New JVC 46-inch 3D Monitor Costs $7,000

[Sanjin Jukic]

New JVC 46-inch 3D Monitor Costs $7,000

"Although the GD-463D10 is scheduled to ship in Japan sometime this July,
Victor-JVC plans to display the new 3D monitor next week at the
NAB Show held in Las Vegas, Nevada (April 18-23, 2009).
Currently the GD-463D10 is priced around $7,000 USD. Ouch."

 

[Roberto Lequeux]

Any idea of how decent or not it might be? They are 1080p based on perpendicularly polarized glasses.

I know for a fact that there are games developed for 3D... if they sold them you could hook one of these to your computer and do that with them.

 

[Eric Lange]

Nice find; here’s a link to the Xpol technology behind the JVC monitor.
http://www.arisawa.co.jp/en/product/3d.html

They say

“The Xpol® Stereoscopic 3D is an optical device based on regularly arranged micro-polarizers. By bonding it to a flat-panel display, such an LCD display, the use can view flicker-free 3D stereoscopic content simply by wearing polarizer glasses. Additionally, Xpol® is completely compatible with both projection and direct view displays.”

Does that mean the stereo micro-polorizers are arranged alternately by row or by column or is it inter-digitated like a checker board? Given that these are passive elements does that mean that the native spatial resolution of the monitor is reduced to enable 3d viewing?

It would be great if someone who was at NAB could post here to say how the imagery from the monitor looks.

Cheers,

Eric

 

[Roberto Lequeux]

The checker board idea sounds like a hands down winner. It should be easy to achieve.

Given that these are passive elements does that mean that the native spatial resolution of the monitor is reduced to enable 3d viewing?

I was wondering the same. The monitor would have to be a 3840 x 2160 if I understand how this works. I could find other uses for a monitor with a scoach more pixels than that. And it would make it a double threat for post houses. Slightly bigger sets with specs like those would be nice too. A 52" would be very decent for 4k on-line stuff.

I would love it if someone could set this whole thing straight for me.

 

[Kyle Mallory]

A Hyundai version of this monitor will be on display with 2 REDs in a stereo setup at NAB, using the monitor for 3d live-preview. You can check it out over at the J-LAB Booth just West of the Panasonic Booth.

 

[Roberto Lequeux]

A Hyundai version of this monitor will be on display with 2 REDs in a stereo setup at NAB, using the monitor for 3d live-preview. You can check it out over at the J-LAB Booth just West of the Panasonic Booth.

Nice! Please someone with 3D experience go and give us a good review. It sounds interesting.

 

[istvanttt]

Nice find; here’s a link to the Xpol technology behind the JVC monitor.
http://www.arisawa.co.jp/en/product/3d.html

They say

“The Xpol® Stereoscopic 3D is an optical device based on regularly arranged micro-polarizers. By bonding it to a flat-panel display, such an LCD display, the use can view flicker-free 3D stereoscopic content simply by wearing polarizer glasses. Additionally, Xpol® is completely compatible with both projection and direct view displays.”

Does that mean the stereo micro-polorizers are arranged alternately by row or by column or is it inter-digitated like a checker board? Given that these are passive elements does that mean that the native spatial resolution of the monitor is reduced to enable 3d viewing?

It would be great if someone who was at NAB could post here to say how the imagery from the monitor looks.

Cheers,

Eric

Hi Eric
I just came from NAB where I walked the whole day, so forgive the shortness of my answer, I'm just to tiered.

As you remember some time ago I gave very bad opinions on the Xpol technology because I had 6 Hyundai 22" monitor and was so disapointed that I gave them as present to the children of my employees. (In Europe you cannot simply send back products because you don't like them-except as consumer)

The Hyundai 46" is better but I still would not use it for our work. So I had a very radical opinion on Xpol which was not nice at all.

Then the big surprise JVC, using the same technology showed that it is not the technology alone but the way how it gets applied. It is similar even if not better then the one we have seen last year made by Kerner Optics in San Josè during the Stereoscopic conference.

