Panasonic 3D1 versus Samsung NX500 + 3D Lens: 3D Video Comparison - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Forum Jump: 
 2Likes
  • 2 Post By crunchy3d
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 29 Old 04-28-2015, 02:14 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Forum Special Member
 
markr041's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 4,925
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 937 Post(s)
Liked: 296
Panasonic 3D1 versus Samsung NX500 + 3D Lens: 3D Video Comparison

This 3D video contains adjacent clips of the exact same scenes shot using the Panasonic 3D1 and the Samsung NX500. The original 1080 sbs clips were rendered from the same timeline to a 1080 30p, XAVC S MP4 sbs 3D video.

You can easily see the resolution, dynamic range, color, noise, and depth differences from these two cameras: the Panasonic 3D1 has small 1/2.3" sensors, slightly larger than the sensors in the Sony and Panasonic 3D camcorders. The Samsung NX500 uses an APS-C sensor, which is considerably larger. The two lenses inside the Samsung 3D lens have a smaller inter-ocular distance than the two 3D1 lenses.

Note than any differences that are observed in this video, and they are not subtle, are not due to processing by Youtube or by me (PowerDirector 13 Ultra).


markr041 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 29 Old 04-28-2015, 03:06 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
3DBob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Southeastern Michigan
Posts: 1,379
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 476 Post(s)
Liked: 161
Interesting, Mark. The 3D1 looks like normal 3D, but somewhat soft focus (same issue I have when I take 3D video with the 3D1). The NX500 is more like a macro 3D camera with super-sharp imaging. Two different artistic references with two different outcomes. I have to say in some pics, I like the more 3D effect of the 3D1, and in others the sheer sharpness of the closeup images held my interest. Interesting...
3DBob is offline  
post #3 of 29 Old 04-28-2015, 03:31 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Forum Special Member
 
markr041's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 4,925
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 937 Post(s)
Liked: 296
Quote:
Originally Posted by 3DBob View Post
Interesting, Mark. The 3D1 looks like normal 3D, but somewhat soft focus (same issue I have when I take 3D video with the 3D1). The NX500 is more like a macro 3D camera with super-sharp imaging. Two different artistic references with two different outcomes. I have to say in some pics, I like the more 3D effect of the 3D1, and in others the sheer sharpness of the closeup images held my interest. Interesting...
I agree with your impressions (although I also like the color and dynamic range of the NX500 better). What we need is a new camera combining the up-to-date video processing of the new chips, like the Samsung NX500 has, and two big sensors and two lenses and a reasonable interocular distance between them for more than macro 3D.

Leaving aside the big sensor, it is why I am enthusiastic about using the GoPro 4 Black for 3D (in the absence of any new 3D consumer cam coming along), especially 2.7K medium and 4K wide, and I like the color. It is clear the 3D1 is dated (and my battery for it is dying - I could barely shoot those few images on "full" charge). Update that firmware!

I think the Sony 3D camcorders also produce soft video, by today's standards, with inferior color and DR. I may do a comparison of the TD10 and the NX500. I have been away from 3D for a while, and have been using the newer 2D video offerings because they have become so good.

Last edited by markr041; 04-28-2015 at 03:38 PM.
markr041 is offline  
 
post #4 of 29 Old 04-29-2015, 06:22 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
tomtastic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Wichita, KS
Posts: 2,228
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 866 Post(s)
Liked: 306
There's a big cost difference though too, two NX500's 1400 vs I think the 3D1 was around 600? new, I paid around half that used. But I didn't buy it for video, mainly quick point and shoot 3D stills right out of my pocket. What rig are you using? A Z bracket?

This line intentionally left blank.
tomtastic is online now  
post #5 of 29 Old 04-29-2015, 06:33 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Forum Special Member
 
markr041's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 4,925
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 937 Post(s)
Liked: 296
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomtastic View Post
There's a big cost difference though too, two NX500's 1400 vs I think the 3D1 was around 600? new, I paid around half that used. But I didn't buy it for video, mainly quick point and shoot 3D stills right out of my pocket. What rig are you using? A Z bracket?

