World’s First 4K 3D Digital Cinema Camera System For Studio, Location, and Underwater

[cinepost35]

Saw another post about this on Reduser and this link has images.

World’s First 4K 3D Digital Cinema Camera System For Studio, Location, and Underwater

http://www.filmofilia.com/2009/03/04/worlds-first-4k-3d-digital-cinema-camera-system-for-studio-location-and-underwater-filming-with-red-cameras/

http://www.reduser.net/forum/uploaded/6417_1236550278.jpg


http://www.reduser.net/forum/uploaded/6417_1236550218.jpg

[Kwan Khan]

experienced production company.

[Cüneyt Kaya]

what about p+s and their 3d rig

[cinepost35]

Dose P+S go underwater? Has anyone worked with the P+S Rig how is it only seen pictures?

[Cüneyt Kaya]

Dose P+S go underwater? Has anyone worked with the P+S Rig how is it only seen pictures?

i want to test it in the next couple of weeks.
Dont know about underwater...

[Zakaree Sandberg]

I feel like 3D is a fad.. it will always be a specialty.. but I dont see how 3D will become mainstream for all films.
I think they are neat, and fun to watch every now and then (especially this underwater or any nature type stuff)
But I refuse to watch every day movies with glasses on..

besides.. 3D kinda gives me a headache

[Sven Seynaeve]

anyway , I'd love to seem more specs and info on this one.

[REDFEAT]

From the pic it looks like the cameras can slide on those rails which makes me think it can take various lenses, a bonus not seen with some of the other 3D systems. Pretty compact based on the sizes of the Red to the whole rig

[Joseph Ward]

OMG, I have waited for a long time to see such a rig! Whats the price? :shifty:
OK I know I cant afford it right now but this is so cool! :)

[Chris Swinbanks]

That link seems to be down?
Anyone know if there are any other sites that have info on it?

[bobaandy]

I feel like 3D is a fad.. it will always be a specialty.. but I dont see how 3D will become mainstream for all films.
I think they are neat, and fun to watch every now and then (especially this underwater or any nature type stuff)
But I refuse to watch every day movies with glasses on..

besides.. 3D kinda gives me a headache

Isin't that exactly what they thought about color when it came around? Or was that sound?

[Dominic Jones]

3D gives people a headache because it's badly shot and/or displayed.

Well shot, edited and projected 3D films should be comfortable to watch - but no-one as of yet has really written the book on 3D filmmaking - there's still a lot of 2D techniques in use which are not appropriate. It is essentially a new medium - for instance, you wouldn't get a painter to make you a sculpture, so why do people feel that a lifetime's worth of experience in 2D means they can make 3D? It's a whole new ball-game, folks!

A lot of the short-comings of 3D display have been solved by digital projection (wow and flutter on the individual reels, film breaking and being re-spliced and therefore not in sync, blanking sections spliced in to try are re-attain sync and a whole lot of other nasties), so if filmmakers actually grasp the bull by the horns and put the work in to learning how to best work with the "new" medium, there's really nothing technical to stop 3D becoming pretty standard.

We'll see...

Cheers,
Dom.

PS: That was certainly true of sound when it came out, but the difference is that stereoscopy pre-dates 2D motion picture, and motion 3D has been around pretty much as long, whereas sound came about later and took off very quickly by comparison...

[Diana Janos]

3D gives people a headache because it's badly shot and/or displayed.

Well shot, edited and projected 3D films should be comfortable to watch - but no-one as of yet has really written the book on 3D filmmaking - there's still a lot of 2D techniques in use which are not appropriate. It is essentially a new medium - for instance, you wouldn't get a painter to make you a sculpture, so why do people feel that a lifetime's worth of experience in 2D means they can make 3D? It's a whole new ball-game, folks!

