Making Stereoscopic RED Movies

[Joseph Ward]

Hi everyone! I’m new to this, and wanted to know if it’s possible to make 3d movies from red? I remember watching captain EO when I was a kid and thought it was so cool, I wished I could do that. Anyways, any suggestions would be helpful. Thanks!:biggrin:

[Michael Schrengohst]

I am sure that is the next thing Jim is working on. That way he can sell twice as many RED's (As if that will be a problem)

[Jeremy Hughes]

I forget who but somebody at DVXuser had this idea for a "double lens" which would put two images on the sensor when recording 4K. It would still be 2K though.

[Jeff Kilgroe]

I forget who but somebody at DVXuser had this idea for a "double lens" which would put two images on the sensor when recording 4K. It would still be 2K though.

I suppose it could be possible to make some sort of lens adapter that takes two 16mm lenses and focuses their images side by side into a 35mm frame. Somewhat cumbersome and complicated, probably expensive. But by no means impossible.

But I think this has been done before on some level (combining two lenses side by side on a single image). I just can't recall where or by who...

[chuck colburn]

Jeff,

That was Stereovision (remember the "Stewerdreses 3-D)! There was also a divirging prisim assembly in front to control convergance. Thats all I have to say about that movie.

[Jim Arthurs]

The "over-under" practice of putting two images on the same frame of film was used quite a bit in the early '80's ... Jaws 3D, Friday the 13th 3D, Parasite, SpaceHunter, Amityville 3D, etc. You know... the classics.

All were viewed with polarized glasses. And I think I saw every bloody one of them.

3D... been there... done that-twice before. Yet, for some reason, here we go again...

[Jeff Kilgroe]

The "over-under" practice of putting two images on the same frame of film was used quite a bit in the early '80's ... Jaws 3D, Friday the 13th 3D, Parasite, SpaceHunter, Amityville 3D, etc. You know... the classics.

That's basically what I was thinking, but with RED the image would be side by side within the 16:9 4K frame. Or possibly shot at 48fps or double the intended frame rate and the left and right images are alternated, then sorted in post.


All were viewed with polarized glasses. And I think I saw every bloody one of them.

Yep... I never was a fan of polarized glasses. Although, that still remains the best solution for presenting 3D images to a large audience. And much better than the RED / BLUE anaglyphic approach.


3D... been there... done that-twice before. Yet, for some reason, here we go again...

Personally, I don't have much interest in shooting 3D. Or at least not until a much better way of viewing 3D content is devised. However, I'm working on a little 3D project of my own at the moment and I'm beginning to question my sanity.

[StereoScope]

As there appears to be considerable interest in stereoscopic 3-D digital cinema, StereoScope International is currently designing a series of new systems for use with the Red cameras. These are based on an entirely new principle, and do not have any of the light losses of beamsplitter systems or geometric distortions or eyestrain caused by convergence type systems. Yet, there is full control of lateral registration for optimum realism and viewing comfort. If anyone is interested, you may contact me, John A. Rupkalvis, at stereoscope3d@gmail.com

[Jeremy Hughes]

That's great John. Keep us posted on new developments and adaptations.

Do you have a website?

[StereoScope]

Thank you for the interest.

New website is currently in process. In the mean time, some basic background information that may be accessed now, may be found at:

http://homepage.mac.com/go2rba/.Public/StereoScopeProBio.pdf (http://homepage.mac.com/go2rba/.Public/StereoScopeProBio.pdf)

or:

Click to get my resume. (http://homepage.mac.com/go2rba/.Public/StereoScopeProBio.pdf)

(both of the above are the same).

As you can see, I have designed stereoscopic 3-D cameras and rigs for a long time. The first digital rig was the small, portable HD one shown in the last frame of the above links.

The current design will be usable with all 2K and 4K digital cinema cameras, including the Red One.

This is the ONLY current stereoscopic digital cinema system that does not induce eyestrain for the audience.

If anyone is planning on shooting a stereoscopic 3-D digital production, please contact me at stereoscope3d@gmail.com

[Zack Birlew]

Just in case you guys were wondering, the Canon XL1 was supposed to have a 3D lense that used two lense elements and a prism or something like that to combine the images together. There was a big article on the lense in American Cinematographer in 2002 I believe. The guy who tested the lense said it was fantastic and would really be something once Canon released them into the market. Unfortunately, Canon decided not to make the lense because they felt that it wasn't going to be able to price it just right for the Canon XL1's market or something like that. It's a shame because from what was described in American Cinematographer, it sounded like it was the lense to own if you had an XL1. I can only imagine what would have happened had they released it and it carried on until the Canon XLH1 today.

