Looking at 3:48 in that video, it seems that some of the image is lost due to each lens being visible in the image of its neighbour. Presumably that can be dealt with in post by cropping, but I wonder what the true resolution ends up being in the VR headset. It's surely not 8k.
Would this be good for wedding videos ?Yes, I was thinking that this would be of use in real estate. Based on the Canon video, it seems that you could share a video that allows the potential customer to scroll around in 2D, but if they want to and have a 3D viewer, they can view the same footage in 3D and get a much more immersive experience. I imaging this could also be combined with drone footage or even mount the rig on a large drone to extend the 3D experience to the exterior.
I few years ago, we hired a company to do a virtual tour of the college, that allowed potential students to scroll around various buildings on campus. It was very similar to the video Canon produced when viewed in 2D. I'm guessing that students who have grown up on digital content would be very receptive to a 3D campus tour.
Under $2K in the US, so using Canon's typical international pricing that will be over $4K in Canada and Australia! Slap the lens on a R5 which sells for $6K in the latter locations and you have a $10K VR setup!Under $2k? Can't wait to see how this is used. So interesting!
***We, on the forum, pretty much "screwed the pooch" on the price prediction for this lens.***
Yes, it said "Canon is currently developing two paid subscription-based software solutions as available options for completing the post-production process."In the Canon USA video they sure mentioned "paid subscription service" a lot. And only provided 3rd party support for, you guessed it: a paid subscription service, from Adobe.
I hope Canon is not talking to Apple, otherwise the R1 will be glued shut, with a non-removable battery and memory card. It will come with various memory options, each costing many times more than the actual value of the cards lol!I’m wondering if Canon is also talking with Apple. The rumors have Apple investing $$$ in AR and VR tech and have at last 2 products in the pipeline for release next year. If the Apple faithful jump on it in mass that could ramp up the demand for VR content…
You cannot charge the distance between lenses. Only the focus difference between eyes.Canon delivers!
Amazing! Much more compact than I expected. I really like the ability to adjust the distance between the lenses, and to have an aperture of F2.8 available in such an optic is fabulous. If this is remotely affordable I can see it becoming a huge seller.
As an L lens, I’d expect very high sharpness, but I have some reservations about flare, which is apparent in the video, and means that the lens is probably best used when the front elements can be shielded from direct sunlight.
Gimmee, gimmee gimmee!
Given the angle of view is 190degrees. It can see backwards. The distance requires will vary with the height above the ground.Under $2k!?! cheaper than 2x 8-15mm fisheye
Compact and dedicated SW!?!
Would appear to be a sure winner for those in the niche area and cheap enough for newbies to play with it - at least for initial rental.
love that the tripod needs a lateral post extension. I wonder how long it needs to be to avoid tripod legs in frame
Yes as the image circle fills half the frame the crop would fail to record significant parts of the video.So on an R or RP which crop in video mode, this lens would be only useful for stills. Did I get that right?
In a way. You could film the first dance, pointing at the couple, for example. You could then watch it back and see what uncle bob was doing in the corner at the time. On second thoughts maybe not such a good ideaWould this be good for wedding videos ?
As this lens is aimed at VR it’s very unlikely to be produced in other focal lengths. 5.2mm is what is required to give the 190degree angle of view required for VR.Let's hope this new lens sells well and then they can bring out other focal lengths.
I may be missing something, but I wonder if it might be too intrusive for many wedding couples. It's a fisheye so the videographer would have to be pretty close to the subjects during the ceremony and reception and positioning would be important. If you care more about the wedding video than you do about the actual wedding, it might be okay.Would this be good for wedding videos ?
I agree I can’t see how they can get 8K from half the sensor. Given the left and right will overlap when rendered.The patent says the image height (= radius) is 8.75mm. So each image circle covers 240mm^2, or about a quarter of the 864mm^2 full frame sensor. (240/864)*44.8 = 12.4MP. More than enough for 4K (ignoring distortion correction), but certainly not enough for 8K.
It’s never going to be a lens for close up work. Wide angles are very bad at that, unless you are trying to film Pinocchio. It would be more about capturing the whole room, wall to wall and allowing the viewer to look around where they wanted. I’m not sure it would be used for the wedding service, as it would preclude the photographer being in front of the camera, making the more traditional shots very difficult to achieve at the same time. I would think that the goal of a wedding photographer is to not be in their own shots.I may be missing something, but I wonder if it might be too intrusive for many wedding couples. It's a fisheye so the videographer would have to be pretty close to the subjects during the ceremony and reception and positioning would be important. If you care more about the wedding video than you do about the actual wedding, it might be okay.
My understanding is the lens projects two 17.5mm tall (circular) images side by side. The real world view overlaps, but each image gets a separate part of the sensor to be projected on. Software is used to combine the two images into a 3D model of the scene. AFAIK, the model's resolution can't exceed that of each image, which is well under 8K.I agree I can’t see how they can get 8K from half the sensor. Given the left and right will overlap when rendered.
Unless they are using half pixels as whole ones. I.e. left and right sides of the dual pixel to double the horizontal resolution. It would be the first time such a thing had been done, to my knowledge.
It would surely darken the image as only half as much light would hit each half pixel. interesting idea though.