Fujifilm's FinePix Real 3D camera to launch in September, cost around $600
By Nilay Patel 
posted Jul 12th 2009 9:02PM
posted Jul 12th 2009 9:02PM
It's been a while since we've heard anything about Fujifilm's FinePix Real 3D camera, but as the twin-lensed shooter nears that scheduled September release some more details are spilling out -- including the price, which will be "around $600" at launch. Yeah, it's steep, and that's not all: to properly view the images you'll need to either shell out for special prints with a plastic lenticular lens on it or buy a special stereoscopic LCD photo frame, and none of that really screams "cheap." Honestly, our instinct would be to spend all that scratch on a good DSLR or even something like the Olympus E-P1, but there's always a chance Fujifilm's about to reveal the public's deep-rooted desire for 3D snapshots. We'll see -- anyone dying for one of these?[Thanks, ED]
1st!
No, I'm #1...
I am not a number... I am a free man!
You're quite right number 6.
I'd rather not
oh come on! 3D boobs and...
@darkstar lol
@darkstar lol
@darkstar lol
It looks just like Sony's DSC-T200, through DSC-T900 line of cameras, which happen to be cheaper and take very decent photographs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyber-shot#T_series
http://www.engadget.com/2007/08/19/sonys-dsc-t200-ultracompact-going-big-with-3-5-inch-lcd-5x-zoo/
http://www.engadget.com/2009/02/17/sonys-cyber-shot-t900-t90-w290-w230-and-h20-do-the-thinking/
http://reviews.cnet.com/digital-cameras/sony-cyber-shot-dsc/4505-6501_7-32571561.html?tag=mncol;lst
http://reviews.cnet.com/digital-cameras/sony-cyber-shot-t900/4505-6501_7-33528925.html
Those Sonys aren't 3-D, dumb-ass.
yeah I concur with engadget for once - the price is steep. I know it's 2 cameras and a new technology, but a "good" cost for this would be 300-350$. What both the article and read link fail to realize is that the target market is actually ppl with existing 3d displays or other 3d viewing solutions. Comments silly as always. I hope the price goes down later so someday I might buy this.. I like how the product looks and actually think this is one of those products that would advance 3d in the home.
I'd consider buying something like this in maybe 10 years, if/when 3d technology becomes relavent
If there were such a thing as View-Master printers, it would be worth considering.
Just put the 2 pictures next to each other and cross your eyes.
@NeoJew
Aren't Magic Eye books the best?
AVCHD3D video?
Oh my, that would be seriously phenominal, alot of work would be required in post though. I imagine the image processing engine in this camera isn't going to be powerful enough to process that much data at once and output it to a universal file. It would have to be two seperate AVCHD files, which would then be sent into a program that could do the proper 3D mashing, which I can only imagine would take quite some time to render - especially if you want additional FX on it.
It's still cool though, even if it's just point and shoot.
Why would it require any postprocessing? Presumably video would just interleave the frames at twice the frame-rate. You could display that directly on a 3D display (does anyone actually have one of those yet though?).
Exciting, but I won't be buying one until the viewing technology is less onerous. Maybe if 3D displays become more prevalent in a few years.
the polaroid for the next generation. 3d pictures should become ubiquitous in the future.
I would google 'Kodak Stereo Camera'. Might find out Kodak did this with film cameras 50+ years ago.
Rather than blaming it for being expensive, we should be praising it for pioneering new technology.
Not really, since there's nothing new about this. There's no excuse for this price, for which you could easily buy two reasonable point-&-shoots.
It is 3D.
Unless you want to the ridiculously fastidious about it (see DarkLight).
By that logic, normal photos are not 2D either. They simply trick the brain into thinking there is a a 2D version of the scene there, rather than replicating it as the individual viewer would have seen it if they closed one eye. It is in fact microscopic 3D bits of whatever the picture is displayed on. Which actually makes all photos 3D. Which makes you wrong even by your own ridiculous reasoning. Ha.
3D?
Can two images at different angles with the same focus create a 3D object? Is mimicking human perception enough?
If I can't rotate the picture and see all the angles like in a video game, then I'd call it 2.5D ("two and a half DEE").
that's stupid. this is the real world, not harry potter.
Two and a Half DEE
That is AMAZING!!!!!!!!
It's not a 3D modeler, it's a camera that takes 3D pictures in the same way you can see Up in 3D.
The name is wrong, unfortunately they already adopted it. They always adopt the wrong names for everything.
This is _stereoscopic_ imaging, not 3D imaging.
Calling this 3D is as dumb as calling stereo sound 3D. But it's too late.
(If anyone was going to bring it up - calling binaural sound 3D is also wrong.)
Two and a half DEE... "DEE DF", basically?
Dude you can get that two and a half DEE at Platform Nine and three quarters!
It is 3D.
Not being able see different view points does not make it 2D. The fact that the camera records and the image displays depth (ie. the whole of the 3rd D) is what makes it 3D.
No. It's not 3D, it's just stereo.
It *tricks* your brain into *thinking* the 3rd D is there, but it's actually not. 2x2D is not 3D. Period. The effect is not even the same on every person, as eye separation is not exactly the same on everyone, and the brain gets used to it's own eyes, so you can't use this to make accurate measurements.. And it would never work on any being other than traditionally shaped humans.. The actual 3rd D is just not there.
I hate it when this happens.. Now we'll have to invent another name when _real_ 3D cameras arrive (those that capture a scene from all around and then render it to a stereo image or whatever is needed)
It IS 3d. It gives DEPTH information. Yes you can build a model out of a simple 3d image. It may be the most basic 3d, and not very accurate, and only with enough data to give 3d information from a relatively narrow angle, but IT IS 3D!!!
I don't think our beloved early-adopter lot will mind the price tag as much as we do, kudos to you sirs!
lets be honest... THIS COULD BE THE FUTURE.
Remember when a 2 megapixel camera was like $300 or $400... I do... and I hated it
Yeah, I don't know why the hate from engadget...
EVERY new technology starts like this. Stereo images and stereo video are clearly the future :-D
The first semi-popular digital camera that I can recall was the 2 megapixel Nikon 950 and that went for $990.00 new back in 1999.
Mike Smith
it seems "3D" is the new "HD".
But does it shoot video?
Nice thought.
4d VIDEO Of course
porn sites here they cum.
lol, "cum"
You, sir, are hilarious.
600 bux is a bit too steep.
At half that price, yeah, I'd consider it. If it comes with software to produce output for a few 3D systems. Red-Green classes, 2 image 3D postcard style viewer (which should come with the camera. It's just a cardboard gadget).
I've fiddled with this stuff simply by taking two photos, and it's fun.
I remember taking 3-D pictures with my Polaroid OneStep when I was (much) younger by taking two pics spaced apart and crossing my eyes to view them.
I like chispito's comment about a View-Master type device. A digital View-Master! Why not? Surely the tech for such a thing could be made rather cheaply...
Nice design