Fuji 3w 3d cam whats the word on this anyways?
  1 / 2    
I have been looking at picking up this cam next month but reviews are slim to non right now. Some of you own it alrighty but i was hoping you could put up another review of your thoughts on this cam. It seems the next best thing is the panisonic dslr with optional 3d lenses but its still not done the way the fuji has implimented it and its 1400$. I have seen some video on utube that it takes but it seems jerky. Is this a side effect of utube or is this the video quility of the cam. My wife has given the go ahead and i can hardly contain myself but i know the issues with bleeding edge tech and may consiter waiting a while yet for a better alternative..........if there is one by years end.
I want to take video of the kids growing up and still shots. I would like to get some opinions as to just get a cheap camcorder for now or take the plunge and get the fuji. I dont plan on making full lengh movies but i do want decent video that wont disapoint and make others say "are you a moron, why would you pay that much for that crappy video". Like how everyone bought the 2233 and found out the top of the screen is not in 3d suprised. Im trying to reduce my buyers remorse but dang im really on the fence here with this purchase.

Most i expect is decent video of the kids playing in the yard, family reunions, christmas concerts and things like that. For still pics i would like more distant shots like sunsets and open fields, birds flying or a soccer game. I have a very good dslr for those truly special moments you dont want to chance to a point and shoot.
Could this replace a cheap camcorder or am i fooling myself into getting it and have a pissed of wife to deal with and 500$ broker

What do you guys think? The W1, even by fuji statements were that it was not a over the top success and only sold 600 or so units. The cam is 499$ plus tax (559$ with tax). I could have it in my hot little hands my mid next month or a new camcorder by months end.........................................im sooo torn.

PS. needs to work with my 2233 and nvidia 3d vision. I also will need to edit the video so is there any software for that also.
I have been looking at picking up this cam next month but reviews are slim to non right now. Some of you own it alrighty but i was hoping you could put up another review of your thoughts on this cam. It seems the next best thing is the panisonic dslr with optional 3d lenses but its still not done the way the fuji has implimented it and its 1400$. I have seen some video on utube that it takes but it seems jerky. Is this a side effect of utube or is this the video quility of the cam. My wife has given the go ahead and i can hardly contain myself but i know the issues with bleeding edge tech and may consiter waiting a while yet for a better alternative..........if there is one by years end.

I want to take video of the kids growing up and still shots. I would like to get some opinions as to just get a cheap camcorder for now or take the plunge and get the fuji. I dont plan on making full lengh movies but i do want decent video that wont disapoint and make others say "are you a moron, why would you pay that much for that crappy video". Like how everyone bought the 2233 and found out the top of the screen is not in 3d suprised. Im trying to reduce my buyers remorse but dang im really on the fence here with this purchase.



Most i expect is decent video of the kids playing in the yard, family reunions, christmas concerts and things like that. For still pics i would like more distant shots like sunsets and open fields, birds flying or a soccer game. I have a very good dslr for those truly special moments you dont want to chance to a point and shoot.

Could this replace a cheap camcorder or am i fooling myself into getting it and have a pissed of wife to deal with and 500$ broker



What do you guys think? The W1, even by fuji statements were that it was not a over the top success and only sold 600 or so units. The cam is 499$ plus tax (559$ with tax). I could have it in my hot little hands my mid next month or a new camcorder by months end.........................................im sooo torn.



PS. needs to work with my 2233 and nvidia 3d vision. I also will need to edit the video so is there any software for that also.
#1
Posted 09/22/2010 06:13 PM   
I have been looking at picking up this cam next month but reviews are slim to non right now. Some of you own it alrighty but i was hoping you could put up another review of your thoughts on this cam. It seems the next best thing is the panisonic dslr with optional 3d lenses but its still not done the way the fuji has implimented it and its 1400$. I have seen some video on utube that it takes but it seems jerky. Is this a side effect of utube or is this the video quility of the cam. My wife has given the go ahead and i can hardly contain myself but i know the issues with bleeding edge tech and may consiter waiting a while yet for a better alternative..........if there is one by years end.
I want to take video of the kids growing up and still shots. I would like to get some opinions as to just get a cheap camcorder for now or take the plunge and get the fuji. I dont plan on making full lengh movies but i do want decent video that wont disapoint and make others say "are you a moron, why would you pay that much for that crappy video". Like how everyone bought the 2233 and found out the top of the screen is not in 3d suprised. Im trying to reduce my buyers remorse but dang im really on the fence here with this purchase.

Most i expect is decent video of the kids playing in the yard, family reunions, christmas concerts and things like that. For still pics i would like more distant shots like sunsets and open fields, birds flying or a soccer game. I have a very good dslr for those truly special moments you dont want to chance to a point and shoot.
Could this replace a cheap camcorder or am i fooling myself into getting it and have a pissed of wife to deal with and 500$ broker

What do you guys think? The W1, even by fuji statements were that it was not a over the top success and only sold 600 or so units. The cam is 499$ plus tax (559$ with tax). I could have it in my hot little hands my mid next month or a new camcorder by months end.........................................im sooo torn.

PS. needs to work with my 2233 and nvidia 3d vision. I also will need to edit the video so is there any software for that also.
I have been looking at picking up this cam next month but reviews are slim to non right now. Some of you own it alrighty but i was hoping you could put up another review of your thoughts on this cam. It seems the next best thing is the panisonic dslr with optional 3d lenses but its still not done the way the fuji has implimented it and its 1400$. I have seen some video on utube that it takes but it seems jerky. Is this a side effect of utube or is this the video quility of the cam. My wife has given the go ahead and i can hardly contain myself but i know the issues with bleeding edge tech and may consiter waiting a while yet for a better alternative..........if there is one by years end.