A lot of the short-comings of 3D display have been solved by digital projection (wow and flutter on the individual reels, film breaking and being re-spliced and therefore not in sync, blanking sections spliced in to try are re-attain sync and a whole lot of other nasties), so if filmmakers actually grasp the bull by the horns and put the work in to learning how to best work with the "new" medium, there's really nothing technical to stop 3D becoming pretty standard.

We'll see...

Cheers,
Dom.

PS: That was certainly true of sound when it came out, but the difference is that stereoscopy pre-dates 2D motion picture, and motion 3D has been around pretty much as long, whereas sound came about later and took off very quickly by comparison...

Wow Dom,

I couldn't have said it better... you are so correct. We've all seen BAD 3D. The key is to know how to shoot good 3D and with digital projection, display is much easier. The glasses are improving and knowledge about divergence is becoming more well known.

There have been many quotes about sound in film as well as color in film. Both were believed that they would be unsuccessful as well as distracting in film work. I'm so glad they were wrong.

All the best,

[Tim Whitcomb]

Isin't that exactly what they thought about color when it came around? Or was that sound?

not even close...

3D was active in the 50's with THE BLOB... and big time in the 70's as well... and it bombed... mostly because of absolute shit stories like

JAWS 3-D ... could very well be the worst 3D movie EVER!

faded out ... and I tend to agree ... glasses suck... save at least they
are more comfortable plastic... versus paper bridge of nose scratchers.

not sure it will be more than a niche until we have holographic TV's

however, Coraline... went a long way to help the genre... check it out.
best 3D movie I have seen by far... and a few Super Bowl commerials
were hilarious.

[Robert Berger]

saw another post about this on reduser and this link has images.

World’s first 4k 3d digital cinema camera system for studio, location, and underwater

http://www.filmofilia.com/2009/03/04/worlds-first-4k-3d-digital-cinema-camera-system-for-studio-location-and-underwater-filming-with-red-cameras/

http://www.reduser.net/forum/uploaded/6417_1236550278.jpg


http://www.reduser.net/forum/uploaded/6417_1236550218.jpg

this is cool

[Dominic Jones]

Thanks Diana - I'm glad there's someone out there singing the same tune as me - I feel like I've been beating that particular horse to death for eternity! ;-)

I jest of course, but it is sadly still a little understood fact...

I'm just about to embark on a very interesting 3D project, so anyone interested, watch this space!

Take care,
Dom.

[istvanttt]

Totally agree! I come from painting and I remember how angry our teacher in the Academia became when we used similar colors or lights on sculptures. You just cannot!

In s3D its the same beside the known problems of the geometrical rules, you cannot make a motion picture with the same lightening, color and framing concepts like in a traditional movie. Or it comes badly or you use the s3D only as gimick and not for stroytelling.

I'm affraid that for now the studios need to have both versions working so for some time we will have only "neither meet nor fish" solutions in the cinema. And I'm very sorry because s3D can be soooo much more..
Istvan


3D gives people a headache because it's badly shot and/or displayed.

Well shot, edited and projected 3D films should be comfortable to watch - but no-one as of yet has really written the book on 3D filmmaking - there's still a lot of 2D techniques in use which are not appropriate. It is essentially a new medium - for instance, you wouldn't get a painter to make you a sculpture, so why do people feel that a lifetime's worth of experience in 2D means they can make 3D? It's a whole new ball-game, folks!


...

[Eric Lange]

Speaking of sculptors not being able to paint and vice versa, Michelangelo didn’t do such a bad job of the Sistine Chapel, (even though he didn’t quite know what he was doing ) so maybe some mainstream cinematographers will get a handle on stereo too.

I think the problem with recent 3d releases is that these movies have to be churned out very quickly and the cinematographers and directors have had very little time to get to grips with the technology let alone develop new modes of visual communication and storytelling.