No, this is one NX500 with a 3D lens. The NX500 + power zoom lens = $699. The 2D/3D lens = $379. You could sell the power zoom lens for, say, $100, so the net cost is <$1000. Of course, still more expensive than the 3D1, but it is almost as portable and is another league in stills and video quality (but smaller io distance + the timing diff). The video has a shot of the two cameras used (in 3D!) - there is one NX500.
markr041 is offline  
post #6 of 29 Old 04-29-2015, 07:09 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
tomtastic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Wichita, KS
Posts: 2,228
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 866 Post(s)
Liked: 306
Quote:
Originally Posted by markr041 View Post
No, this is one NX500 with a 3D lens. The NX500 + power zoom lens = $699. The 2D/3D lens = $379. You could sell the power zoom lens for, say, $100, so the net cost is <$1000. Of course, still more expensive than the 3D1, but it is almost as portable and is another league in stills and video quality (but smaller io distance + the timing diff). The video has a shot of the two cameras used (in 3D!) - there is one NX500.
So, a 16x9 crop of a 3:2 sensor and then a crop of that for two SbS images? Still bigger than the 1/2" sensor on the 3D1, but smaller I.O.? Honestly, my opinion of course, a waste of time. The I.O. on the 3D1 is two narrow as it is. I only use it for subjects closer than 5 feet, if you using it beyond that then just shoot it 2D. Greater than 5 feet I use the Fuji, just for stills of course for video timeline. Yes, the sensor is larger on 3D1 than most built in 3D camcorders but the lens and processing sucks compared to Sony and Panasonic camcorders.

Why not get another camera and SbS rig? Then you could get larger and varying I.O. and use two individual sensors instead of a crop of a crop? That would even be cheaper that two Gh4's and more sensor over micro 4/3's and less crop only 1.5 to 1.78 vs 1.33 to 1.78 of the GH4. Someone mentioned the new Black Magic Mirco. Not cost effective, if you ask me. It would be 2K for that with only a 1" sensor in those. 1400.00 for the Nx500 with the larger APS-C. Ideally, a Super 35 would be best but that's a big step up from under 2k range and not commonly found in point and shoots.

This line intentionally left blank.
tomtastic is online now  
post #7 of 29 Old 04-29-2015, 09:28 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Forum Special Member
 
markr041's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 4,925
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 937 Post(s)
Liked: 296
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomtastic View Post
So, a 16x9 crop of a 3:2 sensor and then a crop of that for two SbS images? Still bigger than the 1/2" sensor on the 3D1, but smaller I.O.? Honestly, my opinion of course, a waste of time. The I.O. on the 3D1 is two narrow as it is. I only use it for subjects closer than 5 feet, if you using it beyond that then just shoot it 2D. Greater than 5 feet I use the Fuji, just for stills of course for video timeline. Yes, the sensor is larger on 3D1 than most built in 3D camcorders but the lens and processing sucks compared to Sony and Panasonic camcorders.

Why not get another camera and SbS rig? Then you could get larger and varying I.O. and use two individual sensors instead of a crop of a crop? That would even be cheaper that two Gh4's and more sensor over micro 4/3's and less crop only 1.5 to 1.78 vs 1.33 to 1.78 of the GH4. Someone mentioned the new Black Magic Mirco. Not cost effective, if you ask me. It would be 2K for that with only a 1" sensor in those. 1400.00 for the Nx500 with the larger APS-C. Ideally, a Super 35 would be best but that's a big step up from under 2k range and not commonly found in point and shoots.

I appreciate your thinking (and agree with your discussion of shortcomings), but your discussions appear to suggest you did not look at the 3D video. And you do not talk about the advantages, which are evident in the video. The video is direct evidence of the advantages and shortcomings of the two *pocketable* 3D cameras, some of which is consistent with what you believe. You do not need theory, or rules, or measurement of sensors or io distances - the shots are of different distances and you can see resolution, color, depth, dynamic range differences - all of the things that contribute to actual video, 3D and 2D - in the video. There are trade-offs for all 3D "source components", and a big one is size/weight. The NX500 + 3D lens is a new semi-pocketable 3D offering. The *video* shows you what its advantages and disadvantages are for 3D. It is perfectly ok to determine it is not worth it for you after seeing it. As you imply, the Fuji is worthless for 3D video, and the posted video shows how poorly the 3D1 resolves color and detail. The NX500 is a serious alternative among pocketable options (and in fact is the only one actually being manufactured).


The processing of the Sony 3D video cameras is also relatively poor - dynamic range is especially narrow and the resolution is soft. I will also attempt to provide a comparison video, comparing the Sony TD10 and the NX500 in 3D. You can again actually see the differences (if any) in a large number of dimensions if you view the video (in 3D, of course), although we can anticipate some of them based on the io distance (a clear shortcoming of the NX500 offering).