It is not a checkerboard, but linealternative approach, so yes the spacial resolution is reduced. But honestley for presentation and control of overall s-3D impact it is the best I have seen since a long time. Infact I ordered 3 samples for our reseaches but forgot to ask the price.) They will start to ship in July the first units.

BTW they have also a 36" version which look even better in the pipline for sometime later in te year.
Istvan

 

[Roberto Lequeux]

Thanks istvanttt! Get some rest, tomorrow you have to do it all over again!

Is there a way to quantify the loss in spacial resolution to actual resolution?

 

[Eric Lange]

Hi Istvan;

Thanks for posting. I‘m not at NAB (one foot nailed to the floor, and one arm tied behind my back). I was hoping you would be there. The 3d threads have been a little bit starved for anything substantial of late, so please post or thread away anything you deem appropriate on the 3d corner of Reduser. When you catch your breath and have a bit of time would be interested in how you would describe the visual difference between the JVC and the Kerner Optical "offerings".

Did you attend any of the formal talks/presentations about the current state and future of S-3d broadcast and movie production?

Anyone know the raw spatial resolution of the JVC?

Cheers,

Eric

 

[istvanttt]

I will do my best one of the next days, but I'm a bad writer
All over s-3D is more then just in Now I have to rush there

 

[Eric Lange]

I will do my best one of the next days, but I'm a bad writer
All over s-3D is more then just in Now I have to rush there

Rubbish, you express yourself very well, even if English is your third language, and in any case it’s the thinking behind what you write is what people want to read, and usually from a style of thinking that’s insightful and pragmatic (and with good humor). Besides I think Chaucer or Shakespear would have much less to offer if they were at NAB right now. :beer:

 

[istvanttt]

Thank you for your nice words☺ Anyway what I meant is that I’m not good as reporter of an event. I read others in this forum who organized themselves to be able to help everybody who could have any question or curiosity. I’m more lets say an “egocentric” person, I look what I’m interested at and or don’t even see what may be of general interest or forget it in 3 seconds. So shame on me, and for the rest I try to list absolutely in a non objective way what I see, felt and thought during this days.

Digital Cinema Summit
For 2 days Saturday, Sunday from early morning on almost all the presentations where on s-3D. Here is a list of what I got out the most as information:
- s-3D starts to be accepted as serious alternative also from more skeptical studios as a valid alternative
- SMPTE worked a lot to get to common definitions
- Sony entered as player with a very nice professional 4K projector solution. They split the chip into an upper/lower part, added 2 lenses (U/L) and a special double Read-D Zscreen solutions in front of all that. The quality is good.
- Generally the audience in the conference didn’t accept anymore the light limitations of the projectors. It was a common comment around that if good cinemas have 16 foot-lambert light reflections, the 4.5 foot-lambert of current stereoscopic cinemas are “ridiculous” .
- Hollywood wants almost desperately to get the s-3D movies also to the homes. But packaging is still a problem because undecided (cable, BluRay, Air, Internet)
- SMPTE developed a “Report of SMPTE task force on 3D to home”. So there is some heavy activity going on
- Sport is considered a main field where s-3D could push the acceptance for home vision, beside games. (When the panel-coordinator – woman- asked if s-3D porn could push the market too only 2 hands rose up)
- 3reality showed excellent examples of how with open-minded directors the s-3D can become an outstanding experience
- And yes there where excellent clips of all kind, even if for my taste still too much animations.

 

[istvanttt]

Tools and toys
I passed 2 days on the floor, there is much too much to see. So my strategy was to pick up some important and interesting solutions and learn as much as possible, risking maybe to not see some other interesting products I should have seen.

