@crunchy thanks for the link, nice footage! yeah i've been looking into beam-splitters. just thought it be interesting to theoretically construct a 3D gh2 in one housing, moving grip controls on the right side camera to make space for the left camera, for human eye spacing. then figuring out a new chassis and case.

I'm not 3d savy at all, but can't you just rig up something with cages. flip one of them upside down to get them side-by-side? Similar to what Peter Jackson is doing for Hobbits with Red Cams.

Shoot side-by-side.. (do convergence in post) - rule out close quarters - or get a mirror rig. There is a sync unit for the gh1/2 out.. Do a search here and you will propably find all the info you will need. Have a further look at 3d category on 3d setups, on how to make life easier.

Reconstructing them into one unit seems like a bad (overly complicated) idea. You can get a camcorder 3d cam (the sony's are alright) if you indeed need to get closer and can't afford a mirror rig.

@blackroom.. I'm pretty sure you can get stunning 3d with the gh2 (even side by side) if you spend time with it. Especially if you are planning to do medium / long shots; as you will have a flatter image if you aren't shooting wide, and a side-by-side gives you an (unrealistic) exaggerated stereoscopic effect. You 're unlikely to have any problems with 3% rules either since you are doing greenscreen. Could be interesting! If you can do it in a controlled environment it should definately be possible to do something good with that.

I have tried the sony NX3D1E and it's a pretty handy camcorder (emphasis on camcorder), but pretty expensive, for what it is. Apparently the td20 is pretty much the same, although a lot cheaper but it only shoots interlaced.

@RRRR interesting thanks. will be experimenting soon when i get another GH2 and controller. also considering setting up for some photo scanning with multiple stereo pair cameras, there is an overlap in technology here. @madrenderman yeah that's what i thought, the post convergence only can work so far if at all. much to test out, thanks for your input.

@blackroom @renderman – yes, obviously you need 5 meter+ for side-by side but I assumed you have that? Maybe it´s possible to get a bit closer with greenscreen, have not tried that.

Good idea.. actually you can start to experiment already if you have a bar that is steady so that you can slide the GH2 back and forth. (and a steady subject), shoot stills, move it around and see what you get.

@RRRR yeah i guess alot of testing can be done with one camera to start, pick up a macroslider. gonna test pair of GF2's as well, smaller camera but side by side maybe still not close enough. @vitaly could we start a best 3d movies examples list? a bit subjective but maybe get a consensus.

@ madrenderman, @RRRR The minimum distance depends on the lenses, on background distance and partially on the final screen size and viewing distance to the screen. Ballpark value is 30-times more than distance between the cameras if using 35mm equivalent. If using 28mm equivalent lens (14mm lenses), the closest subject might be closer: 30*28/35 - times the distance between the cameras. Of course, exaggerating with wide lenses results in a quite artificial 3D with pronounced depth of the subjects.

@RRRR By mentioning "Shoot side-by-side.. (do convergence in post) " you probably meant: shoot parallel and then change horizontal alignment in post. Namely, I think that some members did not understand properly your sentence...

1. Samsungs new nx-system-3D? If samsungs new camera-system or body comes true then 60mm base is possible side by side. I wouldnt be surprised if they can be twinned.

2. zeiss pc-distagon 35/2.8 has 10mm shift-70mm diameter. there are very expensive 20mm solutions. zoerk 35mm mamiya etc. so when calculating with gh2 124mm we get 104mm base min. but subject is distorted differently....! if the cables are not on the sides.... if i were you stick at canon s95 and use macrobox for closups. video is also quite synch if no high-speed-action.

It seems to me that trying to do 3D with two GH2's would be problematic for other reasons as well:

How do you get the two cameras to sync exactly? If there were even a slight difference in when each frame is read out and any motion in the subject, it would result in a very strange type of jello. I think it would make the viewer sick instead of just annoyed.

Imagine if frame types (i.e. I, P, B) weren't synced perfectly as well. Wouldn't that produce a rather nauseating shimmer as well?

If you are going to do good 3D you should get an iPhone app. A friend of mine designed IODcalc (about $50) and it includes an exclusive 'roundness' readout (my suggestion). 3D can look like a diorama with layered 2D objects or look fully rendered (roundness) depending on your lens choice and inter-ocular distance. This friend was stereographer on my short 'Highly Strung' which won me an award from SMPTE at their Dimensionale Film Festival... so he knows his stuff. The other pitfall to watch out for (other than sync and rolling shutter) is no 2 lenses are the same so of the 3D is to be viewed on a large screen you have to fix the errors. Sony has the MPE2000 to do this but if you are using zooms you still need the 3D synced ones from Canon or Fuji to get you in the ball park. I built his 3D rig V2 and supervised a test for ATN7 footy last year (as my friend became very ill at the time) and even with the help of Sony experts and Fuji and Canon I was run ragged fixing stuff and have learnt just about every pitfall there is... and they are aplenty. For a laugh, I made this video of the exercise