| Author | Message | ||
     Anonymous Rating: N/A |
Last week at the NAB convention, Canon USA announced the introduction of a 3D lens for their XL1 camcorder. Check it out in the digital camcorder section of their web site www.cust.canon.com | ||
| Alexander Oest Rating: N/A |
This certainly is a fascinating product. I read about it some five months ago. Checked with Danish distributors, but they were unable to find any informaiton on the lens - let alone supply me with one. Does it's introduction on the NAB convention mean, that now it'll be available? Hope we Europeans can have it, too. Did you get any impression of the price? I'm afraid that it'll be more expensive than the XL1 itself. We've got the XL1 at my workplace, and if the price is reasonnable, I might just be able to convince the boss, that we need this lens ;-) Alex btw, your link doesn't work. Here's a couple of old ones (from when I first read about it): http://www.canondv.com/xl1/3d_lens/overview.html http://www.canondv.com/xl1/3d_lens/concept.html | ||
| Greg K Rating: N/A |
I could be wrong, but I seem to remember a $4000 (US) price tag mentioned somewhere. | ||
| Christoph Bungert (Admin) Rating: N/A |
Cool, I'm surprised Canon did something like this. What's much less surprising is this statement from the mentioned pages: "This is a concept lens, with no announced delivery date or pricing." The lens alone doesn't solve any of the major problems: editing, playback, distribution of the videos. The lens should come with a special DV-board, PC-editing software and glasses. Who would buy this? For amateurs it's too expensive. TV-Professionals work with Pulfrich and anaglyph format. Movie-professionals work with 70mm for theme parks and IMAX-3D. Industry-professionals work with computer-simulation, not low-res video stuff. I don't see the market and Canon won't see it either. Christoph | ||
| Michael Seidel Rating: N/A |
Another digital-image news-site states a price of 8500 USD for the Canon 3D lens (available in October this year). http://www.steves-digicams.com/diginews.html M. Seidel | ||
| Eric Lindstrom Rating: N/A |
...As it should be, the NAB convention is for broadcasters, and others that work in the media. I know, I've been to NAB a few times (I used to work in radio for a while) This has an interesting implication to it; Is the media perhaps contemplating the inclusion of stereoscopic programming for HDTV? This could be interesting! Radio had made the leap from mono to stereo programming decades ago, it's about time TV did the same. This info makes perfect sense, and it seems to me that it's a sign of promising things to come in the not-too-distant future. Thanks for the post, Anon, I for one find it interesting info! -Eric L. | ||
| Anonymous Rating: N/A |
i understand the Cannon will sell for $8000 U S it renders a slightly sharper 3d stereoscopic video image then the Neu-View 3d attachment by i-glasses. Neu-View $499 Cannon 3d lens $8000= same affect as Neu-View Neu-View really works and is a super bargan Cannon has good peoducts but are overpriced for the none pros like me. just my opinion. | ||
| Christoph Bungert (Admin) Rating: N/A |
>>>Radio had made the leap from mono to stereo programming decades ago, it's about time TV did the same. Stereo-sound has nothing but advantages over mono-sound. Color-film and color-TV have nothing but advantages over black & white. With stereoscopy, it's different. Focusing and convergence in Stereo-TV are not natural and will cause headaches in many people. I think noone could stand hours of 3D-TV day in day out. The technology isn't mature yet. For more natural 3D we'd need headsets with eye-tracking and very complex optics and software for adaptive focusing and such. Not even the most expensive VR-helmets do this yet. Christoph | ||
| Eric Lindstrom Rating: N/A |
>Focusing and convergence in Stereo-TV are not natural and will cause headaches in many people. I think noone could stand hours of 3D-TV day in day out. The technology isn't mature yet. --- While this is true, You are wrong when you say stereo convergence is not natural. Unless you are blind, or lost an eye in a war, stereo convergence is a natural thing for every person on the planet. While many people aren't cognitive of the fact that the world is naturally displayed in stereo, they can still see in stereo. Ask anyone to navigate an unknown area with one eye closed, and they will bump into things because of the lack of depth perception. It's an almost essential part of human vision. While you are right when you say that optimally, eye-tracking would be the BEST solution to the problems, the main reason why people get headaches when trying to view stereo-encoded content is eyestrain, resulting from a flaw in the way the stereo is either created or presented. Low-monitor refresh rates, colored filters, odd polarization, and overly offset stereo pairs are the things that cause headaches and the like. The muscles in and around the eye compensate for poorly produced or displayed stereo images by constantly re-adjusting and re-focusing themselves. This is what causes the headaches. you will also get a headache from staring