Production
- I think 3Raelity has today the most advanced s-3D system. Their motion-control is just outstanding, They are able to create a kind of lock-up-table for each of the used lenses and in the case of dynamic zooming the system micro-adjusts the position of the left camera to compensate the axis of the lens. Unfortunately their prices are high so indie moviemakers like me have to find other solutions
- P&S Technick improved the Rig, they added small motors. Also they developed a new software “ Stereoscopic Calculator” where adding the basic parameters you get the intraocular distance and, if you wish, how much to toe-in (I never do it). The sw is developed by Florian Maier who basically designed the rig from P&S. You can download something at www.stereoscopic-calculator.com. It should cost around 1000.- $ or Euro. It ws not clear.
- There was also a Swiss company (I forgot the name) with a beam-splitter rig, but it was to heavy in my opinion and had nothing more then the P&S rig.
- I didn’t know the Davio by Cine-tal. It is an extremely powerful video signal processor where with different libraries you can do different things mainly in post. But for stereo production it can be a powerful tool as you can control with a single s-3D monitor like the Hyundai or the new to come JVC how the image will look with the needed lens/image shift to define the position of the virtual screen. The box is around 4000.-$ and the needed software another 2500.-$. Not cheap but very useful
- The most exciting product I saw in the NAB is the Stereoscopic Analyzer developed by the German Frauenhofer Institut, Berlin. Hm, how should I describe it? Ok, start to dream about a 20cm monitor linked to a stereo rig- turn on everything and the device shows you the special misalignment of the cameras with read dots on the corresponding points- you readjust the alignment (or there is a way to do it automatically) and the points get green – then device shows you the farest point and the nearest points – it requests where do you want the virtual screen – and returns you the interocular base, - then you change your mind and move the virtual screen more into the positive space and the system shows how much has to be cropped and records the metadata for post – then before starting to roll you can analyze the colors, or color mismatch when beamsplitter rig is used, correct it and so on…..yes a dream… what is the reality? It is in development by Frauenhofer Institut which is one of the highest valued technical research center in the world (they invented the MP3 technology), but it is a kind of owned by the German government.----which means: they don’t know yet to whom they should target the product (at what price), and if they want to create a separate box or sell only the software --- should it include the motion control or stay only with the analyzing of the images—should it be for filmmaking or for direct broadcasting…. In conclusion the product will not get airborne before the end of the year, more probably later. I tried to negotiate if I could get just a software licenz for one copy they where so surprised that they took it even seriously. Actually I was serious but their world is so far from mine because when I tried to explain them that the best business possibilities they could have today with the indie market (as far as the big productions are in the hand of 3Reality and PACE) they looked at me like if I would be drunk. The product would be excellent but I don’t know if their business politics will ever match our world. Lets hope I’m wrong.
- in Stereo we need big monitors, so I put them here: about he JVC I talked already. The interesting thing is also that they have a 3D decoder integrated which recognizes: Side-by-side input signals as also line-by-line. They are really good for the type of technology. What I forgot to say is that they have also a 4K s-3D monitor, always based on the Xpol technology. The Hyundai monitor uses the same approach but is less acceptable for me. In the Sony booth there was also a s-3D monitor but it was not their product, even if there was written Sony. It was there only to show that also Sony has the intention to develop something for s-3D.

 

[istvanttt]

Post-production
What are the basic functions I would expect from a s-3D post program which is intergrated in an editing program.
1) DB and tools to keep organized left and right files with a logic based on the s-3D needs
2) Tool to unify L/R based on timecode or other criteria; if there is a timeshift, tools to adjust it.
3) Alert when there are dropped frames on one side and tools to deal with it
4) Side-by-side has to be there without being squeezed. Most of the people who work with s-3D are good in free-viewing.
5) Tools to analyze and adjust geometric correctness. Central keystone correction, zoom matching and rotation are not enough! This all can already be done ie in the current FCP without any difficulty. What we need are tools to recognize the problems and tools to move the plane in the space to match the L/R correctly. It is totally useless to do anything else before the geometry is not corrected.
6) Ideally I would love to see now tools to correct the lens-specific deformations of the images. The software could even include a function to investigate on the typical mathematical deformations of the used lens, get the parameters and apply them to correct the images.
7) In the case of using beamsplitter it is now necessary to analyze if the rays which crossed the mirror and duplicated are visible as duplicated or if the image seems only to be more blurred. Tools needed to correct this.

