Is a pair of Red One genlockable?

[Henry Chung HKSC]

Could we genlock two Red One cameras together without any extra equipment?

Thanks for any info,

Henry Chung

[David Battistella]

Henry,

What do you mean?

Are you asking if you can have one RED lock to the other RED and then the other RED lock back to the other?

Using each RED as each others genlock source?

I think the point of Genlocking is to use a source that each independent machine can lock to (camera, vtr or whatever). A black burst generator, for example, sends a master signal that many sources can LOCK to.

So if you had two RED's i think you would have to lock it to a Blackburst or other Genlock source, I do not think the camera can act as a source for another camera.

David

[Nick Shaw]

I think you will be able to use one RED as a sync source for a second one, as you can with any genlockable camera. I wouldn't particularly recomend it though, as anything which causes the 'master' camera to drop out (like chnging a battery) will cause a glitch on the 'slave' camera – meaning there will be a time when neither camera is recording usable images. Best invest in a sync pulse generator. AJA's GEN10 is a compact, affordable HD SPG.

[Steve Gibby]

“Genlock - yes, both tri-level sync and timecode inputs. So its all set for muli-cam and switched camera applications.”

Stuart English
11/21/06
DVi
http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=80097

[Henry Chung HKSC]

Thanks very much for info.

I am just using it as stereoscopic camera configuration sync generator.
The AJA gen10 was new to me, but seems to be the one.

Henry Chung
HKSC

[Stuart English]

No, you can't genlock one RED ONE camera off of another (master/slave). Its not a good practice for the reasons listed above. This function is intended to genlock two or more cameras to a common sync source. Either hard wire them, or use a portable Timecode + Tri Level Sync device such as a made by Ambient or Deneke STB for each camera - they are very small devices.

[Jim Arthurs]

Stuart, can you lock the record-run of two or more REDS so that they are in perfect shutter sync?

You know, for 3D work or multiple camers doing motion-capture, etc...

[redhead]

I am just using it as stereoscopic camera configuration sync generator.
How would you do that with Red? You need to, generally, keep the pinholes of the lenses of the two cameras 65 mm apart horizontally. But since the Red camera body is 132mm wide (according to the FAQ, anyway), it is, unfortunately, unsuitable for 3D work.

Or is there something I am missing here?

[Matt Redmond]

How would you do that with Red? You need to, generally, keep the pinholes of the lenses of the two cameras 65 mm apart horizontally. But since the Red camera body is 132mm wide (according to the FAQ, anyway), it is, unfortunately, unsuitable for 3D work.

You also need to remember additional space required for cables too - fitting between cameras to plug into the side of one. This would also increase the distance between cameras.

For a stereoscopic effect it doesn't matter too much about the distance between the two optics...unless you want to simulate the exact stereo effect as seen by a specific species...such as a human.

It depends on a number of factors, for example: what type of distortion are you after (normal through to unnatural); and how far away is the subject positioned from the camera.

You could also get a more human stereo distance by using a rig of 45deg mirrors - if you want to do it on the cheap :)

[Henry Chung HKSC]

Yes, _MR_,

Also shooting through a 50 percent mirror rig with one camera and another shooting the reflection off the mirror, this would allow for wider camera bodies.

Another method is to invert one Red camera and put them side by side so the inter-axial distance is closest to human eye, if possible.

Does anybody know the centre of lens axis to the two sides of camera distances?

Henry Chung
HKSC

[redhead]

For a stereoscopic effect it doesn't matter too much about the distance between the two optics...
Actually, it does. When the two lenses are two far apart, the human brain cannot assemble the two images into a 3D scene. There is a little wiggle room, but 132 mm is too much. And, as you pointed out, with cables the distance would be even greater.

I don't like the idea of using mirrors, as it introduces additional can-go-bad factors.

An ideal solution (I can dream, can't I) would be a RED 3D camera which combines two RED ONEs within a single body, with two separate lenses (each with a separate REDCODE RAW sensor) perfectly synchronized. Preferably with the option to also use it with just one lens for regular 2D shoots.

Before that happens (will it?), another solution would be a 3D lens (something like this (http://www.the3drevolution.com/3dscreen.html#lensadapter). Ideally, it would also be 2:1 anamorphic, so you could fit the two images next to each other. If it is not anamorphic, you end up with something like this:

http://www.whizkidtech.redprince.net/pix/stevenslr.jpg

Then you have to crop about half of the image off, which effectively cuts down your resolution. :blink:

By the way, the above picture was taken with a Canon EOS and a Loreo 3D lens, which is the only 3D lens I could find. While it works for photography, it is essentially just two plastic lenses, not something good enough for RED.

So, we would need something like what these people are selling (http://www.3dcompany.com/camlenses.html), but for RED.

[Matt Redmond]

Actually, it does. When the two lenses are two far apart, the human brain cannot assemble the two images into a 3D scene. There is a little wiggle room, but 132 mm is too much. And, as you pointed out, with cables the distance would be even greater.

Of course there are limits on everything. It's all relative.
It's all a matter of scale and perspective.

Pretend you were a giant - your eyes will be further apart and the landscape will appear smaller than it would to a human. By adding width to the camera's optics you can achieve that effect. Same with looking at something really small, but from the perspective of a small creature. If you were filming a macro shot of an insect and wanted a nice enlarged stereoscopic shot of it then the distance between the optics is going to be tiny.

If you are filming things at a great distance - then your distances between optics can be relaxed without major issue - it will NOT be what the human brain normally deals with, but if the conditions are right then it should still figure stuff out.

If you are filming something which is to be accurate for human viewing then that of course changes.

Imagine also special effects and model making where we need to pretend the object is bigger than it is. Having a human's perspective is going to make it look like a toy.



I don't like the idea of using mirrors, as it introduces additional can-go-bad factors.


But it's cheaper than the expensive option... :)

[redhead]

Of course there are limits on everything. It's all relative.
It's all a matter of scale and perspective.
Indeed!


Pretend you were a giant - your eyes will be further apart and the landscape will appear smaller than it would to a human. By adding width to the camera's optics you can achieve that effect.
But then I'd have to build a giant set and hire giant actors. Too complicated.

If I can align two cameras (or use a special lens with one camera) according to the human eye, everything is simplified.

I would be perfectly happy with a RED ONE and the lens I described above (even happier with a RED 3D, but, so far, no one has mentioned any plans in that direction, and there probably would not be much interest in it as most people shoot in 2D).


Another method is to invert one Red camera and put them side by side so the inter-axial distance is closest to human eye, if possible.

Does anybody know the centre of lens axis to the two sides of camera distances?
Can anyone answer that last question, please?

[Matt Redmond]

http://www.pstechnik.de/en/skater-scope.php

[Stokestack]

I think a mirror setup to bring the two image paths closer together would be the most economical way to go.

For a single-camera setup, I wonder if you could contrive an over/under arrangement rather than a vertical split; it'd give you a super widescreen image rather than the tall and narrow.

Thanks for that Skaterscope link. Pretty interesting.

So, if you sync two Reds to a common TC generator, will the frames indeed be exposed at exactly the same time, given equivalent settings?

[redhead]

http://www.pstechnik.de/en/skater-scope.php
Now, that's an interesting link! Thanks!