Last edited by markr041; 04-29-2015 at 09:34 AM.
markr041 is offline  
post #8 of 29 Old 04-29-2015, 10:43 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
tomtastic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Wichita, KS
Posts: 2,228
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 866 Post(s)
Liked: 306
I just mention the I.O. shortcoming (I know this has been beaten to death already), because it's my one complaint that I've had with my current set of 3D cameras, again to the point I've constantly considering just returning to 2D. They have their sweet spot, go beyond that, and they're absolutely worthless. You could have the highest resolution, superior processing and sharpest glass on the planet and without the correct I.O, it's just a waste of time.

The whole point of 3D is for it to "look 3D". If the I.O. is less than the 3D1, I would never waste my time with it. All I use the 3D1 for in 3D mode is for macro stuff. So if you're looking to shoot macro I could see getting that 300.00 lens, I'd probably put that change to another NX500 though. Two NX500's in a SbS rig or Z bracket would be very appealing and you wouldn't need to crop the sensor. I'm sure the PQ, dynamic range is superior to the 3D1, as it should be. It's a newer camera. But a better 3D camera? Hardly. The Panasonic 3D1 is good up till about 5 or 6 feet at most. The Fuji is good for at least double that range. The Sony and JVC cameras Z10k under ten feet. The 3DA1 is a little wider which I use primary rig, up to 15 feet. But mostly on these all in one rigs, if you're not shooting within their range, then shooting 3D is pointless.

Yes, I've noticed the difference on my own cameras, the 3DA1 vs the Z10k. The dynamic range is a few levels superior on the 3DA1 over the Z10k and it has the wider lenses too. But it only helps an extra 8 to 10 feet. There are the stereo base extenders but not sure I want to invest that much in a piece of glass that only works on one camera. An adjustable side by side rig would really be the best rig or mirror setup.

You've actually got me interested in two of these for a SbS setup, but that lens is very pricy for what it offers. Basically, this lens is the same problems that have plagued these all in one cameras since they started making them. I would gather if you took the same shot in 2D and compared it to the 3D version the 2D would be superior. No cropping of sensor. Now take two NX500's and the same 3D shot and compare that, with the correct I.O., you'll see the difference. I.O. is the most important factor with 3D. The problem with all in one rigs is they're very gimmicky in their offerings. They work to a point but don't force it beyond what it can do.

This line intentionally left blank.
tomtastic is online now  
post #9 of 29 Old 04-29-2015, 12:40 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Forum Special Member
 
markr041's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 4,925
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 937 Post(s)
Liked: 296
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomtastic View Post
I just mention the I.O. shortcoming (I know this has been beaten to death already), because it's my one complaint that I've had with my current set of 3D cameras, again to the point I've constantly considering just returning to 2D. They have their sweet spot, go beyond that, and they're absolutely worthless. You could have the highest resolution, superior processing and sharpest glass on the planet and without the correct I.O, it's just a waste of time.

The whole point of 3D is for it to "look 3D". If the I.O. is less than the 3D1, I would never waste my time with it. All I use the 3D1 for in 3D mode is for macro stuff. So if you're looking to shoot macro I could see getting that 300.00 lens, I'd probably put that change to another NX500 though. Two NX500's in a SbS rig or Z bracket would be very appealing and you wouldn't need to crop the sensor. I'm sure the PQ, dynamic range is superior to the 3D1, as it should be. It's a newer camera. But a better 3D camera? Hardly. The Panasonic 3D1 is good up till about 5 or 6 feet at most. The Fuji is good for at least double that range. The Sony and JVC cameras Z10k under ten feet. The 3DA1 is a little wider which I use primary rig, up to 15 feet. But mostly on these all in one rigs, if you're not shooting within their range, then shooting 3D is pointless.

Yes, I've noticed the difference on my own cameras, the 3DA1 vs the Z10k. The dynamic range is a few levels superior on the 3DA1 over the Z10k and it has the wider lenses too. But it only helps an extra 8 to 10 feet. There are the stereo base extenders but not sure I want to invest that much in a piece of glass that only works on one camera. An adjustable side by side rig would really be the best rig or mirror setup.

You've actually got me interested in two of these for a SbS setup, but that lens is very pricy for what it offers. Basically, this lens is the same problems that have plagued these all in one cameras since they started making them. I would gather if you took the same shot in 2D and compared it to the 3D version the 2D would be superior. No cropping of sensor. Now take two NX500's and the same 3D shot and compare that, with the correct I.O., you'll see the difference. I.O. is the most important factor with 3D. The problem with all in one rigs is they're very gimmicky in their offerings. They work to a point but don't force it beyond what it can do.

