I bought that Fuji camera a couple years ago and liked it so much I bought a second one right away as a backup. I can also look at pictures from it on my Sony 4K passive 3D TV. One of the cameras has a couple of dead pixels on the sensor, and the resolution isn't anything like my DSLR, but I still think it's great and would love to see an updated version of it.

Apparently it has more than doubled in price (new) since I got it, although there are also some resellers on ebay.
https://www.amazon.com/Fujifilm-Fine.../dp/B003ZHV70M
https://www.amazon.com/Fujifilm-Fine.../dp/B003ZHUD70

Prior to that, a few phone models ago, I had an HTC EVO 3D phone from Sprint, which also has a glasses-free lenticular screen that works extremely well. Back when it was my active smartphone, my favorite movie demo to show people was Tron Legacy, which looks really, really good on that screen. I've only had Samsung Notes since then, and despite Samsung promising a 3D phone to follow the success of one of its competitors, it still hasn't happened and I don't know why since clearly the tech exists.

I have 3 eyes and couldn't find an appropriate icon.

Fuji offered a pricey 10" glasses free 4X3 (go figure) monitor at that time which is no longer available. Before I saw the Fuji, I had just purchased a TX1 which is still my only camera. Otherwise, I would have snapped up the Fuji. BTW, your camera sports TWO! 1X2.3 INCH! not centimeter CCDs! That's native 16X9 3D recording from two good sized chips, bud! None of this 16X9 format cropped from a 4X3 format 1.2X.9 cm CCD crap! It's a remarkable instrument you have! It's got to look fantastic on your set. Oh yeah!

Ditto on the good riddance.

Star Wars - The Last Jedi was shot in 3D, and will be shown at Real 3D theaters for sure.

I just saw the teaser for it today when I went to see Dunkirk in IMAX. At the end of the trailer, it said IMAX only. That said, I believe STTLJ will not be shown in IMAX 3D.

Needless to say, Real 3D will be getting my business moving forward. *shrugs*

Excellent share.

Even more interesting is that 3D cinema in China is booming, and IMAX has no plans on cutting 3D showings in that nation. It's only in North America that IMAX is dropping 3D support in the cinema.

Again, all this means for me is that Real 3D will be getting my cinema business.

The sensors aren't that exciting actually. 1.2" type sensors are really only about 1/4" diagonal. Also the Fuji sensor's are 4:3 for stills as that's the primary function of the camera so it does actually crop for video and it gets worse too because it's only 720p frame so the quality is not great even with having a high bitrate and dual stream recording. Each stream is recorded independently at approx. 48mbps, but it doesn't help the image.

Also, you can pretty much turn the flash off because you'll get dust particles in the shots. So indoor is really risky, plan on taking multiple shots with the flash on and check the image until you get one right, otherwise: shoot available light. I will say the flash is better on the Fuji vs the 3D1 because it's farther from the lenses but not by a lot.

I have the W3, I like it for outdoor stills, not for video at all. The Panasonic 3D1 is a little better for video and the stills are pretty good too, wider lenses also open up your shot a little more, both are nice cameras. I like the w3 cause it has the 3D viewer. I take the card out of the 3D1 and put it in the w3 to check shots sometimes. Glad I bought both when I did, but I wouldn't pay what they're asking for them now.

It amazes me how so many people have ZERO tolerance for other people having differing opinions that they want something like 3D wiped from the face of the Earth just because they don't like it. Who cares what anyone else wants on Earth about this or that. *I* don't like it, so get rid of any trace of it! Or if I DO like it, then everyone should be forced to watch it (high frame rate fake modes come to mind with certain people on these forums that push it every chance they get no matter how many new distortions it causes and everyone that doesn't like it MUST be a troll or stubborn blah blah blah). No room for different tastes, perceptions and brain interpretations. Everyone must be a clone of ME (except I need to be richer and have more power than all the mini-me clones).

Sadly, Hollywood seems to buy this argument too because as soon as 3D isn't making them record profits, they dump it entirely! So if 40% like it and 60% don't, it's mob rule! There is no room for the 40% market, let alone 20%. Anything else (30 different receiver models, 5 Blu-Ray "special editions" in 2D including limited T2 6000 unit sets with a freaking toy robot arm) they'll offer for sale, but a 3D Blu-Ray for the T2 3D re-release of the film? NOPE. I thought that was the whole point of the re-release this summer and the disc in October? I guess not (unless you live in Europe or Asia). Thank goodness most 3D Blu-Rays aren't region locked or I wouldn't be able to get Resident Evil: The Final Chapter or Beauty and the Beast in 3D in the USA at all (without a region free player).

