Panasonic 3D CAMERA

clumsy_cool said:
Does anyone actually like 3D movies? They don't even give you the option to choose anymore. Films like Avatar are only in 3D at most theaters GRRR!

Here's an article from Roger Ebert about it.
http://www.spectator.co.uk/arts-and-culture/all/5402013/does-anyone-like-3d.thtml
Click to expand...

It is good "pre Avatar article" but now in the aftermath of Avatar he changed his mind and actually liked the 3D in Avatar.

The problem I see with 3D and really all new "effects" in movies is that people tend to have "ab" before "use", it becomes pure abuse and showoff for the sake of showing off. James Cameron, I think, has always been making movies were the latest technology is used very very tastefully to improve story. He might not have the best and most original stories, but he sure knows how to improve story by making it the most important thing.

Avatar lacks (thanksfully) all "in your face" 3D that just distracts and reminds you about it existence.

I would compare 3D to the wave of "shallow depth of field cameras/adapters" Lots of people who get them just run around doing rack-focuses blazing fast in every shot. The same people if given a 3D camera would probably abuse it and not bother about the viewers perspective...

For 3D to prosper in live action there needs to be more filmmakers like Cameron to pave the way as how to do it. And I fear that will be a while since he has really been pushing for 3D a long time and he probably have read and tested a lot different setups and techniques and come to some conclusion as how to utilize it the most without distracting the viewer, something the average filmmaker won't be able to do.
 
Barry I heard on a podcast the exact same specs you mentioned about AVC-Ultra and he said he believes it will be adapted to SDHC as well.

Barry_Green said:
They sent me a press release; I posted it here:
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?p=1859108#post1859108

Okay, here's a bizarre one for you: they said specifically at NAB that AVC-Ultra was designed to accomodate "what comes after HD", and they spelled out things like 1080/60P, 2K 12-bit, and 3-D.

And AVC-Ultra is supposed to be recorded to P2 cards, as far as I know.

Yet this unit is being introduced and it clearly says that it records on SDHC cards.

So does that mean that AVC-Ultra is coming to SDHC? Or does it mean that they've developed an alternative high-speed high-performance codec for SD?

Interesting food for thought or fodder for speculation!
Click to expand...
 
I welcome 3D personally. Sure it is a gimmick but so was color film. I see it as just another way to tell a story. After seeing Avatar IMAX 3D I have to say that I believe it works well as way to tell a story. 2:35:1 aspect ratio helps pull you into the film and I see 3D pulling you further in. Just my thoughts.
 
Anyone at CES know if all the manufacturer's 3D plasma / LCD TVs use Panasonic's system for alternating full-HD frames? I can see everyone peddling their proprietary systems on this one much like they did in the decades leading up to ATSC, and we know what that did to the roll-out of consumer-end HD products.

Panasonic's page explains their system. My questions would include - can any 120hZ or better LCD / plasma be retrofitted to display the 120 frame sequential technology? If so, would the effect work despite the difference in luminescence decay times from the purpose-built 3D Viera sets and a current model non-3D display? Samsung / Dreamworks / Technicolor advertises "active shutter" glasses. Is this the same as the alternating image system from Panasonic?

Who's writing the white paper on this stuff, because I think we're going to need one! If compatibility to the BD3D standard is the standard, I think we're in good shape.

http://panasonic.net/avc/viera/3d/technology/index.html
 
Last edited:
Nitsuj said:
I welcome 3D personally. Sure it is a gimmick but so was color film. I see it as just another way to tell a story. After seeing Avatar IMAX 3D I have to say that I believe it works well as way to tell a story. 2:35:1 aspect ratio helps pull you into the film and I see 3D pulling you further in. Just my thoughts.
Click to expand...

I agree, I don't mind 3D, my concern is just that crappy 3D movies will kill the incentive to move to 3D. That is why Avatar is such a great "thing", because it shows the audience, the studios and the camera makers that 3D now can be a enhancement to a movie and not just some lame gimmick.