I want to take video of the kids growing up and still shots. I would like to get some opinions as to just get a cheap camcorder for now or take the plunge and get the fuji. I dont plan on making full lengh movies but i do want decent video that wont disapoint and make others say "are you a moron, why would you pay that much for that crappy video". Like how everyone bought the 2233 and found out the top of the screen is not in 3d suprised. Im trying to reduce my buyers remorse but dang im really on the fence here with this purchase.



Most i expect is decent video of the kids playing in the yard, family reunions, christmas concerts and things like that. For still pics i would like more distant shots like sunsets and open fields, birds flying or a soccer game. I have a very good dslr for those truly special moments you dont want to chance to a point and shoot.

Could this replace a cheap camcorder or am i fooling myself into getting it and have a pissed of wife to deal with and 500$ broker



What do you guys think? The W1, even by fuji statements were that it was not a over the top success and only sold 600 or so units. The cam is 499$ plus tax (559$ with tax). I could have it in my hot little hands my mid next month or a new camcorder by months end.........................................im sooo torn.



PS. needs to work with my 2233 and nvidia 3d vision. I also will need to edit the video so is there any software for that also.
#2
Posted 09/22/2010 06:13 PM   
You should join the Yahoo group to read up on it and look at the sample videos provided by the member at their sites or on Youtube, I don't have the links since they scatter among the posts. Here's the link to the group: [url="http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/fuji3d/"]http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/fuji3d/[/url]

I had the W1 and now the W3, I love both but clearly the W3 is a better device and cheaper than its predecessor too. However, the W3's video is not of HD quality even though it's 720 and advertised as HD, the graininess is very heavy in low light and even in bright light you can still see some of it. But it's still _much_ better than what I had 10 years ago with the NuView adapter slapped on to my camcorder, in terms of (much smaller) size, ease of use, quality/resolution and price. (hehe, I paid over 500 bucks for just the adapter, another 1200 or so for a camcorder at 640x480 using mini DV tape, the Nuview alone must weight over a pound.)

The W3 still pictures are much better and with it being 3D I don't complain at all about its sharpness even though it can for sure be improved (like any other camera I guess, even the latest DSLR this year will be obsolete next year). The problem is, it's the only 3D digital camera in the world right now and there isn't anything better to pick and choose.

If the above sounds critical it is only because I don't want you to have false expectation. Personally I love the W1 and now the W3 even more. I own quite a few pieces of 2D photography equipment (including a few Canon L lenses) but I'm not using them at all since I got the Fuji 3D. It is not easy using a point and shoot camera like the Fuji W3 to take the kind of pictures you want but that's what I am trying to do since 2D photography is no longer appealing to me.

YMMV.
You should join the Yahoo group to read up on it and look at the sample videos provided by the member at their sites or on Youtube, I don't have the links since they scatter among the posts. Here's the link to the group: http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/fuji3d/



I had the W1 and now the W3, I love both but clearly the W3 is a better device and cheaper than its predecessor too. However, the W3's video is not of HD quality even though it's 720 and advertised as HD, the graininess is very heavy in low light and even in bright light you can still see some of it. But it's still _much_ better than what I had 10 years ago with the NuView adapter slapped on to my camcorder, in terms of (much smaller) size, ease of use, quality/resolution and price. (hehe, I paid over 500 bucks for just the adapter, another 1200 or so for a camcorder at 640x480 using mini DV tape, the Nuview alone must weight over a pound.)



The W3 still pictures are much better and with it being 3D I don't complain at all about its sharpness even though it can for sure be improved (like any other camera I guess, even the latest DSLR this year will be obsolete next year). The problem is, it's the only 3D digital camera in the world right now and there isn't anything better to pick and choose.



If the above sounds critical it is only because I don't want you to have false expectation. Personally I love the W1 and now the W3 even more. I own quite a few pieces of 2D photography equipment (including a few Canon L lenses) but I'm not using them at all since I got the Fuji 3D. It is not easy using a point and shoot camera like the Fuji W3 to take the kind of pictures you want but that's what I am trying to do since 2D photography is no longer appealing to me.



YMMV.

Xeon X5675 hex cores @4.4 GHz, GTX 1070, win10 pro
i7 7700k 5GHz, RTX 2080, win10 pro
Benq 2720Z, w1070, Oculus Rift cv1, Samsung Odyssey+

#3
Posted 09/23/2010 04:11 AM   
You should join the Yahoo group to read up on it and look at the sample videos provided by the member at their sites or on Youtube, I don't have the links since they scatter among the posts. Here's the link to the group: [url="http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/fuji3d/"]http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/fuji3d/[/url]

I had the W1 and now the W3, I love both but clearly the W3 is a better device and cheaper than its predecessor too. However, the W3's video is not of HD quality even though it's 720 and advertised as HD, the graininess is very heavy in low light and even in bright light you can still see some of it. But it's still _much_ better than what I had 10 years ago with the NuView adapter slapped on to my camcorder, in terms of (much smaller) size, ease of use, quality/resolution and price. (hehe, I paid over 500 bucks for just the adapter, another 1200 or so for a camcorder at 640x480 using mini DV tape, the Nuview alone must weight over a pound.)

The W3 still pictures are much better and with it being 3D I don't complain at all about its sharpness even though it can for sure be improved (like any other camera I guess, even the latest DSLR this year will be obsolete next year). The problem is, it's the only 3D digital camera in the world right now and there isn't anything better to pick and choose.

