RED 3D Camera?? [Archive]

George D.

02-03-2010, 03:27 PM

Does anyone have any idea how I can get "any" info at all on the RED 3D Camera System?

Have they released it yet?

What is the estimated cost?

Are "both" interocular distances and convergence "adjustable" ?

What size is the sensor?

Where can I find it on RED's Website? I found it once, but I can't find it now.

Etc, etc, etc??

Thanks.

KETCH ROSSi

02-03-2010, 05:38 PM

There isn't a RED 3D camera, at list not yet :~)

What there has been posted was a render of TWO Red Scarlet, were on the right Scarlet the Compact FLash Card Module has been removed as to allow a close Interocular distance, and as you can see form the pic below, this are two 2/3 Scarlets.

In this rendering is also clear that the rig offers both I/O and C control.

http://8112studios.com/blog/uploaded_images/page15-748011.jpg

Nils J. Nesse

02-04-2010, 09:15 AM

How about a Scarlet 2/3" 3D brain? With two mini-PL mounts... Could the mini primes be small enough to allow 2.5" interocular distance?

Inspired by the Ikonoskop A-Cam3D (http://www.ikonoskop.com/blog/a-cam3d)
http://www.blogcdn.com/www.engadget.com/media/2010/02/a-cam-3d-ikonoskop-2-1.jpg

KETCH ROSSi

02-04-2010, 09:42 AM

How about a Scarlet 2/3" 3D brain? With two mini-PL mounts... Could the mini primes be small enough to allow 2.5" interocular distance?

In order for it to allow the I/O distance of 2.5" the Mini Prime and or any lens, has to have a front element circumference of 2.5" and allow for them to be literally touching each other, were they are not impeded by the frame of the camera body in achieving it.

George D.

02-04-2010, 10:12 AM

With a set up like this, you have NO control over convergence.

NOT good.

Michael Olsen

02-04-2010, 11:40 AM

With a set up like this, you have NO control over convergence.

NOT good.

Nor IO, it looks like, since everything is set into a plastic box.

David Wilson

02-04-2010, 11:52 AM

Geroge D.

It seems there are distinctly two schools of thought about the use of convergence in stereoscopic photography.

See page 34 on in Michael Starks' excellent review of the literature.

http://www.3dmagic.com/pdf/Digital_3D_projection_12-08_with_BIO.pdf

"One of the most pernicious problems is the insistence on using
converged rather than parallel lens axis cameras. There is absolutely no
question that this causes vertical parallax (even when a virtual camera
is rotated for CGI stereo) and other aberrations and contributes
significantly to eyestrain. This has also been mathematically
demonstrated many times, e.g., by Diner and Fender above and by Mel
Siegel et al in an SPIE paper a few years ago."

We just returned from a six week stereoscopic shoot in remote parts. All of our material employed shot by shot convergence adjustment. Now in the processing of working with the the 20plus hours of material we produced, I can appreciate some of the finer points of Michael Starks' argument.

David

Brad Webb

02-04-2010, 11:57 AM

http://www.technica3d.com/

George D.

02-04-2010, 12:09 PM

KETCH ROSSi

02-04-2010, 12:38 PM

All that is well and good. But without convergence you have no control over where the window is.

To me, it is just as essential as the interocular distance. And, BOTH should be adjustable in a good 3D system.

Totally!

What good is the use of a tool if it can't be used to its full potential of creative options?

S3D with out the I/O and Convergency control is like shooting 35mm only and always to get video like images with absolutely no DOF.

George D.

02-04-2010, 01:54 PM

Here here!

Just look at the 3D rig that James Cameron and his DP came up with for shooting Avatar. TOTAL, absolute control over the interocular distance AND the convergence.

For "no-eye-strain" viewing, the focus point and the convergence point MUST be at the same point. This is why there was no discomfort at all viewing Avatar.

You have to give Cameron credit for being damn smart, and knowing exactly what he's doing. Take a tip.

Michael Hastings

02-04-2010, 02:32 PM

Nor IO, it looks like, since everything is set into a plastic box.

We are approaching the day when cameras/sensors and recording capability is so cheap that it may make sense to have multiple camera setups with different i/o rather than the complex, fully adjustable but extremely expensive 3d rigs.

Mitch Gross

02-04-2010, 07:30 PM

What good is the use of a tool if it can't be sued to its full potential of creative options?

Not to thread-derail, but this is one of the best typos I've seen this year.

Graeme Nattress

02-04-2010, 07:45 PM

KETCH ROSSi

02-04-2010, 10:16 PM

Not to thread-derail, but this is one of the best typos I've seen this year.