If you want to first learn how to make a good stereo movie, I honestly think that you need to spend at least a couple of years taking really good stereographic stills. At the film school/UCLA open house Martin Scorsese was very big on the idea that people should spend a lot of time with a stills camera to really learn how to push the boundaries. I.e. if you can’t do it in stills you're not going to be that much better in a dynamic format. [Of course if you are really talented you can make an entire movie from stills, like la Jete (Chris marker.) ] One of my favorite movies from a photographic point of view is the Hustler, almost every other shot you could blow up to giant poster size and frame on the wall, an incredible imagination and sense of composition from Eugene Schufftan that is still hard to beat.

I agree that many, but not all of the methodologies used in monoscopic film making will need a substantial rethink. But in a certain sense stereo requires perhaps an older or more classical sense of composition and really pre-thinking the shot in relation to all the other shots, which is somewhat counter to the current style of shooting with hand held dynamics, fast cutting etc., as exemplified by Black Hawk Down, (and much imitated since). In stereo, really frenetic cutting and camera dynamics with different ranges of parallax are a bit of a nightmare unless you want to shoot each separate element in chromakey and carefully compose/copmposit later.

So for example a simple medium wide shot of an interior followed by a close up on a face can present real problems, as the range of parallax has to change fairly substantially, which also affects the sense of space. A partial close up in stereo on a face may result in the background having a really massive on screen parallax, (even after you have switched to a narrow base separation) and it is even possible to have no stereo resolvable features in the background at all (a big stereo-headache for the viewer). Even with a narrow depth of field producing unresolved blurs in the background, can make for uncomfortable viewing. Some film makers do not want to pre organize their shots all the time and instead play it safe by shooting with a really narrow base separation making everything seem very flat and boring unitll they make something jump out of the screen, (not exactly high art yet, but O.K. for trashy horror flicks and Donald Duck).

I think VR based pre-planning software tools could really help cinematographers get a handle on what’s required as well as to come up with inventive or more subtle stereoscopic motifs (as Istvan sugests). I will be very interested to see what James Cameron’s new stereoscopic baby will be able to achieve with Avatar (as everything technically is still under wraps). I think It will take someone to make a real masterpiece of film making in S3D before other cinematographers will take the medium seriously and make the effort to further develop their art and craft in the new medium. All it takes is one Michelangelo?

(Be nice to see what Liquidpictures roll out with their new rig, the under water shots should be absolutely stunning)

[istvanttt]

Eric, sorry if I was unclear, I never said that a painter is not able to make sculptures or viceversa, what I ment ist that they are two totally different mediums which require a different artistical approach. The same is true in my oppinion with mono- versus stereoscop visual comunication. It is not just about the geometric problems or limitations we have to deal with but also about the very specific emotional possibilities we can get with one or the other.
istvan



Speaking of sculptors not being able to paint and vice versa, Michelangelo didn’t do such a bad job of the Sistine Chapel, (even though he didn’t quite know what he was doing ) so maybe some mainstream cinematographers will get a handle on stereo too.
....

[Eric Lange]

No Istvan, what you said was clear and cool. I was not clear (not very good at doing complicated quotes).

I was referring to the theme that Dominic set up when he said.

Dominc wrote: “3D gives people a headache because it's badly shot and/or displayed.
Well shot, edited and projected 3D films should be comfortable to watch - but no-one as of yet has really written the book on 3D filmmaking - there's still a lot of 2D techniques in use which are not appropriate. It is essentially a new medium - for instance, you wouldn't get a painter to make you a sculpture, so why do people feel that a lifetime's worth of experience in 2D means they can make 3D? It's a whole new ball-game, folks!”

It was the “You wouldn’t get a painter to make a sculpture…” that really stuck in my mind, especially when one of the world’s greatest sculptors (Michelangelo) was able to create one of the greatest Frescos in existence. It is also interesting to note that Da Vinci was very derisive of Michelangelo’s work insinuating that there was something base or retarded about an actually realized 3d form in sculpture as opposed to Leonardo’s illusions of 3d space in 2D. A lot of parallels here, with how regular cinematographers regard stereo.