It just utterly baffles the mind. You can't even choose 3D if they don't offer any more 3D sets! I know people that were waiting for larger 3D TVs to come down in price, but hey, people MUST HATE 3D since they're not buying our junky little 40" 3D sets (I mean have you seen 3D on one of these from 20 feet away? It looks RIDICULOUS). But just when 65" sets are becoming reasonably priced, nope, sorry, we don't have a single 3D set anymore here at Best Buy because "no one" liked it! I just NOW got my 3D projector (I was hoping a 4K consumer priced model projector would have been available by now, but the DLP ones that are $2500 don't do 3D (plus I see rainbows bad) and Epson's own "fake" models aren't real 4K and still cost 2.5x that of the very reasonably priced 3100). In other words, there are no good options for a really large screen and both 4K and 3D unless you can afford a Sony at $7000+

"Hey, I hate those dorky glasses! I don't want to look like a four-eyed nerd!" God, am I living in 1955? I guess Europe and Asia must still wear glasses instead of contacts or lasik since they seem to enjoy 3D at home.... I wear glasses and I've got 3 different models I've bought/tried with my Epson 3100 projector. Some look goofier than others, but then I'm not wearing them out in public and all of them fit just fine over my glasses (I've had to wear those since 1st grade and I'm not risking halos or dry eyes or other potential complications just to get rid of them).

I don't like cross-talk (some movies seem way worse than others for some reason with the Epson (I tried 3 different brand glasses and none are any better/worse) and playing with the depth setting can get rid of it at one depth, but tends to bring it out at another. Whereas other movies seem to have far less or even hardly any cross-talk (or only in some scenes). No idea, but I don't recall seeing much crosstalk at the theater since it went to digital.

Even so, 2D movies look ridiculously flat after you've watched a dozen in 3D. I'm not pretending it looks like real life when something comes out of the screen (more like a hologram in some ways), but it's still neat when not overdone. Jaws 3D looked better at home than it ever did at the theater (I could literally put my hand through a couple of objects at two points in the movie). Depth is neat too, but I take issue with using ONLY depth as some movies do as it's a wasted opportunity with so many action scenes for a thrill. I watched roller coaster footage on the 3D Rarities disc and extending the car out into the room really made it look like I was riding in the seat just behind the people in the very front (black and white, but still). There has to be some middle ground between "gee whiz that's just a cheesy effect" and "why is that so boring in 3D that it might as well be 2D". Creature from the Black Lagoon struck me as pretty well done. They used it where it made sense in the movie (e.g. the hand sticking out of the hillside where they were digging).

The worst part is the manufacturer's ditching 3D support in the sets themselves. How much more does it cost them to implement a 3D option that they insist on dropping it? (yet my Epson 3100 projector only cost $1100 and has it) ??? Is there no room for even a single 3D station on cable/satellite? My cable company USED to have a 3D channel for special events (e.g. the last Summer Games was in 3D on it), but I didn't have a set yet and now it's gone. NO ONE liked it. They're so impatient that if it doesn't take off instantly, forget it!

I agree extra cost has a LOT to do with it. I see 3D Blu-Rays for $30 that sell for $8-14 in 2D. Plus you need 3D capable players, TVs and glasses. Cha-Ching! Movie theaters SOAK you for every little feature (I think they took that from the airlines). They actually wanted $2 extra for Auros 3D Sound at one place I went. WTF!?? I never got charged $2 extra to watching something in the old DTS screens. The worst thing was they only had 2-4 of those screens at most cinemas early one and so only the big movies were available to watch with DTS. But charging extra? It's supposed to be an incentive for me to go to the theater in an age where I can stay home and watch movies on my own 93" screen, not a chance to screw me over for $19 a ticket (you can buy the BD for the price of one ticket! less than 3 months later!)

Yeah, 7.5 BILLION people on the planet (not enough for a 3D channel?) and 300+ Million in the USA alone and there's no room for a T2 3D Blu-Ray here in the US. Not one disc! Excuse me while I PUKE at the smell of BS.

