Previous news story    Next news story

Fujifilm releases FinePix REAL 3D V3 viewer

By dpreview staff on Nov 1, 2011 at 12:03 GMT

Fujifilm has released the FinePix REAL 3D V3 viewer for still images and movies. In a first for Fujifilm, it uses a lenticular system for glasses-free 3D viewing, and includes an HDMI input for connection to 3D-enabled devices such as Fujifilm's own FinePix REAL 3D W3 camera, as well as an SDHC card slot. The company also claims that 7.2" 2.88 million dot screen is substantially brighter than its predecessor. The unit can also function as a conventional 2D display, includes built-in stereo speakers, and comes with a remote control.

Press release:

FinePix REAL 3D V3 - 3D Digital Viewer - Brighter, glasses-free!

Fujifilm continues to stay at the forefront of 3D imaging technology with the introduction of the new FinePix REAL 3D V3. FinePix REAL 3D V3 sports some exciting new functionality that takes your viewing of 3D still photos and movies to the next level.

Key improvements have been made to the screen, which is substantially brighter than its predecessor and now uses a lenticular system for glasses-free 3D viewing, plus the V3 Viewer also supports High Definition 3D still photos and movie playback as well as compatibility to other 3D devices via HDMI input: a world’s first in a 3D Digital Viewer*.

Glasses-free LCD monitor

The FinePix REAL 3D V3 Viewer is the first from Fujifilm to use a lenticular system for viewing images. The “no-glasses required” system makes for crystal clear 3D images, and don’t suffer from any on-screen flickering.

Images are viewed through a series of lenses aligned on a sheet at left and right angles. As a result, the left and right eyes view different images with the parallax difference between the two eyes creating the 3D effect. With 2.88 million dots and LED backlighting, you will be able to see images with amazing sharpness and clarity.

Naturally, the V3 Viewer doesn’t only support 3D still photos and movies, standard 2D still photos and movies can also be viewed at a maximum resolution to 10,000 x 10,000 pixels. The full colour display offers an impressive 16.77 million colours to provide superb colour accuracy and has a wide viewing angle of up to 160° horizontally and 140° vertically.

HDMI compatibility - a world’s first

With the range of 3D products expanding, Fujifilm has become the first company to incorporate an HDMI input on a 3D viewer, which extends its compatibility and versatility. 3D images can be viewed by connecting HDMI-enabled 3D devices including FinePix REAL 3D W3 digital camera, Blu-ray disc players, video camcorders and gaming machines to the FinePix REAL 3D V3 Digital Viewer.

Bring your 3D High Definition movies to life on the new V3 viewer

Users capturing 3D movies can view them in 720p High Definition on the FinePix REAL 3D V3 Digital Viewer, a substantial improvement over the VGA-only offering from the V1 Viewer. What’s more, the V3 Viewer’s built-in stereo speakers offer high quality sound to enhance the movie viewing experience.

Additional functionality for greater versatility

The FinePix REAL 3D V3 Digital Viewer offers a range of viewing options to ensure the still photos and movies are seen at their very best. Its black frame emphasises the 3D effect while the supplied stand can be adjusted in eight steps so you’re always assured of seeing the perfect 3D image. In addition the V3 Viewer can be mounted on a pocket tripod and finely adjusted to display optimum 3D images.

Additional built in features include a slideshow function, calendar, clock and timer displays, plus the compatibility to play WAV audio files in slideshow mode and support SD and SDHC memory cards. A remote control is also provided for hands-free operation.

Fujifilm FinePix REAL 3D V3 Viewer key features:

  • 7.2-inch 3D lenticular display for glasses-free viewing
  • 2.88 million dots
  • Wide viewing angle (160° horizontally, 140° vertically) in the 2D images played mode
  • Can be playback the High Definition 3D still photo and movies via HDMI interface (High-speed type)
  • 720p HD movie compatible
  • Built-in stereo speakers
  • 512MB internal memory
  • SD/SDHC card compatible

* Correct October 2011

Comments

Total comments: 36
Rhialto
By Rhialto (Nov 2, 2011)

Wish it would natively display 720p (1280 x 720 pixels).