Ha ha, not a first for me, I just write faster then I can think :~)

I need an assistant that is what it is, my Brain is close to full capacity and about to need a Reboot, he he.

George D.

02-05-2010, 04:51 AM

Well I found it uncomfortable viewing - couldn't wait to get the darned glasses off. Sorry.

Graeme

Graeme,

Well, you're probably the ONLY one. Ha,ha, ha!! Nothing is "absolutely" perfect.

Maybe "you" can answer this question, which I have not been able to find the answer to: Will the 3D camera that RED is going to be putting out, have control over BOTH the interocular distance, AND the convergence?? If I could find the answer to just that one question, it would help me out a great deal.

Thanks.

Graeme Nattress

02-05-2010, 05:43 AM

There are a few things that I didn't like with respect to the Avatar experience:

The supplied glasses are too small and uncomfortable for prescription spectacles wearers. They'd be ok for a 15 min theme park ride, but not for a long movie.

Shiny surfaces in stereo look similar to how they look when I wear polarized sunglasses, and that is distracting.

Use of shallow DOF doesn't work as the stereo makes your eyes want to pull out of focus backgrounds into focus, but of course, they don't.

And nope, it doesn't sound like I'm the only one. The only redeeming feature was that it was less headache inducing than the previous week's CES Panasonic shutter glasses experience which was a full headache in under 10 minutes for me.

What would have seriously helped Avatar would be that the movie lasts 90mins and/or has intermissions during the show. Or just the CGI stuff was in stereo, and the rest was not, to give your eyes a break (like they did in Spy Kids 3D).

Graeme

George D.

02-05-2010, 06:16 AM

Graeme,

You brought up some interesting points. I wear glasses too, and I have to admit, it was not easy keeping those 3D glasses over them during the entire show.

My negative feelings on Avatar, are not with the 3D, which I loved, but with other issues, more having to do with the story line and "repeated" similarities to Cameron's other movies. But, it's obvious, that most of the public does not agree with me, so there's no use to getting into that here.

I STILL wish someone, anyone, knew the answer to my question. Oh well, maybe even RED doesn't know the answer, because their 3D camera is still in development or something.

Life goes on.

Graeme Nattress

02-05-2010, 06:28 AM

Yes, I think my first thoughts leaving the movie were that you'd never guess it was a Cameron movie just by watching it :-) - Aliens / Titanic / Abyss, crossed with Miyazaki's Nausicaa. Indeed, a very crowd pleasing movie which again, like with Titanic, Cameron seems great at. And there's nothing wrong with that, but to me, there are plenty of "I'd watch that again" movies I'd put ahead of it my list, although I would be tempted to see Avatar flat so I can enjoy the movie without the eyestrain.

I'm not the right guy to answer your RED question though. Maybe the time isn't right either.

Graeme

George D.

02-05-2010, 06:51 AM

Not meaning to belabor a point; but to me, Avatar was Dances With Wolves in space.

The "big boys" don't care what's wrong with that movie. All they care about is how much money it can make. As a result, he can make any movie, about any thing, at any time, anywhere, and with any amount of money he wants.

I, personally, think Star Trek was a better movie. Maybe that's just because I'm a fan.

Remember: "Movies are our best entertainment."

PS - Maybe I should call Sean at RED for an answer to my question.

chuck colburn

02-05-2010, 11:16 AM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Not meaning to belabor a point; but to me, Avatar was Dances With Wolves in space."

Ahahahahah! Good one.

C_Skaff

02-06-2010, 04:18 AM

vsv

02-06-2010, 02:24 PM

A 3D-camera with only one viewfinder???
Isn't that like having a stereo mic, but only one earpice headphone

This is André de Toth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andr%C3%A9_de_Toth) special edition cam
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_bv-zZUqgf6o/Sqar4ik1YLI/AAAAAAAACA4/b-98ZMzcRE8/s400/foto11.jpg

Stephen Strangways

02-06-2010, 03:37 PM

The shallow DoF in Avatar didn't bother me at all, and I had quite expected going in that it would, from what I have read.

What did bother me was some of the fast movement or panning. The good old "judder" seemed really pronounced and flickery when it alternated from one eye to the next. I left the movie thinking, "well, shallow DoF just might stick around in 3D, but we might have to abandon 24 fps with a 180 degree shutter."

Bruce Allen

02-07-2010, 03:13 AM

All that is well and good. But without convergence you have no control over where the window is.