If the above sounds critical it is only because I don't want you to have false expectation. Personally I love the W1 and now the W3 even more. I own quite a few pieces of 2D photography equipment (including a few Canon L lenses) but I'm not using them at all since I got the Fuji 3D. It is not easy using a point and shoot camera like the Fuji W3 to take the kind of pictures you want but that's what I am trying to do since 2D photography is no longer appealing to me.

YMMV.
You should join the Yahoo group to read up on it and look at the sample videos provided by the member at their sites or on Youtube, I don't have the links since they scatter among the posts. Here's the link to the group: http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/fuji3d/



I had the W1 and now the W3, I love both but clearly the W3 is a better device and cheaper than its predecessor too. However, the W3's video is not of HD quality even though it's 720 and advertised as HD, the graininess is very heavy in low light and even in bright light you can still see some of it. But it's still _much_ better than what I had 10 years ago with the NuView adapter slapped on to my camcorder, in terms of (much smaller) size, ease of use, quality/resolution and price. (hehe, I paid over 500 bucks for just the adapter, another 1200 or so for a camcorder at 640x480 using mini DV tape, the Nuview alone must weight over a pound.)



The W3 still pictures are much better and with it being 3D I don't complain at all about its sharpness even though it can for sure be improved (like any other camera I guess, even the latest DSLR this year will be obsolete next year). The problem is, it's the only 3D digital camera in the world right now and there isn't anything better to pick and choose.



If the above sounds critical it is only because I don't want you to have false expectation. Personally I love the W1 and now the W3 even more. I own quite a few pieces of 2D photography equipment (including a few Canon L lenses) but I'm not using them at all since I got the Fuji 3D. It is not easy using a point and shoot camera like the Fuji W3 to take the kind of pictures you want but that's what I am trying to do since 2D photography is no longer appealing to me.



YMMV.

Xeon X5675 hex cores @4.4 GHz, GTX 1070, win10 pro
i7 7700k 5GHz, RTX 2080, win10 pro
Benq 2720Z, w1070, Oculus Rift cv1, Samsung Odyssey+

#4
Posted 09/23/2010 04:11 AM   
I have it and I like it. Perfect, no, but a keen gadget and takes cool 3D shots. I'm sure Sony will put out something better next year
I have it and I like it. Perfect, no, but a keen gadget and takes cool 3D shots. I'm sure Sony will put out something better next year

Windows 8
470GTX
Nvidia 3D Vision Kit (glasses are useless now)
Passive LG LW57000 55"
Optoma HD33
Razer Hydra
TrackIR
Oculus Rift (soon)
Two crossed eyes

#5
Posted 09/23/2010 07:24 AM   
I have it and I like it. Perfect, no, but a keen gadget and takes cool 3D shots. I'm sure Sony will put out something better next year
I have it and I like it. Perfect, no, but a keen gadget and takes cool 3D shots. I'm sure Sony will put out something better next year

Windows 8
470GTX
Nvidia 3D Vision Kit (glasses are useless now)
Passive LG LW57000 55"
Optoma HD33
Razer Hydra
TrackIR
Oculus Rift (soon)
Two crossed eyes

#6
Posted 09/23/2010 07:24 AM   
I had the w1 and now have the w3. To me, 3d video is a huge deal, so I was happy to see that they bumped up the video res to 720p, not happy that its only 24fps. It is good. It is rare to get any 3d solution that can do video. I have other 3d still solutions, like stereo data maker. For stills, the w1 and w3 may be about the same. Largely, there is not really a difference as I think it may be the identical sensor and lens, but with some firmware changes. The cosmetics are better for sure, I think the menu changed and is easier, but that isnt vital. The downside of the W3 may be battery life, the battery is about half the size of the w1. I assume the effort was to make the camera smaller and lighter no matter what. I would rather not have made it any smaller at all if they were going to chop the battery down to nothing. For video you need massive storage as they are using motion jpg as a codec and a 16 gig card gives you 22 minutes of video I think. By then, your battery may be dead too. If all you want is 3d stills, I would imagine that the w1 is really the same thing, maybe better since it has a bigger battery.

The camera is unique, so there is no real competition. Nothing other than much more expensive sony systems using lanc sync can do video in 3d with a tight sync. You see huge #s of clips out there that are 3d from cameras that are not in sync and it does make a big difference. The stereo data maker solution is one that has no sync for video, so it is painful to watch peoples videoes. I like the w3 for close up work, where the lenses need to be fairly close, but the camera has no raw capability, so the image quality is going to take a hit instantly just due to that. When you want to shoot something bigger, like a street scene, you are going to need to vary the seperation in the lenses, so an SDM rig is what you are going to want. I have both, so if I want to be descrete, I use the fuji. For the money, you can easily beat the quality of the fuji with a pair of used powershots and an SDM rig. No doubt. But, nothing can compare to the nicely synced video you can get out of the fuji w3. You have to drop over $1000 for a lanc sync and two sony cams, and then that rig probably will suck at stills. So in the entire world of 3d gear, its SDM, fuji, and lanc sony. There is also a company called Inlife that has claimed all kinds of stuff, but I dont know where you can actually get one of their cameras.

I personally would not want the lenses any closer together than on the fuji. It sort of defeats the purpose of shooting 3d if the 2 images are not really that different from each other. You end up with a big "who cares" coming from your audience. With the 3d, you need to overcome the hassle of the 3d glasses and all the other limitations, so you better be showing some depth in the result. You dont want a "correct" image that is yawn inducing. As soon as the nearest object is 15 feet from the Fuji, its yawn time, it isnt worth it. I have seen 3d showcases where the nearest object is 100 feet from the lens and the base is standard human eye spacing. It is going to cause the masses to think 3d is not worth anything if that keeps up. Your material is going to dictate what kind of 3d rig you need because it is not just the quality of the image, it is the ability to seperate those lenses that may determine what you need. So, there isnt an answer really. It depends on what you want to do.

