Will 3D photography come to SLR's?

D

danski

Suspended / Banned
Messages
470
Name
Dan
Edit My Images
Yes
So here's a question that may cause a little debate (hopefully).

I was wondering what if 3D lenses come to DSLR's? It's obviously happening with TV's, Camcorders, Cinemas and some P&S cameras (e.g. Fuji), but not with DSLR's as far as I'm aware - not on a big scale anyway (can't see this taking off if f/11 is the best it can do!).

But is it planned for DSLR's and if so, what effect might it have on today's lenses (e.g. devalue them as they become old/yesterday's tech).

Also - what are your thoughts around how much today's lenses, especially top-end lenses like the L series, will be used in say 10 years time. Will advances in photography have rendered them almost obsolete or will they continue to be considered as the lenses to have?

Just some idle Sunday afternoon thoughts, but thought it would be interesting to open up to other's thoughts/inputs.
 
i was speaking to a pro tog friend of mine last week and we were catching up on things.. he said that he'd been trying out some 3D lenses.. they were japanese make, compatible with his 7D.
he said it was an art in itself, as everything in the frame has to be completely still for it to work in 3D. so, no group shots, sports etc.. mainly still portraits, or static objects.

we went on to talk about football and boozy nights out.. so i didn't get any further with it :bonk:
 
I think the whole 3D thing is a simple gimmick, just as it was in the 80's. I dont want 3D in my movies, let alone my stills photos, its simply too much of a distraction!

Also, 3d images might look a bit cack printed on 10x8...
 
I'm also in 2 minds as to whether it's a passing fad or here to stay - done well (e.g. avatar) it's fantastic, but there aren't many good examples of it done well!

Rather than print, I was thinking more along the lines of viewing 3D images on the computer monitor, which is where the vast majority of images tend to be viewed from (or at least that's the case with mine!)
 
its a fad, and an annoying one. You can watch films now and point out the bits that were made for 3d, and it appears that is more important than the story. I think the same would be true for photos, people would be more concerned with the 3d aspect that the actual photo itself.

3D gaming is probably the only area I can see the technology staying.
 
Too much money's been poured in to 3d films for it to just be a passing fad - the studios will force it to be de-rigeur. In photography I think it serves less of a purpose and is less likely to take off.
 
danski said:
I'm also in 2 minds as to whether it's a passing fad or here to stay - done well (e.g. avatar) it's fantastic, but there aren't many good examples of it done well!

Rather than print, I was thinking more along the lines of viewing 3D images on the computer monitor, which is where the vast majority of images tend to be viewed from (or at least that's the case with mine!)
Click to expand...


^ indeed, which was my point about printing. I know most of us simply look at images on the screen, but to get the best out of them they should be printed. Its higher res and always looks better, thats proper photography!
 
Never going to get me investing in 3D stuff, not TV, not video, not cameras! :bat:
 
Dont forget '3D' has been around for decades already! I used to buy 3D comics in the 80's!!
 
One of those things that may come in the fullness of time but I cant see it becoming a regular thing for cameras in the next 10 years or so because of the limitations of having a static subject.And if the reults are anything like they were back in the 80,s they will be rubbish anyhow
 
The main disadvantage of 3d is that you are forced to wear those silly glasses. As I already wear glasses I'd have to wear TWO pairs!

Video can be added to a still frame DSLR without in any way affecting its primary use as a still camera, but I'm not so sure if this will remain true if they added 3d to a DSLR.

Also I'd imagine that the weight would be massive if say you were shooting a camera with twin 70-200/2.8 lenses attached!
 
I know you can take 2 images side by side and use software to make it 3d, but realistically, to do this in a dslr, aren't you going to need 2 sensors and 2 lenses? Could be expensive :p
 
It has already been done.

Clicky.
 
Stereoscopes werre invented in 1838, the artform of taking two photos at the same time from ever so slightly different perspectives. These two images are then view in a special viewer, with each eye looking at a single image, The brain then puts the 2 slightly different views together as one 3D image.

So rather than 3D being something new that is coming to a digital age, it is something very old that has not yet been put into a digital format, although it would be fairly simple to fix 2 cameras together with the lenses about eye distance apart and have them programmed to take shoot with the same settings at the same time.
 
As Lawrie says, 3D has been around since the dawn of photography. It comes and goes every 20 years or so (Nimslo anyone?) but never catches on for long. There is no easy way around viewing problem, and as long as we have two eyes, that will always be so.

It's a great novelty for the movie business, but it will never find a general consumer application. And that is even assuming that there was consumer demand - it's a gimmick, it actually looks unnatural, and it is very hard to do well. No thanks!
 
HoppyUK said:
It's a great novelty for the movie business, but it will never find a general consumer application. And that is even assuming that there was consumer demand - it's a gimmick, it actually looks unnatural, and it is very hard to do well. No thanks!
Click to expand...

I believe that you will find it has already found a general consumer application. 3d TV + 3d PS3 games + 3D BlueRays are proving to be very popular and seem to do the job very well.
 
whiteflyer said:
Wait till you see Avatar in NON 3D, I believe that it's a rather cack film when not shown 3D.

Overall I agree it's a passing fad.
Click to expand...

I only saw it on DVD, dreadful film.

You can get a 3D M4/3 lens already. I'm not into it personally at all and vote for the 'fad' option.
 
3D is not so much a fad , as a minority interest.
It became very popular in late Victorian and Edwardian times.
And just about every one and their dog had a Viewmaster 3D device after the war and up to about the 70's.

There were some excellent 35mm cameras made like the Stereo-Realist.

An interesting point about successful 3D is that interchangeable lenses have very little use, as the best effect is in the normal focal length range, so that it approximates the human eye.

Probably a APS sensored camera with an optical view finder would be the best option for a revival for high quality work. A DSLR would actually be more of a disadvantage.
 
Harvey_nikon said:
I believe that you will find it has already found a general consumer application. 3d TV + 3d PS3 games + 3D BlueRays are proving to be very popular and seem to do the job very well.
Click to expand...

You've got a point there - games is a good application :thumbs:

But as for us watching Eastenders in 3D, or anything but big movies ever being filmed in 3D, or more than a very small minority of consumers seriously taking 3D photos for any period of time after the Boxing Day novelty has worn off, well, I can't see that happening.

The problem is that despite the current fad, nothing has changed - you still need some form of complex viewing facility or polarised/coloured specs. That technology is not new at all.

And consumers have rejected the need or desire for 3D images time after time. The thing is, our brains are very clever and when we look at a 2D photo, we 'create' a mental 3D representation of the scene. 3D, far from looking natural, actually looks very odd.
 
odd jim said:
Also, 3d images might look a bit cack printed on 10x8...
Click to expand...

odd jim said:
^ indeed, which was my point about printing. I know most of us simply look at images on the screen, but to get the best out of them they should be printed. Its higher res and always looks better, thats proper photography!
Click to expand...

boliston said:
The main disadvantage of 3d is that you are forced to wear those silly glasses. As I already wear glasses I'd have to wear TWO pairs!
Click to expand...

Printing of 3D images can be done using Lenticular printing with no need for glasses to view them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top