I agree with most of what you say, except I am confused by your conclusion that the 3D1 is a "superior" 3D camera to the NX500 (with 3D lens). It also has a limited range, but within that range it is conspicuously better in every dimension than the 3D1 (DR, color, resolution, and depth helped by the shallower dof). The differences are clearly visible in the 3D video (including that for some shots the 3D depth is slightly better for the 3D1). I would bet that most anyone actually viewing the video in 3D would not conclude that the 3D1 is the better 3D camera, especialy for the uses you make of the 3D1.


Btw, that the resolution of the 3D video and stills is lower than their 2D counterparts does not imply the sensor is cropped. The camera uses all of the information from the whole sensor to form the lower resolution images. That is why they are so much better than the 3D1 - it is not a cropped-sensor picture, though it is lower resolution than 2D. Interestingly, the NX500 shoots 4K, and when it does that it does actually crop the sensor - suddenly when you shoot 4K, the fov shrinks dramatically. It is a higher resolution video and it crops the sensor. Resolution and sensor cropping are entirely different.
markr041 is offline  
post #10 of 29 Old 04-29-2015, 01:01 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
tomtastic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Wichita, KS
Posts: 2,228
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 866 Post(s)
Liked: 306
It does crop the sensor if you using one sensor for two fields of view, unless you have two sensors. I take it the lens is a split mirror or something like that? When you shoot video (16x9) with an APS C you don't use the entire sensor, you use a smaller portion of it, APS-C is 3:2. Then in this case for 3D, it's cropped again for two 3D FOV. You're not using near the amount of sensor vs two separate cameras.

My 3D1 shoots superior 2D stills than my older Nikon Coolpix 8mp camera. It's also about 3 years newer, that's my point between the 3D1/Nx500. Looking just strictly at 3D stills or video between the NX500 or 3D1, yes the Samsung is better, but it should be better, right? The 3D1 is 3 years old. It should be better in every way, but not really for 3D. At best it's the same or a little worse. I don't like it for 3D for the same reason I don't use the 3D1 for anything more than macro work. I just can't use it. These cameras weren't designed with good 3D in mind other than in their very close range. They're gimmicky, plain and simple. If you want decent 3D, same as it's ever been, you have to go big. You can't just pull it out of your pocket and expect to get great results.

Looking at the cost, I think I'd rather stick with Canon or Nikon. A pair of 60d's, better glass selection or Nikon which I have access to.

This line intentionally left blank.
tomtastic is online now  
post #11 of 29 Old 04-29-2015, 01:41 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Forum Special Member
 
markr041's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 4,925
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 937 Post(s)
Liked: 296
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomtastic View Post
It does crop the sensor if you using one sensor for two fields of view, unless you have two sensors. I take it the lens is a split mirror or something like that? When you shoot video (16x9) with an APS C you don't use the entire sensor, you use a smaller portion of it, APS-C is 3:2. Then in this case for 3D, it's cropped again for two 3D FOV. You're not using near the amount of sensor vs two separate cameras.

My 3D1 shoots superior 2D stills than my older Nikon Coolpix 8mp camera. It's also about 3 years newer, that's my point between the 3D1/Nx500. Looking just strictly at 3D stills or video between the NX500 or 3D1, yes the Samsung is better, but it should be better, right? The 3D1 is 3 years old. It should be better in every way, but not really for 3D. At best it's the same or a little worse. I don't like it for 3D for the same reason I don't use the 3D1 for anything more than macro work. I just can't use it. These cameras weren't designed with good 3D in mind other than in their very close range. They're gimmicky, plain and simple. If you want decent 3D, same as it's ever been, you have to go big. You can't just pull it out of your pocket and expect to get great results.

Looking at the cost, I think I'd rather stick with Canon or Nikon. A pair of 60d's, better glass selection or Nikon which I have access to.

We are both correct on cropping, but are talking about two different aspects of it: Shooting a 16x9 video cannot use all of the sensor if the sensor is 3:2 so there is some cropping, but the 1920x1080 video resolution (less than 2 megapixels) uses "all" of the sensor's 28 megapixels to form the 1920x1080 video frame. That is in contrast to just using only 2 megapixels to form the image. The reduction in pixels is accomplished by sampling from the whole sensor; that is what is meant by non-cropped. Shooting the two images on one sensor also crops, but again, the images are based on sampling the entire sensor, which has 28 megapixels. The 3D1 has, what, 6 or 8 megapixels? as opposed to 28 and also crops to get the sbs frame.