100% video and I got $$$ - go with lanc synced Sony twin HD camcorders.
100% stills - I would go with an SDM rig due to the flexibility and superior optics.
50/50, the fuji easily wins because SDM really isnt great for video regardless of the resolution of the camera due to sync issues.
easiest - fuji no doubt, its all packaged up, you dont need to know anything to take the pictures.
I had the w1 and now have the w3. To me, 3d video is a huge deal, so I was happy to see that they bumped up the video res to 720p, not happy that its only 24fps. It is good. It is rare to get any 3d solution that can do video. I have other 3d still solutions, like stereo data maker. For stills, the w1 and w3 may be about the same. Largely, there is not really a difference as I think it may be the identical sensor and lens, but with some firmware changes. The cosmetics are better for sure, I think the menu changed and is easier, but that isnt vital. The downside of the W3 may be battery life, the battery is about half the size of the w1. I assume the effort was to make the camera smaller and lighter no matter what. I would rather not have made it any smaller at all if they were going to chop the battery down to nothing. For video you need massive storage as they are using motion jpg as a codec and a 16 gig card gives you 22 minutes of video I think. By then, your battery may be dead too. If all you want is 3d stills, I would imagine that the w1 is really the same thing, maybe better since it has a bigger battery.



The camera is unique, so there is no real competition. Nothing other than much more expensive sony systems using lanc sync can do video in 3d with a tight sync. You see huge #s of clips out there that are 3d from cameras that are not in sync and it does make a big difference. The stereo data maker solution is one that has no sync for video, so it is painful to watch peoples videoes. I like the w3 for close up work, where the lenses need to be fairly close, but the camera has no raw capability, so the image quality is going to take a hit instantly just due to that. When you want to shoot something bigger, like a street scene, you are going to need to vary the seperation in the lenses, so an SDM rig is what you are going to want. I have both, so if I want to be descrete, I use the fuji. For the money, you can easily beat the quality of the fuji with a pair of used powershots and an SDM rig. No doubt. But, nothing can compare to the nicely synced video you can get out of the fuji w3. You have to drop over $1000 for a lanc sync and two sony cams, and then that rig probably will suck at stills. So in the entire world of 3d gear, its SDM, fuji, and lanc sony. There is also a company called Inlife that has claimed all kinds of stuff, but I dont know where you can actually get one of their cameras.



I personally would not want the lenses any closer together than on the fuji. It sort of defeats the purpose of shooting 3d if the 2 images are not really that different from each other. You end up with a big "who cares" coming from your audience. With the 3d, you need to overcome the hassle of the 3d glasses and all the other limitations, so you better be showing some depth in the result. You dont want a "correct" image that is yawn inducing. As soon as the nearest object is 15 feet from the Fuji, its yawn time, it isnt worth it. I have seen 3d showcases where the nearest object is 100 feet from the lens and the base is standard human eye spacing. It is going to cause the masses to think 3d is not worth anything if that keeps up. Your material is going to dictate what kind of 3d rig you need because it is not just the quality of the image, it is the ability to seperate those lenses that may determine what you need. So, there isnt an answer really. It depends on what you want to do.



100% video and I got $$$ - go with lanc synced Sony twin HD camcorders.

100% stills - I would go with an SDM rig due to the flexibility and superior optics.

50/50, the fuji easily wins because SDM really isnt great for video regardless of the resolution of the camera due to sync issues.

easiest - fuji no doubt, its all packaged up, you dont need to know anything to take the pictures.

#7
Posted 09/23/2010 10:11 PM   
I had the w1 and now have the w3. To me, 3d video is a huge deal, so I was happy to see that they bumped up the video res to 720p, not happy that its only 24fps. It is good. It is rare to get any 3d solution that can do video. I have other 3d still solutions, like stereo data maker. For stills, the w1 and w3 may be about the same. Largely, there is not really a difference as I think it may be the identical sensor and lens, but with some firmware changes. The cosmetics are better for sure, I think the menu changed and is easier, but that isnt vital. The downside of the W3 may be battery life, the battery is about half the size of the w1. I assume the effort was to make the camera smaller and lighter no matter what. I would rather not have made it any smaller at all if they were going to chop the battery down to nothing. For video you need massive storage as they are using motion jpg as a codec and a 16 gig card gives you 22 minutes of video I think. By then, your battery may be dead too. If all you want is 3d stills, I would imagine that the w1 is really the same thing, maybe better since it has a bigger battery.

The camera is unique, so there is no real competition. Nothing other than much more expensive sony systems using lanc sync can do video in 3d with a tight sync. You see huge #s of clips out there that are 3d from cameras that are not in sync and it does make a big difference. The stereo data maker solution is one that has no sync for video, so it is painful to watch peoples videoes. I like the w3 for close up work, where the lenses need to be fairly close, but the camera has no raw capability, so the image quality is going to take a hit instantly just due to that. When you want to shoot something bigger, like a street scene, you are going to need to vary the seperation in the lenses, so an SDM rig is what you are going to want. I have both, so if I want to be descrete, I use the fuji. For the money, you can easily beat the quality of the fuji with a pair of used powershots and an SDM rig. No doubt. But, nothing can compare to the nicely synced video you can get out of the fuji w3. You have to drop over $1000 for a lanc sync and two sony cams, and then that rig probably will suck at stills. So in the entire world of 3d gear, its SDM, fuji, and lanc sony. There is also a company called Inlife that has claimed all kinds of stuff, but I dont know where you can actually get one of their cameras.