Still waiting for W5 announcement.

0 upvotes
Cy Cheze
By Cy Cheze (Nov 2, 2011)

I'm not sure even many 2D picture displays offer more than 800x600. The Fuji is double that (2 times 800x600). I'm put-off most by the small size. Of course, 7" is small enough to put on a mantle, but is it any way to "see" 3D? Since you've got to be pretty close, that more or less assures the viewer will be in the "sweet spot." At any distance over, say, 3', perhaps the image looks 2D or distorted, or is too small to notice.

0 upvotes
MaikeruN
By MaikeruN (Nov 2, 2011)

why not make it with android?! could be great!

0 upvotes
barry5054
By barry5054 (Nov 2, 2011)

I have tried 3 such viewers for stereoscopic work. The display specification of the V3 does at least match those. The downfall for this model will be the lack of internal power supply.
There is no mention, so far, of the lenticular barrier resolution which is also critical to the viewing experience. If this matches that used on some 3D cameras, then this is in itself a step forward.
Wheatstone and Brewster in particular provided us with a grounding of good optical stereoscopic viewers for prints and film, perhaps one day we will have an acceptable digital adaptation of such.

0 upvotes
CameraLabTester
By CameraLabTester (Nov 1, 2011)

This could be the kickstart of many innovative things for the 3D experience and other companies may follow suit if it is well received by the consumers.

Lenticular screens will always be viewed in a narrow angle and with a qualified distance. That is the behaviour of this device, due to optical construction.

My main concern is the capacity of the CPU to handle the movie files rather than the photo files. It takes way more processing power to produce a 3D movie viewed on this gadget. Regular home computers can't handle the CPU power spike even when the Fuji software is installed.

1 upvote
Cy Cheze
By Cy Cheze (Nov 2, 2011)

An i7 "home computer," with the right graphics card, can play the Fuji files. But without the 3D graphics card, you may be stuck with red-cyan 3D. A 3D display that provided the necessary graphics card, to function with an orddinary PC, would be very handy, especially with a portable screen you might use at various locations.

0 upvotes
DB Custom
By DB Custom (Nov 1, 2011)

Beautiful image! I'd like a 24x36 print please! ;)

0 upvotes
GradyBeachum
By GradyBeachum (Nov 1, 2011)

...It's a glorified digital picture frame...
Granted it does have a higher resolution than what you normally find.
Yes it will play back 3D images and movies.
BUT the form factor and most of the functionality is more like a picture frame...

Comment edited 5 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
gskolenda
By gskolenda (Nov 1, 2011)

Fuji, missed the boat again in my opinion, They could have captured a whole other market, and added value to their supposed targeted market, by simply giving you a battery option. Many, many people that shoot video, with the higher end DSLR's and even the M4/3 and now the newer mirrorless cameras would love to use this as a monitor with one of the above mentioned cameras.

Too bad

1 upvote
marike6
By marike6 (Nov 1, 2011)

People shooting HDSLR video already have such a screen: an HDMI monitor. The Fuji screen has an HDMI input so there is no reason it couldn't be used as a field monitor.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/buy/Monitors/ci/16501/N/4279260858+4278628929

Comment edited 4 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Hugh Paterson
By Hugh Paterson (Nov 1, 2011)

I just hope that this Fujifilm V3 viewer is better than the preceding V1 version which I purchased. In order to see a 3D image on the V1 viewer, the viewing angle is incedibly narrow and the viewing distance also quite critical. Even then, the 3D image is full of "ghosting" and really rather poor.The lack of internal battery power is also a major omission, since with the power-cable attached it cannot be easily passed around for a group of people to view.
Generally, I'm a fan of Fuji products, and their 3D cameras are excellent (including the integral lenticular 3D screen on the camera), but unless this V3 viewer is much better than the V1 - and hopefully cheaper too- I would leave well alone!