The NX500 in my opinion, based again on the comparison video and not on theory, would provide better 3D video and stills for "macro work" than the 3D1 in every way. It is of course not a substitute for other 3D imagers for all scenes. What is different also is the shallow dof look you get; that in my opinion adds to the "real" 3D depth. It is a different look, aside from the far better resolution, color and DR.
markr041 is offline  
post #12 of 29 Old 04-29-2015, 03:04 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
tomtastic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Wichita, KS
Posts: 2,228
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 866 Post(s)
Liked: 306
The 3D1 is 12mp in 2D, it's cropped for 16x9 in 2D about 9 mp, although for 3D it's limited to 6mp.

How many megapixels is far less important than sensor size. Oppo is releasing a 50mp smart phone, is that better than a Nikon D810 or Canon 5DR, both full frame bodies? It's a crop of a crop with that lens, no getting around it, yes, even with that it's still more sensor than the 3D1. You can arrange the pixels however you want, but you're missing out on a lot of that sensor's ability and larger/better glass for both views.

Originally, I thought you were using two cameras which I think would be a good setup for most shots. This 3D lens, good for macro, and yes, in that setting, way better than the 3D1 as far as PQ and DOF, but given the larger sensor and newer specs and cost it should. You can get the 3D1 pretty cheap now, they're outdated. Given the cost of a 3D1 (around 300), it's a cheap 3D camera. My thoughts on it, basically a decent 2D point and shoot with all their flaws and it can also do 3D. I didn't say it did 3D great, cause it doesn't. Subjects need to be up close. At this point I wouldn't even consider another point and shoot narrow I.O. 3D camera. Even if it's better PQ and DOF, it doesn't open up any new range for me. But given the cost 1k vs 300, the 3D1 might be better value -and the 3D1 based on its specs, shouldn't even be worth half that. It's only held its value because it's 3D. The specs on the 3D1 are way out of date now.

I think for stills I'd do two Canon 60D's, fairly cheap and lots of glass to choose from vs Samsung mount, just like the E mount from Sony, hard to find cheap. For video, Super 35 no crop of sensor plus wide range of EF mount lenses. Either dual C100's or Black Magic. A little more money for what I want for video but far cheaper than RED.

This line intentionally left blank.
tomtastic is online now  
post #13 of 29 Old 04-29-2015, 03:32 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
3DBob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Southeastern Michigan
Posts: 1,379
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 476 Post(s)
Liked: 161
I've taken over 1000 shots with the 3D1 and am quite pleased with it. The video is so-so, but when interspersed with stills, it can be very interesting. The trick is to always have something close in the foreground to extend the feeling of depth, which I try to do as much as I can. You can see this in the following. I use railings a lot for depth and don't worry too much if they are closer than the 3D window. Of course, this will look about half the resolution that it would normally because of youtube. This is around the Charlevoix, MI harbor and Petosky, MI. off of Lake Michigan. I think the 3D1 has lots of depth given the wide angle. It's a matter of how you shoot to create the feeling of depth. The last two stills are inside a building and it's what I really like about this camera--good inside 3D without a flash.


3DBob is offline  
post #14 of 29 Old 04-30-2015, 08:34 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
3DBob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Southeastern Michigan
Posts: 1,379
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 476 Post(s)
Liked: 161
I noticed when shooting dual gopros at eye-width, I got too much roundness in objects and miniaturization. It got me to thinking as the gopro dual system has a closer lens separation but more natural 3D look. If 50mm represents normal eye viewing, then a 25mm lens would push the image back so to speak as if your eyes were half the normal eye width of 2.5 inches, so the lens only needs to be 1.25 inches apart to get the same sense of reality and 3D (the 3D1 is separated about 1.5 inches). Why we don't think this gives enough depth is because we are also twice the distance (from the camera perspective) from the objects we shoot. So if the objects are actually 10 feet, they look like they are 20 feet away with less depth. Thus we need to get closer to the objects. The W3 having a 35mm lens is closer to normal and it's lens width is actually wider than needed, so there is more sense of rounding and depth on objects 10 feet away, but at a loss of wide angle viewing. So to get the same image as the 3D1, you would need to move back another 10 feet and the depth would be about the same as the 3D1 10 feet closer. This is my theory anyway, and it's probably why companies, when using wide angle lenses, don't worry about having the 3D lens farther apart.
3DBob is offline  
post #15 of 29 Old 04-30-2015, 10:12 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
tomtastic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Wichita, KS
Posts: 2,228
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 866 Post(s)
Liked: 306
Eye spacing in adults is between 54-68. These cameras that are less than 45 are like walleye vision. If you're shooting a wide shot you can really tell the difference between a camera like the 3D1 or Z10k and the 3DA1 or W3. The advantage of course with closer lenses you can get closer proximity to a subject. That's the sweet spot on the 3D1. The narrow FOV on both the W3 and the 3DA1 are just awful though. The 3DA1 I have the WAL kit on so that corrects for that camera. I'm not sure it's worth it to get the WAL kit for the W3 at this point. The camera's are ancient history now. It's 299, more than I paid for the camera. I do have a pair of 37mm WAL lenses that would work on it.

