The All 3D-Stereo Thread

[Benni Diez]

So, as suggested by Eric, this is the place to discuss everything related to 3D stereoscopic production and technology. Or let's just call it 3dS. :matrix:

Here's a nice page for starters:
http://marketsaw.blogspot.com/
Daily updates on what's new in the stereo world. Also a list of current 3dS films in production, as well as a list of 3dS capable theaters.

And two interesting white papers on the matter:
http://area.autodesk.com/images/tips/the%20area/080911_2145/stereoscopy_whitepaper.pdf ...about 3dS basics and
http://www.fxguide.com/qt/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/stereowhitepaper.pdf ...with info on The Foundry's new Ocula plugins for Nuke.

And before we endulge in a pro and con discussion: Yes, story comes first! You can't pimp a bad script with in-yer-face 3D-effects and expect it to become a masterpiece. We all hopefully learned that from the last few years of CG-abuse.
But on the other hand: The visonary filmmakers that used groundbreaking technologies IN FAVOR of a good story came up with some pretty amazing flicks and really made a change in the industry. Think Cameron, Spielberg, Lucas. Ok, some of them have lost their Mojo somewhere on the way. But they proved more than once that inventive technology combined with great storytelling can create a whole new experience. That's what movie magic is about.


Soooo...
That said, let's get into the geek zone: I'd really love to get my hands dirty with 3dS content creation. But it will be a while until I can afford 2 Reds and a professional 3dS rig.
So my question is: Does anyone know an affordable camera module (SD will be enough for starters) with enough control so that I can synchronize two of them (capture, exposure, shutter)? And also an affordable capture solution (hardware, software)?
I'm planning to build a small beginner's rig just to get my hands and brains around all the basics of 3dS.

[number6]

Good idea for a thread.

[Roberto B]

stick it..

[Dan Hudgins]

So my question is: Does anyone know an affordable camera module (SD will be enough for starters) with enough control so that I can synchronize two of them (capture, exposure, shutter)? And also an affordable capture solution (hardware, software)?
I'm planning to build a small beginner's rig just to get my hands and brains around all the basics of 3dS.

For SD you can get two CCD CCTV cameras that have external sync inputs, use a external sync generator, set them to manual exposure + external sync + AGC off, adjust the exposure using C mount machine vision lenses with an iris, and record on two computers with video digitizer boards to uncompressed AVI (rather than MPEG2?). You could get close to DVD resolution maybe?

Just slate and you have two stereo sets of frames with Vsync. Maybe the cost would be under $1000 not counting the two computers?

I did some tests recording to the internal Digital tape in a camcorder and direct to the video input on a digitizer board on a computer, and going direct into the computer is much better than taping in the camera, at least with the stuff I was testing...

[Joseph Ward]

When is Ocula coming out?

[number6]

So, if I'm shooting two duplicate locked off cameras, probably with lots of DOF, side-by-sideish (both centered on the central subject by initially focusing on a laser dot?) do I simply overlay the two images in post at 50% opacity? Or do I cut each image in half (or at the center of interest) on the same vertical plane and place them side by side? Or do I do an overlay of the center third and do the 50% opacity and leave the side panels original and at 100% opacity? Or, none of the above but something else.

Does this even qualify as 3-D?

As you may guess, 3-D is not something I'm that familiar with.:unsure:

[number6]

stick it..

Second that.

[Benni Diez]

So, if I'm shooting two duplicate locked off cameras, probably with lots of DOF, side-by-sideish (both centered on the central subject by initially focusing on a laser dot?) do I simply overlay the two images in post at 50% opacity? Or do I cut each image in half (or at the center of interest) on the same vertical plane and place them side by side? Or do I do an overlay of the center third and do the 50% opacity and leave the side panels original and at 100% opacity? Or, none of the above but something else.

Does this even qualify as 3-D?