In this sense I am questioning this notion (that may or may not be true) that a lot of people believe that stereo opens the door to invite in a new set of stereo-cinematographers because “regular” cinematographers allegedly don’t understand stereo very well. I.e. notions that stereo will be a game changer, or will level the playing field etc. As someone who grew up on many film sets, and someone that has almost twenty years of experience taking stereograms of very challenging subjects with a deep technical knowledge in this area, I still think the lion share of the skills required to pull off good stereo-cinematography are good mono-cinegraphic skills. I.e. It can take a good cinematographer perhaps about fifteen years to develop their eye, skills and style for a range of subject matter. Such a cinematographer if he is interested in stereo (is technically minded, or has useful consultants) and the time, can get a handle on the technology in less than a year to good effect. In contrast, a young or less talented shooter that understands stereo very well (or is a stereo enthusiast) might have to work very hard for fifteen years or more to develop their basic visual communication and storytelling skills.

I used to think that most cinematographers would be too inflexible or closed minded to embrace the new technologies and its implications, but these days I am much more optimistic, and I think within five years a more incisive new visual grammar and technique will start to develop using stereo.

[istvanttt]

Of course the eye of the DP comes first!!!

But what I think is put into the discussion is that it is not enough just to shoot like before and let the stereographer do the stereo part. The results we see.

So often I meet people from the industry who tell ..yeas.. nice... but, is it worth for a litle depth to have all the hussle? Personally I think s3D can be much more then just a little more depth, but it needs the understanding of the new media by everybody who is involved in a shooting.
Istvan

[Dominic Jones]

Just to clear this up - I didn't say that a person who paints can never sculpt, or vice-versa - simply that they are different mediums with different techniques and skills to conquer. At no point did I ever say, or intend to imply, that a great 2D cinematographer cannot be a great 3D cinematographer. Simply that being a great 2D cinematographer does not, in and of itself, make you a great 3D cinematographer (or director, or editor, etc, etc). A subtle but very important difference...

When Michelangelo painted, he was a painter. When he sculpted, a sculptor - he was never a painter sculpting, he could just do two jobs very well, as can many others in many areas - that doesn't make the two jobs the same! There are, of course, a good amount of transferable skills, and I think it's also worth noting that at no point was I implying (as you mention later) that you need a new crop of filmmakers to make 3D and the 2D people "can't do it". Just that everyone needs to start thinking in different circles regarding 3D shooting, and most, as yet, are not.

You do, however, make a very good point (which I sort of alluded to with the "well shot, edited and displayed 3D" part of my original post, but decided not to go too heavy on to avoid muddying the water) about cutting techniques and 3D. It is interesting to note that at present 3D is often used in the very worst types of films (technically) as far as it's innate style suits - namely horror/action movies with lots of fast cuts and dramatic scene changes! I, for one, would love to see a slow-paced art movie beautifully shot in 3D featuring fantastic locations - that would get the train moving, in my opinion.

I also agree about the shallow DoF problems with 3D - for me it is a no-go to have shallow DoF, it simply doesn't work and makes no sense as regards human vision (which is, let's face it, what 3D attempts to simulate). We don't see in shallow DoF, it's a 2D "trick" to emphasise depth, which is not an issue with 3D. This, in fact, illustrates my point beautifully - it's a mistake made by (potentially very competent) 2D filmmakers who have not understood why they are using the trick in 2D and/or why it is not necessary (or desirable) in 3D.

However, all of these are instances of the greater point, which I was attempting to make - that all of the rules of cinema, from framing and lighting to shot selection and cutting, need to be re-discovered and re-worked in 3D, and that has not really happened in earnest yet. Haste the day...

Cheers,
Dom.