In post, you can blow up both eyes 10% and then shift them horizontally, so yes you can set the convergence that way.

To me, it is just as essential as the interocular distance. And, BOTH should be adjustable in a good 3D system.

Agree it'd be nice to have both adjustable, but interocular.

If I were shooting POV shots for the next Slumdog Millionaire, I'd probably use that Aaton camera.

There are a few things that I didn't like with respect to the Avatar experience:

The supplied glasses are too small and uncomfortable for prescription spectacles wearers. They'd be ok for a 15 min theme park ride, but not for a long movie.

Sorry you didn't enjoy! Which technology did you see it in? Real-D, Dolby or Xpand?

Personally I liked the 3D very much - and my parents seemed to enjoy it in South Africa too. They saw it in 2D first, 3D the second time, and went completely nuts about how good the 3D was. Out of my friends, about 80% prefer the 3D. And amongst those who prefer the 3D, the majority LOVE it - they go and see it twice or three times.

Hope you guys still put 3D and 48fps in Red 4K (your playback system) - to me it is actually more important than the 4K part.

I say this reluctantly - I'd have loved it if 3D sucked because doing vfx in 3D adds another whole layer of pain, especially for indies. Plus you have a less indie-friendly camera rig. I think it's here to stay though, so am going to embrace it. Especially since I just can't help liking the 3D films so much...

So, what are Red's plans for lightweight 3D with maximum flexibility in interocular? Those mirror rigs sure look cumbersome - if there were a way to shave off the width of the Red sensors blocks so that we can achieve a range of side-by-side interocular distances that meet our needs for 95% of shots, that'd be awesome, of course.

Otherwise I'll just stick 4 Scarlets side by side and synthesize my own OD using some fancy software not invented yet ;) Hey, at least it'll be forward compatible for 50 years in the future when we're doing multi-view autostereoscopic (where you need 7-8 different views of an object).

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com

Graeme Nattress

02-07-2010, 04:36 AM

I saw it in RealD, which is not bad, and certainly a lot better than those Panasonic shutter glasses at CES. Put it like this - if I have to pay extra to see a movie in stereo, I'll keep my $ and see the flat version.

Graeme

Sanjin Jukic

02-07-2010, 05:08 AM

http://www.ikonoskop.com/begood/image_db.php?id=171&w=700&ne=1
It's interesting to mention that also Iconoscop A-Cam3D has two IMS mounts.

Pedro Guimaraes

02-07-2010, 07:46 PM

Does anyone have any idea how I can get "any" info at all on the RED 3D Camera System?

Thanks.

As far as I know they are not developing a "3D camera". That would be great if they did.

2 scarlets/epics side by side still leaves the IO way too large for any usable kinda of shooting. So I don't count that. IMHO, we still need a beamsplitter for epic/scarlet 3D shooting.

To me a "3D camera" is one that is developed for 3D with 3D adjustments and preferably with on board recording.

Very few cameras fit this description. The 3DVX, The Panasonic, the old Ikagami 3D (standard def), This new A-cam, Gemini (35mm film) and probably a few other more obscure cameras.

On the issue of convergence that has been discussed.....I'm of the opinion of shooting parallel as much as you can. Leaving convergence for post. To be done by sliding images rather than toeing in cameras. For me the only reason to converge during a shoot is for live 3D broadcasts and naturally a few other situations.

anyways....I'm sure a few of the big camera manufacturers are busy working on purpose built 3D cameras. The annoucements of discovery, espn and sky about 3D broadcasting are big reasons to do that. Imagine all the thousands of hours of programming they will all need? There going to need some purpose built, self contained 3D cameras you can throw on your shoulder to do that!

Preferably one that adjust convergence by moving the sensors rather than toeing in the lenses. leaving the lenses to move just for IO adjustment. Purpose built high quality c-mount sized optics to offer us small IO's.

One of the major issues for these cameras will be zoom function. Very tricky function in 3D. (For many reasons.) Naturally it's what all broadcast camera MUST have. Dying to see what kind of 3D cameras we sill start seeing out there......it is a big challenge and not to be underestimated.

The flexibility of a beam splitter will take alot of cleaver engineering in a single camera system to make the use of a beam splitter obsolete. As much as I hate dealing with beamsplitters, they will be around for awhile. So go hit the gym! I can tell you my arms are getting more toned with all the beamsplitters/cameras I've had to lug around lately ;)

Sidney L. Plaut

02-08-2010, 02:16 AM

Graeme maybe you will change your mind after you have incorporated
s3D functions into a REDworkflow. wink wink:)