Here Comes the 3-D Camera: Revolutionary Prototype Films World in Three Dimensions

Discussion in 'Digital Cameras' started by charles, May 12, 2010.

  1. charles

    charles Guest

    ScienceDaily (May 11, 2010) — It's no pun: we are truly entering a new
    dimension in technology with the 3-D digital camera developed by the
    researchers of Fondazione Bruno Kessler (FBK) in Trento.

    Virtual reality, security and surveillance, monitoring of the homes of
    the elderly, videogames. These are just some of the possible
    application of the patented prototype to be presented for the first
    time ever tomorrow in Eindhoven (The Netherlands), on the occasion of
    the scientific conference regarding the European project Netcarity.

    Designed by David Stoppa and his colleagues at the SOI (integrated
    optical sensors) Research Unit of Fondazione Bruno Kessler, the new
    technology also represents a new record for Italian research: the
    physical dimensions of the reading cell that captures the light on the
    camera's sensor has the smallest pixel currently in existence in this
    field (10 ?m, i.e. ten millionths of a metre, approximately one tenth
    the size of a human hair) which provides the prototype with the
    capacity to capture images with the largest quantity of details
    possible

    <more> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/05/100510075413.htm
     
    charles, May 12, 2010
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. charles

    charles Guest


    I liked the part where it said
    "sophisticated micro-sensor known as "CMOS""
     
    charles, May 12, 2010
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. charles

    Guest Guest

    no offense, but kodachrome doesn't have any pixels at all nor does the
    stereo realist work the same way.
     
    Guest, May 12, 2010
    #3
  4. charles

    Guest Guest

    facts seems lost on you
    not even remotely true. kodachrome is (was) good, but digital is
    better, and one need not spend even 1/10th of the $30k to do it.

    what are you going to do when the single remaining kodachrome lab
    ceases to process it?
    some 3d systems do not need special viewers or glasses, so yes, it does
    matter.
     
    Guest, May 12, 2010
    #4
  5. charles

    Bruce Guest


    Thanks for the reminder.

    I must shoot my remaining Kodachrome and have it processed this year.
    I must shoot my remaining Kodachrome and have it processed this year.
    I must shoot my remaining Kodachrome and have it processed this year.
    I must ...

    etc..
     
    Bruce, May 12, 2010
    #5
  6. charles

    J. Clarke Guest

    No, the stereo realist doesn't scan the subject with a laser and measure
    the distance to everything, so it was actually useful for shooting
    something farther away than the other side of the room.

    The "revolutionary prototype" is not intended as a camera for general
    photography, it's intended as some kind of security camera that avoids
    the necessity of analyzing image pairs to extract 3d information,
    something the human brain does in realtime.

    As for Kodachrome, care to present some data on measured resolution with
    equivalent optics?
     
    J. Clarke, May 12, 2010
    #6
  7. charles

    Peter Guest


    Using your logic, 3d viewing has bee around a lot longer than 1950.
    http://www.bitwise.net/~ken-bill/stereo.htm
     
    Peter, May 12, 2010
    #7
  8. charles

    J. Clarke Guest

    So do you have some numbers to present that show that $3K digital
    cameras have higher resolution that Kodachrome? And sites that compare
    the output of a digital camera with a scan of a slide don't
    count--they're showing you the resolution of the scanner, not of the film.
    Which "3d systems" are these? Or are you talking about stereo pairs
    that require that one strain ones eyes to merge the images?
     
    J. Clarke, May 12, 2010
    #8
  9. charles

    J. Clarke Guest

    Yes, it has. You seem to think that the stereopticon is something
    obscure. They were quite popular. You might also want to google
    "viewmaster", which went on the market in 1939 and which just about
    every kid in America had or wanted in the '50s.
     
    J. Clarke, May 12, 2010
    #9

  10. Mama don't take my Kodachrome,

    Mama don't take my Kodachrome,

    Mama don't take my Kodachrome awaaa ayyyaaay.....
     
    John McWilliams, May 12, 2010
    #10
  11. charles

    Guest Guest

    <http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/film.vs.digital.summary1/index.html>

    around 8-10 megapixels, digital starts to eclipse kodachrome 64 and
    who wants to be stuck at iso 64 anyway? digital cameras today can
    produce grain free images with great colour at iso 800-1600. no film
    can do that.
    if the scanner resolution can resolve individual film grains (which
    high end scanners can), then the scanner is not a limitation. it's
    actually the only way to compare them without introducing additional
    variables. if you print the digital image and compare prints, you end
    up comparing print quality, not image quality.
    there are lcd displays that don't require glasses. sharp had a 3d
    laptop over 5 years ago, the rd3d. it wasn't a very good laptop but the
    3d screen worked rather well, with no glasses at all. it did have a
    limited viewing angle but it wasn't as restrictive as it might sound
    from the reviews. i saw one at a photo show, with a bunch of 3d images
    on it.

    <http://www.pcworld.com/article/112887/sharp_ships_notebook_with_3d_scre
    en.html>
     
    Guest, May 12, 2010
    #11
  12. charles

    Bruce Guest


    I never thought I would say this, but I'm not going to miss
    Kodachrome. I only use black and white film now, and only for a very
    limited part of my work - black and white portraits and fine art
    prints.

    All my wedding work is now digital unless the client specifically
    requests black and white, and that hasn't happened yet in 2010.
     
