10th, still few days before the NAB 2010 begins.
The last secrets of this new camera will definitely be unveiled there.

The 3DA1 must have higher sensitivity, maybe it won't have a dynamic range larger than 8-9 stops (it' a professional video camera, anyway), but the 3-MOS imagers should achieve more than just 500 ISO...
Otherwise, it's better keep on working with Hpx170's 1440x810 RS-free imager (no 3D, o.k.), to get intraframe coded streams at one fourth of the AG-3DA1's price...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top