Hi everyone! I’m new to this, and wanted to know if it’s possible to make 3d movies from red? I remember watching captain EO when I was a kid and thought it was so cool, I wished I could do that. Anyways, any suggestions would be helpful. Thanks!![]()
|
|
Hi everyone! I’m new to this, and wanted to know if it’s possible to make 3d movies from red? I remember watching captain EO when I was a kid and thought it was so cool, I wished I could do that. Anyways, any suggestions would be helpful. Thanks!![]()
I am sure that is the next thing Jim is working on. That way he can sell twice as many RED's (As if that will be a problem)
I forget who but somebody at DVXuser had this idea for a "double lens" which would put two images on the sensor when recording 4K. It would still be 2K though.
I suppose it could be possible to make some sort of lens adapter that takes two 16mm lenses and focuses their images side by side into a 35mm frame. Somewhat cumbersome and complicated, probably expensive. But by no means impossible.
But I think this has been done before on some level (combining two lenses side by side on a single image). I just can't recall where or by who...
Jeff,
That was Stereovision (remember the "Stewerdreses 3-D)! There was also a divirging prisim assembly in front to control convergance. Thats all I have to say about that movie.
The "over-under" practice of putting two images on the same frame of film was used quite a bit in the early '80's ... Jaws 3D, Friday the 13th 3D, Parasite, SpaceHunter, Amityville 3D, etc. You know... the classics.
All were viewed with polarized glasses. And I think I saw every bloody one of them.
3D... been there... done that-twice before. Yet, for some reason, here we go again...
That's basically what I was thinking, but with RED the image would be side by side within the 16:9 4K frame. Or possibly shot at 48fps or double the intended frame rate and the left and right images are alternated, then sorted in post.
Yep... I never was a fan of polarized glasses. Although, that still remains the best solution for presenting 3D images to a large audience. And much better than the RED / BLUE anaglyphic approach.All were viewed with polarized glasses. And I think I saw every bloody one of them.
Personally, I don't have much interest in shooting 3D. Or at least not until a much better way of viewing 3D content is devised. However, I'm working on a little 3D project of my own at the moment and I'm beginning to question my sanity.3D... been there... done that-twice before. Yet, for some reason, here we go again...
As there appears to be considerable interest in stereoscopic 3-D digital cinema, StereoScope International is currently designing a series of new systems for use with the Red cameras. These are based on an entirely new principle, and do not have any of the light losses of beamsplitter systems or geometric distortions or eyestrain caused by convergence type systems. Yet, there is full control of lateral registration for optimum realism and viewing comfort. If anyone is interested, you may contact me, John A. Rupkalvis, at stereoscope3d@gmail.com
That's great John. Keep us posted on new developments and adaptations.
Do you have a website?
Thank you for the interest.
New website is currently in process. In the mean time, some basic background information that may be accessed now, may be found at:
http://homepage.mac.com/go2rba/.Public/StereoScopeProBio.pdf
or:
Click to get my resume.
(both of the above are the same).
As you can see, I have designed stereoscopic 3-D cameras and rigs for a long time. The first digital rig was the small, portable HD one shown in the last frame of the above links.
The current design will be usable with all 2K and 4K digital cinema cameras, including the Red One.
This is the ONLY current stereoscopic digital cinema system that does not induce eyestrain for the audience.
If anyone is planning on shooting a stereoscopic 3-D digital production, please contact me at stereoscope3d@gmail.com
| « Previous Thread | Next Thread » |