at a monitor too long, or staring at the screen in an overly darkened room for long periods of time. In all these scenarios, eyestrain is the culprit, and it is caused by affixing various tourture devices to the eye, forcing them to do the unnatural things you speak of. LCD shutters are the one exception, if aternating at a speed that is fast enough, they produce no eyestrain or flicker. Now, seeing that the refresh rates of a plasma-based HDTV screen is much faster than those of your average TV set, and LCD shutterglasses are cheaper than ever, I would think it would be easier to tolerate than you would reason. The Canon lens is ovbiously accurate; the price tag tells the tale. Here are your high-quality optics. Add in a nearly $3000 HDTV for a display, and a quality pair of shutterglasses ($50-100 range) and you would end up with a high-quality stereo viewing system. and likely one that wouldn't produce many headaches. Besides, A viewer could always have an option to turn the stereo off by simply omitting one of the images in the stereo pair, a feature that is easily added to a stereo-capable HDTV. I would suspect HDTV that uses a page-flipping method with shutterglasses at atound 120-130Hz vertical refresh would produce a nice, flicker-free stereo image with no headache, so long as the filmed stereo-pair was accurate, which it probably would be with an $8000 stereo lens setup. With a properly photographed stereo pair, a high refresh rate, and half-decent shutterglasses, headaches would be a thing of the past. I remember when I would watch old polarized 3-D movies, I would always have a splitting headache by the end of it (most of them had intermissions, and this helped, but didn't correct the problem) Nowadays, I can sit playing Mechwarrior 4 with Shutterglasses and a 120Hz V-refresh rate for hours on end, and the only time I get a headache from it is when I stay way up too late deathmatching, So I'm pretty sure that exhaustion is the primary cause in those rare instances, although, staring at a monitor for 5 hours straight will give almost everybody a headache ^_^. Final thought, if you were to get headaches constantly while watching stereo programming on A HDTV, the cause would most probably be that the person was probably watching too much TV. Don't forget, Commercial breaks would be the perfect opportunity to give the eyes a rest, unless of course you wanna watch that Tampax® commercial in glorious HDTV stereo. Good Lord! let's hope that the advertisers don't get into that stuff too much! Stereo is the next logical jump in the evolution of media. Besides, most people will need some sort of additional incentive to plunk down almost $4000 on a new TV within the span of the next 3 years. Be a naysayer if you wish, but this would be a welcome addition to my home entertainment system, and most likely yours as well. So, what does everyone else think? would you like HDTV to go stereo-capable? What about programming? do you think it would benifit from the addition of stereoscopy? If people show interest, the entertainment industry listens. ^_^ -Eric L. | ||
| michael przewrocki Rating: N/A |
i have informations that canon was interested buying the licence from a 3d-projection-inventor. i have personally seen the 3d-videoprojection which consists of any camera with a setup of lenses and prism and the videoprojector with same or similar setup. up to 15 persons could sit in front of a lenticular screen and they could move there head within a range of about 30 cm with no headache. i asked canon today if they have more details. btw. dti anounced a 3d-screen 15 inches for 1700 usd(only for 1 person-viewing), 4d-vision.de (jena germany)want to offer their screen for 2000 dem(10000 dem today) within 2 years from now.- i have seen lens-producers making special 3d-lenses like canon has( 2 lenses in one). do not remember/find the link. michael | ||
| dietmar.rimkus Rating: N/A |
On the CEBIT fair in Germany in March 2003 I heard on the stand of Canon, that they will not introduce this lens to Europe and will put the Amarican poduction "onto ice" still there is more interest. it is a pitty! | ||
| Fed up with the lack of vision Rating: N/A |
The Industry does everything illogical: They have HDTV which is just below the resolution for realistic looking pictures (thus not pushing for full potential), then when they put out the TV's they don't have the programing or access and boxes readilly available, they don't have production of good enough digital cameras that can take advantage of home productions at that resolution, they don't have like you suggested a 3 d capable plan integrated in the new technology, and they don't have future plans on spherical HDTV 3d holographic style viewing. Is this 2003, we should be way past this HDTV stage by now because I'm not impressed by HDTV after sitting in front of my computer monitor getting higher resolutions and especially not after seeing 3d in those high resolutions. | ||
| Anonymous Rating: N/A |
Informative professional site, whatmore can i say!! | ||
| Anonymous Rating: N/A |
U've got good pics, the site could use a tiny bit of work (no offense) its still awesome |
