Taking a look at the Qoocam EGO… from afar!

A few weeks ago, Kandao announced a new Qoocam that is set to launch on Kickstarter on February 8. To everyone‘s surprise, this new model is neither a VR180 or a 360 camera but it is instead a 3D camera. Why would Kandao introduce a 3D camera instead of a “VR” one ? That has been the question on everybody’s mind.  In fact, many wondered if that new camera may in fact be capable of shooting VR180. A quick look at its lenses makes it obvious it cannot since they are clearly not fisheye lenses nor do they protrude out of the camera body.  So what we have here is indeed a true 3D camera.

Adding to the mystery is the fact that Kandao has released few specs and no sample clips or pictures taken with this camera.  So let’s try and take a look at what we know so far and compare it to other recent 3D digital cameras.

As I have shown in my previous article, 3D cameras have a very long history that dates back to the invention of photography. And 3D also has an interesting history in the digital era. Not only were several 3d digital cameras introduced about twelve years ago – notably the Fuji W1 and W3, several other models were offered by Sony, Panasonic, JVC and others. All were eventually discontinued.

Interestingly, some years later, some smaller Chinese enterprises decided to try and reintroduce 3D cameras on the market. The first of these was the UCVR – a rather strange hybrid apparently inspired by Kodak’s VR180 prototype. It could fold in two like it. But its field of view was only 120 degrees, which meant it was incapable of shooting VR180. As a 3D camera it also failed due to the fact that synchronization between left and right sensors was very poor.

Next came the Weeview SID – a tiny camera with a 43mm lens separation. This one turned out pretty good… as long as you got one with lenses that were properly focused. The problem with the SID was that quality control was not very good and some buyers ended up with cameras whose lenses were out of focus. But otherwise, sync was very good and IQ was good as well.

After that came the JedEye, which looked like a larger version of the SID. This camera was also fairly good except that its lenses suffered from pronounced barrel distortion. One unique feature of the JedEye was its external mike port – not seen on any other digital 3D camera.

And finally came the AntVR Cap2 – a strange camera that held the distinction of having been a VR180 camera in its original version but was now outfitted with longer lenses for shooting regular 3D. It also was the only one of the four to feature a display on its back. IQ on this one was not as good as the previous two and there were sync problems between audio and video.

All of these cameras were extremely simple designs – having very few hardware controls – and only one of them actually featuring a display. None of them had interchangeable batteries and most needed a phone to adjust settings.

So now comes the Qoocam EGO which, admittedly, looks like a reincarnation of the Weeview SID… except for one detail: It has an unusual attachment that mounts to the back and acts as a stereoscopic viewer. That of course is what makes it unique.

Mind you, the concept of having an accessory viewer that mounts to the back of a digital 3D camera is not new. It was first proposed in a US patent dating from 2007. In this case, the viewer was of the traditional kind where side-by-side images appeared on the display and were viewed with a simple viewer outfitted with two lenses.

The EGO takes a different approach in that it displays the stereo pairs on the camera’s screen by rotating them head-to-head and a viewer outfitted with a set of mirrors rotates the images back to side-by-side. This has the advantage of allowing display of two wider than high images within a nearly square screen. This approach is not new either, having been first proposed by Marcus and Pompey Mainardi in a patent dating from 1943. In this case, the goal was to fit two images within the space of a single 35mm slide.

No doubt, applying this design to a digital display is clever. But does it work as well as it appears? Only hands-on testing will tell. But the concept remains brilliant in that it offers a camera whose content can be viewed immediately without the need to purchase a separate viewer or headset.

But what of the other features of the EGO? It is now clear that it will be the first 3D digital camera in over ten years to have an interchangeable battery. It very much appears that it will also feature an SD card port. But, as a stereoscopic camera, will it really offer better image quality than its predecessors ?

If we look at the 3D cameras of recent years we note:

Weeview:
Video resolution 2880×1440 @ 30fps
Photo resolution: 8064x4032px

JedEye:
Video resolution 4096×1520 @ 30fps / 3040×1520 @60fps

Compare to the EGO:
Video resolution 1920×1080 @ 60fps
Photo resolution: 4000x3000px (estimated)

Of course, these values may not tell the whole story. Some camera manufacturers have been known at times to upscale lower resolution sensors so as to provide a large image but which does not necessarily reveal greater detail.  The field of view is also a factor.  A narrower FOV with the same resolution could also yield greater detail.

As of now, all this remains a mystery.  The only way to know for sure if the EGO offers better IQ will be to test it against its predecessors – something we will not be able to do anytime soon since no review units have been available so far.

The next questions relate to the requirements for a stereo camera to provide an image that is pleasant to view. This means:

• Matched focal length lenses
• Matched focus
• Matched colours between left and right images
• Perfect synchronization of sensors
• Vertical alignment between left and right lenses and sensors
• Stereo window integration

The previous cameras mentioned above did mostly abide by these criteria except for one: None of them featured a stereo window. The stereo window is a setting that creates the effect of a floating frame generally located between five and seven feet from the camera. This allows subject matter to appear behind this frame while close subject matter appears in front of it. To achieve this effect, the lenses must be slightly offset in relationship to the sensors. It is simple to implement but none of the recent 3D camera manufacturers have done so. In contrast, it is not only implemented in the Fuji 3D cameras but a lever at the top of these cameras allows one to adjust the position of the stereo window as required. It remains to be seen if Kandao thought of integrating this feature…

In conclusion, the EGO could indeed be a 3D camera that is several steps beyond its predecessors like it could be yet another design that gets everything wrong! I am hopeful that Kandao’s years of experience designing high-end 3D 360 cameras will be reflected in the EGO’s design and that we will indeed see a 3D product on the market that will be appealing to many. We will have to wait and see.