As you may guess, 3-D is not something I'm that familiar with.:unsure:

None of those I'm afraid. :)

You have to treat both images separately throughout post production.
Each of those images is supposed to be seen by one eye only! Left camera -> left eye, richt camera -> right eye.
There are several methods how to achieve that:

-Polarization filters. Only possible if images are projected (rear or front projection). You need to wear polarized glasses to watch. The Imax 3D way.
-Anaglyph. The two images are overlayed into one. But they are tinted separately, mostly red and cyan. You need to wear red-cyan glasses to watch.
-two separate small monitors, each for one eye. Like those fancy cyberspace helmets.
-Shutter glasses. Only works with flickering monitors. Glasses with lcd shutters are synced to a monitor which shows both images alternating.
-Monitor with lamella coating. Each 2nd vertical pixel row is directed a few degrees off via the prism coating. Problematic because it heavily depends on interocular and viewing distance.

There are some others, but those are the main ones in use.

See also:
http://www.stereo3d.com/projection.htm
http://www.visionaryforces.com/downloads/Stereoscopic-Cinema-from-Film-to-Digital-Projection.pdf

[number6]

So, if I understand correctly, there is no way currently to PRODUCE 3-D without some external viewing trick to experience it?

[Alex Carr]

I watched Max Penner have two customized inputs into a Red LCD and I would wear 3-D glasses which were hanging on the camera. He has quite an elaborate setup, with the cameras on Preston Motor Controls to keep the cameras aligned.

check out Paradisefx.com

[Benni Diez]

Right. And all those different tricks have their own advantages and disadvantages.
And even the best system has to be very carefully calibrated in order not to destroy the viewing experience.
Another issue: Screen size. 3D content for an Imax screen has to be treated differently than for a rear projection TV.

[Benni Diez]

I watched Max Penner have two customized inputs into a Red LCD and I would wear 3-D glasses which were hanging on the camera. He has quite an elaborate setup, with the cameras on Preston Motor Controls to keep the cameras aligned.

check out Paradisefx.com

Yeah they rock! They made an incredibly small stereo rig with two SI-Mini cameras and combined it with a fancy steadycam system for "Dark Country".
reel-show.tv has some great making of videos.

[Alex Carr]

I saw the Si rig a few days ago, Its pretty impressive, even with a tether

[number6]

I watched Max Penner have two customized inputs into a Red LCD and I would wear 3-D glasses which were hanging on the camera. He has quite an elaborate setup, with the cameras on Preston Motor Controls to keep the cameras aligned.

check out Paradisefx.com

No, I meant viewing it on screen. I'm just wondering if someday we'll see home and public theaters you can watch 3-D movies or either the current 2-D? movies we have without utilizing special equipment for the viewer.

If so, I will take the extra time and expense to shoot something I feel is universal or timeless on 3-D and do post on one camera angle. Later on, re-release it as 3-D. But for a movie with a "use by" date on it, I'll just do it as inexpensively as I can.

[Benni Diez]

3D capable screens are always capable of showing 2D, too.

I've just spotted this:
http://www.zalman.co.kr/ENG/product/Product_Read.asp?idx=219

Those are 22" lcd monitors used with passive circular polarized glasses. Pretty cool, and affordable.




For SD you can get two CCD CCTV cameras that have external sync inputs, use a external sync generator, set them to manual exposure + external sync + AGC off, adjust the exposure using C mount machine vision lenses with an iris, and record on two computers with video digitizer boards to uncompressed AVI (rather than MPEG2?). You could get close to DVD resolution maybe?

Just slate and you have two stereo sets of frames with Vsync. Maybe the cost would be under $1000 not counting the two computers?

I did some tests recording to the internal Digital tape in a camcorder and direct to the video input on a digitizer board on a computer, and going direct into the computer is much better than taping in the camera, at least with the stuff I was testing...

http://www.cctvcamerapros.com/ seem to have a good assortment of stuff. Which of those cameras would you recommend? And do they sell sync generators? Unfortunately I'm not quite an electronic engineer. Any other ideas where I can get the stuff I need?

[Dan Hudgins]

http://www.cctvcamerapros.com/ seem to have a good assortment of stuff. Which of those cameras would you recommend? And do they sell sync generators? Unfortunately I'm not quite an electronic engineer. Any other ideas where I can get the stuff I need?

I guess you would want PAL SD cameras?

Looking around I think things have changed a little in the CCTV camera market since the video input boards seem to take wild sync cameras and lock onto each signal like a scan converter, so many of the cameras do not have external sync input any longer.

