Multiple Trip Report Versions?

[UFAlien]

I suppose this is a question for pretty much any mods. A while back I did a photo trip report in 3D, with the anaglyphs posted to directly in the thread and the 2D versions in a .zip for download. Some people couldn't find it, though, and it was kind of a roundabout way of doing things. That's done and over now, but I'm working on another at the moment. I definitely want the 3D ones up in the thread, since that's how they were composed, shot, and meant to be seen. But I also realize the majority of people won't be able to view them that way, so it also makes sense to include the 2D ones.

 

I was wondering what site staff would recommend - two threads with one for each version, one thread with duplicate posts of the different versions, or the old strategy? Thanks

[robbalvey]

^ Here is my recommendation....

 

If you think the "majority" of the people won't be able to view them, then post the 2D versions and put a link for the 3D versions.

 

I think you're work will be totally lost on our audience if the majority of the people can't view them, and I'll be honest, I stopped reading your SFNE trip report because the pictures made my eyes hurt, don't post them. I don't think it makes sense to post two versions of the same trip report.

 

But it's really up to you. If you'd rather have a handful of people appreciate the work that went into the 3D pictures, versus more people that might enjoy a simple 2D report, then post the 3D pictures.

 

My personal opinion is that I'm not a fan of consumer 3D in photos and video. I refuse to watch any YouTube videos that are in 3D with that awful red/green filters, etc. When/if consumer 3D ever gets as good as the stuff you see in a movie theater, I'd consider it. But right now, I think photos and video look WAAAAAY better in conventional 2D, that I wouldn't even suggest anyone do anything in 3D.

 

That's my personal opinion and recommendation. Hope that helps. Sorry if it's not exactly what you wanted to hear.

 

--Robb

Edited May 20, 2012 by robbalvey

[UFAlien]

What I wanted to hear was advice and opinions, which is what I got. No need to be sorry

 

I think I'll take your suggestion and link off to the 3D ones, so they're at least available for the handful of people who liked the first one and asked for more. And for the record, I agree that anaglyph (colored lenses) is kind of annoying. That's not how they're taken, or I wouldn't bother either. There are TVs, monitors, etc, that use the same polarized and active-shutter technology for 3D as the movie theatres, which is how I view them and why I also link to the side-by-side files (my laptop actually has better 3D than the local cineplex - theatrical exhibition is kind of a crapshoot). Not many people have those right now though, which is why I never even considered posting those ones.

 

So yeah, that's what I'll go with. Direct posted 2D pics and a zip or off-site link for the 3D ones. Sorry if I got to long-winded in the technical bit, I'm a film student

[robbalvey]

^ I actually appreciate the long-winded version!

 

3D is something we have looked at quite a lot...but I really feel that until a solid, budget friendly consumer version is available, we probably wouldn't think about shooting in the format.

 

I see tons of these red/green videos on YouTube, and they just look terrible to me. If it ever came to be that I could shoot something, that would look REALLY GOOD in 3D using polarized lenses, I'd consider it, but I don't that that technology is really cost friendly...is it?

[UFAlien]

Well the camera I did the first 3D trip report with was an Aiptek, which is really cheap but also quite awful - lenses out of alignment (probably the source for some of the headaches you got), no manual control whatsoever, just not worth it.

 

The one I use now is a Fujifilm Finepix W3, which can be had for $225 (a bit less than what I got it for last year). It's primarily a still camera, though - the shape is that of a point-and shoot, and the video recording is "only" 720p instead of 1080p. The good thing about it is that it shoots at full 720p per eye - some cameras (like Aiptek) shoot each of the two images at 640x720, or half-width, each, so the resolution is cut in half.

 

There are more traditionally-shaped video cameras that will do full 1080p per eye, but they're more expensive; the Sony HDR-TD10 is one I've heard good things about, but the price is about $900-$1,000 depending on where you go. They also have a newer model, the HDR-TD20V, which has a higher megapixel count. Both also come with night vision modes. The TD20V is about $1,300.

 

On the viewing side, it depends how big you want to go and which format you want to use. Some screens use "Passive" technology, the same kind that's used in movie theatres. These are generally the more popular ones at the moment, and also cheaper. Plus, you can use RealD glasses you save from the cinema. The tradeoff is that they technically show half horizontal resolution per eye. Some people claim to see a loss of detail, but the consensus among most people seems to be that the brain combines the images well enough for there to be little to no noticeable difference. Vizio has a 32" 3D Passive TV for $500 on their site, which can be had from Wal-Mart for about $100 less or Amazon for $50 less. They also have 42", 47", 55", and 65" models. Their cheapest 2D LED TV is about $120 less on their site, but it's also lacking a bunch of other features.

 

Active 3D uses shutter glasses - heavier, battery-operated ones with little screens for lenses. They flash on (making them opaque) and off in rapid succession in conjunction with the image on the screen to "filter" the images. It's too fast for human eyes to notice except under certain specific lighting conditions. This allows for full resolution 3D, but they're usually more expensive and have proprietary glasses. This is what I have - but mine's on a laptop, actually, a 17" Dell XPS 17. It was pretty expensive, about $1,300 or so, but a lot of that has to do with the other bells and whistles I had thrown in. You can customize a model on their site.

 

Basically, the price gap for 3D over a 2D TV is still there most of the time, but much, much smaller than it used to be. And if someone is buying a new HDTV on the high or upper-middle end, chances are it will have 3D as an option anyway. It'd be an uptick in cost, at least initially, but not a huge one. And the cameras use normal memory cards and everything, so it doesn't cost more to shoot.

 

Also, in case you didn't know: the Youtube 3D player lets you select how to view it - colored lenses, side-by-side, or if your display supports it, fancy new "real" 3D. So posting them there wouldn't mean making them ugly anaglyphs, as people who have the correct equipment can still watch them correctly.

 

Sorry for the late reply - after your initial response I stopped checking the thread

[jcgoldcoast]

^ I know Robb shoots using Go Pro cameras - Go Pro has an add-on that uses two cameras linked together to shoot in 3D, which is about $100 retail, to me that seems like a very cheap option to shoot high-quality 3D.