I'm planning a "follow me" scene at 3m altitude, down a relatively 'tight' and twisting road with trees etc - I think it should be ok. Only time will tell though! :-)
3D pictures (movies) are good when you have at least 2-3 and more separated layers (the closer should be at few meters), in order to have a good 3D effect.
If you use to fly at some altitude, you will not have any close layer, except if you fly inside a forest for instance. You will have closer trees and further trees (on different layers) and this can give you a good 3D effect.
If you fly above a flat surface like a lake, will be hard to see any 3D effect.
When in air, the closest layer will be at hundred meters and I don't believe you will see a good 3D effect.
It is like trying to see a 3D effect when looking to a wall.
Ok, the main issue with this looks to be weight and width. 130mm wide is tight in a lot of gimbals, and it's an extra 150gm at least for the extra camera and the additional weight of the case.
Replies
3D pictures (movies) are good when you have at least 2-3 and more separated layers (the closer should be at few meters), in order to have a good 3D effect.
If you use to fly at some altitude, you will not have any close layer, except if you fly inside a forest for instance. You will have closer trees and further trees (on different layers) and this can give you a good 3D effect.
If you fly above a flat surface like a lake, will be hard to see any 3D effect.
When in air, the closest layer will be at hundred meters and I don't believe you will see a good 3D effect.
It is like trying to see a 3D effect when looking to a wall.
Ok, the main issue with this looks to be weight and width. 130mm wide is tight in a lot of gimbals, and it's an extra 150gm at least for the extra camera and the additional weight of the case.
Still...it's promising...