[Eric Lange]

Nice post,

I was saying that you can shoot with a narrow depth of field to eliminate a troublesome background (in terms of parallax) but even then, a blurry unresolved stereo background can cause problems too I.e. that is preferable to the more problematic colossal range parallax where everything is pin sharp, but the main object of interest is in the foreground. I’m really glad that someone is trying to use or optimize a greater range of depth especially to pull out all the juicy fine 3d detail that all too often gets compressed. Most of the applications I have carried out in the past have used massive base separations (compared to a p+S Technic mirror rig) and I am having to learn how to use much narrower ones for smaller close up subjects in a larger spatial context.

I hope with your new stereo project that you yourself get to explore some of the aspects you discuss “in earnest” to your satisfaction and to the benefit of others. I look forward to “watching this space” as you say to see what you discover. Sounds like an interesting project. Will you be shooting on RED or something else?

Cheers,
Eric

[Eric Lange]

Also Dom, I don’t want to give the impression that I only think that Stereo should only be the preserve of high flying cinematographers. I think that when 3d at home takes off i.e. digital S-3d broadcast delivery, then a lot of new opportunities will be created for “young shooters” that have a firm grasp on the technology as well. I certainly agree that a lot of the technical basics have not yet been mastered.

We would all like to imagine high cinematic art being achieved in S-3d; but sometimes you have to stop and pinch yourself for a moment. The film or flick business (depending on your point of view) is just that a business. S-3d is commercially very viable and for the most part S-3D will be the preserve of family movies, sensational and action pics, horror movies and so on but I don’t think it is well applied to serious human stories, high art or drama. [ Real artists like Istvan, should I hope disagree with me on that point].

If I had another life, I would love to turn the book Vernon God Little into a movie, [The book has a very dark and ironic sense of humor, but never the less has brilliant characterizations and real drama, usually described as Holden Caulfield on Ritalin (a Catcher in the Rye for our times), a book that Dickens could have written if he were part of contemporary culture]. As much as I love stereo and 3d, If I were to start producing it as a flick in 3d people would think I was totally crazy and they would be right. The simple truth is that for serious content or drama, S3d would be an inappropriate distraction in most cases. For example Zemeckes made the judicious application of CG in Forest Gump very artful, however Forrest Gump in 3d is not so artful “The Feel Good Movie of the Year (Now IN 3d!)” or Brokeback Mountain II in 3D. The English Patient in 3d might be visually nice, but I think it would be a distraction from the emotional content. I really don’t believe that S3d will be used for serious human drama unless all the technologies up to final output are absolutely flawless including the viewing experience.

I think the ultimate cultural value and place for S3d will be in the documentary format and delivered/broadcast to people’s homes. The traditional lines between stereo movies/documentaries, and 3d VR formats will become blurred and almost indistinguishable. High quality content will be essential and will revolutionize how we experience distant sites, lands and cultures through broadcast media. The possibilities to synthesize the media into engaging non linear formats are almost endless where multimedia, games, VR and stereo movies are seamlessly integrated. To be able to experience the moments of discovery as if you are really there (in 3d), when for example a "new" Tomb is opened in the Valley of the Kings for the first time, will bring an entirely new level of excitement and engagement, a sort of telepresence to inaccessible sites and locations. Although right now the buzz is all about S3d in the movies, I think ultimately the real masters of the S-3d craft will be in the documentary format such as the work of LiquidPictures and others. [Really looking forward to seeing the results of their 4k underwater work].

Cheers again.

[istvanttt]

Infact Eric I do disagree with you in this! I'm convinced that once we will have higher light throu-put in the cinemas, human dramas will be a very important part of the s3D movies. Cinema is very much the art of the body-language and adding to that the possibilities to feel (!!!) also the distance empatically between 2 actors, or between 1 actor and some action, is a huge tool for transmitting emotions.

I do agree that a badly used s3D can be more distracting then helpful, but if the blocking and directing is specifically planed for s3D then (avoiding liliput effects) it should work also in dramas. Come on Eric with all your s3D experience you really want to tell me that an even abused scene like "... husband comes home and finds wife in bed with best-friend..." could not be emotionally extremly powerful and violent in s3D?