0 upvotes
thx1138
By thx1138 (Nov 1, 2011)

Unfortunately the nature of lenticular arrays don't allow for a wide range of viewing angles. I've been involved with lenticular arrays where I work, and I'm not impressed with the technology at all.

0 upvotes
Cy Cheze
By Cy Cheze (Nov 2, 2011)

The limitations you cite may be inherent to all existing glasses-free displays, which may explain why they are very small or designed only for laptops or gamers. The viewer must be close and at a fixed position. Gamers' heads may rock about, which is why the laptop versions have a head tracking tool built into the webcam.

0 upvotes
Cy Cheze
By Cy Cheze (Nov 1, 2011)

Will this work only when connnected to a Fuji 3D camera? Will it not function as a 3D monitor, when connected to a PC with ordinary graphics card specs? Will it no read or recognize 3D files created with a camera made by a competing brand? JVC, Sony, Panasonic, Aiptek, and others make various sorts of 3D cameras or camcorders.

Meanwhile, what is the "best deal" for a glasses-free 3D monitor for someone who is not ready to spend a heap to convert every piece of hardware to 3D? Hopefully, that would be with a diameter 15" or larger, include whatever graphics drivers a 2D PC might not have, be compatible with just about any 3D file type or software, and cost under $750.

1 upvote
MaikeruN
By MaikeruN (Nov 2, 2011)

keep dreaming or keep waiting lol

0 upvotes
Cy Cheze
By Cy Cheze (Nov 2, 2011)

3D goggles aimed at gamers might prove to be the most efficient solution. They would have small displays, but high resolution. Being built into the goggles, there would be no issue of viewing angle or distance. If only they provided the 3D graphics drivers too, and not cost a fortune, they'd be interesting. The existing 3D "headsets," though, look a bit bulky, and the specs don't say whether they also require that the PC have a 3d graphics card or that one use a 3D Blu-ray player. Anyone know?

0 upvotes
Jogger
By Jogger (Nov 1, 2011)

whats the actual pixel resolution of this? why the heck are they using dots

0 upvotes
Cy Cheze
By Cy Cheze (Nov 1, 2011)

The resolution is 2 x (800x600). The combined resolution of the two channels is therefore 1600x600. It plays 1280x720 MJPEG 3D video files, either ones shot with a Fuji camera or exported to that format via software.

0 upvotes
tulo
By tulo (Nov 1, 2011)

i'd be interested in a viewer like this one if it also had a 3D image editing interface.

0 upvotes
unknown member
By (unknown member) (Nov 1, 2011)

Price?

0 upvotes
metalized
By metalized (Nov 1, 2011)

3D is for the next generation. Older people as usual will resist changes and won't like it, simply because they afraid that their current skill in 2d will someday be ignored by people.

3 upvotes
jguerdat
By jguerdat (Nov 1, 2011)

What? I'm almost 62 and would potentially be interested if there was a compelling reason/need. I find plenty of younger people who are as clueless as your "older people"...

3 upvotes
f_stops
By f_stops (Nov 1, 2011)

3D has been around for over a century.
Technology can't force people to adopt something that is basically a 'gimmick'.

1 upvote
Nigel Wilkins
By Nigel Wilkins (Nov 1, 2011)

Agreed!...people older than the Victorians who first started using 3D will definitely resist!

1 upvote
sens72
By sens72 (Nov 1, 2011)

What do older people have to do with this?

0 upvotes
Cy Cheze
By Cy Cheze (Nov 1, 2011)

Older folks are more "into" the fourth dimension (time). Their perennial complaint is that too much of the third is wasted on the young, who have trouble enough with just two: right-left, up-down. The dellusion of the young is to "get from here to there" without giving a hoot about the first two Ds.

0 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (Nov 1, 2011)

You have luddites of all ages, but hopefully most will see 3D for what it is: a gimmick.

