One of the problems for manufacturers of digital cameras is that
unlike 35mm cameras, where you had to keep buying films and developing
them, once you buy a digital camera they can’t charge you for
consumables, because there are none. With this camera, I wonder if
they’ve used this lenticular screen because you have to get your
prints from them, you can’t print them yourself - and prints with
individual lenticular screens will be v. expensive.
Also, the lenticular system has been around for ages for 35mm 3D
cameras - I even have a camera myself which is designed to produce
lenticular prints - but you usually need more than two images (my
camera takes 4) because the placement of your eyes when viewing the
prints is critical. With only two images, as this camera produces,
you’d have to view the image from absolutely directly in front of it.
Just moving the print an inch to either side, or a slight rotation of
the print will destroy the effect. This is why you can’t get practical
3D TV’s yet, because only one person sitting in exactly the right
place would see the effect.
Of course, if the camera saves pictures as a Jpeg with the two images
side by side, that wouldn’t matter - you could just use whatever
method you wanted to make your own final images, but I’d be almost
prepared to put money on them either using a new proprietary image
format, or encoding the images in a stupid way - like taking alternate
pixels from each image.
Having said that… Yay! Digital 3D!
I’ll almost certainly get one of these, but I’ll give it a while for
the price to come down - or the whole thing to flop massively and get
sold off as surplus