To clarify, I welcome the technology but not necessarily how it is used/abused.
 
Reading this thread, it sounds like most people don't like 3D.... I personally love it, and gladly spend a couple dollars more to see a movie like Avatar in 3D instead of 2D. I think it is just an additional tool that can improve the film experience, in the same way sound and color did. It doesn't turn a bad story into a good story, but it can definitely add an additional layer of realism which can help the story telling. It is really the same as with color vs. B&W; pick your favorite color movie, and imagine it was in B&W, it probably still would be your favorite movie.
I feel that 3D has the potential to be more engaging than 2D movies because it is closer to how we actually perceive our environment in real live. When I reflect on Avatar, it feels like I actually saw the planet Pandora with my own eyes, and not just on a movie screen...
I think 3D has more potential to draw an audience into a story than 2D has... therefore I prefer it over 2D...
 
Do you actually see a difference in depth perception or any 3d effect when you compare what you see with two eyes, with what you see with one eye covered? I have never met a human that answered yes to this question, the only change is the reduction in horizontal angle of view if you are not imaging something 10cm away from your eye (very uncommon and unnatural). Those who have lost eyesight in one eye report the same. We don't have two eyes to get a better 3d view of the world, the positioning of the eyes is clearly evolved to provide protection against loss of vision while giving high angle of view appropriate to our evolution times environment and lifestyle. The eye sockets are positioned in the skull so that even major blows in any direction (accidents and attacks from other creatures) will not destroy both eyes and so that pressure will not be applied to the eyeballs during sleeping.

3D movies are not very natural even when shot with all parameters that should make it work smoothly. It can be very distracting but the 3d first point shooter video game generation will probably feel at home.

There is no comparison to the introduction of sound, color and surround sound in cinemas IMHO. All these produce an effect closer to the natural perception of vision and sound when not overused. I don't believe we will ever go to a 3d cinema to get a more natural experience. It will always be to get some overly intense immersion, appropriate to a film that is heavy in action and special effects. It can sell lots of popcorn, but most productions will probably avoid the use of 3D even decades from today because it only fits a certain type of film.
 
Otis Grapsas: Yess!!! I see a difference. Take a pencil in each hand (hold them on the end), close one eye, and try to bring the tips together. Difficult right? Now do it with both eyes open ---> easy. We definitely need both of our eyes to function properly. If you have a laptop computer, close one eye, lean back and try to touch the edge of the screen with the very tip of your finger.... something as simple as that becomes difficult with only one eye... (Don't move your head when you do this test, and start with one eye covered before you do it with both eyes open)
 
Last edited:
cordvision said:
Otis Grapsas: Yess!!! I see a difference. Take a pencil in each hand (hold them on the end), close one eye, and try to bring the tips together. Difficult right? Now do it with both eyes open ---> easy. We definitely need both of our eyes to function properly. If you have a laptop computer, close one eye, lean back and try to touch the edge of the screen with the very tip of your finger.... something as simple as that becomes difficult with only one eye... (Don't move your head when you do this test, and start with one eye covered before you do it with both eyes open)
Click to expand...

I believe it could be that you haven't got used to the shift in angle of view yet (which is major in near distances). Also, try with the other eye. One of the two eyes is usually chosen to provide most of the info for processing by the brain. Put your thumb 30cm in front of your eye, focus to that, then try both eyes, left eye only, then right eye only. When you close an eye and it does not produce a shift in the positioning of the thumb, that is the eye that provides most of the info. Consider it your viewfinder eye:)

I passed the laptop test. It made no difference. But I took a test once for a study and I was far above average in coordination. Some hobbies evolve this skill.