1 upvote
webe3d
By webe3d (Nov 3, 2011)

This is a funny thread. Age has nothing to do with anything . I am a 3D super freek about to turn 55. As for 3D being a gimmick, well so is TV, crayons, the pencil, the ballpoint pen, automatic transmission ... What the heck is with people refering to the gimmick thing? Why don't we all just get government issued eye patches when we're born and do away with that gimmicky god given binocular vision thing. Who needs it anyway.

0 upvotes
sens72
By sens72 (Nov 1, 2011)

3D, 3D, 3D....
Is there really a big group of costumers who want's 3D?
It's just a temporarily gimmick, isn't it?
Come on marketing people, learn from your mistakes and try to make some stuff that does matter!

0 upvotes
Knallberto
By Knallberto (Nov 1, 2011)

Since millions of years :-) people see 3D ... if you think there is "no need" of 3D then it's a dumbing down through daily use of 2D tv.

0 upvotes
Bill Borne
By Bill Borne (Nov 1, 2011)

3D is here to stay...mark my words 8-)

Comment edited 30 seconds after posting
1 upvote
dgc4rter
By dgc4rter (Nov 1, 2011)

I'm sorry but , until they can make this 3D technology look real without any need for the ubiquitous Red & Green glasses, it will remain in that market sector which electric cars reside in - a gimmicky technology which doesn't yet "cut the mustard" and the majority of the discerning public fail to be sold on.

1 upvote
Cy Cheze
By Cy Cheze (Nov 1, 2011)

Sonny, 3D has been around, in one form or another, for a loooooong time. The "next generation" now has great-great-grandkids. Maybe plenoptic images are the next wave. But if 3D can't cut it profit-wise in the market, why bet on that either.

Everyone's legitimate fear is that today's 3D screens that require glasses could become obsolete in 3 years, or that 3D content will be confined mainly to kiddie toons or gorey stuff. Why throw $3k at something that could soon become worthless, just to see stuff you don't even like?

Something else: perhaps 80% of the perception of depth arises from factors other than stereoscopic vision: size, overlap, differential motion, paralax. And, beyond a certain distance, stereoscopy becomes imperceptible.

1 upvote
Lan
By Lan (Nov 2, 2011)

@ drc4arter. Did you read the article at all? This doesn't need any glasses, well except for any you normally need!

The Fujifilm 3D cameras (W1 and W3) don't need glasses either, as the displays on those are autostereoscopic too.

Most 3D films are shown in cinemas using the Real3D system, which only requires a pair of (differently) polarized glasses.

The coloured glasses were a 1970's thing, we've moved on!

As an aside to DPReview: Why can't I reply to the post by dgc4arter directly? It doesn't make sense for me to reply to sens72 as this isn't a reply to his topic any longer...

0 upvotes
chrisnfolsom
By chrisnfolsom (Nov 3, 2011)

While it says it doesn't need any glasses - it is going to be limited as there will be a sweet spot - I doubt more that one user could enjoy viewing it at the same time.

I am for the glasses - perhaps above 120hz flicker. If Sony could put the 2.3mp viewfinder lcd's in some glasses that would be incredible VR!

Also regarding 3D as "new" - the steroviewers have been around for 130 ears and are incredible to see. I have collected stereo images of the 1906 earthquake and many other places and events that give you a real 3D effect.

I even helped my daughter with a science project and we created our own color stereoviewer cards that stunned her classmates with the 3D color and resolutions through the stereoviewer.

I do believe that the current 3D is a marketing gimmick. Unfortunately while 3D is great, it is much less important than color, lighting and resolution in pictures - generally if you notice the 3D it is probably being over used (you can "push" the effect).

0 upvotes
Spence57
By Spence57 (Jan 23, 2012)

I had the idea that it would be tough to direct 2 views to each person viewing. I thought about it though and realized that a normal TV/monitor sends light throughout the room while a projector that directs it's image to each person only has to use a small fraction of that lux power. Directing the views to each person might be complicated or maybe we could just put an in fared dot on our foreheads and the one of the TV's dozen image-directors would follow us. To those not watching nothing would be visible and the room would not be lighted by a TV.

0 upvotes
Total comments: 36