Cameras made for "broadcast" or some kinds of video production still have sync inputs. These are cameras that are made to hookup to a "switcher" thing that lets you fade between two cameras, before digital the cameras needed to be in FULL sync in order to do a fade or super. So the sync wire would go from the switcher to each camera to keep the cameras in sync.

If you get a switcher and two cameras, you can put RED/CYAN filters over the cameras, set the fade to 50/50 and put on anaglyph glasses and see 3D of a sort on a color monitor. Or you can get a two monitor set with the switcher and make a mirror box for a much sharper image since each eye woud have its own 9 inch monitor.

You should be able to find used video stuff on ebay cheep. The switcher should have video outputs for each camera for the monitors, you could feed the monitor signal to two computers to record as uncompressed AVI files.

I would not record the images MPEG2 since the compression could cause "cardboarding" of the 3D images when viewed.

A camera like the Sony XC-555P might work, but without example images it is hard to tell what the image quality of the camera is,

http://www.aegis-elec.com/products/sonyxc-555p.html

I have not used that camera, so I cannot say what issues it might have, but the specs are in the general direction, maybe something lower in cost would be a better fit for your project. Also its not a C mount? It is small though.

Because the newer Digital switchers may not require external sync on the cameras, you would need to shop around to find equipment that will give two analog video putputs that are in sync, so you get good 3D on fast motion.

Maybe someone who has done SD broadcast could make some low cost suggestions for:

1) two PAL cameras with a good image that have manual exposure and external sync.

2) A low cost SD external sync source.

3) two Video digitizer cards that can save uncompressed AVI files at PAL resolution (8 or 10bit?).

You could go with machine vision cameras and frame grabbers, some of those also have a frame start frame trigger input, you would then need to have a crystal pulse generater set to 25Hz so you can convert the machine vision frames into AVI with freeware VirtualDub (tm) for editing. You would just wire the camera's trigger inputs in parallel to the pulse generator.

When you shoot you do not want to turn the cameras in too much if the far point (wall) is not close behind the subject since that can make the viewers eyes diverge too much on the distant points.

BTW: My program can format two BMP frames into stereo for viewing with lenticular 3D screen, side by side, over under, and such so you can do the editing with one stereo frame in place of two. You can probably also format the frames in other programs as well. You can use VirtualDub to break up the video files into frames, format the two sets of frames into one, then use VirtualDub to turn that one set back into a AVI video file with sound. If you make crossed eyes side by side you can then view 3D on any size screen without glasses.

[Dan Hudgins]

Has everyone see this article,

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article/article?f=/c/a/2008/10/02/BUPC139RGG.DTL

Quote:

[Hollywood studios to pay for digital screens

Associated Press

Thursday, October 2, 2008
Hollywood studios to fund digital screens in theaters

Five Hollywood studios have agreed to help pay for a $1 billion-plus plan to provide digital technology for about 20,000 movie screens in North America, a precursor to showing movies in 3-D.

Digital Cinema Implementation Partners, a consortium of major theater chains, announced the deal Wednesday. The digital project, covering about half of all screens, is planned to start early next year.

To help offset the costs - about $70,000 per screen - the studios plan to pay the consortium nearly $1,000 per movie per screen, roughly the same amount it costs them to print and ship a celluloid film copy.

Adding digital equipment is the critical first step in the technological upgrade to being able to show 3-D movies. The technology uses a filter in front of a digital projector to polarize separate images for the left and right eyes, which viewers use polarized lenses to see.

More than 20 3-D movies are set to hit theaters through 2010, but only 873 locations are available now, according to the Walt Disney Co., which was joined in the deal by Paramount Pictures, Twentieth Century Fox, Universal Pictures and Lions Gate Entertainment.

The project is expected to take more than three years.]

If half the theatres are going to be 3D Digital, and the other half are going to close, then does that mean that I am wasting my time today improving the highlight detail and other parts of my DIY filmrecorder software?

People with two RED ONEs should be in good shape, but people with just one will need a mate?

