# 3D EF lens



## Flake (Sep 13, 2011)

Given Canons success with the video side of its DSLRs it's inevitable they are going to want to keep pace, and the current demand for 3D is almost overwhelming. Virtually all new screens are now offering 3D and the price is falling all the time, the issue is content for which there is huge demand.

I remember the 'Nimslo' 3D camera (nearly bought one) as I remember film had to be sent to some country like Switzerland for processing, it's nothing new for stills, but given todays multi media methods it can't be long before there's demand from web users for 3D images. I can see a day when news organisations print an image in 2D and have 3D (switchable) on their web pages. It might someday be the case that anyone wanting to supply commerical images is forced by market pressure to offer a 3D option.

Sometime there will inevitably be a 3D lens for EOS cameras I hope it's not too expensive!


----------



## EYEONE (Sep 13, 2011)

Flake said:


> the current demand for 3D is almost overwhelming.




It is?


----------



## dr croubie (Sep 13, 2011)

I heard recently (i'll look for the news article later) that the TV stations in australia have cut back or almost entirely switched off their 3D TV broadcasts, from lack of interest...

edit: example: http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/tv-chiefs-quietly-mothball-3d-plans/story-e6freon6-1226111905469


----------



## Flake (Sep 13, 2011)

Well it could all be a flash in the pan - but there's loads of 3D TVs out there, the issue is a lack of content to play on them. It seems Blu Ray is going to go down the pan because of high prices and people not noticing enough difference. The two current systems, active & passive 3D are still vying for supremecy with passive looking more likely to be the winner. 

People buying these TVs are wanting content and there's demand - where there's demand there are people looking to make a profit by satisfying it, for us it might be gimmicky, and a nightmare to work on in PP, but if there's a market demand those able to satisfy it could make some decent money (for a change!)


----------



## dr croubie (Sep 14, 2011)

There's also a lot of people who don't actually care about TVs that much (or maybe i'm the exception? I can't be the only one who just has the TV as background noise/side glances while I use my computer).
My tv is 25 years old, has an RF-aerial input only (have to go through the VCR to play a DVD, and only bought the DVD player 4 years ago).
I still don't even have a digital tuner, and only 2 years before they turn off the analogue broadcasts (which they were meant to turn off end of 2009, but by then not even 25% of aussies could receive digital TV).
But then, my PC monitor is kick-ass (27" 2560x1440 Dell Ultrasharp), and I'd rather spend my money on better lenses...

As for the general population, I'm sure there are a fair few people who would like there to be more 3D TV broadcasts, but it's still a 'niche', and obviously not worth the advertising revenue vs transmission costs. Pay-TV still has some 3D content, but they never even state the fact whenever they advertise on free-to-air. Could be different in the States or Japan, but with the way their economies are going, i'd rather be eating a meal than watching a fancy TV.


Back to photos though, 3D photography has been around for a hundred years or more, I love this guy from 1955-73:






As for digital 3D stills, even the 'canon rep' in some other post said that 3D still were 'inevitable'. But i'm guessing more a 5-10 year timeframe than in 1-3 years.

Just a few musings on hurdles to overcome:

File formats. Are there even any standardised file formats for 3D pictures? (serious question, not rhetorical) Displaying 3D web content like you suggested is certainly plausible, i'd suggest even inevitable (eventually). But think about windows only just having added RAW support to their inbuilt viewers, how long until they add a 3D image-plugin after 3D cameras even materialise? we're just at the point where webpages can play video without flash plugins (newest versions of firefox at least), after 10 years or more of digital video being popular.

Monitors. Early adopters and gamers (and those suckered in by the WK2010 3D broadcasts) might be making inroads to 3d TVs, but that's a very small proportion of people. I know people still using CRT monitors for web-browsing. Tablet PCs and laptops are taking over from the desktop PC, maybe it's easier for them to make 3D screens on the latest gidget, I don't know. But for those who *have* to upgrade their phone every year or more, there has to be new features in the new model (to justify it being a 'new' model), and eventually that new feature will be a 3D screen for which you don't need glasses. And when that happens, the content will come, eventually.

Printing. I know not as many people print photos compared to looking at them on a screen, but i'd guess just as many print now as did back in the film days. Until someone figures out how to print a 3D photo to paper, there's a big roadblock. Of course, there are digital photo-frames (despite the horridly low-resolution of the ones i've seen), they can be made 3D as easily as a TV. But I predict them to die a slow death, with everyone becoming more and more power-conscious and turning TVs off at the plug to save a Watt or two worth of standby power, who'd have a screen projecting an image 24/7?

Cameras. There's your biggest sticking point, imho. Check out the Sputnik above. My main problems with making this digital are:
Two lenses or one?
One lens makes focussing more accurate, but then what? split the image down the middle (if it can even be done, i haven't thought enough about it), and the sensor has to be smaller to cover the image circle, or you need an MF-sized lens. Then the left side of the right image, and the right side of the left image are in the middle of the image circle = good IQ. The other edges, however are (almost by definition) fuzzier on all but the best lenses. Think about field curvature too, no way something like the 24-70 would cut it.