I personally would not want the lenses any closer together than on the fuji. It sort of defeats the purpose of shooting 3d if the 2 images are not really that different from each other. You end up with a big "who cares" coming from your audience. With the 3d, you need to overcome the hassle of the 3d glasses and all the other limitations, so you better be showing some depth in the result. You dont want a "correct" image that is yawn inducing. As soon as the nearest object is 15 feet from the Fuji, its yawn time, it isnt worth it. I have seen 3d showcases where the nearest object is 100 feet from the lens and the base is standard human eye spacing. It is going to cause the masses to think 3d is not worth anything if that keeps up. Your material is going to dictate what kind of 3d rig you need because it is not just the quality of the image, it is the ability to seperate those lenses that may determine what you need. So, there isnt an answer really. It depends on what you want to do.

100% video and I got $$$ - go with lanc synced Sony twin HD camcorders.
100% stills - I would go with an SDM rig due to the flexibility and superior optics.
50/50, the fuji easily wins because SDM really isnt great for video regardless of the resolution of the camera due to sync issues.
easiest - fuji no doubt, its all packaged up, you dont need to know anything to take the pictures.
I had the w1 and now have the w3. To me, 3d video is a huge deal, so I was happy to see that they bumped up the video res to 720p, not happy that its only 24fps. It is good. It is rare to get any 3d solution that can do video. I have other 3d still solutions, like stereo data maker. For stills, the w1 and w3 may be about the same. Largely, there is not really a difference as I think it may be the identical sensor and lens, but with some firmware changes. The cosmetics are better for sure, I think the menu changed and is easier, but that isnt vital. The downside of the W3 may be battery life, the battery is about half the size of the w1. I assume the effort was to make the camera smaller and lighter no matter what. I would rather not have made it any smaller at all if they were going to chop the battery down to nothing. For video you need massive storage as they are using motion jpg as a codec and a 16 gig card gives you 22 minutes of video I think. By then, your battery may be dead too. If all you want is 3d stills, I would imagine that the w1 is really the same thing, maybe better since it has a bigger battery.



The camera is unique, so there is no real competition. Nothing other than much more expensive sony systems using lanc sync can do video in 3d with a tight sync. You see huge #s of clips out there that are 3d from cameras that are not in sync and it does make a big difference. The stereo data maker solution is one that has no sync for video, so it is painful to watch peoples videoes. I like the w3 for close up work, where the lenses need to be fairly close, but the camera has no raw capability, so the image quality is going to take a hit instantly just due to that. When you want to shoot something bigger, like a street scene, you are going to need to vary the seperation in the lenses, so an SDM rig is what you are going to want. I have both, so if I want to be descrete, I use the fuji. For the money, you can easily beat the quality of the fuji with a pair of used powershots and an SDM rig. No doubt. But, nothing can compare to the nicely synced video you can get out of the fuji w3. You have to drop over $1000 for a lanc sync and two sony cams, and then that rig probably will suck at stills. So in the entire world of 3d gear, its SDM, fuji, and lanc sony. There is also a company called Inlife that has claimed all kinds of stuff, but I dont know where you can actually get one of their cameras.



I personally would not want the lenses any closer together than on the fuji. It sort of defeats the purpose of shooting 3d if the 2 images are not really that different from each other. You end up with a big "who cares" coming from your audience. With the 3d, you need to overcome the hassle of the 3d glasses and all the other limitations, so you better be showing some depth in the result. You dont want a "correct" image that is yawn inducing. As soon as the nearest object is 15 feet from the Fuji, its yawn time, it isnt worth it. I have seen 3d showcases where the nearest object is 100 feet from the lens and the base is standard human eye spacing. It is going to cause the masses to think 3d is not worth anything if that keeps up. Your material is going to dictate what kind of 3d rig you need because it is not just the quality of the image, it is the ability to seperate those lenses that may determine what you need. So, there isnt an answer really. It depends on what you want to do.



100% video and I got $$$ - go with lanc synced Sony twin HD camcorders.

100% stills - I would go with an SDM rig due to the flexibility and superior optics.

50/50, the fuji easily wins because SDM really isnt great for video regardless of the resolution of the camera due to sync issues.

easiest - fuji no doubt, its all packaged up, you dont need to know anything to take the pictures.

#8
Posted 09/23/2010 10:11 PM   
[quote name='scstudios' post='1121569' date='Sep 24 2010, 06:11 AM']I personally would not want the lenses any closer together than on the fuji. It sort of defeats the purpose of shooting 3d if the 2 images are not really that different from each other. You end up with a big "who cares" coming from your audience. With the 3d, you need to overcome the hassle of the 3d glasses and all the other limitations, so you better be showing some depth in the result. You dont want a "correct" image that is yawn inducing. As soon as the nearest object is 15 feet from the Fuji, its yawn time, it isnt worth it. I have seen 3d showcases where the nearest object is 100 feet from the lens and the base is standard human eye spacing. It is going to cause the masses to think 3d is not worth anything if that keeps up. Your material is going to dictate what kind of 3d rig you need because it is not just the quality of the image, it is the ability to seperate those lenses that may determine what you need. So, there isnt an answer really. It depends on what you want to do.[/quote]

Hi scstudios you've got a point! /yes.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':yes:' />
May be fujifilm should introduce function that increase lens spacing while zoom in the next release (just extend one of the lens will be fine~)

Also do you mean in order to get obvious 3d visual effect, the subject of the photos should or shouldn't be away to the W3 more than 15 feet? Will it be "less 3d" if shooting open spacing scenic photos with W3?