I don't think it was. I believe it's mostly shot on film even.

those look a little better, still not quite what i normally wear for sunglasses, but tough to judge fit from a picture. sounds ridiculous, but i need like a little kiosk at the mall to try them on, i'm super picky about them i guess. i don't think it's a made up complaint, but it's one that would be easily fixed if it was ignored. They just need more styles and more fit options. wearing comfortable glasses isn't an issue, but the pre-packaged 3D glasses are pretty terrible, especially the active 3D stuff. and if they don't fit 'right', even nice light ones can be more annoying than it's worth. i mean, i really enjoy atmos, and think it brings a significant improvement to the audio, but if i had to wear headphones for it to work, well, 7.1 is good enough then.


i doubt very much that 3D will go away, for long anyway. I suspect this is as much a business decision as anything. sell UHD/HDR as the 'new thing' now, sell UHD 3D as the 'new thing' in a couple of years when manufacturers would be forced to actually improve picture quality if they wanted to sell new tv's. it's way easier to add 'gimmicks' than improve build quality. and not to say 3d is a gimmick, but removing it just to add it later is pretty gimmicky, imo.

kinda like going to a restaurant that only serves one item, and they keep switching it trying to guess the 'right' dish... just give us choice, and nobody should be be mad.

i've been annoyed that because of 3D, 2D presentations have been relegated to the crappy theaters here(and there's no reason why that has to be done), and now the apparent solution is that no 3D presentations will be offered at all... great compromise. I'm sure having both as options would do a much better job of getting as many customers as possible. but i only have common sense, no business degree here

Native 3D on 35mm film in 1953 (House of Wax). Witness the glory:

Yeah but IMAX has more light output @ 12 to 18 while most commercial cinemas cap out @ 8. IMAX in 3D looks crazy good, isn't dim at all. I would never see a movie in 3D in any other theater unless it's AMC Prime.

I stand corrected. It appears it will be remastered in 3D.

They still make 35mm film? Time to dig out my old Canon EOS Rebel-S out of the closet!

Seriously, why would they want to shoot with 35mm film in 2017 when Hollywood told all the theaters convert to digital or die a few years back (i.e. who would get to see it in actual 35mm film playback these days? Or do some directors just dig the look of film grain?)

Some directors still shoot with film. They either like the grain, or the HDR (some film has very high dynamic range - over 10+ stops, something even the best digital sensors cannot touch). Or extreme resolution - IMAX still requires film, for example. Or they are simply old school.

Of course, the first thing done is the film is scanned into the digital post processing rigs - either at 2k or 4k where you can add VFX or CGI or even just do cuts. The rest of the pipeline is digital.

Hollywood demanded theatres to digital for several reasons. First shipping film to theatres is expensive. It's the main reason why theatrical releases are phased from the big theatres, then the second run theatres (while the rest of the films are shipped for worldwide releases). They only print so many copies of the film and it's shipped to first run, second run and world wide releases. Of course, this really means that excepting censorship boards, digital releases should allow simultaneous worldwide releases as copying bits is really easy and really quick (you can ship them on hard drives which are reusable so you don't need to produce anything).

Yes, you can allow for dubbing and subtitling, but really, there is no practical reason why we don't have worldwide simultaneous releases. (You would think they would do it for purely anti piracy reasons - if you want to see a film out in North America but not to be shown locally for months...).

The second and more important reason is digital releases let Hollywood control the showings. No longer could a theatre with an early copy of a film show it to select audiences ahead of proper release. (For smaller theatres, being able to catch the latest movies early could be a really big draw, and you always had to allow for the projectionist to stitch the reels of film together (most movies had 3 reels of film that had to be spliced into one long spool of film so the projectionist will have to get the film early to do it and verify the splice survives the projector), so advance illicit showings were a thing.) instead, every digital film is encrypted, and the projection equipment gets the decryption key when Hollywood authorizes the showing of the movie. No more advance showings (unless authorized), and every time the movie is shown, the theatre is billed for the showing - no more unauthorized extra showings. And yes, in the early days, showings were scrapped because the Hollywood servers got overloaded and caused the digital theatres to fail. I recall some high profile ones like Star Wars failing on release day...

As for 3d haters, if they put those energies in other things, we could have our flying electric cars by now and climate change would be something you'd read about in history books. We'd have a cure for cancer, peace in the Middle East and no one goes to bed hungry.

Thank you Tom. Appears that Fuji, to the loss of 3D enthusiasts, chose not to advance their technology much beyond what it was some 8 or 10 years ago. Disregarding 3X2 DSLRs, I fail to understand why CCD and CMOS still cling to 4X3 rather than 16X9 native sensor physical aspect. Perhaps it has something to do with the esthetics of shooting vertical 4X3 orientation being less radical than vertical 16X9, though cell phone camera photographers seem to accept radical verticals without protest. In my world I'd love to see 2:35-2:40:1 native aspects offered in consumer market and let 4X3 aspects suffer the cropping. A 2:40 TV would be great, but it took the industry 55 years just to get to 1:85:1. Those old 50s CinemaScope/PanaVision movies still inspire me.