Istvan




.....
..... and for the most part S-3D will be the preserve of family movies, sensational and action pics, horror movies and so on but I don’t think it is well applied to serious human stories, high art or drama. [ Real artists like Istvan, should I hope disagree with me on that point].

....... The simple truth is that for serious content or drama, S3d would be an inappropriate distraction in most cases. ........ I really don’t believe that S3d will be used for serious human drama unless all the technologies up to final output are absolutely flawless including the viewing experience.

.........

Cheers again.

[Eric Lange]

Come on Eric with all your s3D experience you really want to tell me that an even abused scene like "... husband comes home and finds wife in bed with best-friend..." could not be emotionally extremly powerful and violent in s3D?

Istvan

Istvan, awesome post,

I wondered when we would get to that. Today unfortunately I have two clients and eight horses to work today and much else besides, but the topic you raise is a brilliant one and too irresistible to not reply to or ignore. I’ll try to post a response to that perhaps tonight or tomorrow morning.

I think your post (above) is probably the best post on the 3d threads forum to date.

Nice one,

Cheers,

Eric

[Jonathan Payne]

Just some thoughts from someone who has been reading through this thread and has experience with Stereoscopic 3D, painting and sculpture:

1st of all, I love these kinds of creative debates carried out in a kind and interesting manner governed by curiousity/shared interest rather than just passionate beliefs. Not enough of these on reduser. Thanks!

2nd of all, I agree whole heartedly that 3D is no more appropriate for action/thriller style stories than it is for dramas. The problem is that it has not only been done poorly on a technical level, it has been carried out poorly in a thematic way way as well. In other words if all movies were black and white but used color as a gag (imagine something like the red coat in shindler's list but handled in a gaudy extreme way) then people would all be saying that color is specialty 'fling' of a technology. When color is handled naturally (read: in a way that is like how we see) and thoughtfully it just makes the movie more real and beautiful. 3D is no different. All of us that can see in 3D (except for those who have a missing or injured eye or those born without the ability to sync/converge both eyes to make a single image) and therefore 3D can be more natural and beautiful than 2D when done well. Good 3D will just add to a film and take nothing away. I believe it's the current lack of public experience with 3D that helps foster the idea that 3D could ever take something away from a solemn drama.

3rdly (sorry to retread): I can speak from personal experience as someone who spent their whole childhood and teen life drawing and painting and then later in their young adult years became a sculptor as well. Naturally the same person can do both but it is SO true that when I paint a completely different part of my brain is engaged than when I sculpt. It's very pronounced how different the two activities are on a psychological level. I can't usually do both one right after another because once my brain is primed to do one, it has to really change gears to do the other well. It can be very frusterating as someone who tries to be a "polymath" (another equally silly sounding way to "renaissance man")

(PS: I think Michaelangelo was a MUCH better sculptor than painter. So much so that I think he clearly either spent more time on sculpting than painting during his life or his brain was better suited for it. It's a pretty stark difference in my opinion. Just compare him to modern painters and sculptors. Yes his paintings are very good but there are literally TONS of painters who can paint in more imaginative, realstic and creative ways than he did. Sculpture? His sculptures (while adhering to a 'style' of anatomy that was popular in art of the day) still rises above just about anyone...ever...when you compare on a technical level. His work is just quite simply monumental (no pun intended). Just my opinion)

[istvanttt]

Jonathan, you expressed word for word what I feel, think and belive:) Thank you.

BTW, a frined of mine once said Michelangelo-painter is art, Michelangelo-sculptor is a religion.
Have a nice day
Istvan

[Eric Lange]

Infact Eric I do disagree with you in this! I'm convinced that once we will have higher light throu-put in the cinemas, human dramas will be a very important part of the s3D movies. Cinema is very much the art of the body-language and adding to that the possibilities to feel (!!!) also the distance empatically between 2 actors, or between 1 actor and some action, is a huge tool for transmitting emotions.