(Please give me more advise as I will travel to china to take my pre-wedding photos next month during autumn red-leaf season (planned for a year). As I first known this W3, I am considering to this DC just for this life-time event to take some special photos for my wife. This trip cost me too much money already so really need to know if W3 can really shoot some good 3d /confused.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':confused:' /> :

[url="http://www.google.com/images?langpair=en|zh-TW&q=%E4%B9%9D%E5%AF%A8%E6%BA%9D+%E5%A9%9A%E7%B4%97%E7%85%A7&hl=zh-TW&source=og&sa=N&tab=Di&biw=1114&bih=602"]http://www.google.com/images?langpair=en|z...114&bih=602[/url] )

Thanks man!! Really Need your big help and advice!! :P
[quote name='scstudios' post='1121569' date='Sep 24 2010, 06:11 AM']I personally would not want the lenses any closer together than on the fuji. It sort of defeats the purpose of shooting 3d if the 2 images are not really that different from each other. You end up with a big "who cares" coming from your audience. With the 3d, you need to overcome the hassle of the 3d glasses and all the other limitations, so you better be showing some depth in the result. You dont want a "correct" image that is yawn inducing. As soon as the nearest object is 15 feet from the Fuji, its yawn time, it isnt worth it. I have seen 3d showcases where the nearest object is 100 feet from the lens and the base is standard human eye spacing. It is going to cause the masses to think 3d is not worth anything if that keeps up. Your material is going to dictate what kind of 3d rig you need because it is not just the quality of the image, it is the ability to seperate those lenses that may determine what you need. So, there isnt an answer really. It depends on what you want to do.



Hi scstudios you've got a point! /yes.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':yes:' />

May be fujifilm should introduce function that increase lens spacing while zoom in the next release (just extend one of the lens will be fine~)



Also do you mean in order to get obvious 3d visual effect, the subject of the photos should or shouldn't be away to the W3 more than 15 feet? Will it be "less 3d" if shooting open spacing scenic photos with W3?



(Please give me more advise as I will travel to china to take my pre-wedding photos next month during autumn red-leaf season (planned for a year). As I first known this W3, I am considering to this DC just for this life-time event to take some special photos for my wife. This trip cost me too much money already so really need to know if W3 can really shoot some good 3d /confused.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':confused:' /> :



[url="http://www.google.com/images?langpair=en|zh-TW&q=%E4%B9%9D%E5%AF%A8%E6%BA%9D+%E5%A9%9A%E7%B4%97%E7%85%A7&hl=zh-TW&source=og&sa=N&tab=Di&biw=1114&bih=602"]http://www.google.com/images?langpair=en|z...114&bih=602[/url] )



Thanks man!! Really Need your big help and advice!! :P

#9
Posted 09/24/2010 09:22 AM   
[quote name='scstudios' post='1121569' date='Sep 24 2010, 06:11 AM']I personally would not want the lenses any closer together than on the fuji. It sort of defeats the purpose of shooting 3d if the 2 images are not really that different from each other. You end up with a big "who cares" coming from your audience. With the 3d, you need to overcome the hassle of the 3d glasses and all the other limitations, so you better be showing some depth in the result. You dont want a "correct" image that is yawn inducing. As soon as the nearest object is 15 feet from the Fuji, its yawn time, it isnt worth it. I have seen 3d showcases where the nearest object is 100 feet from the lens and the base is standard human eye spacing. It is going to cause the masses to think 3d is not worth anything if that keeps up. Your material is going to dictate what kind of 3d rig you need because it is not just the quality of the image, it is the ability to seperate those lenses that may determine what you need. So, there isnt an answer really. It depends on what you want to do.[/quote]

Hi scstudios you've got a point! /yes.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':yes:' />
May be fujifilm should introduce function that increase lens spacing while zoom in the next release (just extend one of the lens will be fine~)

Also do you mean in order to get obvious 3d visual effect, the subject of the photos should or shouldn't be away to the W3 more than 15 feet? Will it be "less 3d" if shooting open spacing scenic photos with W3?

(Please give me more advise as I will travel to china to take my pre-wedding photos next month during autumn red-leaf season (planned for a year). As I first known this W3, I am considering to this DC just for this life-time event to take some special photos for my wife. This trip cost me too much money already so really need to know if W3 can really shoot some good 3d /confused.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':confused:' /> :

[url="http://www.google.com/images?langpair=en|zh-TW&q=%E4%B9%9D%E5%AF%A8%E6%BA%9D+%E5%A9%9A%E7%B4%97%E7%85%A7&hl=zh-TW&source=og&sa=N&tab=Di&biw=1114&bih=602"]http://www.google.com/images?langpair=en|z...114&bih=602[/url] )

Thanks man!! Really Need your big help and advice!! :P
[quote name='scstudios' post='1121569' date='Sep 24 2010, 06:11 AM']I personally would not want the lenses any closer together than on the fuji. It sort of defeats the purpose of shooting 3d if the 2 images are not really that different from each other. You end up with a big "who cares" coming from your audience. With the 3d, you need to overcome the hassle of the 3d glasses and all the other limitations, so you better be showing some depth in the result. You dont want a "correct" image that is yawn inducing. As soon as the nearest object is 15 feet from the Fuji, its yawn time, it isnt worth it. I have seen 3d showcases where the nearest object is 100 feet from the lens and the base is standard human eye spacing. It is going to cause the masses to think 3d is not worth anything if that keeps up. Your material is going to dictate what kind of 3d rig you need because it is not just the quality of the image, it is the ability to seperate those lenses that may determine what you need. So, there isnt an answer really. It depends on what you want to do.



