Hi Guys,

What do you think?  The new Lytro camera is able to take 3d images. They've invented new microscopes able to photograph 3d bacteria.  Many gamer machines are 3d ready. Are we now at the start of the 3d age?

This is speculation but technology moves fast, and if it's already in the consumer market - does that mean the clock is ticking on our 2d images?

Does a 3d image agency exist? Anybody here already using this technology?

Interesting tho. I wonder what will happen to the value of our 2d ports...

It's a long way before all media - especially in print - will be in 3D. Apart from some holography, paper is still 2D. And so are most of current LCD screens. I wouldn't worry too much right now for the value of our ports.

By the way, I don't like 3D movies. And I don't even like 5.1 sound: at least for music listening, I stick to the good old stereo. 3D is just a technological curiosity for me, not a much needed improvement.

important to distinguish between 3D renders and what we're talking about here. I love good 3D renders....but personally, I hate 3D movies and television. I don't see the point.

This blog post http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2011/01/post_4.html written by Roger Ebert pretty much sums up what I think about 3D. Of course it's only about film/movies, but some of it applies even still images.

Yeah I'm with you and them and everyone else who says, it's a novelty more than a serious long lasting technology. Now most people here didn't get to watch the 3D of the 50s with blue and red glasses. It was nice for comic books but for movies, it came and went. Then there have been all kinds of stereoscopes, including the White cameras, which on a good day, were fun. Really Viewmasters made the biggest impact?

Nimslo and the sliced image with prismatic plastic, no glasses needed, pretty cool. Where are they now?

The polarized technology was out in kits, 50 years ago.

Then people have come up with improved colors for the glasses, and tweaked things, and at best (IMHO) it's still an entertaining toy or novelty. Consider the source, because if I'm on a website and can choose between reading a page or many pages or watching a video of instruction, I chose the images and printed page. When forced to watch a video only, I close the page and take a pass. I feel the same about wearing glasses to watch a movie or TV or my computer. Well maybe except I did like Captain EO at Epcot.

No I don't see 3D as a serious format for marketing stock images or video clips.

The new Lytro camera is nice. Practical and affordable? I don't know. But it's not going to make your DSLR obsolete or take over the market.

Put on your glasses 

no glass dammit : (  did you make this by taking a series of shot in a parallel line and then choosing the left and right eye?

But don't you think it HAS to be more than a fad. I mean, our eyes see 3d. 2d just isn't natural in this world. Isn't the only thing holding this back the technology?

No, it isn't. You won't convince me that 3D is more real than 2D.

Reality and its representation will never be the same thing (Schopenhauer, "Die Welt als Wille und Vorstellung", "Parerga und Paralipomena", etc);

And especially I don't want it to be.
If we are happy with a 2D (instead of 3D), or a stereo (instead of quadrophonic) representation of reality, why change?

The world as it is is not so great. Art doesn't need to conform to reality. The opposite is better. Am I crazy?

I just shot with the left eye in viewfinder... slid the camera over to the right eye and used the same focus point and shot again. I have a program I picked up for free on the net that does the anaglyphs.

: ) lol... simple

My dream would be to make a hologram of yoda, one that could really cut things up with a lightsabre.  Tables, stuff like that.  Hoping for a slight amendment to the laws of physics in my next firmware update (go canon go - i believe in you)

But then there is also 3D printing now. But it is so far from scanned object.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZboxMsSz5Aw&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]