I do agree that a badly used s3D can be more distracting then helpful, but if the blocking and directing is specifically planed for s3D then (avoiding liliput effects) it should work also in dramas. Come on Eric with all your s3D experience you really want to tell me that an even abused scene like "... husband comes home and finds wife in bed with best-friend..." could not be emotionally extremly powerful and violent in s3D?

Istvan

O.K., so does S-3d make art better? No. Does S3d enable and open a new artistic frontier? Definitely yes. Does S-3d have the capability to make on screen sex sexier and violence more violent? Yes to that too. But do these heightened experiences in 3d over 2d make a more complex emotional story any more meaningful?

The use of composition is of course very important to underscore visually the emotional content of a particular scene. I have found in my own experience that compositions that work in 2d do not work as well in 3d and this is purely from a compositional sense (not a technical one). This is especially true for closer ranged spaces and volumes. 2D compositions have by their nature a 2D graphic sensibility which does not sit well with 3d compositions. Successful 2d compositions have to be re-arranged to make them work in S3d; objects and participants have to be moved to different positions in Z (at least) and wider angle lenses have to be used just to be able to arrive at a 3d composition that was as strong as the original 2d composition. [You can play this game yourself just by gathering a group of objects and arranging them into a composition with one eye closed; now view the same composition with both eyes, in most cases you will find that the objects have to be rearranged and new angles of view have to be sought to still make it work]. 2D and S-3d are simply different languages and quite often one does not directly translate into the other. Sometimes when a great novel is translated from one language to another, literal translations would obscure the meaning and intent of the author, instead a good translator will substitute a completely different phrase to culturally convey the same meaning. This is the same in S-3d, sometimes completely different compositions have to be sought to convey the same meaning as an originally intended 2d shot. I think Istvan is correct when he says S-3d projects tend to neither be “meat nor Fish” because they have to serve two different masters and consequently end up being weak in both formats.

To that end, because S-3d is its own language, that for serious film making it has to be regarded as its own genre and not be lumped into regular 2d film making. The screen play and design intent of the movie has to be composed at its earliest inception as a S-3d movie, rather than just a serious movie that happened to be shot in 3d. The latter approach will always be weak, whereas a serious story intended for the S-3d screen could be quite powerful. Whether this ever happens in “Holywood” is another matter altogether, and may be a genre that develops from very different quarters.

Istvan make your movie already!:wink:

[istvanttt]

.....

To that end, because S-3d is its own language, that for serious film making it has to be regarded as its own genre and not be lumped into regular 2d film making. The screen play and design intent of the movie has to be composed at its earliest inception as a S-3d movie, rather than just a serious movie that happened to be shot in 3d. The latter approach will always be weak, whereas a serious story intended for the S-3d screen could be quite powerful. Whether this ever happens in “Holywood” is another matter altogether, and may be a genre that develops from very different quarters.

.........

Infact, this is why I'm afraid that s-3D could disapear again from the theaters before it even really started. Why should somebody want to make movies which are seen only in a few theaters and also there mostley with the Read-D system which cuts off most of the lights? I have the feeling that soon the HDR may become a kind of serious competition for s-3D.
Istvan

[Joseph Ward]

Its funny to me how people complain that only s3D movies give them headaches. Fast cutting 2D editing movies with tons of out of focus shots get me sick, like a bad s3D, but why does everyone seem to knock only all s3D films?

Why do bad looking images get more positive attention just because its ''Hollywood'' than a well made low budget film?

To go back on topic. Was there a price on that rig?

[istvanttt]

Its funny to me how people complain that only s3D movies give them headaches.
.......


Yes, and this gets even more funny when you hear people complaining who then admit that they have never ever seen a s-3D picture.

[Pedro Guimaraes]

but no-one as of yet has really written the book on 3D filmmaking -

not true.....

Foundations of the Stereoscopic Cinema, by Lenny Lipton.

just to name one. There are many others.

BTW, It is not light reading.