So IMAX ran a 3D version of Dunkirk and a 2D version and found that most people liked the 2D better?

Of course they did not. But that would be the only sensible way to come to the conclusion that most people are not interested in IMAX 3D, and prefer 2D.

The first time I saw 3D IMAX was memorable. The combination of my field of view being (almost) completely filled and the depth the 3D provided was a visual experience I had never had before. Although I enjoy good 3D in conventional theaters, there is nothing to compare with that on an IMAX screen.

Someone wanted to prove a point, and a blockbuster 2D-only film provided the fodder.

Very cool, thanks for posting!

Modern day equivalent in my house!!

The pic I posed was a camera rig. They filmed 3D natively back in the 50's. (Of course)

I'd love to double stack projectors at home though. That seems so cool.

However, based simply on your projector proclivity, your discretionary spending seems far above the rest of us mortal men.

ahh yes that makes sense looking at it again. ...at first glance I thought it was a projector.

I paid less than 3K for both those 3D DLP's so it wasn't too expensive.



I'll be at the Orlando IMAX in December when Star Wars is released. I saw Force Awakens there and it was excellent. If they only have a 2D showing, no chance of giving them $$.


some of the best 3D titles are I have were filmed in Imax 3D. The IMAX CEO Greg Foster sounds like a typical bottom line bean counter when he speaks to the press on this topic.

http://www.thewrap.com/imax-entertai...-office-trend/


Given the ever-rising cost of movie admissions, why isn’t IMAX hurt by premium ticket prices?

It’s an insurance policy, a security blanket, when you can promise it’s going to be fun and compelling. If you offer a premium product, people will pay for the label. You just have to deliver on your promise


So Keep the promise and deliver part of what IMAX was founded upon, excellent 3D presentations.

Really has to do with the sensors I think, and since the primary function is photos then that gets priority. I believe on a lot of HD camcorders they use 16x9 sensors so there's no crop but on camcorders the sensors are really small. They also still use that antiquated system of measurement which doesn't really indicate the actual diagonal, width or height of sensor, would be nice if they would change that to the actual diagonal. 1/2" type in the Fuji is much better than what's in a lot of camcorders at the time the Fuji was released though which were 1/4" but those are really small like 1/8" diagonal, it's really about slightly more than half what they're claiming to be. A 1" sensor isn't 1 inch anything it's really .6" diagonal or 16mm similar to old 16mm film.

See on my AX100's which primary function is video the sensor is 16x9 or so they claim. But if you actually take the sensor measurements it's actually 3:2 so it must crop for video too. But here the photos for 4:3 are actually cropped and the video gets priority as it isn't cropped or not as much crop. I have two of these set up in a 3D rig which I use for 4K3D video but I can also take photos and the resolution is 20mp, way better than the Fuji or 3D1, even the video is higher resolution than the stills from those cameras. But you can't fit it in your pocket, it's fairly large to haul around.

Actually, modern digital-cinema cameras (Red, Sony F65, etc.) can capture 14-15 stops.

I love 3D and alway choose it over 2D. The main problem with it, in my opinion, is the glasses. Especially in theaters. They give you those little glasses that you can barely see out of. If they had bigger lenses, they wouldn't limit your field of view. Which is one of the reasons it will be better when they perfect glasses-less technology.

Human nature: people aren't happy doing something unless they can get other people to do it too. You see this in religion, politics, everything.

This is somewhat disappointing, in that the only 3D I have really enjoyed at the cinema is IMAX (mostly because it is far brighter than other 3D presentations, at least within range of where I live). I replaced my home cinema projector a year ago and the new one has 3D capability. It was another six months before I bothered to try it (I presumed it would be too dim, like non-IMAX 3D at local cinemas). However, when I got around to trying it, I was pleasantly surprised. I don't plan to re-buy titles I already have in order to get the 3D version (unless some amazing deal is on) but I have been buying 3D releases of new (to me) titles since I gave it a shot at home. It's a nice to have, not a must, for me. But the IMAX decision is disappointing nonetheless.

3D will return when the Avatar sequels come in.

