Red 3d

[Álex Montoya]

Should be easy to implement.

Just record 48 fps in 4K. A lens module should be created though to attach the two lenses and the mechanism that switches from one to the other. Every odd frame would hold the image from one lens and the even frame the one from the other.

Project at 48 fps, directing each frame to its eye with polarized glasses.

[sander kamp]

That would never work. It would mean the images for your left eye are 1/24 of a second behind your right eye or vice versa. How is your brain ever going to construct a 3D-image of someone walking by if that person isn't even in the same spot?

Much easier would be to go for 2k. Just attach two facing periscopes in front of the lens and record 4k left and right at the same time. Cut up in post.

[sander kamp]

Oh wait, I see now what you mean: project left and right after eachother as well. Hmm, interesting. But I still think the image would flicker heavily. It's been discussed here that cinema projectors project each image 3 times or so to get rid of the flicker. And alternating between left and right seems like a good recipe for headache.

[Paul Leeming]

2 cameras, one specialised collimating 3D mount, synced together. Record simultaneously, everything in sync, then you have two "eyes" worth of files to edit, in real 3D. My workflow will be to edit one "eye" to completion for a standard output to your chosen format, then EDL sync the second "eye" and redo any SFX with the requisite move in 3D space for the distance between the cameras. This will be what I do on my films from now on, basically to futureproof myself for when 3D cinema goes mainstream. I won't even touch the second "eye" footage until I want the 3D aspect but at least I'll have it, for little to no extra effort at the acquisition stage. HTH

[chuck colburn]

These people know what they are doing.

http://www.paradisefx.com/pages/services/compact3d.html

[Marcus Irvin]

Since the interocular distance between lens optical centers must match the width of human eye spacing, are the upcoming RED lenses compatible?

I looked at red.com without finding any diameter specs for the various lenses.
I'm assuming most lenses will work except maybe the 300mm, but this is pure guesswork on my part. It is my understanding, the OD of the lense must be less than 3.5 inches to have any chance of working in a 3D setup.

If anyone doubts the building momentum of 3D, the following NY Times link is pretty interesting with projects coming from Spielberg, Zemekis, Cameron, and Jackson.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/22/movies/22dime.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&ref=technology

[Ken Corben]

Who needs digital 3D - this was good enough for Hitchcock and can be had for a couple grand.

[goldyprog]

Pace Technologies in Venice produced the camera for James Cameron's next film Avatar, utilizing 2 HDCAMSR bodies combined together. It is constructed in a fashion to imitate the human eyes, and can be interpreted in that way as well-- two lenses, two eyes

[Ken Corben]

Pace Technologies in Venice produced the camera for James Cameron's next film Avatar, utilizing 2 HDCAMSR bodies combined together. It is constructed in a fashion to imitate the human eyes, and can be interpreted in that way as well-- two lenses, two eyes

Well - a little more accurate guess by looking at a picture of the Pace Fusion camera system might be that Sony provided the imaging blocks from the Cinealtas that are combined in the Fusion's black box as seen in the photo. This can then be recorded dual stream HDSDI (right & left eyes) simultaneously to a HDCAM SR deck over dual link or fiber optic. Works out to about a 25 minute record time on an SR tape at double speed?

If you look closely, you'll notice the right eye cine lens body has been shaved to reduce the inter-occular distance, i.e., creating a more effective 3D experience rather than the expensive and less effective POST manipulation to create a pleasant 3D experience.

4:4:4 vs 4:4:2
I'm sure that the Cameron backed and financed Pace Technologies has figured out the cost to benefit ratio of the acquisition and post work flow of these two different options. I would guess there is no noticeable difference in the easier and less expensive 4:4:2 color space in 3D. Cameron is a master filmmaker with a $200 million budget for Avatar so maybe they're working in 4:4:4 simply because they can?

In any event, I will be first in line at my local RealD 3D theater Memorial Day weekend 2009 to see this film. I read Dreamworks has moved their 3D release of Monsters to June knowing Cameron will once again be the King of the World.

BTW - last time I checked Pace technologies was still in Burbank.

[Johan Malmsten]

Hehe.. I've been thinkin about this ever since I heard about the red... is there any talks about introducing red to mr Blockbuster himself? I mean, it shouldn't be too hard to do some kind of conversion for two red-bodies into something like an "ultra-fusion". Maybe not for avatar (I've read conflicting notices about the productionstatus of that movie for years now...) but maybe Battle Angel/Gunnm?

If 4k 2d is nice then what would 4k 3d be in the hands of james cameron?;) I just hope I could get to a 2k3d-screening for anything than several months of pay in transport alone:(

[IAN SUN]

Hehe.. I've been thinkin about this ever since I heard about the red... is there any talks about introducing red to mr Blockbuster himself? I mean, it shouldn't be too hard to do some kind of conversion for two red-bodies into something like an "ultra-fusion". Maybe not for avatar (I've read conflicting notices about the productionstatus of that movie for years now...) but maybe Battle Angel/Gunnm?