This line intentionally left blank.
tomtastic is online now  
post #16 of 29 Old 05-01-2015, 10:03 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Barry C's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 1,351
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 290 Post(s)
Liked: 173
I just posted something on the 3D Gopro thread on this subject. In short, I just don't know what would really be the best IA for a general purpose 3D camera. So much depends on how wide the FOV is, distance to subject, etc.

The GP Dual has about 33mm IA, the JVC-TD1 around 35, or so. The GP at a medium FOV- about 21mm-gives a HUGE feeling of depth, the TD1 at about 42mm has very limited depth after 20 feet. Admittedly, the GP depth is largely a function of the wide FOV functioning to push the image back in the window. Be that as it may, it works. On a wide open shot, like a ski slope, it gives me every bit as much of a 3D feel as any wide IA setup would and without the miniaturization. All this is, of course, very subjective. I totally agree with Bob, adding a wider IA to the Gopro would result in terrible miniaturization of foreground objects. With the TD1, I now routinely add stereoscopic depth in post to almost everything except underwater where the subjects are all fairly close and where I strive for negative parrallax wherever possible. I view the clip on the monitor and then push it back in the window to where the distance to the subject looks like the actual distance that it was from the camera when it was shot. Real 3D? A purist, t would say no. I call it hybrid 3D and it's what I like, and I like it alot. Of course, with the GP, this is never necessary.

To me, the perception of depth/distance between camera and subject are as important as the roundness factor. In real life, when we view objects at medium and longer ranges, what we perceive as 3D is defined, IMO, by depth/distance from the object and the lighting and shading of that object which defines it's contours.

Definitely, a great subject for parlor debate. Now we just need the brandy and cigars
Barry C is offline  
post #17 of 29 Old 05-01-2015, 10:14 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
3DBob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Southeastern Michigan
Posts: 1,379
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 476 Post(s)
Liked: 161
I agree, depth and 3D are very subjective. I learned that recently when I put together a video of all my Realist stereo stills. In many of them, I wished I could see more of the scene left and right. The taller than wide format of the Realist, though slightly wide angle just didn't seem wide enough. I started cropping them to 16:9, unless I had something in the scene that couldn't be cropped, and I had a "well I'll be..." moment. The cropped images appeared to have more depth and wide angle and were very pleasing to the eye. Sometimes, it's just a matter of perspective.
3DBob is offline  
post #18 of 29 Old 05-11-2015, 12:37 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
tomtastic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Wichita, KS
Posts: 2,228
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 866 Post(s)
Liked: 306

Is this what the lens looks like? Great for macro, better sensor and lens but 3D range is less. Less than 10mm eye spacing. So this would result in a SbS recording?

This line intentionally left blank.
tomtastic is online now  
post #19 of 29 Old 05-11-2015, 07:28 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Forum Special Member
 
markr041's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 4,925
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 937 Post(s)
Liked: 296
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomtastic View Post

Is this what the lens looks like? Great for macro, better sensor and lens but 3D range is less. Less than 10mm eye spacing. So this would result in a SbS recording?

Yes, exactly. And the videos here show exactly these qualities Plus especially high resolution despite SbS):
I'm Back and I have a New 3D Camera
markr041 is offline  
post #20 of 29 Old 05-25-2015, 04:44 AM
Member
 
crunchy3d's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 184
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 58 Post(s)
Liked: 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by 3DBob View Post
Of course, this will look about half the resolution that it would normally because of youtube.
https://youtu.be/MI3U_khD3ro
Bob, I thought that 3D1 is already producing squeezed side-by-side video.
Anyway, you can try uploading full side-by-side video (e.g. 3840x1080 or 2560x720) on Youtube. When uploading it, write the following tag (under tags, of course):
yt3d:aspect=16:9

Somebody mentioned that the following tag:
yt:crop=16:9

cannot hurt as well.
It seems that it's working as long as not using HTML5. I have recently uploaded two new full side-by-side videos and tested the method. At least it works for me and it seems that Youtube is displaying entire resolution when choosing the highest video resolution available (2160p for the first or 1440p for the second video, even though the original resolution is 1080p and 720p, respectively). Two of my videos are here:


Read the YT text below the video frame (click SHOW MORE) for explanation how to get rid of HTML5.

