Is it more difficult to shoot long-lens footage, at say 300 - 400mm, in 3D? For example, if your intention was to film long-lens wildlife footage in 3D?
My instinct (from recent experience) is that yes, I think it is more difficult - not by any means impossible, but more difficult. In my experience, almost everything is more demanding with longer lenses, including 3D.
Issues of wanting greater interocular separation also come into play when you are shooting more distance from the subject.
I've wondered if one used one of those red dot lasers normally used for sighting in a gun for each camera to get the proper spacing, especially on shots that were long range? I don't think they are powerful enough to permanently damage eyes, but one would have to avoid that just the same.
The 3D IMAX movie "Wings of Courage" shot telephoto stuff with a single camera and copied the same 2D image for the other "eye"... because basically the interocular distance between the eyes doesn't matter when an object is extremely far away, there is no stereo effect in real life with distant objects.
3D photography sort of demands that you work at "normal" subject distances for the most realistic effect, rather than extreme wide-angle and telephoto images that are not like the way people see things. If the whole point of 3D is to create a "you are there" experience, you'd want to keep to shots that seem like they could be a human's perspective onto the scene, even if from extremely high or low angles, etc.
David Mullen Rules!
Sure you can change the interocular distance, but then you are making it seem like the POV of a giant if the eyeballs are ten feet apart or something. And it can have the side effect of making the subject look miniaturized.
The thing is that it's natural in real "3D" human vision for distant objects to not have a strong stereo effect, so you just live with the flattening of perspective and depth that long lenses cause, just as they do in 2D movies.
The opposite concept is when the interocular distance is extremely tiny, like for shooting miniatures and making them seem huge. "Coraline" for example had a tiny interocular distance, matching the eyes in a doll's head, so that the stop motion miniature sets seemed real-sized.
So you can play with interocular distances for effect, but you don't want to go too far away from a human's true interocular distance in relation to the subject being viewed, except in cases like I mentioned.
But, there is an easy solution, which wildlife film makers embraced for years:
Put a normal lens on and get amnong the animals! Makes film making so much more interesting than usual run of the mill fiction stuff (sorry David, LOL)
Why do you think I have different assistants on almost every expedition!
3D sort of demands that you work harder at creating an "immersive" experience by getting a moving camera right in the action, close to the subject, with lenses that are similar to human perspective (I don't mean literally, but anything in the moderately wide to medium focal lengths is fine).
Looking at a distant sunset and using a telephoto lens to enlarge the sunball, for example, is still fine to do in 3D but it's not an "immersive" experience at that point, it's merely a nice shot.
There are plenty of longer-lensed moments in "Avatar" (snap-zooms into objects at a distance, for example) but even there, you can see the stereo-vision effect drop away realistically and the perspective getting flatter.
Enhancing the dimensional effect in 3D is actually similar to enhancing it in 2D -- you move the camera on wider lenses, you have foreground elements to create depth cues, etc.
Greatly summed up, David. Thanks.
|« Previous Thread | Next Thread »|