Let’s cut to the chase: JVC’s £1,600 GS-TD1 is the most sophisticated 3D camcorder you can buy. While Panasonic may have pioneered DIY 3D moviemaking with its bolt-on 3D accessory lens, this is the first stereoscopic shooter aimed squarely at the pro-sumer. It’s been unabashedly built for 3D from the ground up. JVC Everio GS- …
Sorry... you've done one of my pet hates: DEINTERLACE before uploading.
Deinterlace before any vertical resizing.
Why was it interlaced in the first place?
Why you want interlaced mode
If a camera shoots in interlaced mode at the same field (frame) rate as progressive, I often go for interlaced.
Why? Because you can then use a bob+weave deinterlace to get double framerate footage, for silky smooth slow motions. Done well, image quality doesn't suffer too much either, especially at high resolutions.
With this camera, you could do a 25FPS movie with quarter speed slowmos at full frame rate. In 1080p HD. Mmmm nice :)
doesn't look very 3D
On my PC it just looks like regular 2D
letters and/or digits.
I looks like 3D on my regular 2D screen, but I can do the cross-eyed 'magic eye' thing.
Side-by-side view is anamorphic - is it an edit/youtube consequence or is that how the camera records the image?
Even the superior battery only gets you 1.5 hours of recording?!
That's terrible for a semi-pro product.
Semi Pro Product
You're having a laugh. The only people who would call it "semi pro" are home users who want to try and convince themselves that the high price is worth paying. No pro will touch it, it's far too immature in terms of product development.
I earn my living in video production and 3D is still in it's infancy. Hell it took long enough to get the punters to start asking for HD.
3D camcorder-shot video
Is generally unusable at the moment IMHO.
Only strange people would have a 3D screen TV (which are nothing but expensive, low quality novelty toys), anaglyphic video looks total crap (even on a computer screen) and is generally unwatchable on TV (ghosting), cross-eyed is fine but tiring and most people can't even learn to do it.
Generally, stills are OK for cross-eyed viewing on TV, videos - not really.
Oh, and AVCHD = abomination, no matter how many Ds.
Time for the pub!
The first thing I thought of when camcorders and JVC were mentioned? Yep, "Grumble Flicks (tm) "! FFS! It's Friday and I need a pint!
Distance between lenses
What's the distance between the lenses? Given the overall dimensions, I'm suspecting it's rather less than that between the average adult human eyes. This will have a significant bearing on how natural the most native 3D from the unit will appear.
Re:Distance between lenses
It's all in how the brain perceives it. i.e.; The effect you are getting from two images being slightly different as for you to distinguish between foreground and background. Another thing that comes in play is how our 'over developed' brain can make out if what is projected in front of us holds a candle to what we perceive as real. I recently watched a movie called 'The great train robbery'. Even that movie was in 2d, black and white and soundless it had people running in fear of their life when the baddie aimed and fired his six shooter at the audience (back in 1903).
Our overly saturated brains can make out 3d from a screen. Doesn't really matter how far the lenses are apart, does it now. Just marvel at the technology and how far we've come.
- Apple stuns world with rare SEVEN-way split: What does that mean?
- Special report Reg probe bombshell: How we HACKED mobile voicemail without a PIN
- RIP net neutrality? FCC boss mulls 'two-speed internet'
- Sony Xperia Z2: 4K vid, great audio, waterproof ... Oh, and you can make a phone call
- Pic Tooled-up Ryobi girl takes nine-inch grinder to Asus beach babe