Why they don't 3D cameras anymore?

I don't have the answer; I hope someone can answer.

It seems that 3D did not succeed in the modern world. It remain a very niche only suitable for a small passionate people.

I am addicted to 3D and most of my pictures are now in 3D, but is even hard to find people to view 3D on a 3D TV more than a few minutes.

Maybe the vast amount of people are simply not interested.

I am hopping that will change.

The devoted will keep it alive.  It is arguable that the best way of making the images is to cobble together two separate cameras, Simon. Even when the Realist system was dominant I could see the advantage of paired cameras.  Right now I am looking at the Olympus Air 01 as a platform, and it has open architecture for fooling around.  One of the applications might just be stereo...As to the popularity and viewing, well, I agree you either get bitten or you don't. Might be that some folk have low stereopsis.  But the Wow factor is still there.  It does take a certain style to shoot in 3-D and a lot of junk has come out that is exploitive and poor quality.  No, I do not expect a boom, maybe a boomlet is all we can have.  I am thankful for the boomlet.  I got a lot of Realist slides. I treasure them.   Aloha, GS

Just to give my own reason, 3D gives me a headache, and as such the effect intended is largely lost on me. Asking others, it seems I'm not alone in this. It causes a kind of vertigo and disorientation.

I haven't seen much for 3D photography, just going based on video.

Not trying to put down 3D as an art,  but I really just can't enjoy it.

droshi wrote:

Just to give my own reason, 3D gives me a headache, and as such the effect intended is largely lost on me. Asking others, it seems I'm not alone in this. It causes a kind of vertigo and disorientation.

I haven't seen much for 3D photography, just going based on video.

Not trying to put down 3D as an art, but I really just can't enjoy it.

Hi droshi,

You have a good reason not to love 3D. Is known that a part of population have bad symptoms when viewing 3D (film or pictures).

My question is why they don't make 3D cameras for the other part of people that can enjoy 3D?

Probably because for seeing 3D needs a pair of special glasses or looking cross eyes that is very hard for most of people.

I don't speak on "art" but I enjoy very much seeing my 3D stereo pictures on a 3D capable TV.

3D is probably a gimmick that doesn't succeed and now the producers are going to other directions like 4k.. etc.

Enjoy 2D photography and be well!

3-D is not nor can ever be a perfect reproduction of reality. For one thing it requires a visual separation of the physiological funtion of accomodation ( focus)and convergence. Which are linked in nature. However, we are binocular creatures and get more information by two images fused than a single flat image,no matter how wide. It had some great popularity when there was a real system that made it easy to shoot and view. And even project. But even then, it was not for everyone. It takes some work to reproduce stereo and we seem to be more and more headed to convenience and quick and dirty shots. So let it remain the province of those who enjoy stereo, and those who enjoy it REALLy enjoy it. A good 3-D movie is a joy. When I watch a National Geographic film about underwater cave exploring or an aerial tour of a rainforest or a look at lion prides, I always think how wonderful it would be to get that view in 3-D. Or to see a science show about the cosmos with animations in 3-D.

Watson and Crick-those two Nobel guys, remember--- made their DNA double helix model in 3-D! they had to, life at its basic is a solid thing....and they saw how the bases fit on the helix so science is in 3-D or stereo. Am I getting close to the idea? You either get it or do not...I understand,and hope those that cannot enjoy it can imagine or imagine the zest fo those who can. A taste that is persistent in the so called community of stereo buffs..about 140 years now...

Popularity has to include a system that makes shooting and showing easy.  Has not happened in the digital world. Getting a standard for storage and viewing would help.  Product must be relevant and interesting, and suited to the depth mode. In movies, there is a problem of enough illlumination on the screen because of the polaroid process and even Cameron has recognized this.  Eclipsing viewer are too heavy.  We could make them lighter!  But then exhibitors have to pay a price....bottom line is that there are still technical problems that require heavy interest and tech problems diminish interest which diminishes investment, a typical vicious circle...best answer to OP that I got for today...aloha.

Simon Zeev wrote:

I don't have the answer; I hope someone can answer.

It seems that 3D did not succeed in the modern world. It remain a very niche only suitable for a small passionate people.

I am addicted to 3D and most of my pictures are now in 3D, but is even hard to find people to view 3D on a 3D TV more than a few minutes.

Maybe the vast amount of people are simply not interested.

I am hopping that will change.

Well, I like 3D, and still regularly watch 3D movies.

While one door closes - in this case with the disappearance of dedicated 3D cameras, another opens - with the rise of modular camera systems, like the Olympus Air.

I believe the Olympus AIR has significant possibilities for a home brew stereo device with flexibility and existing quality lenses . Eventually perhaps..am waiting for some one to come up with a prototype. It needs software writing and that is not me.  I doubt Fuji sees a market for the next model of their offering.

I've produced 3D images and the occasional print using a Fuji FinePix Real 3D W3 - bought after its price had fallen to a sensible level.  Sadly, Fujifilm UK emailed me a few days ago to say that supplies of the special lenticular plastic used for printing 3D is ceasing as from next month.  So, I'll be restricted to viewing my 3D snaps on my 3D plasma TV.