If 4k 2d is nice then what would 4k 3d be in the hands of james cameron?;) I just hope I could get to a 2k3d-screening for anything than several months of pay in transport alone:(

Word is he has an early reservation, if I'm not mistaken.

[oldphart]

That would never work. It would mean the images for your left eye are 1/24 of a second behind your right eye or vice versa. How is your brain ever going to construct a 3D-image of someone walking by if that person isn't even in the same spot?

Much easier would be to go for 2k. Just attach two facing periscopes in front of the lens and record 4k left and right at the same time. Cut up in post.

Left-right switching is used for computer 3-D, especially for games. You must go up to 120 frames per second for this to work, and it will still cause some fatigue.

Using half the sensor area for each eye is much better (and an old and tried method), especially since it allows you to use shorter focal length lenses which gives you more depth of field. With 3-D, everything in the picture should be reasonably sharp. Selective focus will just look wrong most of the time.

[Johan Malmsten]

Word is he has an early reservation, if I'm not mistaken.

now, why am I not surprised?

[Chris Nuzzaco]

Ever since I was little, I always loved looking at those little 3D picture viewer's. The name totally escapes me!

But anyhow, the idea of shooting all films in 3D is cool, but not all films will take to it well if you choose to utilize the "extra eye", and the way you shoot is a different style as well. This same principal of shooting style applies to large formats like IMAX as well (go to there site and read their white papers on it, very interesting stuff) I bet most of the films will use 50mm lenses, as thats what most human eyes are if you go by 35mm crop standards. A persons eyes just can't zoom in to 300mm, not unless you use binoculars, which brings me to my next point: eye fatigue at unusually long focal lengths. I don't know about anyone else here, but I can only look threw high magnification binoculars for so long, it just starts to hurt my eyes and it even feels weird seeing 3D with that type of compressed depth of field...

I think a good 3D film would be shot all at 50mm at tight f/stops (to help create sharper images, which is what human eyes see like 99% of the time we use them LOL). The filmmaker will have to reposition the camera every time for wider or closer shots as well. No zoom lenses allowed! The role of an experienced DP will also increase. Hopefully they will have learned the rules and will be able to guide new directors who choose to use the format.

All in all, I think you need to either say "This film is 3D only" or this film is "2D only". They both seem to require very different approaches...

Just my 2 cents.

[Robert Sanders]

Those are some interesting points Cardmaverick. I've been thinking about this as well. I really like using long lenses a lot. I've become more and more comfortable using them and it's started becoming a bigger part of my "style".

However, I realized that these lenses or this type of scene construction, visually, would not work in 3D. Yes it would work technically. But I don't think you could sustain this style of photography with inherent eye strain and subsequent headaches.

I would assume using focal ranges from 28mm to 80mm would be the sweet spot. Nothing more dramatic than that.

I would also assume that extreme wide angle shots would render better in 3D then long telephoto shots.

[Chris Nuzzaco]

Thanks,

Lets not forget about the often used rack focus either, I don't know how that would play in 3D but I'm betting it wouldn't work as well either. One thing I would love to see in 3D just for the sake of seeing it....

Hitchcock zoom!

It's already really weird looking in 2D, must feel like an acid trip in 3D:nerd:

[Paul Leeming]

Ever since I was little, I always loved looking at those little 3D picture viewer's. The name totally escapes me!Those would be the ViewMasters:

http://www.tg004b3325.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/homepage.htm

I too had one of those red 3D viewers as a child, they were seriously cool stuff for a 10 year old :)

How technology has progressed, that we can talk about potential 4K, moving 3D imagery now....

[Robert Sanders]

Thanks,

Lets not forget about the often used rack focus either, I don't know how that would play in 3D but I'm betting it wouldn't work as well either. One thing I would love to see in 3D just for the sake of seeing it....

Hitchcock zoom!

It's already really weird looking in 2D, must feel like an acid trip in 3D:nerd:

DoF has to be a big concern for 3D cinematography. I suspect that's why Cameron is having Pace Technologies use F23 bodies (2/3" CCDs) for their 3D rig - more depth of field.

[Johan Malmsten]

Thanks,

Lets not forget about the often used rack focus either, I don't know how that would play in 3D but I'm betting it wouldn't work as well either. One thing I would love to see in 3D just for the sake of seeing it....

Hitchcock zoom!

It's already really weird looking in 2D, must feel like an acid trip in 3D:nerd:

hehe... I would love to experience a 3D hitchcock-zoom:blink:

But I think that 3D will undergo some experimentation to try to break all of the rules of 3d that exists right now... I'm dying to see the wild stuff that Cameron has hinted at in his alleged Avatar "scriptment" a decade ago...