[Benni Diez]

It's sad, but I'm afraid so. Film will be replaced completely within the next few years, like it or not. We have reached a point where digital can be more profitable if handled right. And it will get cheaper, thanks to inventive folks like Red.
And the new 3D can only work when it's 100% digitally produced from shoot to screening. So that's one more nail in Celluloid's coffin.

[Benni Diez]

Björk's new music video was done in 3D and can be watched here:

http://www.wired.com/entertainment/music/news/2008/04/bjork_wanderlust_index

They also show the 3D version for use with anaglyph (red/cyan) glasses. The effect is not too great, because anaglyph 3D always stresses the brain. I'd love to see this one with proper display equipment.

As far as I can tell they used a self made SI-Mini stereo rig. Most of the weird stuff is built as a set piece or miniature, some stuff is hand painted, only a few elements are CG, the actors are green-screened. Mostly compositing work. Pretty impressive!
They had 100k$ and 4 months, but went 5 months over (unpaid) in order to finish this.

[Luis de la Cerda]

There's a serious shortcoming I find with current 3D technology used in movies... Focusing.
In real life, when you experience something through your eyes, your point of interest determines the focus distance and as you jump from one thing to another, so does the focus. 3D movies however, either force focus at a certain distance, which makes you aware of the situation, breaking the "spell" of the movie experience; of forces everything into focus, making it feel unnatural. Ideally, there should be some kind of system that tracks your eye movement and brings the correct plane into focus as your eye wanders throughout a scene.
Another problem is lens flares. Since 3D is supposed to mimic a real life experience, lens flares are not a part of human vision, not to mention they look different for each camera, making for a very weird artifact. I was very aware of this when I watched U23D at my local IMAX screen. Great experience though :)

[Joe G.]

"I watched Max Penner have two customized inputs into a Red LCD and I would wear 3-D glasses which were hanging on the camera."

I haven't liked the traditional projected 3d at all. Perhaps the glasses with two independent little screens would be the trick. But then, who needs a theater for that?

Also, check out this mirror rig:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s4rGVztZqsM

[Joseph Ward]

Red will make 3d Stereoscopic easier to handle than anything else before.:red_bandana:

[Seán_T]

Red will make 3d Stereoscopic easier to handle than anything else before.:red_bandana:
How so? Interocular distance a touch wide with two red bodys mounted side by side I'm informed.

[Benni Diez]

That's why you use a mirror rig, even with small cameras. Then the distance can go down to zero.
And let's see what they have coming up with scarlet and epic.

[Dan Hudgins]

There's a serious shortcoming I find with current 3D technology used in movies... Focusing.
In real life, when you experience something through your eyes, your point of interest determines the focus distance and as you jump from one thing to another, so does the focus. 3D movies however, either force focus at a certain distance, which makes you aware of the situation, breaking the "spell" of the movie experience; of forces everything into focus, making it feel unnatural. Ideally, there should be some kind of system that tracks your eye movement and brings the correct plane into focus as your eye wanders throughout a scene.
Another problem is lens flares. Since 3D is supposed to mimic a real life experience, lens flares are not a part of human vision, not to mention they look different for each camera, making for a very weird artifact. I was very aware of this when I watched U23D at my local IMAX screen. Great experience though :)

I wrote a paper many years ago about how to make a 3D autostereoscopic display with "accommodation depth clue", in such a display the exit pupil is smaller than the iris of the eye, maybe 0.25mm, so when your eyes converge on a point in the 3D space they can also focus on that point, that does two things,

1) It lets you Accommodate (focus your lens) at the right distance. Your eyes "feel" how far things are away by how hard the mussels pull on the lens to focus, in standard 3D displays the lens focuses at one distance while the eyes converge at other distances, making for eyestrain and lower since of depth.

2) Being able to focus at different depths in the 3D space helps you perceive depth and isolate your point of interest from the background and forground, such as if you are looking at a bird in a bush you do not want the twigs in sharp focus since you are not converged on them. In 3D vision things that are converged on are also in focus, and all things not converged on are not in focus, and so the display type I wrote about makes 3D more like natural vision as well has having H/V paralax and look around, like a Hologram. I also went into ways to make the display brighter and how to reduce the bandwidth required without reducing image resolution.