Now the s-3D specific media is ready and we can start to work.

a) Raff cuts can be done in mono, but as the storytelling starts, without seeing them in stereo, I cannot understand the emotional rhythmic, the dynamic of the different space situations and how to cut them together. This is why it is so important to correct FIRST the geometry, because if it was not done 100% then indeed the editor may become quickly a serial-killer.
b) Easy way to define the virtual screen position (position of the zero parallax or some call it convergenzy point); I would love to be able to shift between 2 alternatives. Crop and resize the clip
c) I think the algorithmic to change in post slightly (5°-10°) the base line is quite public, so it should be possible to realize them easily

Also do I think a s-3S ready software needs to be able to

- AVID, sorry didn’d had the time to go there. Also I’m more FCP oriented so …
- CineForm, Inc: I tried to understand their new software Neo3D. It should be a plug-in for FCP, I was there half an hour and I didn’t get it. A very nice person, one of the programmers was showing the product but I had the feeling that he had no real understanding what happens in the s-3D world. The product is in my opinion not yet ready, doesn’t do most of the listed feature and cost 3000.-US$... Maybe it was my fault but I was disappointed
- NUKE and Ocula: Ocula does most of the mentioned features, is a real dream, but integrated into NUKE which is still a dream for composers but not for normal editors. NUKE cost around 6.500.-$, Ocula 10.000.-$

Ok if I do not go now to sleep for 48 hours I will start to talk dada…. I desribed just impressions which may be totally opposite for others. I do not have the energy to re-read the text, I will just post it
Ciao
Istvan

 

[Eric Lange]

Thank you for your nice words☺ Anyway what I meant is that I’m not good as reporter of an event. I read others in this forum who organized themselves to be able to help everybody who could have any question or curiosity. I’m more lets say an “egocentric” person, I look what I’m interested at and or don’t even see what may be of general interest or forget it in 3 seconds. So shame on me, and for the rest I try to list absolutely in a non objective way what I see, felt and thought during this days.

Without going into deep discussions on phenomenology (yuk!), (philosophically) there is no such thing as a comprehensive and objective report on an event anyway, so the “Istvan-centric” S-3d view of NAB is more “real” and greatly appreciated. Virtually every line you posted is a thread topic on its own. Perhaps in the next few days (or weeks) I or we could parse your topics into discrete threads to help open up and structure the discussions (give me a bit of time to dig up some supplemental links). It seems you have found some really interesting and useful things, that time willing we can have a chance to “dissect”.

In my mind, most of the technical challenges will be solved in the next five years; with the occasional breakthrough and energetic development, better and cheaper mousetraps will come along…

The one thing that interests me the most (from a business perspective) is the drive and will for the relevant industry players to make S-3d broadcast a reality. I’m really interested to find out for example, are major networks seriously researching and gearing up to deliver S-3d content to the home. We know for example the well publicized S-3d sports related “experiments”, but are networks such as DISCOVERY, NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC and HISTORY CHANNEL making any efforts in the S-3d broadcast direction? What is the road map for this to happen, and are relevant industry players determined to make this happen in a coordinated fashion, or are there still fundamental challenges that seem unlikely to be overcome due to lack of will and financial risk? Is there talk of some kind of roadmap to make this happen in the U.S. ? [I think the Japanese are somewhat ahead in their planning to enable digital S-3d broadcast infrastructure, but that may only be my limited impression of the situation?]

The things you post about the SMPTE and stereo standards will prove to be very interesting and contentious. Also very interesting about the 16 foot -laberts vs Real-D.

Once again Istvan, thanks a million for your posts,
Good luck today!

Cheers,
Eric

 

[istvanttt]

.....