[StereoScope]

The Canon 3-D lens was usable only with interlaced (not progressive) alternate field standard definition video. It had several limitations. It was already obsolescent at the time it was introduced, and certainly not applicable to the current 2K and 4K digital cinema market. Each eye-view made use of only half (240) of the already-limited 480 scanning lines. At about $6,000, the performance was not really much better than that of the $200 consumer Nu-View attachment. The only saving grace was the Canon XL-1 camera it was intended for, that offered slightly better performance than most consumer SD cameras at that time. But, not that much better, relative to HD. Even the Canon HD-1 which is better than the XL-1 could not use the Canon 3-D lens, even if it were still available, which it isn't. No comparison to using a pair of the Red One 4K cameras on a StereoScope rig. Not even in the same ballpark.

[vsv]

If the image sensor able to capture 120(96-100)Fps in this case
is good to have attachment like Nu-View to make 60(48-50) Fps per eye.

[conrad gaunt]

I forget who but somebody at DVXuser had this idea for a "double lens" which would put two images on the sensor when recording 4K. It would still be 2K though.

Actually, I might be wrong, but 2k is quarter resolution of 4k ie 2k*4=4k (in terms of area). Half res. of 4k however (needed for stereoscopic image) = half 4k = 2*2k, which is, er, obviously greater than 2k. I`m assuming stereoscopic images are only offset horizontally. So you could down sample (pixel phase) to 2k, or stretch and interpolate, and use all image data (ie 2*2k or half 4k) and output 4k with such a lens. I could be wrong, I know nothing of how such lens work.

[StereoScope]

VSV, and some others (off-line) have commented on the possible use of the Nu-View and other similar 3-D lenses with the Red. Unfortunately, these were designed for use with alternate field interlace-scanned SD systems, not progressive. Therefore they would not, without considerable redesign and rebuilding, be suitable for use with the Red.

Other approaches exist, however. For dual camera use, StereoScope makes rigs that will work admirably. Also, StereoScope is working on a single integral camera approach based on the Red.

For single camera 3-D acquisition, the PL mount version of the StereoVision lens should also be quite applicable, although I have not tested it on the Red yet.

[vsv]

Mr Rupkalvis, I meant only principles of Nu-View, when captured in alternate _progressive Frames_ from left and right view using prism and mirrors.
Capture Left view - Right view blocked and so on...
1L 2R 3L 4R....119L 120R

[StereoScope]

Mr Rupkalvis, I meant only principles of Nu-View, when captured in alternate _progressive Frames_ from left and right view using prism and mirrors.
Capture Left view - Right view blocked and so on...
1L 2R 3L 4R....119L 120R

The Nu-View was set up to capture interlaced progressive 30fps for 60 interruptions per second per eye-view. And, even then, the flicker in most displays was quite noticeable (unless post-processed and displayed at 120Hz with interpolation). For progressive scan, this would mean a minimum of 60 full FRAMES per second, preferably much more.

Your idea has some merit, especially since progressive frames as well as interlaced fields can be post-processed and interpolated. I had discussed this possibility with an AJA rep at the last SIGGRAPH.

However, it should also be pointed out that when the left-eye-view and right-eye-view are being captured and displayed simultaneously rather than sequentially, you avoid certain temporal artifacts. These artifacts make progressive scan alternate frames of moving objects look more like interlaced (actually worse, due to the time interval between one scan of a particular pixel and the same pixel location when written on during the following full frame) when viewed sequentially.

Better to keep the pristine progressive scan "look" with other approaches that capture and display simultaneously, pixel-for-pixel, in each eye-view.

[vsv]

However, it should also be pointed out that when the left-eye-view and right-eye-view are being captured and displayed simultaneously rather than sequentially, you avoid certain temporal artifacts.

Better to keep the pristine progressive scan "look" with other approaches that capture and display simultaneously, pixel-for-pixel, in each eye-view.

Thank you very much, Mr.Rupkalvis ! I shall follow your advice.