The drawback of such displays is that they cannot be made to work(?) in a large theatre because of problems with the optics used and the ability to focus the exit pupils to less than 0.25mm. For smaller displays viewed closer than a few meters the results should be almost natural.

[Benni Diez]

Is it published somewhere?

[Joseph Ward]

How so? Interocular distance a touch wide with two red bodys mounted side by side I'm informed.

Your right. It was a statement of faith not based on facts. The fact is Red is on the forefront of the cinema digital revolution and that's why I have faith it will take on Stereoscopic Digital as well. :red_bandana:

[Dan Hudgins]

Is it published somewhere?

SPIE proceedings 747 13-14 January 1987 Los Angeles CA Paper 747-04 "Estimating the performance of stereographic video displays, D.H. Hudgins Page 30" the editor added the Consultant title, that was not my choice.

Although I did not talk about accommodation in a previous paper it does talk about how to get a video display with H/V parallax, that is in Proceedings 367 August 26-27 1982 San Diego CA 367-09 "Transmission and storage bandwidth reduction for spatial image data associated with three-dimensional television systems with parallax, Daniel H. Hudgins, p. 68". Its the same idea, but resolution of the exit pupils and how you work out the details controls the amount of accommodation you can see, you sort of have to read between the lines in the papers, probably most people did not get what I was implying at the time from the few comments I got.

The 747-04 goes into using optics to reduce and select the exit pupil needed, a group of exit pupils would be needed for accommodation depth clue. Dr. Benton is dead now, but we talked about this subject at lunch twice, his papers about holographic stereograms are relevant to the subject.

Good quality optics are needed to get good results, otherwise things outside the plane of zero disparity will get softer in focus, as can be seen in some white light holograms. If you want to build a display like this let me know, it would cost something though in parts.

[Joseph Ward]

When will Reduser have a 3D Stereoscopic subcategory thread? Like, Shooting Red-Audio, Shot on Red, etc.

[Tarek S. Kandil]

-two separate small monitors, each for one eye. Like those fancy cyberspace helmets.

so if i can somehow shoot two synced cams for 3d, i can play them on two monitors, and stick a board in between where one would place one's nose and watch?

I saw this at the salvador dali museum in france, and this guy had a painting for each eye and would separate vision with a board.

can't remember what color the board was. If anyone's tried this it could be cool for an installation...

t

[Weston Ford]

I'm confused about the whole focus thing.

If a scene was photographed to have infinite depth of field and everything in the frame was in focus how is there a problem for the viewer? Cant you just choose what to put in focus by glancing at it?

[Benni Diez]

I'm confused about the whole focus thing.

If a scene was photographed to have infinite depth of field and everything in the frame was in focus how is there a problem for the viewer? Cant you just choose what to put in focus by glancing at it?

In the real world, you normally focus on the object you converge your eyes on. The blurring of out-of-focus objects depends on the real world distance!
When you watch 3D screenings, your eyes will have to focus on the screen. The images are still screened on a flat surface. So there is no altering of focus when they come nearer, only the convergence changes.
That's one reason why even the best 3D projection can be weary after some time. We're used to focus on the same objects we converge on. That does not happen with present 3D screening techniques.
Also try looking at two objects with only one eye, one very close and one very far away, and then alter your focus back and forth between them. Not that easy. And you'll recognize that the covered eye still tries to converge based on the focus.

So, no. If you film everything in focus, it will always be everything in focus. The best way is to set up the shots so that the region of most probable interest is in focus. And better make moderate use of depth blur.
I actually think that smaller chips are better for 3D, so the 2/3 scarlet could easily become THE 3D camera.
With the greater depth of field you can still converge on an object that's not exactly in focus and still be ok with it.

[Weston Ford]

I didn't realize that. Thats disappointing.

So will there ever be a way to present infinate depth and complete focus?

[Mark Thorpe]

Hey guys, a bit of an idea here. Maybe contact Jarred and see if this whole thread can get moved over to the REDUser Group area. I'm sure this discussion will go on and develop as 3D becomes a more acceptable viewing format. It may just be nice to have a pretty stable location for the thread......

Just an idea. Great read by the way.

Cheers,
Mark.