The one thing that interests me the most (from a business perspective) is the drive and will for the relevant industry players to make S-3d broadcast a reality. I’m really interested to find out for example, are major networks seriously researching and gearing up to deliver S-3d content to the home. We know for example the well publicized S-3d sports related “experiments”, but are networks such as DISCOVERY, NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC and HISTORY CHANNEL making any efforts in the S-3d broadcast direction? What is the road map for this to happen, and are relevant industry players determined to make this happen in a coordinated fashion, or are there still fundamental challenges that seem unlikely to be overcome due to lack of will and financial risk? Is there talk of some kind of roadmap to make this happen in the U.S. ? [I think the Japanese are somewhat ahead in their planning to enable digital S-3d broadcast infrastructure, but that may only be my limited impression of the situation?]

...
Eric

Well the whole second day of the "Digital Cinema Summit" was on the question how to bring s-3D to the homes. As I'm not so much interested in that field (I almost never look television) I forgot a big part of the presentations. The feeling I had was that there is a huge energy going in that direction where the elementary question was: is there enough money to earn to make something new, or should the existing technology be the carrier of this new possibilities. You should try to get the SMPTE report to see how extended the field is.
Ciao, Istvan

 

[Eric Lange]

Thanks for the info, will check out the SMPTE report.

Are you going to Red Party? (New primes (that I think you ordered), new prototypes eminently suitable for S-3d, and the new Build 18 two camera synch made easier than ever before, plus real-time REDROCKET).

Cheers ,
Eric

 

[istvanttt]

Thanks for the info, will check out the SMPTE report.

Are you going to Red Party? (New primes (that I think you ordered), new prototypes eminently suitable for S-3d, and the new Build 18 two camera synch made easier than ever before, plus real-time REDROCKET).

Cheers ,
Eric

No I'm not a party goer when it comes to products. There are always the first class fanatics and their best friends who monopolise the scene. I feel myself always extremly stupid in those occasions. I cannot even blame them they love the products, know erverything and are abdicted to get even more info from the producers. So this is the RED-world and as long as from the feedbacks from those relationships the camera gets better and better I don't care to put myself aside. Therefor I decided to come back to LA and fly tomorrow back to Italy.

Yes I have a set of primes in order and RED gave me 1 week time to decide if I want them or not. I'm in deep trouble because I really don't know which lenses are the best for s-3D work. I'm a director and not a DP and even if I would have seen the primes at the party I would not have known how to distinguish the difficulties in post for corrections of the optical deformations. I may decide for the German rebells as probably from them I could get the parameters to calculate the corrections. Back in Europe I will contact them and ask if they would help me in this. At the end I will need two pair of lens sets.
Ciao Istvan

 

[Eric Lange]

Hi Istvan,

Here are my very rough rules of thumb for lens selection for S-3d.

The kind of stereo I like is where the range of depth is optimized and objects appear well rounded rather than appearing as flat cardboard cut outs disposed at various depths. Having Worked with formats that range from 13cm x 18cms (5” x 7”), to 4” by 5”, to 6 x 9 cm, to 48 mm to 35mm, to 35mm x 24mm, to 24 x 13mm and 22mm x 15mm I tend to aim for a focal length that is about the same as the sensor or film’s width. So for example on a 35mm sensor 35mm lens works great. There is a reasonable amount of latitude with focal length so for example a 50 mm lens on a 35mm sensor looks great also. However a 50 mm lens on a 24mm sensor starts to look weak and things start to get a bit flat. A 100 mm lens on 24 mm sensor looks really flat (and is virtually unusable unless for a special application). Some of the best stereograms I ever took was with a 6 x 9 cm format with a 60 mm (Wild P32 with Biogon Lens). Very good stereograms can also be obtained by going to even wider angles matching the focal length to the vertical format of the sensor but generally not to go beyond that.

In the case of REDONE the sensor is roughly 24mm x 13 mm, so the primes that RED are offering are as follows:

25mm, 35mm, 50mm, 85mm, 100mm

And I guess that the 18mm will follow.

