Olympus newly published patent discloses the design of a fancy looking 3D camera. As you can see there are multiple lenses inside one lens (I don’t know how to describe this better). If you want to read all technical details about that camera download the pdf file (Click here).
I really don’t know if such a 3D camera will ever come to production. The 3D hype is over and companies seem to not really push this tech anymore. Who actually remembers that Panasonic also launched the 12,5mm 3D Micro Four Thirds lens? All forgotten now…
23 Responses
I wonder why?
3D is over??? And what about all the 3D printers? They need to be feeded. And a camera that can deliver material for them would be a big deal. Today you can use different ways to digitize people. If it is possible with this camera to see the complete family on one picture, even the members in house and garden it would be nice… 😉
It’s extremely difficult to extract noise-free 3D data from a set of photographs (3D per se doesn’t even matter, just many different angles). Modeling in CAD-like software is a better way to obtain models, which have to satisfy certain strict geometrical and topological properties. How do I know? I write slicer algorithms for 3D printers 🙂 That being said, any camera that can extract high-resolution depth information in a way similar to gaming console cameras would open up a lot of creative possibilities (although in a niche market).
An actual 3D camera is BETTER at this. That is a FACT.
The Oculus Rift may revive the interest in 3D video, because it’s truly immersive. There are more and more Oculus videos appearing on Youtube: http://shared.info/hw
3D huh? Ok Olympus, amusing. Now quit fooling around and get back to work on the EM-1 continuous auto focussing. It’s quite hopeless you know. Or at least aim to make the replacement model half as good as the Sony A77 MKII. That would be something we could use.
It’s already better than the A77II if you want to use your m4/3 or 4/3 lenses.
No it’s not. The EM-1 can’t keep up with jack. Panasonic has DFD which helps quite a bit. Olympus still struggles. I kid you not.
Yes it is. You can’t use your m4/3 or 4/3 lenses on an A77II. So if you’ve already invested in such lenses, the E-M1 is a much better camera. If you own A-mount lenses, the A77II is the better camera. It’s as simple as that.
Hope they keep this one the drawer until the next 3D hype
Olympus is doing cheesy 3D explorations while the Pen lineup, Trip D and pro lenses continue to languish? Time to reprioritize, Oly.
It’s just a patent. It doesn’t mean that they are developing an actual product.
Yes. Many patents never make it to market. And most likely, this work was being done years ago when 3D was everywhere. Now that 3D has faded from consumer electronics, it’s easy to take cheap shots at this and vent frustrations because we want new Pens, 4K video, and that next big leap in sensor tech. So we’re doing that. 😉
How cute. But not functional at all. If the purpose of this camera is to shoot 3D video then scrap the DSLR form factor and give us ENG camcorder ergonomics so it’s easier to shoot handheld with. And why are there four lenses? Only two are necessary for 3D.
Back in the 1980s, the NIMSLO camera was on the market. It used 4 lenses to create a 4 image negative that could be used to make a lenticular print that was 3D without glasses. Looks like this could be a similar idea…
I believe you are more wrong than right. Just check the link above your post.
As a former Hospital Corpsman, I see this and think of the possibilities in medical imaging.
Olympus are already leading the way in 3D medical imaging.
http://www.olympus.co.uk/medical/en/medical_systems/products_services/rigid_endoscopy/imaging_systems_1/3d.jsp
Yes, I am aware of that. And this will advance the technology.
I want a proper twin lens camera, with a separation distance about the same as human eyes. This should be prefectly doable with two 1″ sensors or even two m43 sensors.
The separation distance isn’t a specific but depends from subject distance and wanted 3D effect. There are available calculations to give the required distance between two focal points for given angle of view and subject distance. Too much or little and viewer gets headache or hard time to focus.
Yes… BUT, my intention is to replicate the view point a human would have. This is best achieved by separating the two lenses by the same distance as your eyes. Using such a distance would also reduce the problems you mention.
“there are multiple lenses inside one lens (I don’t know how to describe this better).”
Multiple lenses aligned to grid inside a objective.