I hate 3D unless its done RIGHT.
Only a handful of movies fall in that category. Avatar (which proves that sometimes 3D is a necessity because that movie is unwatchable in 2d). The Laika films, mostly Coraline and Kubo. The Hobbit films in 48fps 3D.

I had pretty much given up on 3D for anything but the Laika films, but then the Hobbit films came in HFR and I was dying to try it. And I was rewarded with the best 3D yet.

In order to succeed, 3D needs a couple things:
1. Directors need to know what they are doing. You can't just film with 3d cameras or post convert and expect it to look right. Directors need to really learn how to film in 3d, its an entire craft of its own. 90% of 3D films have been lazy and ill conceived.
2. Native rendering/filming in 3D plus HFR.
3. Greater than 48fps. The Hobbit films were the best 3D yet, when viewed in HFR, but unfortunately they didn't go far enough. 48fps is better, but its in a sort of no mans land where its better but still not good enough. 3D absolutely needs 120fps, its the only successful way forward. And don't tell me people don't like HFR, that's bologna, what they don't like is 48fps. Filmmakers can still add in a 24fps look within a 120fps package if they want (just like Skyfall filmed in 4k, but they added in grain in post and it looked gorgeous).
4. a 3D standard. RealD is the only one worth using, I have tried both Dolby 3D and Imax 3D and they suck, I wouldn't even see them again if you paid me, and they have given 3D a bad rap.

When the Avatar sequels come in HFR, HDR, 4K, 3D, and they make over a billion each, you'll see a surge in 3D films using the same format, just like we did with the first Avatar. Many will still suck thanks to point one above, but eventually we'll get some good ones.

All newer UHS TV come with 3D you have to activate it, like wise with the UHD/4K Blu-ray players. My Samsung UBD-K8500 player comes with 3D support as does my new Samsung 65" Class Q7F QLED 4K TV. The Blu-Ray workshop has committed to 3D until at least 2022 when it will be reviewed again. They are not stopping Blu-Ray 3D production, however, it is too large to fit the current capacity of a Blu-Ray disk WITH UHD/4K.

IMAX problems are internal. Their propriety licensing and camera/projector leasing costs have gone from crazy to insane. Over $45 million of the budget for Dunkirk was for IMAX equipment rentals. Insane amount. What you will see in the very near future is a lot of IMAX screens becoming AVX or other large format screens. IMAX and BARCO's deal is about as "what the market will bear" as they come. Time and time again chains are letting IMAX contracts expire they are going Christie/Vive or Dolby, Sony/DTS, BARCO/AP243D or NEC/QSC. The hammer really fell when IMAX started charging chains to access IMAX for updates and file downloads, on top of paying ISP's.

IMAX has killed itself from poor management, Blu-Ray might be dead, 3D is not dead.

This is exactly correct. Theaters are very frustrated with IMAX. They will be their own undoing.

You seem to be under the impression it is more costly to create 3D in post rather than when shooting. You also seem to be under the impression that post converted 3D looks better than native 3D.

Shooting natively in 3D is a painstaking process requiring care in setting up and adjusting the specialised camera rigs. It can slow down shooting and thus indirectly add to expense. (Also it may call for a certain extent of tweaking in post anyway.) It may very well turn out to be more expensive to shoot 3D natively than to leave everything to post conversion. And it demands patience and perseverance during the shooting. Not all directors are sufficiently committed to 3D to be prepared to go through the hassle of shooting stereoscopically.

At the current state of the art, 3D conversions are not as effective as native 3D for close-ups of human beings, or nature, or for rapid random motion such as swirling water. I noticed that even the painstaking conversion done for Titanic renders the swirling water in the sinking vessel as a blur a lot of the time. It's an extremely very well done conversion but has its limits. In the conversion for Jurassic Park the action at a medium distance is nicely done in 3D but in my opinion the close ups of human faces are rather flat and uninteresting.

The software for synthesising 3D views is becoming more sophisticated and the results are improving but the general opinion among lovers of 3D is that the very best 3D photography of real-life scenes is native 3D. Directors use post-conversion 3D for real-life scenes for the convenience it affords, and if they can get away with it. (Another reason can be that the film is planned to contain a large percentage of cgi rather than real-life content.)

David Attenborough has narrated a series of 3D nature documentaries. These were shot with stereo cameras. The alternative of shooting in 2D and post converting to 3D would have given a decidedly second-rate result, and would have been extremely difficult to do, as there were many close-ups of exotic creatures moving randomly, and of exotic plants with intricate structures. Some scenes simply have to be shot stereoscopically for good 3D results.