I would personally skip the 85mm and the 100mm. The 50mm may be used slightly less than the 35mm or the 25mm. The 25mm and the 35mm are a must, and when the 18mm comes out that would be a very worthy focal length for S-3d on the REDONE.

Radial distortion is an issue for S-3d, (we can do some lens calibration for you if you want) radial distortion does cause Y parallax, but we seem to be the only group right now that seems to care about this (we also have MathCAD simulations to demonstrate this as well as photogrammetric hard evidence for this effect). JIM has not mentioned what the radial distortion of the new lenses are. ZEISS ZF primes generally have distortions that range from 1.5 to 3% (maximum distortion). For example the ZF 2.8 25mm lens has a maximum distortion of 2.5% but for 24mm width of the REDONE the distortion will be only 1.5%. The new Zeiss compact Primes may be similar to the ZF line in terms of distortion (same optical formula). Most wide angle retro -focal lenses will have a radial distortion between 1 to 3 %. Biogon type optical layout for lenses have much less distortion but have to be positioned closer to the sensor. The ZM 35mm (Biogon) (or Leica equivalent) would be a good choice for REDONE (although not too fast, it is virtually distortionless).

The Zeiss Compact primes have a bit more choice at the wider angles relevant to S-3D on REDONE, so there is a 50mm, 35mm, 28mm, 25mm, 21mm and 18mm. the 28, 21 and 18 being of particular interest. The image circles for these lenses are larger and can be used on a 24 by 36mm format (so you can theoretically use it on later to come RED scarlet FF35 (larger sensor sizes) or EPIC. You can even use these lenses on a full frame 35mm DSLR (if you wanted to). However JIM has stated (in the threads) that the RPPs are optimized for the REDONE sensor 4K and eventually 5K (more even “straighter” light and higher res).

Everything in lens design is a dicey set of trade-offs, and it will be interesting to see if the usable image circle from these lenses is in fact larger than the stated 32mm or whether there is a sharp fall off after 32mm. This will indirectly affect the amount of radial distortion by nearly a factor of 2. If the relative illumination and image circles are of a (theoretical) broad design, then the RPPs could have comparatively lower radial distortion than the Zeiss compact primes; conversely depending on the various design trade offs radial distortion could be greater than 3% for the 25 and 35mm RRP’s. Jim says they will prepare data sheets, which is very helpful, and I certainly wouldn’t buy one until I see the MTFs, relative illumination and radial distortion curves. I’m sure they are great lenses I just want to make sure that radial distortion was not one of the design trade offs to enable the other heightened capabilities of the lens. A certain amount of radial distortion is not a problem for mono shooting and is not noticeable, but is more of a factor for S-3d. The guys looking at the lenses on the Lens projector at RED Party could probably see if radial distortion was greater than 2% or not.

Hope this helps,

Cheers,
Eric

 

[istvanttt]

Hi Istvan,

Here are my very rough rules of thumb for lens selection for S-3d.

The kind of stereo I like is where the range of depth is optimized and objects appear well rounded rather than appearing as flat cardboard cut outs disposed at various depths. Having Worked with formats that range from 13cm x 18cms (5” x 7”), to 4” by 5”, to 6 x 9 cm, to 48 mm to 35mm, to 35mm x 24mm, to 24 x 13mm and 22mm x 15mm I tend to aim for a focal length that is about the same as the sensor or film’s width. So for example on a 35mm sensor 35mm lens works great. There is a reasonable amount of latitude with focal length so for example a 50 mm lens on a 35mm sensor looks great also. However a 50 mm lens on a 24mm sensor starts to look weak and things start to get a bit flat. A 100 mm lens on 24 mm sensor looks really flat (and is virtually unusable unless for a special application). Some of the best stereograms I ever took was with a 6 x 9 cm format with a 60 mm (Wild P32 with Biogon Lens). Very good stereograms can also be obtained by going to even wider angles matching the focal length to the vertical format of the sensor but generally not to go beyond that.

