3D is indeed getting tiring, but at the same time somewhat exciting since, at the moment, it seems to be the only place for the video industry to go. Higher resolution, frame rate, etc., only do some much on smaller screens. After all, how many of us can actually put the 2 or 3 story screen that can take advantage of those into our homes? On the other hand, a lot of people have problems with 3D since it is not quite real and those differences cause some interesting visual issues, especially when viewed from off-center.
There is japanese brand who has released a 3D camera. You can take 3D photos and see 3D photos on the tiny LCD w/o wearing glass. Personally, the idea is exciting. The product is fascinating; yet, it doesn't provide extra information. I believe the currently 3D is a transition to a real 3D that Sony is developing. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lAS55_RngoQ
The problem with high quality optics is that the components which enable them don't go down in price as much as the silicon inside the camcorders as time progresses.
I think Junko mentions $200 or lesser as the price point of these camcorders (which is equivalent to the Kodak Playsports, Sony Bloggies and Flip cams of the present day). Essentially, we should get a free ride to 3D at the same price point sometime in the future ( at least that is what I am gathering from this report :) )
As for higher video quality, longer battery life and higher frame rates, these have remained the bastion of $500 or higher priced camcorders, and the manufacturers probably want to protect their margins. That market is probably low volume compared to the $100 - $200 priced impulse purchase shoot-and-share market.
Ganesh @ AnandTech
Traditionally we think of 3D as deriving from combining simultaneous images from different vantage points - but there are other ways of detecting depth. If we move about, near things move differently from distant things. The focal point also varies depending upon the distance of two objects. If the light source is near the camera, distant objects will also be less well lit. Instinctively we're aware of these effects (you really can close one eye and walk around without bumping into things). It will be interesting to see if 3D simulation cameras become available that utilize computation rather than stereoscopic images to create 3D effects. Such images might also not require special projectors (if they use focus and other effects rather than parallax to create 3D images).
I for one would love to see what the cost is and if reasonable, use it for hiking in the mountains. What a great way to capture the visual impact of views. I have never gotten quite the same feeling from pictures and wonder if 3d video is just the trick? I also could see opportunities for training 3d videos, there is nothing like a perspective when trying to learn something (especially if using the 1st person perspective with narration).
Yes, there is correlation between the two streams. The H264 MVC specifications allow this spatial correlation to result in more efficient encoding (thereby reducing bandwidth requirements / storage space).
An intersting aspect that Junko could probably shed light on is whether Ambarella's S3D + A5s / S3D + A7 combination takes advantage of MVC encoding to reduce storage requirements. Also, what semiconductor solution does the Panasonic 3D camcorder use for this purpose? The FujiFilm 3D camera doesn't shoot videos as far as I know, so that is of secondary interest here.
Ganesh @ AnandTech
Yah, 3D hoopla does get old. But sometimes, the images are just wonderful. But to business: the two-into-one doesn't go bit. When the video streams are combined, surely no one wants to deal with twice the bandwidth. So here's the obvious question, which may have be answered about a thousand times: what is the correlation like between the left and right images in the 3D stream? Surely it has not escaped anyone working in this field that the correlation is very high, and this is always a recipe to keep bandwidth down. BTW, a comment to Duane: much of what we see and do is in 2D effectively. Past 10 meters, binocular accommodation is negligible; those cues are missing. So shooting at someone or landing an airplane on a carrier or something similar is a 2D task. Curiously, at 3D movies, an important cue goes missing: focal accommodations. In a 3D film, your eyes focus on the screen, effectively at infinity. So the brain is presented with something that cannot be right: binocular accommodation, but no focal accommodation. Still, 3D seems to work... I think the young crowd is better than us old guys at this stuff because the younger crowd has the advantage of: youth.