[Benni Diez]

Great idea Mark! I've pm'ed Brook about it. If nothing happens within the next days, maybe you guys can bomb him with some more pms. :)

[Dan Hudgins]

I didn't realize that. Thats disappointing.

So will there ever be a way to present infinate depth and complete focus?

If you scan the whole scene with 3D scanners (LIDAR etc.) and then re-generate it with CG you can get infinite depth of field.

With optics the plane of focus is sharper than all other parts of the field of view, and as was pointed out your eyes feel distance by focusing on the point where they converge the two images on a point on the subject.

If you use a pin hole lens you cannot get high resolution on a small format sensor.

As I mentioned before here, I worked out how to make a display that gives you accommodation depth clue by subdividing the exit pupil in an autostereoscopic display, but it is not practical to build such a display for a large theatre.

You could have people in a theatre wearing a special type of VR helmit with extra electro optics that would let them accomidate and converge like in normal vision.

How you would capture the many views for such a display is a problem, but if you use capture to 3D simulation to multi-view rendering you can solve this in a way that is workable, or will be soon with computer power vs. price improvements.

In the case of multi-view (CG) rendering each of the many views each eye will be shown together has a kind of infinate depth of field, when the views go through the lens in your eye they are focused in a way that lets your eye select the plane of focus at any particular depth, as it would in normal vision.

[I was www.DANCAD3D.com but now go by real name...]

[Weston Ford]

How you would capture the many views for such a display is a problem, but if you use capture to 3D simulation to multi-view rendering you can solve this in a way that is workable, or will be soon with computer power vs. price improvements.

In the case of multi-view (CG) rendering each of the many views each eye will be shown together has a kind of infinate depth of field, when the views go through the lens in your eye they are focused in a way that lets your eye select the plane of focus at any particular depth, as it would in normal vision.

[I was www.DANCAD3D.com but now go by real name...]

Would using a plenoptic lens be a good way to accurately capture all possible planes of focus in live action filmmaking?

[Dan Hudgins]

Would using a plenoptic lens be a good way to accurately capture all possible planes of focus in live action filmmaking?

The lenslets have their own focus point, and if you stop them down much you get less resolution, so there is a limit to how deep the focus can be with this type of stereographic lens array, which is why I went with large lenses rather than micro lenses for some of the autostereoscopic displays I described. These sorts of micro lens camera have been around for a long time and can be reflex, you can take and view with the same micro lens array.

At some point the better way is to capture the wave front since the micro lens array limits the resolution.

Also the bandwidth for a micro lens array is too large since it captures all views not just the ones needed. You could drop the data that is not needed, but you do not know what data to drop in advance if you are recording the images for later VR playback with the viewer selecting the views.

If you use more gross methods to capture the scene and then CG just the views the viewer requires you reduce the number of views (per viewer) to maybe 100 to 400 rather than millions since you just need to cover the area of his pupils.

The 90,000 pixels in each sub-image is low resolution,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plenoptic_camera

You could stop a normal lens down to that resolution and get more depth of field as well, you can also rack focus a fast lens and extract depth, this is just a parallel way of doing that rather than serial.

If you made a very large array like a 30 feet square or had the walls of the studio lined with such arrays (like on a dome or sphere walls surface) you might be able to capture 3D well enough to CG the actors. Maybe someday such parallel data could be processed?

[Joseph Ward]

Stereoscopic 617 would be compact if they made two lenses to fit on it.:pinch:

[Dan Hudgins]

Stereoscopic 617 would be compact if they made two lenses to fit on it.:pinch:

If you needed to adjust the eye spacing you might be able to add prisms?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereo_Realist

The Stereo Realist users have experence with this sort of set up, it is easy to move the lens board in and out to rack focus both lenses together.

[Disco Legend Zeke]

Just a quick jump-in. inexpensive single camera approaches.

1. simple mirrors in front of anamorphic lens make two side by side (2K) images that can be left together for post.

2. synchronized rotating mirror to create alternate left/right views. Again treated as single video in post.

3. Shoot at two side by side convex mirrors

After post, use convolution or whatever to prepare for viewing.

additional viewing methods include cross viewing with two monitors (used for training surgeons using stereo microscopes), over under (my patent 4,709,263,) and various others.