...........

Radial distortion is an issue for S-3d, (we can do some lens calibration for you if you want) radial distortion does cause Y parallax, but we seem to be the only group right now that seems to care about this (we also have MathCAD simulations to demonstrate this as well as photogrammetric hard evidence for this effect). JIM has not mentioned what the radial distortion of the new lenses are. ZEISS ZF primes generally have distortions that range from 1.5 to 3% (maximum distortion). For example the ZF 2.8 25mm lens has a maximum distortion of 2.5% but for 24mm width of the REDONE the distortion will be only 1.5%. The new Zeiss compact Primes may be similar to the ZF line in terms of distortion (same optical formula). Most wide angle retro -focal lenses will have a radial distortion between 1 to 3 %. Biogon type optical layout for lenses have much less distortion but have to be positioned closer to the sensor. The ZM 35mm (Biogon) (or Leica equivalent) would be a good choice for REDONE (although not too fast, it is virtually distortionless).

The Zeiss Compact primes have a bit more choice at the wider angles relevant to S-3D on REDONE, so there is a 50mm, 35mm, 28mm, 25mm, 21mm and 18mm. the 28, 21 and 18 being of particular interest. The image circles for these lenses are larger and can be used on a 24 by 36mm format (so you can theoretically use it on later to come RED scarlet FF35 (larger sensor sizes) or EPIC. You can even use these lenses on a full frame 35mm DSLR (if you wanted to). However JIM has stated (in the threads) that the RPPs are optimized for the REDONE sensor 4K and eventually 5K (more even “straighter” light and higher res).

Everything in lens design is a dicey set of trade-offs, and it will be interesting to see if the usable image circle from these lenses is in fact larger than the stated 32mm or whether there is a sharp fall off after 32mm. This will indirectly affect the amount of radial distortion by nearly a factor of 2. If the relative illumination and image circles are of a (theoretical) broad design, then the RPPs could have comparatively lower radial distortion than the Zeiss compact primes; conversely depending on the various design trade offs radial distortion could be greater than 3% for the 25 and 35mm RRP’s. Jim says they will prepare data sheets, which is very helpful, and I certainly wouldn’t buy one until I see the MTFs, relative illumination and radial distortion curves. I’m sure they are great lenses I just want to make sure that radial distortion was not one of the design trade offs to enable the other heightened capabilities of the lens. A certain amount of radial distortion is not a problem for mono shooting and is not noticeable, but is more of a factor for S-3d. The guys looking at the lenses on the Lens projector at RED Party could probably see if radial distortion was greater than 2% or not.

Hope this helps,

Cheers,
Eric

Hmm. I just made some calculations and I think when I keep the min/max distances between 1m and 3m then I can use with the 100mm an interocular distance of 10mm which should give me an interesting close-up and not be too flat neither too hyperstereo. I think the flatness of the longer lenses comes more with a higher distance. Anyway today I bought a second Nikon D300 and will test it with the beamsplitter rig I built. I want to play with the emotions I can get with longer lenses on different interocular distances. Will see.

To the second part, yes I see and understand what you say but still cannot find help to decide. ie some months ago I asked an optical scientist who did thousands of s-3D pictures for help and he suggested: just stay away from assimetrical lenses.... hmmm

On the part of the lens threats they never talk about the problems we poor and lost s-3D kids may have with the lens choices. Unfortunatley for us the choices cannot be based only on taste and beauty but need extrem precision on the external parts of the image. To give an example to other readers. In the time of the classical SLR film cameras the acceptable parallax was considered 1.2mm (1.8 in the case of anagliphic pictures) on the slides. Now I think the strenght of the distorsions can change a lot in 1.2 mm and create undesired vertical parallax problem towards the corners.

Anyway, probably even if something in my stomach tries to say me to wait, I probably will give up for now and just buy the RED lenses. As I ordered them very early I may be even in the first 100 units. The problem will be more when will I get a second RED and the second lens-set?
Ciao
Istvan