Damir
Barry C and 3DBob like this.
crunchy3d is offline  
post #21 of 29 Old 05-25-2015, 06:23 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
3DBob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Southeastern Michigan
Posts: 1,379
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 476 Post(s)
Liked: 161
Quote:
Originally Posted by crunchy3d View Post
Bob, I thought that 3D1 is already producing squeezed side-by-side video.
Anyway, you can try uploading full side-by-side video (e.g. 3840x1080 or 2560x720) on Youtube. When uploading it, write the following tag (under tags, of course):
yt3d:aspect=16:9

Somebody mentioned that the following tag:
yt:crop=16:9

cannot hurt as well. Damir

Thanks, Damir, I will try uploading full frame SBS. Yes 3D1 is SBS squeezed. I meant that youtube loses resolution because it has such a low bit rate of about 4K.
3DBob is offline  
post #22 of 29 Old 05-25-2015, 07:44 AM
Member
 
crunchy3d's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 184
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 58 Post(s)
Liked: 14
You are right. The best bet is to upload relatively high quality files and at the highest resolution possible. I think that the final YT quality depends on the file's resolution as well. It seems that full side-by-side is a must in order to get at least decent final 3D quality. Moreover, downloading the files from YT with some tools, like savefrom.net could be useful as well for off-line playing, since the displayed quality usually depends on the internet speed as well.

Damir
crunchy3d is offline  
post #23 of 29 Old 05-25-2015, 12:08 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
tomtastic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Wichita, KS
Posts: 2,228
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 866 Post(s)
Liked: 306
My HTML5 player shows 2160p, takes forever to load I just play it in 720 or 1080. I don't have anything that high resolution to play it on. With HTML5 you don't need 3rd party software to dl, you can just right click and dl it. I use clicktoflash to block Flash from loading. HTML5 is much better.

This line intentionally left blank.
tomtastic is online now  
post #24 of 29 Old 05-26-2015, 02:12 AM
Member
 
crunchy3d's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 184
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 58 Post(s)
Liked: 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomtastic View Post
My HTML5 player shows 2160p, takes forever to load I just play it in 720 or 1080. I don't have anything that high resolution to play it on.
You should select 2160p only to view 3D in 1080p full quality. Don't forget that 2160p does not mean that it will play 3D file in 2160p resolution. It will only show 3840x1080 file in entire resolution. That is why tag "yt3d:aspect=16:9" is used for.
Of course, the video is not always smooth (depends on internet and computer speed), so it is better to download it first.

Could you tell me how to watch the file in 3D using HTML5? On my desktop PC I did not have any 3D option available, so I simply switch off HTML5 and presto: 3D options became available.
crunchy3d is offline  
post #25 of 29 Old 05-26-2015, 05:54 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
3DBob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Southeastern Michigan
Posts: 1,379
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 476 Post(s)
Liked: 161
Quote:
Originally Posted by crunchy3d View Post
Could you tell me how to watch the file in 3D using HTML5? On my desktop PC I did not have any 3D option available, so I simply switch off HTML5 and presto: 3D options became available.

HTML5 does not support 3D options, so you have to turn it off. What people do is full screen the SBS and let their 3D monitors switch to 3D to watch it.
3DBob is offline  
post #26 of 29 Old 05-26-2015, 08:42 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
tomtastic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Wichita, KS
Posts: 2,228
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 866 Post(s)
Liked: 306
Quote:
Originally Posted by crunchy3d View Post
You should select 2160p only to view 3D in 1080p full quality. Don't forget that 2160p does not mean that it will play 3D file in 2160p resolution. It will only show 3840x1080 file in entire resolution. That is why tag "yt3d:aspect=16:9" is used for.
Of course, the video is not always smooth (depends on internet and computer speed), so it is better to download it first.

Could you tell me how to watch the file in 3D using HTML5? On my desktop PC I did not have any 3D option available, so I simply switch off HTML5 and presto: 3D options became available.
I can't play in 2160p (1080/eye), since my screen will only do 540p (passive). Most I can get is 1920x540/eye, the rest is discarded anyway. The 3D options (in Flash Player) are really only needed if you want the interleaved or red/cyan options. I just use SbS, the screen handles the 3D input. With clicktoflash enabled I can't dl higher than 720p, because of yt's adaptive stream format. It will give all options for streaming up to 4k in HTML5 with clicktoflash disabled, but my internet lags at 1080p usually, I can't even attempt 2160. Of course with clicktoflash disabled I can't dl at all. Would be nice if they'd get the 1080p option available. This has been an issue for awhile now, but it's mostly on YT's end how the streams get handled for HTML5 so who knows if/when it will get fixed.

