3D and long lenses

[Rudi Herbert]

Well,
I have to agree with Mike, all you need is a pair of reasonably cheap and high quality cameras, there's no need to wait for Scarlet or Epic to come out. What I have realized is that, like Mike said, achieving basic 3D is not all difficult, and a side by side rig with two cameras properly aligned and running identical settings is all that's needed for this. However, after spending 3-4 days posting the 3 minute short with the sharks that Mike posted a photo of, I also realized that, as every other technology with its own set of specificities and whims, 3D must be practiced a LOT to improve. Lots of different things make a big difference, not just the convergence of the two images shot by the cameras. I was so surprised how the color correction made a difference, as did contrast and saturation. Altering each of those made a profound difference in the stereo effect. Too much saturation caused edge softening and loss of 3D, contrast improved it, but too much of it led to ghosting, selectively tweaking some colors made the 3D more subtle or very in your face, etc, etc, etc. My point is that for those who are seriously interested in 3D and can afford a small investment, like the Canon cameras Mike and I are using, it is well worth it. Learn the ropes now, learn what works and what doesn't, how to stage scenes for a particular 3D look, etc, etc, but this teething period will take time, so getting it out of the way now before you dump a substantial amount on RED gear to start from scratch is not something I'd recommend...

[Elsie N]

Just was thinking that if your 3-D project is an important one, maybe it would be a good idea to use the greater cameras, such as the Scarlet. That way, if the 3-D didn't workout, you could always use one camera's output and finish in a higher quality 2-D output.

[Rudi Herbert]

That way, if the 3-D didn't workout, you could always use one camera's output and finish in a higher quality 2-D output.

Well, if I promise a client 3D, I better deliver 3D, so it "not working out" is not, and never has been an option for me. I just come across so many people nowadays that have not paid their dues, never shot anything on Beta, DV, HDV, AVCHD, whatever, just because is not "good enough", even though thousands of us have made a living out of using those formats. They're waiting and waiting for the dream of RED to become affordable enough, and when that happens, they step out there with a professional camera and fail miserably, since all they have is empirical knowledge and never, ever shot anything in their lives....and of course, I'm not referring to anybody in this thread or forum, although such characters do abound here and elsewhere...

[Michael Hastings]

Well what I'm thinking is two 2/3" Scarlets for a 2K 3D finish. Are the 2/3 Scarlet bodies small enough?

Certainly, in fact the cheapest scarlet with a couple of mini-primes will be an excellent candidate for side by side 3D.

Well,
I have to agree with Mike, all you need is a pair of reasonably cheap and high quality cameras, there's no need to wait for Scarlet or Epic to come out. What I have realized is that, like Mike said, achieving basic 3D is not all difficult, and a side by side rig with two cameras properly aligned and running identical settings is all that's needed for this. However, after spending 3-4 days posting the 3 minute short with the sharks that Mike posted a photo of, I also realized that, as every other technology with its own set of specificities and whims, 3D must be practiced a LOT to improve. Lots of different things make a big difference, not just the convergence of the two images shot by the cameras. I was so surprised how the color correction made a difference, as did contrast and saturation. Altering each of those made a profound difference in the stereo effect. Too much saturation caused edge softening and loss of 3D, contrast improved it, but too much of it led to ghosting, selectively tweaking some colors made the 3D more subtle or very in your face, etc, etc, etc. My point is that for those who are seriously interested in 3D and can afford a small investment, like the Canon cameras Mike and I are using, it is well worth it. Learn the ropes now, learn what works and what doesn't, how to stage scenes for a particular 3D look, etc, etc, but this teething period will take time, so getting it out of the way now before you dump a substantial amount on RED gear to start from scratch is not something I'd recommend...

This is my whole point. These days with what I call "ebay-rental" where you buy a couple cameras for $899 and have the ability to instantly sell them seven or eight months later for probably $600 or so means for an "ebay rental" cost of $600 you can spend the next 7 or 8 months shooting and editing 3D material, and if your heart is set on scarlet simply sell the canons when it is available. I would suspect you can easily make back that $600 (3D is a great gimmick for trade show product demos for instance) but if not just the learning experience should be worth it.

[Elsie N]

Well, if I promise a client 3D, I better deliver 3D, so it "not working out" is not, and never has been an option for me. I just come across so many people nowadays that have not paid their dues, never shot anything on Beta, DV, HDV, AVCHD, whatever, just because is not "good enough", even though thousands of us have made a living out of using those formats. They're waiting and waiting for the dream of RED to become affordable enough, and when that happens, they step out there with a professional camera and fail miserably, since all they have is empirical knowledge and never, ever shot anything in their lives....and of course, I'm not referring to anybody in this thread or forum, although such characters do abound here and elsewhere...

My point is that RED is about "not paying your dues" because that puts you at the mercy of someone else's ideas of whether or not you've paid enough. Besides, if you think an independent movie-maker hasn't paid their dues, I submit you are unfamiliar with the new normal. By using the better quality camera on your independent project, you have the option of selling your work as a 2-D deliverable if no one is interested in it as a 3-D deliverable. Of course the youtubers and such need not use the higher quality camera. But I think Tom's aim is to film unscripted actors (wild life) and if he has two high quality cameras and one isn't quite in sync with the other or just fails for some reason, then at least he has the shot. I wasn't slamming you for using sub standard cameras, just saying that the redundancy of the higher quality ones is a safety net.