Hi scstudios you've got a point! /yes.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':yes:' />

May be fujifilm should introduce function that increase lens spacing while zoom in the next release (just extend one of the lens will be fine~)



Also do you mean in order to get obvious 3d visual effect, the subject of the photos should or shouldn't be away to the W3 more than 15 feet? Will it be "less 3d" if shooting open spacing scenic photos with W3?



(Please give me more advise as I will travel to china to take my pre-wedding photos next month during autumn red-leaf season (planned for a year). As I first known this W3, I am considering to this DC just for this life-time event to take some special photos for my wife. This trip cost me too much money already so really need to know if W3 can really shoot some good 3d /confused.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':confused:' /> :



[url="http://www.google.com/images?langpair=en|zh-TW&q=%E4%B9%9D%E5%AF%A8%E6%BA%9D+%E5%A9%9A%E7%B4%97%E7%85%A7&hl=zh-TW&source=og&sa=N&tab=Di&biw=1114&bih=602"]http://www.google.com/images?langpair=en|z...114&bih=602[/url] )



Thanks man!! Really Need your big help and advice!! :P

#10
Posted 09/24/2010 09:22 AM   
OH one more question to W3 owner. For W3's HDMI output, which kind of stereoscopic 3D format it uses?

From: [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HDMI#Version_1.4"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HDMI#Version_1.4[/url]

[quote]HDMI 1.4 supports several stereoscopic 3D formats including field alternative (interlaced), frame packing (a full resolution top-bottom format), line alternative full, side-by-side half, side-by-side full, 2D + depth, and 2D + depth + graphics + graphics depth (WOWvx), with additional top/bottom formats added in version 1.4a . HDMI 1.4 requires that 3D displays support the frame packing 3D format at either 720p50 and 1080p24 or 720p60 and 1080p24. High Speed HDMI 1.3 cables can support all HDMI 1.4 features except for the HDMI Ethernet Channel.

HDMI 1.4a was released on March 4, 2010 and adds two additional mandatory 3D formats for broadcast content which was deferred with HDMI 1.4 in order to see the direction of the 3D broadcast market. HDMI 1.4a has defined mandatory 3D formats for broadcast, game, and movie content. HDMI 1.4a requires that 3D displays support the frame packing 3D format at either 720p50 and 1080p24 or 720p60 and 1080p24, side-by-side horizontal at either 1080i50 or 1080i60, and top-and-bottom at either 720p50 and 1080p24 or 720p60 and 1080p24.[/quote]

I heard W3 was side-by-side but not confirmed. So if I get a Acer GD245HQ, it doesn't support right? Seems currently no 3D monitor support the Stereoscopic 3D spec within HDMI 1.4a?

Thank you guys!
OH one more question to W3 owner. For W3's HDMI output, which kind of stereoscopic 3D format it uses?



From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HDMI#Version_1.4



HDMI 1.4 supports several stereoscopic 3D formats including field alternative (interlaced), frame packing (a full resolution top-bottom format), line alternative full, side-by-side half, side-by-side full, 2D + depth, and 2D + depth + graphics + graphics depth (WOWvx), with additional top/bottom formats added in version 1.4a . HDMI 1.4 requires that 3D displays support the frame packing 3D format at either 720p50 and 1080p24 or 720p60 and 1080p24. High Speed HDMI 1.3 cables can support all HDMI 1.4 features except for the HDMI Ethernet Channel.



HDMI 1.4a was released on March 4, 2010 and adds two additional mandatory 3D formats for broadcast content which was deferred with HDMI 1.4 in order to see the direction of the 3D broadcast market. HDMI 1.4a has defined mandatory 3D formats for broadcast, game, and movie content. HDMI 1.4a requires that 3D displays support the frame packing 3D format at either 720p50 and 1080p24 or 720p60 and 1080p24, side-by-side horizontal at either 1080i50 or 1080i60, and top-and-bottom at either 720p50 and 1080p24 or 720p60 and 1080p24.




I heard W3 was side-by-side but not confirmed. So if I get a Acer GD245HQ, it doesn't support right? Seems currently no 3D monitor support the Stereoscopic 3D spec within HDMI 1.4a?



Thank you guys!

#11
Posted 09/24/2010 10:44 AM   
OH one more question to W3 owner. For W3's HDMI output, which kind of stereoscopic 3D format it uses?

From: [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HDMI#Version_1.4"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HDMI#Version_1.4[/url]

[quote]HDMI 1.4 supports several stereoscopic 3D formats including field alternative (interlaced), frame packing (a full resolution top-bottom format), line alternative full, side-by-side half, side-by-side full, 2D + depth, and 2D + depth + graphics + graphics depth (WOWvx), with additional top/bottom formats added in version 1.4a . HDMI 1.4 requires that 3D displays support the frame packing 3D format at either 720p50 and 1080p24 or 720p60 and 1080p24. High Speed HDMI 1.3 cables can support all HDMI 1.4 features except for the HDMI Ethernet Channel.

HDMI 1.4a was released on March 4, 2010 and adds two additional mandatory 3D formats for broadcast content which was deferred with HDMI 1.4 in order to see the direction of the 3D broadcast market. HDMI 1.4a has defined mandatory 3D formats for broadcast, game, and movie content. HDMI 1.4a requires that 3D displays support the frame packing 3D format at either 720p50 and 1080p24 or 720p60 and 1080p24, side-by-side horizontal at either 1080i50 or 1080i60, and top-and-bottom at either 720p50 and 1080p24 or 720p60 and 1080p24.[/quote]

I heard W3 was side-by-side but not confirmed. So if I get a Acer GD245HQ, it doesn't support right? Seems currently no 3D monitor support the Stereoscopic 3D spec within HDMI 1.4a?