This line intentionally left blank.
tomtastic is online now  
post #27 of 29 Old 04-15-2017, 12:44 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
tomtastic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Wichita, KS
Posts: 2,228
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 866 Post(s)
Liked: 306
I took another look at this NX300 camera with 3D lens, mainly because there are no new 3D cameras being produced and I've been considering picking up something else to add to my list of 3D cameras, but after reading up on it I found a couple of things that would prevent me from purchasing.

The main reason is the lens uses lcd shutters like active glasses and they don't take images in the left/right pair at precisely the right time, so the same problem I have with my AX1003D rig is present here too. The images will be slightly off causing temporal ghosting. Have to shoot scenes with little movement. Also, the 3D lens lowers the available light vs 2D mode so must shoot at higher f stop, that I could probably deal with but not the first issue. Given it's small I.A. and these shortcomings I think I will still pass on this camera.

This line intentionally left blank.
tomtastic is online now  
post #28 of 29 Old 04-15-2017, 12:51 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
3DBob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Southeastern Michigan
Posts: 1,379
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 476 Post(s)
Liked: 161
Tom, do you own the 3D1? Recently, I rewatched my 3D1 clips on my LG 60" passive TV and they look great. I never liked the video on my monitor or my projector, but on my 4K TV with frame interpolation, the videos look very much like full 1080p. It's weird, and I intend to use my 3D1 more now. I recently bought the android phone attachment as well and will be experimenting with that, but the 3D1 has again won my "eyes".
3DBob is offline  
post #29 of 29 Old 04-15-2017, 01:24 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
tomtastic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Wichita, KS
Posts: 2,228
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 866 Post(s)
Liked: 306
Quote:
Originally Posted by 3DBob View Post
Tom, do you own the 3D1?
Yes, I still have it and I've been using it more recently. Also have the W3. I think for stills these are still the best two cameras out there for 3D stills in all in one package without going to two cameras. I made the change the other day to using 4:3 for stills instead of 16x9 that way if I ever want to print them out they'll be in higher resolution for that. And in post they can always be cropped to 16:9 which would have been cropped anyway during the shot if selected to 16:9, but the extra information is there in 4:3.

So the 3D1 is 8mp for 3D in 4:3 and 6mp in 16x9. The Fuji is 10mp in 3D and 7.1 in 16x9 both are slightly less than 4K resolution so my AX1003D rig is still higher than both of these for 3D and that one's shooting video not stills. I think it takes 20mp stills, I haven't tried it. Of course, non genlocked.

I turned on the trumotion on the LG 4K and it does make a difference. I viewed my 4K3D parade video in top/bottom which was 30p footage and it gets rid of judder and smooths it out some. It doesn't look nearly as smooth as what true 60p footage would bring but it's a nice compromise.

I think the point Mark was trying to make was that the camera was superior to the 3D1, which it is of course. It's newer, aps-c, bigger and better glass. But for 3D there's so much more that goes into a camera system that its specs.

I love my AX1003D rig. It's so far above what my Z10k or even the big 3DA1 camera can produce. The glass is larger the sensor's are 4x's larger, the bit rate is higher the resolution is 4K, on and on. But just one little problem. It's not true genlocked so I've come to the conclusion that I'll have to make a decision on what projects I want to use it with.

Last year I shot Steampunk Day with it for the first time which I've used the big AG-3DA1 camera with Zunow kit and filters because it's my best 3D video camera, producing much higher quality with uncompressed left/right streams. But last year I used the 4K3D rig, and there were a few places where the miss sync in the frames is noticeable which runs the 3D effect. So I'll be going back to the 3DA1 for that project, no big deal.

Given the LCD shutters on this 3D lens is like that, I don't think I would bother with it. It also lowers the light and it has that really narrow I.A. which means your 3D range is shorter. Outside I like to use the Fuji W3 and shooting stuff further away. The 3D1 works great up close. I think the W3 is a little better with flash as the bulb is further away from the lenses. That causes those dust particles reflecting back. The 3D1 is pretty bad with flash indoors. Must check each shot first to see if it picked them up.

The point is that you can have a really great camera that has full frame 50 mega pixel imaging, fastest glass and all that, but it still may not be a good 3D camera if it's not designed for 3D. The 3D1 and W3 are just better "3D" cameras. They may not have the quality of newer cameras because of the age of when they were built but they are what you need for good 3D.

The only replacement for these two for stills would be moving to a two camera system but that will never fit in your pocket like both the W3 and 3D1.

This line intentionally left blank.
tomtastic is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply 3D Source Components

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off