Two lenses, for a start you're limited to primes without some way to ultra-precisely match zoom lengths. Even with prime lenses, think about focussing. with anything faster than f/2.8 and/or longer than 35mm or so, DOF is going to be small. By definition the 2 lenses are looking at different angles, and they might be AFing on slightly different points. Leica may have more success adapting a rangefinder lens for 3D than a canikon AF lens.

One body or two? A two-lens single body will be huge. Huge. You have to make the body wide enough that any lens won't bump into the other. If you take two 400 f/2.8s side-by-side on one body, that body's going to be at least 30-50cm wide, not to mention the weight. Or limit the body to only certain lenses, and you're alienating a lot of people and uses. (I really do like the idea of 3D telezoom photos of wildlife, now that I think about it)

Two bodies? Well, if you can get two well-matched primes and bodies, MF them accurately (and/or stop down) enough, trigger them at precisely the same time, then you can make a nice 3D photo. But then, you can do that now, if you can afford to double your kit. No need to build a new body for that, you just need the file-format and processing software (which probably does exist already).

I'm not saying that a single-body consumer-affordable solution is not going to happen, i'm certain it will happen one day, but i think i'm more than safe saying i'll see a 100mp 1Ds mk7 first.
Or widen the search, with a radically new body, with a new lens-mount, with a dedicated non-changeable lens, with lower quality pics, it could happen as soon as a year or two, at least as a prototype/gimmick...


----------



## unfocused (Sep 14, 2011)

EYEONE said:


> Flake said:
> 
> 
> > the current demand for 3D is almost overwhelming.
> ...



I'm not seeing any overwhelming demand. 3-D breathed new life into animation and now live action movies are trying to capitalize on it. Mostly the film industry saw it as a way to bring audiences back into theaters, but from what I can tell, it's fast losing its appeal.

Prices may be dropping on 3-D televisions, but is that because demand is up or because retailers are having a hard time moving them?

Only one 3D television is listed among Amazon's top 10 sellers and just three are among the top 20. Doesn't sound like overwhelming demand to me.

3D stills have been around since the mid 19th century and demand is lower today than it was then. 

Now, a little hologram that you can hold in your hand and rotate around, that could be cool. 

But, if I want to look at a 3D pictures, I can always pop an image in my stereoscope and be transported back to the 19th century.


----------



## EYEONE (Sep 14, 2011)

Yeah this 3D thing shows up every so often and then fades away. I have yet to see a movie in the theater in 3D unless wasn't a 2D option. And I've yet to be convinced that the 3D made the movie better.

I'm all about cool new tech. And cool new TVs. I have a 52in Samsung 1080p 120hz TV in my living room and a Onkyo 7.1 surround sound setup. And I have zero interest in getting a 3D TV. I don't know if it's because I already paid a lot for that stuff or not. I really think it's just because there is no need in it. 

Maybe, just MAYBE when they figure out how to get an entire room viewing 3D without glasses I'll think about getting one. And when my TV breaks.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Sep 14, 2011)

EYEONE said:


> Flake said:
> 
> 
> > the current demand for 3D is almost overwhelming.
> ...



Of course! Everyone has 3D screens for their computers, all the websites use it, and of course, we all have 3D printers. That must be driving the demand. :

The first 3D cameras I came in contact with were the view master cameras that came out in the 1950's, and you could have the slides mounted on a view master reel.

http://www.viewmaster.co.uk/htm/camera.asp

Viewmaster sold a ton of slide reels with 3D scenes from all over the world, but the cameras never took off, and are long gone. There was never any overwhelming demand, then or now.


----------



## 7enderbender (Sep 14, 2011)

Flake said:


> Given Canons success with the video side of its DSLRs it's inevitable they are going to want to keep pace, and the current demand for 3D is almost overwhelming. Virtually all new screens are now offering 3D and the price is falling all the time, the issue is content for which there is huge demand.
> 
> I remember the 'Nimslo' 3D camera (nearly bought one) as I remember film had to be sent to some country like Switzerland for processing, it's nothing new for stills, but given todays multi media methods it can't be long before there's demand from web users for 3D images. I can see a day when news organisations print an image in 2D and have 3D (switchable) on their web pages. It might someday be the case that anyone wanting to supply commerical images is forced by market pressure to offer a 3D option.
> 
> Sometime there will inevitably be a 3D lens for EOS cameras I hope it's not too expensive!



Really? Hasn't this been tried for decades without ever taking off? But now this time around it'll all be different? I don't see it. It's a gimmick nothing more. I was waiting for my wife downtown recently and the kids and I sat down in the TV section of a BestBuy. So we tried the big 3D TV screen. Very unimpressive. You couldn't pay me to put one of those into our family room. But then again, I'm the type who still has pretty basic cable and a small CRT TV hidden in a closet. There is still a lot of reading in our house. Actual books. That's 3D enough for me. [/social commentary]


----------



## Forceflow (Sep 14, 2011)

Well, there are already 3D cameras out there. (P&S mostly I think) Sure, Canon might jump onto that train as well, but I highly doubt that will be with the EF system. It just would never be feasible to do it. One single lens can't do it, and the lens designs I have seen that could pull it off loose an insane amount of detail. So the only logical thing to do would be two lenses, but with the EF system things would simply get far too large and complicated...