Most countries let you drive a car if you have vision in one eye. They do not believe it reduces your depth perception, even though it reduces your angle of view a lot. Most motorcycle helmets and many car designs do the same though, they would have to make these illegal first:)

EDIT: But the real question is: Do you say "WOW!" when you open the second eye? Do you suddenly see lots of depth? Do you find your office more exciting? Is it in any way similar to what you get in a 3d film compared to a 2d? If not, we could say that the 3d effect we see in the theaters is a little artificial.
 
Last edited:
Tell me about hobbies; I consider myself far above average in coordination since I used to juggle professionally (up to six balls etc.). Coordination has nothing to do with this exercise, if you don't move your head, and if you only have one eye open, then you are missing one of the most important depth cues for objects within 15 feet of you. It's purely a logical thing that you can't see depth with only one eye (though there are some other depth cues, but they aren't that effective/accurate). If you just see a picture of two unfamiliar objects that are behind each other, there is NO way to know how far they are apart each other (I could post a picture to demonstrate this if you want me to...). I actually wanted to bring up the example of the car myself. Since my uncle got almost completely blind on one eye, he had several rear-end collision accidents (luckily, nothing major)...
 
Very interesting but our discussion is not very related to 3d cameras. Perhaps we should take it to the cafe ala DVX.
 
gi-jones said:
As I understand it, one of the basic principles of shooting 3D is the ability to correct, not just the convergence point, but also the actual space between the lenses. How will the accomplish that? Or am I wrong?
Click to expand...

I believe that it said in an article I read that the lenses can automatically calibrate to the distance you are from the subject.
 
High1ander said:
I would compare 3D to the wave of "shallow depth of field cameras/adapters" Lots of people who get them just run around doing rack-focuses blazing fast in every shot. The same people if given a 3D camera would probably abuse it and not bother about the viewers perspective...
Click to expand...

I think to get really shallow DOF you would need to somehow rig 2 35mm adapters to the front or use something like the 3DVX3 and have 2 adapters on each DVX... Maybe one of the companies like Red Rock Micro or Letus will come up with an adapter for this camera.
 
f8 would be a little high. f60 equivalent in a full frame SLR? I do believe that it would make very small sensors popular due to the size, lens and DOF rectrictions.
 
The 3D community is a little bit split on the use of shallow depth of field in 3D... I guess it is a matter of preference. I personally got a little bit distracted by the "shallow DOF" shots in Avatar.
 
Try calibrating convergence, interocular distance, iris and focus all at once. Pretty damn difficult.
I interviewed three experienced 3D sterographers yesterday and they all feel that 3D is a completely different way of shooting, editing, everything is radically different than what we are all used to. You don't just shoot the way you always have with addition of Z axis space.

Pre-production is huge. That seems to be the upside of all of this. Because of technical necessity, and in order to not nauseate your audience and give them a headache, film makers will have to learn/re-learn traditional cinema styles, not Bourne Identity barf camera movement. There are also lots of rules about where in the Z Axis movement subjects can enter and exit frame and you are going to be hearing about convergence continuity and a bunch of other terms that don't exist for the 2D world. Learning about all of this is mindblowing.

When HD first became popular, remember how people were saying that shooting HD would develop a whole new visual vocabulary because of the increased resolution? That we would be able to slow down the cutting pace, hold shots for much longer, etc.? Turn on your TV and watch some HD programming. Never really happened did it? I still see just as much bad shaky cam, awkward movement and bad composition as I did in SD. The difference is, in 3D, we will HAVE to slow down the cutting pace and make movement much more fluid and smooth because if you don't, your audience will become sick and get headaches. This should, in a way, be somewhat of a good deterrent against bad camera work, directors and DPs really won't have much of a choice. Who wants to watch a film that makes you physically ill?

Dan
 
I saw Avatar in 3D and loved it .. the younger people in the theatre around me loved it.

IMO Cameron and his crew delivered an excellent job but somehow it reminded me when stereo LPs first appeared, most everything was recorded hard left and right.

It took years for the productions to evolve, I imagine it'll be the same here in all areas, starting with the stories.
Cheers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top