[Michael Hastings]

My point is that RED is about "not paying your dues" because that puts you at the mercy of someone else's ideas of whether or not you've paid enough. Besides, if you think an independent movie-maker hasn't paid their dues, I submit you are unfamiliar with the new normal. By using the better quality camera on your independent project, you have the option of selling your work as a 2-D deliverable if no one is interested in it as a 3-D deliverable. Of course the youtubers and such need not use the higher quality camera. But I think Tom's aim is to film unscripted actors (wild life) and if he has two high quality cameras and one isn't quite in sync with the other or just fails for some reason, then at least he has the shot. I wasn't slamming you for using sub standard cameras, just saying that the redundancy of the higher quality ones is a safety net.

I may not be understanding this so don't take it wrong. The first point is that these cameras exist now. Second is that you have redundancy/backup with either type of camera. Third is that you might be surprised at how good the quality is. These are modern full 1920 x 1080p chips, so 66% of the resolution of scarlet with the main difference probably being lower sensitivity due to smaller pixel size. But this often isn't an issue when shooting outdoor nature stuff where you shoot at f8 and up (in fact with most modern video cameras you often need to use ND so you don't have to stop down past f11 and lose resolution due to diffraction effects). And the increased depth of field with the smaller chip may actually help with with telephoto on many nature subjects. Further, they also shoot 8MP stills so time lapse may actually be better than scarlet.

But mainly this isn't about HFS100 vs scarlet, it is about the fact that not much has changed in actual 3d techniques in a long time - it just wasn't very practical to get into it. But the convergence of affordable and capable editing tools plus camcorders that are extremely compact (giving suitable intraocular distances); extremely high quality (true 1080P HD for 1/4 of the price we paid for a fixed lens one focal length no zoom 8mm camcorder with half of standard definition resolution 20 years ago); and extremely affordable; means you can start producing and learning those 3D techniques now with a minimal trade up cost when scarlet is available.

[Tom Lowe]

For me, the point is well taken that it's a good idea to do tests and experiments well in advance of starting a 3D project. Since I will be busy with principle photography on my first film all of next year, that will allow me time to wait for Scarlet 2/3" and the 3D rigs that will follow its release -- and to start doing tests in the meantime. The fact that the 2/3" Scarlet will create beautiful, quality 2K with overcranking up to 150fps is a big selling point for me.

Then again, if my plan turns out to be literally flying the 3D rig on a Dragonfly-style RC helo for 50% of the film, maybe it will turn out that CCD sensors are a better idea than CMOS. I think the 2/3" Scarlet should be good on RC choppers, but with 3D, I have to imagine that jello could be a deal breaker, since matching the two stereo images together with significant jello and vibration skew sounds very difficult. I've seen footage shot with vDSLRs on RC choppers, and it aint pretty.

[Elsie N]

I may not be understanding this so don't take it wrong. The first point is that these cameras exist now. Second is that you have redundancy/backup with either type of camera. Third is that you might be surprised at how good the quality is. These are modern full 1920 x 1080p chips, so 66% of the resolution of scarlet with the main difference probably being lower sensitivity due to smaller pixel size. But this often isn't an issue when shooting outdoor nature stuff where you shoot at f8 and up (in fact with most modern video cameras you often need to use ND so you don't have to stop down past f11 and lose resolution due to diffraction effects). And the increased depth of field with the smaller chip may actually help with with telephoto on many nature subjects. Further, they also shoot 8MP stills so time lapse may actually be better than scarlet.

But mainly this isn't about HFS100 vs scarlet, it is about the fact that not much has changed in actual 3d techniques in a long time - it just wasn't very practical to get into it. But the convergence of affordable and capable editing tools plus camcorders that are extremely compact (giving suitable intraocular distances); extremely high quality (true 1080P HD for 1/4 of the price we paid for a fixed lens one focal length no zoom 8mm camcorder with half of standard definition resolution 20 years ago); and extremely affordable; means you can start producing and learning those 3D techniques now with a minimal trade up cost when scarlet is available.

No quarrels with anything said here. Was just addressing Rudi's response to my post that a 2-D backup option from using higher quality footage for a movie deliverable (Tom's stated purpose) was not in the equation. My first post:
"Just was thinking that if your 3-D project is an important one, maybe it would be a good idea to use the greater cameras, such as the Scarlet. That way, if the 3-D didn't workout, you could always use one camera's output and finish in a higher quality 2-D output."

was simply being dismissed because everyone hasn't "paid their dues." People are paying their dues right now... the younger ones are only just starting paying them at a different spot on the timeline. Learning currently obsolete or soon-to-be obsolete ways of doing things are a waste of valuable time IMHO. I think Tom said 2011 would be when shooting would begin. By then, it may very well be possible to set up a Scarlet 3-D rig that will rival point and shoot technology of today.

[KETCH ROSSi]

For me, the point is well taken that it's a good idea to do tests and experiments well in advance of starting a 3D project.

Well Tom, that pretty much says everything one can say, to me testing, rehearsal, and then some more testing, and experimenting is all you will ever need, off course it is always nice to ask questions and get advises and info related before doing the testing and experimenting, as to have more of an idea of what can be expected.

Personally I have been taking everything in my hands as half the info out there is completely and incredibly WRONG.

S3D has some very fundamentals that must be absolutely obeyed, as far as not giving your viewers some very bad experience, but you can use any lens at any focal, zoom or Prime, even so I prefer primes, and just test it out, and see what look pleases you the most, just as far as you avoid some classical mistakes.

As far as the Scarlet 2/3 with Mini Primes, that would surely also be a camera set up of choice, do to size and flexibility, since we have seen that the 2/3 imagers from the Sony cameras used in some great S3D blockbusters do more then in off cover the needs, however we have to see when the Scarlet and Epic get released and tested, which one at the ned could be the real winner for S3D use.

IMO, they both will serve a very distinct place even in S3D shooting needs, then again, there is wryly not that Huge of a difference form one Brain and the other, but there is a Huge difference in the lenses.