Thank you guys!
OH one more question to W3 owner. For W3's HDMI output, which kind of stereoscopic 3D format it uses?



From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HDMI#Version_1.4



HDMI 1.4 supports several stereoscopic 3D formats including field alternative (interlaced), frame packing (a full resolution top-bottom format), line alternative full, side-by-side half, side-by-side full, 2D + depth, and 2D + depth + graphics + graphics depth (WOWvx), with additional top/bottom formats added in version 1.4a . HDMI 1.4 requires that 3D displays support the frame packing 3D format at either 720p50 and 1080p24 or 720p60 and 1080p24. High Speed HDMI 1.3 cables can support all HDMI 1.4 features except for the HDMI Ethernet Channel.



HDMI 1.4a was released on March 4, 2010 and adds two additional mandatory 3D formats for broadcast content which was deferred with HDMI 1.4 in order to see the direction of the 3D broadcast market. HDMI 1.4a has defined mandatory 3D formats for broadcast, game, and movie content. HDMI 1.4a requires that 3D displays support the frame packing 3D format at either 720p50 and 1080p24 or 720p60 and 1080p24, side-by-side horizontal at either 1080i50 or 1080i60, and top-and-bottom at either 720p50 and 1080p24 or 720p60 and 1080p24.




I heard W3 was side-by-side but not confirmed. So if I get a Acer GD245HQ, it doesn't support right? Seems currently no 3D monitor support the Stereoscopic 3D spec within HDMI 1.4a?



Thank you guys!

#12
Posted 09/24/2010 10:44 AM   
I had a Fuji 3D W1 camera that used for nine months and recently sold to justify buying the W3. I've taken many great 3D pictures and several very good videos with the W1 and have been using the W3 for the past couple of weeks. The 3D picture quality appears to me to be the same between the two cameras. I was mainly interested in the 720p video capabilities of the W3. The video quality is definitely improved with the W3. I was very happy with the W1 and even happier with the W3. The W3 has a sleeker design, larger screen, and more regular camera like (easier to use) controls than the W1. By using the default MPO + JPG setting I get a standard 2D image capured everytime I take a 3D picture. This makes it easy to have a standard 2D digital photo album along with a 3D one. The only thing I liked better with the W1 is the larger capacity battery. If you buy the W3, make sure you get a couple of replacement batteries for it. They can be found on Amazon for less than $5 each. I highly recommend the W3. It's easy to use and takes great 3D pictures and videos.
I had a Fuji 3D W1 camera that used for nine months and recently sold to justify buying the W3. I've taken many great 3D pictures and several very good videos with the W1 and have been using the W3 for the past couple of weeks. The 3D picture quality appears to me to be the same between the two cameras. I was mainly interested in the 720p video capabilities of the W3. The video quality is definitely improved with the W3. I was very happy with the W1 and even happier with the W3. The W3 has a sleeker design, larger screen, and more regular camera like (easier to use) controls than the W1. By using the default MPO + JPG setting I get a standard 2D image capured everytime I take a 3D picture. This makes it easy to have a standard 2D digital photo album along with a 3D one. The only thing I liked better with the W1 is the larger capacity battery. If you buy the W3, make sure you get a couple of replacement batteries for it. They can be found on Amazon for less than $5 each. I highly recommend the W3. It's easy to use and takes great 3D pictures and videos.

#13
Posted 09/24/2010 05:19 PM   
I had a Fuji 3D W1 camera that used for nine months and recently sold to justify buying the W3. I've taken many great 3D pictures and several very good videos with the W1 and have been using the W3 for the past couple of weeks. The 3D picture quality appears to me to be the same between the two cameras. I was mainly interested in the 720p video capabilities of the W3. The video quality is definitely improved with the W3. I was very happy with the W1 and even happier with the W3. The W3 has a sleeker design, larger screen, and more regular camera like (easier to use) controls than the W1. By using the default MPO + JPG setting I get a standard 2D image capured everytime I take a 3D picture. This makes it easy to have a standard 2D digital photo album along with a 3D one. The only thing I liked better with the W1 is the larger capacity battery. If you buy the W3, make sure you get a couple of replacement batteries for it. They can be found on Amazon for less than $5 each. I highly recommend the W3. It's easy to use and takes great 3D pictures and videos.
I had a Fuji 3D W1 camera that used for nine months and recently sold to justify buying the W3. I've taken many great 3D pictures and several very good videos with the W1 and have been using the W3 for the past couple of weeks. The 3D picture quality appears to me to be the same between the two cameras. I was mainly interested in the 720p video capabilities of the W3. The video quality is definitely improved with the W3. I was very happy with the W1 and even happier with the W3. The W3 has a sleeker design, larger screen, and more regular camera like (easier to use) controls than the W1. By using the default MPO + JPG setting I get a standard 2D image capured everytime I take a 3D picture. This makes it easy to have a standard 2D digital photo album along with a 3D one. The only thing I liked better with the W1 is the larger capacity battery. If you buy the W3, make sure you get a couple of replacement batteries for it. They can be found on Amazon for less than $5 each. I highly recommend the W3. It's easy to use and takes great 3D pictures and videos.

#14
Posted 09/24/2010 05:19 PM   
Thanks for all the quick responses. Good to hear you all like it. Lots of good info, especally the part about extra batterys cheap on ebay. i have a few more questions but have to go, will come back later.


:Thanks again all.
Thanks for all the quick responses. Good to hear you all like it. Lots of good info, especally the part about extra batterys cheap on ebay. i have a few more questions but have to go, will come back later.





:Thanks again all.
#15
Posted 09/25/2010 02:03 AM   
  1 / 2    
Scroll To Top