----------



## J. McCabe (Sep 14, 2011)

dr croubie said:


> There's also a lot of people who don't actually care about TVs that much (or maybe i'm the exception? I can't be the only one who just has the TV as background noise/side glances while I use my computer).



I don't have a TV for several years. Around here, anyone who owns a TV set has to pay a tax of ~U.S.$135 per year for the dubious pleasure of having access (or - I kid you not - possibly having access one of those days) to goverment owned channels. So, beside not being temped to watch trash content, I save myself some money.

Having seen 3D movies in cinema, I have no idea who would like to see 3D TV shows.


----------



## iaind (Sep 14, 2011)

Back in the golden age of film I saw a pair of bodies mounted side by side on a large bar with twin cable release,taking stereoscopic images of trains.
The price of replicating that setup with any body from 7d up especially with big whites would be astronomical,
not to mention the stability issues. 
Do you want to watch images using those silly red and green specs. Also how would you print the resultant image?


----------



## NormanBates (Sep 14, 2011)

yes, they'll surely come with a 3D lens for aps-c cameras, and some software to turn a still with two image circles into a 3D image which could have been taken with a powershot, but is in 3D

and it will be a flop, because the fad will have died down by then

as it has always done in the past:
http://www.sonyrumors.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/3D-Movie-Timeline-Medium.jpg

oh, and I forgot to say: it's dying down already, the 3D version of many movies in 2011 is getting very little interest (in pirates 4, as an extreme example, the average 2D screen had twice as many viewers as the average 3D screen)


----------



## J. McCabe (Sep 14, 2011)

iaind said:


> Back in the golden age of film I saw a pair of bodies mounted side by side on a large bar with twin cable release,taking stereoscopic images of trains.
> The price of replicating that setup with any body from 7d up especially with big whites would be astronomical,
> not to mention the stability issues.



Pardon my ignorance, but wouldn't using 300mm and longer lenses be unusual for movies ?


----------



## EYEONE (Sep 14, 2011)

NormanBates said:


> yes, they'll surely come with a 3D lens for aps-c cameras, and some software to turn a still with two image circles into a 3D image which could have been taken with a powershot, but is in 3D
> 
> and it will be a flop, because the fad will have died down by then
> 
> ...



That link is a fantastic resource. Thanks for that!


----------



## iaind (Sep 14, 2011)

J. McCabe said:


> iaind said:
> 
> 
> > Back in the golden age of film I saw a pair of bodies mounted side by side on a large bar with twin cable release,taking stereoscopic images of trains.
> ...



I was referring to a stills setup.


----------



## Flake (Sep 25, 2011)

DPreview publish a 3D primer with an indication of how the market is expected to develop.

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/5239141538/3d-video-primer-part-2


----------



## Rocky (Sep 25, 2011)

Flake said:


> Given Canons success with the video side of its DSLRs it's inevitable they are going to want to keep pace, and the current demand for 3D is almost overwhelming. Virtually all new screens are now offering 3D and the price is falling all the time, the issue is content for which there is huge demand.
> 
> I remember the 'Nimslo' 3D camera (nearly bought one) as I remember film had to be sent to some country like Switzerland for processing, it's nothing new for stills, but given todays multi media methods it can't be long before there's demand from web users for 3D images. I can see a day when news organisations print an image in 2D and have 3D (switchable) on their web pages. It might someday be the case that anyone wanting to supply commerical images is forced by market pressure to offer a 3D option.
> 
> Sometime there will inevitably be a 3D lens for EOS cameras I hope it's not too expensive!


In the 40's and 50's there is a few attachemnt (Exakta has one for sure , I think Leica may have one also) made to be screw on the front of the lens (like a filter) to take stereo pictures by spliting the 35mm frame (film) into two half frames and get the stereo effect. may be you can look into ebay and see if anybody is selling it. the official name at those time is called "stereo attachment. That may be your most inexpensive option.


----------



## moreorless (Sep 26, 2011)

I do see 3D photography and video being a potential seller personally, TV always looked iffy to me because it tends to be a much more passive expereince than going to the cinema which people arent going to want to wear goofy glasses for. Watching home movies or a TV slideshow though do seem like the kind of thing people would be willing to wear them though IMHO.


----------



## TexPhoto (Sep 26, 2011)

I need 3D video like a duck needs a hammer.


----------



## Hillsilly (Sep 27, 2011)

My new phone (HTC Evo 3D) has a 3D camera for stills and video. Have taken a few 3D photos and videos, and I have to admit it is very cool. But ulitmately I think it is a bit of a gimmick and I'm sure I will get bored with it soon and switch it back to 2D.


----------



## Guru (Sep 27, 2011)

Heres an example of a guy doing 3D HDR photos with a Canon 7D
http://youtu.be/5L4NtRiIKOU

He shows here the custom head he made for taking the photos. Resembles a macro rail a bit...
http://youtu.be/Y7Sx0iyPz10


----------