    Bruce, May 12, 2010
    #12
  13. charles

    Robert Coe Guest

    : I never thought I would say this, but I'm not going to miss
    : Kodachrome. I only use black and white film now, and only for a very
    : limited part of my work - black and white portraits and fine art
    : prints.
    :
    : All my wedding work is now digital unless the client specifically
    : requests black and white, and that hasn't happened yet in 2010.

    Out of nothing more than idle curiosity, why don't you do your B&W wedding and
    portrait work in digital as well? Wedding photography is already so hard that
    I'd think that the extra work of converting the results of a given shoot to
    B&W would be pretty much at the noise level. Do you really get noticeably
    better results with film?

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, May 12, 2010
    #13
  14. charles

    Robert Coe Guest

    : 3D is the same cheezy gimmick it was in the 1950's. Viewing movies in
    : 3D is a terrible experience. Dull, dim and low resolution, all to get
    : a phony extra dimension that NEVER looks real anyway.

    "House of Wax" (just to name one movie) looked real enough to scare the
    bejeezus out of kids my age who saw it.

    But I do agree with Rich that 3D is a gimmick that probably has little staying
    power, despite the money being thrown at it by the film and TV industries. I
    might not be quite so quick to say that if we hadn't been there before in my
    lifetime.

    I got sneered at a few months ago for allowing as how the digital revolution
    effectively spells the end for film photography. I still believe that, but the
    3D revolution, such as it is, will have nothing like that effect. For one
    thing, 3D replaces a simple, relatively inexpensive technology with something
    much more complicated and costly. The digital revolution did exactly the
    opposite.

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, May 13, 2010
    #14
  15. charles

    Bruce Guest


    Obviously I could, but the results are quite different. Of course I
    can quite easily produce a synthesised B&W image from a digital file,
    but it just isn't the same.

    Whether the film result is "noticeably better" is a matter of opinion,
    and I don't intend to start a debate on that here, not when far more
    suitable forums exist elsewhere, where it has already been discussed
    to death many times. ;-)

    I omitted to mention that I keep a small stock of Fuji Provia 4x5 inch
    sheet film which I use for architectural photography and landscapes.
    However, because of the recession, opportunities to use it are rare,
    so I forgot to mention it. Until mid-2009 I also used 4x5 for food
    photography. But now I do all that with a Hasselblad DSLR. Being
    able to review shots immediately after taking them is invaluable.

    So for me, apart from a small amount of B&W work, film is dead.
     
    Bruce, May 13, 2010
    #15
  16. charles

    Bruce Guest


    That over-emotive description doesn't remotely resemble the experience
    of watching 3D at an IMAX cinema. The IMAX system is spectacularly
    good - so good that 3D films produced for the IMAX system milk its
    abilities, and then some. But it is technically competent.

    Unfortunately, the high cost of building and operating IMAX cinemas
    means that a cheaper form of 3D needed to be found. Perhaps that is
    what you were referring to?
     
    Bruce, May 13, 2010
    #16
  17. charles

    Robert Coe Guest

    : Michael wrote:
    : <snip>
    : > I am old enough to remember when color TV came out in the mid 1950s. It
    : > cost $495 1954 dollars, and there was, at the beginning, perhaps ONE
    : > color broadcast a week, only on NBC, and in primetime. NBC broadcast
    : > color patterns during the day so that "those with color sets could
    : > adjust their TVs." We have come some way.
    : >
    : > But I watched the Panasonic 3D TV at Best Buy. You can buy a good 50
    : > inch 1080p HDTV for well under $1K. This thing was $2600 and the extra
    : > glasses cost a lot. And there are very few shows in 3D. Color was a big
    : > deal. 3D (stereo realist type) is very realistic and very good, and
    : > perhaps 3D television of that quality could also be a big deal, but the
    : > TV I saw was awful.
    : >
    : > 25 years ago I watched a very realistic 3D movie at the Kodak pavilion
    : > at Disney World, with lightweight polarizing glasses. Far better than
    : > the cardboard cutout 3D on the Panasonic TV.
    :
    : The RCA system was adopted by the FCC over the opposing CBS proposed
    : system--in a total no-brainer vote. The CBS system used a rotating color
    : wheel in front of the screen, which had to be perfectly synchronized
    : with the signal. The radius of this wheel had to be at least the
    : diagonal of the screen, so that a 50" set would have required a wheel
    : with a diameter of more than 100", or 8 feet 4 inches. Pretty hard trick
    : in the average house with the usual 8 foot ceiling.

    I don't remember the rotating wheel, but I do remember that the NBC system was
    chosen primarily because it was compatible with existing B&W TV sets, whilst
    its principal competitor wasn't.

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, May 14, 2010
    #17
  18. charles

    Peter Guest



    You were lucky to have an 18" set. 50" ???? Not in those days. At least not
    in your home.
     
    Peter, May 14, 2010
    #18
  19. charles

    Peter Irwin Guest

    Peter Irwin, May 14, 2010
    #19
  20. charles

    John Turco Guest


    Philo T. Farnsworth was a (largely unsung) American hero and the genuine
    inventor of modern television.

    The late, unlamented RCA (which owned the NBC network) acquired his TV
    patents...and the rest is history.
     
    John Turco, May 31, 2010
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.