[Dan Hudgins]

Have you seen this,

http://techon.nikkeibp.co.jp/article/HONSHI/20081030/160508/fig1.jpg

A new standard for 3D Blu-Ray disks...

[Mark Thorpe]

Screw the Oakleys, I'm gettig me a pair of them right there!!

Cheers,
Mark.

[Hrvoje Simic]

Screw the Oakleys, I'm gettig me a pair of them right there!!

Cheers,
Mark.

Ditching Oakley for 3D? Ask DreamWorks. ;-)

link (http://www.reuters.com/article/technologyNews/idUSN1445829620080915)

[kevinmaistros]

If you're shooting with two cameras, or two view points, and you're trying to avoid having an external trick to experience the 3d.. why not just alternate view points every frame?

In FCP, overlay both view points over each other and slice and dice each other frame... so if track A is over track B... every other frame would alternate, A, B, A, B, A, B etc.

This would flicker the viewpoint and achieve the "I'm seeing from both viewpoints" type of effect.. no?

Totally wrong?

[Benni Diez]

Yes but then you're seeing both viewpoints with both eyes. For the 3D to take effect you want to see only one viewpoint per eye.

[Disco Legend Zeke]

I did some tests recording to the internal Digital tape in a camcorder and direct to the video input on a digitizer board on a computer, and going direct into the computer is much better than taping in the camera, at least with the stuff I was testing...

Keep in mind that HDV videotap format is only 1440 pixels horizontally (using non-square pixels.)

Even though your camera has 1920 in the sensor, it must be reduced to fit the tape.

When you run the firewire output, you (should) get the full resolution.

There are adapters to put two images on a single sensor, generally a series of mirrors in front of the lens, but matched lenses and two cameras sure seems to be the way to go today.

Back in my 3D days, i used an adapter from MARKS POLARIZED CORP. to produce a 3-D short entitled "Summer Day." The adapter was HUGE, and sat in front of the camera's lens. I shot with a SONY BETACAM, although the adapter was intended for use with a 35MM camera.

In 35MM use, the adapter created 2 two-perf images. It was used in the production of "Andy Warhol's Frankenstein" and possibly others. When used with the betacam, I set it up for two images on the video screen.

This system was known in the industry as "OVER AND UNDER" and was much more complicated optically than traditional stereo images, which were "SIDE BY SIDE"

The advantage of over and under was that it produced a nice wide image. Chris Condon's STEREOVISION system used side by side images on the film, but incorporated an anamorphic lens, so that the side by side images still had a wider aspect ratio. This system was use for the soft core movie "The Stewardesses." MOST films were optically printed into the over and under format for projection.

I found this page of information about the film formats. (http://www.netmoviebank.com/history.html)

I hope you find this helpful.

[Robert Sanders]

My Bloody Valentine 3D looked really really good. The 3D was spot on. I saw it at the Arclight. I believe they used the Dolby 3D process (alternating left/right eye with active glasses 144 x per second).

3D finally works!

[Jina Panebianco]

We are shooting a 3D test trailer next week. (April 14- 16)
We have been in pre-production for weeks, securing cameras, prime lens, equipment, locations and and and

We already have 2 RED cameras, equipment and were going to be using
the P S Technik rig http://www.pstechnik.de/en/3d-rig.php
we just lost our rig. (our supplier lost their financing, and we lost the rig)

As a backup we are thinking of shooting with dual cameras, using a parallel
mount.....

does anyone have a dual mount that can support the two RED camera?
or information about dual mounts / designs
if so please contact

jinapanebianco@gmail.com

thanks
Jina

[Clark Dunbar]

FYI: Mammoth HD like the rest of you reading this thread - see a huge future for 3D (especially with the new tools - software/hardware that are coming out...) SO......

Mammoth HD Footage Library is in the early stages of building a new 3D/steroscope footage library/gallery

www.mammothhd.com/3D/

We will be looking for 3D shooters/producers for content - representation. Any questions on the MHD/3D Library contact me directly here or thru the MHD site.....

[Clark Dunbar]

LOL - caught this pic - posted over at Wired Magazine.......

Obama - watching 3D in the White House Theater