First Epic model could shoot 3D by itself

[Kwan Khan]

Interesting...

[Robert McGee]

HAhAHAHAHA!

personally that wouldn't be any MORE distracting from the story than regular 3D ;-)

Jeff

Actually the release print would be RealD 3D or IMAX 3D, but anyway has anyone really done their research? In order for RED to pull this off, there would have to be some sort of top of the line imaging software that is used for the purpose of editing 3D film. Plus I would also like to see a still what this software can do.

[Pierre T.]

Just a side remark, if you put two Epics or Scarlets side by side as suggested by some of the renders that have been shown, you get a parallax that is way to large to ressemble the human vision. The nodal distance of our eyes is about 2 inches (5cm) but it would even be difficult to build S35 lenses that have a diameter of less than 2 inch, etc ...

Personally, I would predict that either 3D will be added in post (as was done for Burton's Alice in Wonderland, maybe just for the animation part?) or dedicated 3D cameras will be used for capture.

[Terry VerHaar]

Just a side remark, if you put two Epics or Scarlets side by side as suggested by some of the renders that have been shown, you get a parallax that is way to large to ressemble the human vision. The nodal distance of our eyes is about 2 inches (5cm) but it would even be difficult to build S35 lenses that have a diameter of less than 2 inch, etc ...

Personally, I would predict that either 3D will be added in post (as was done for Burton's Alice in Wonderland, maybe just for the animation part?) or dedicated 3D cameras will be used for capture.

I am no 3D expert but I believe the interocular distance is considered to be more like 3.5 inches (measured from center of each eye). That gives a bit more room and the 2/3" Scarlet with mini-primes just might fill the bill. Also, given that the "desired" or "proper" interocular distance can vary a bit depending on how far away the key subject/action is from the camera, for some things an Epic might do just fine as well. I am sure there are many people here on REDuser that can provide much better insight than I.

[Robert McGee]

I am no 3D expert but I believe the interocular distance is considered to be more like 3.5 inches (measured from center of each eye). That gives a bit more room and the 2/3" Scarlet with mini-primes just might fill the bill. Also, given that the "desired" or "proper" interocular distance can vary a bit depending on how far away the key subject/action is from the camera, for some things an Epic might do just fine as well. I am sure there are many people here on REDuser that can provide much better insight than I.

I would guess Alice looked better then Titans because Disney knows how to do 3D, and they ain't going to spare no expense when it comes to a 2D to 3D conversion. Tron Legacy is is being shot in 3D, can't say the same for the original cult classic with should have a Blu-Ray release before Christmas.

If you shoot a film at say a 16x9 aspect ratio, you don't want any loss of vertical lines.

Well anyway, did you know that it would be very easy to make a 3D version of 1959 film Ben-Hur? It's full aspect ratio is actually 2.76:1 because they used these anamorphic lens specially made for 70mm film cameras. When the film was released in theaters back then for CinemaScope showing, the sides where chopped off so they could get a 2.35:1 aspect ratio. The didn't want to treat the full 2.76 as a flat wide screen format by just putting black bars on the tops and bottoms between frames. This is how you would make a the 3D version.
1. Use the 2.35:1 version as your guide
2. Take the full 2.76:1 and see what they chopped off. You'll need two of them, one with the left side cut off and one with the right side cut off.
3. Use the version marked in step 1 as a guide to make the alinement for both left and right eye. Make sure you have the proper distance between both eyes.
4. Trim off the excess and run it throw your imaging software, remember that not all 2D to 3D conversion are not perfect.
5. Render into a 3D video file.
6. Put on your 3D glasses and view the final product. Results may vary depending on what your 3D imaging software is capable of.

I think this makes a good example of how you can do a 3D conversion of currently existing film, do any other experts have opinions?

And besides, whether you do shoot in 3D or do a 2D to 3D conversion, aren't you going to need 3D imaging software anyway to the editing room?

[Eren Ozkural]

I'm sorry Robert but this just doesn't make sense to me, maybe I'm not getting it.

To have a stereo image, weather it's "true stereo" or flat cut outs, you need to have 2 slightly different perspectives. The method you've shown has no depth to it, everything is on the same "plane".

I know Alice/Clash were converted to 3D but it wasn't done by some software or algorithm.

The process is very similar to projection mapping where make objects/meshes in a 3d program like maya/blender/3dsmax and then "project" the footage onto it. This way, when you render the finished image out in stereo you have 2 slightly different perspectives which creates the illusion of depth.

There are strict limits to this as anyone whose done camera projection knows and achieving a good finished result is very laborious and time consuming.

The difference betwee nAlice and Clash is as follows: Alice was concieved as a 3D movie to begin with. They stuck to shooting it as a single camera show because of the on set implications that Tim Burton didn't want to face coupled with Disney/Tim Burton's success with the post converted Nightmare Before Christmas re release.

Clash on the other hand wasn't originally intended as a 3D picture. I know from friends that worked on it that they handed off their comps to a company in India who rushed through all the painstaking work in a matter of mere months.

It was a last minute rush job outsourced to the lowest bidder.

Either way, both movies pale in comparison to shooting S3D on set.

Oh and cineform have great tools for S3D workflow management.

[Paul Nordin]

That gives a bit more room and the 2/3" Scarlet with mini-primes just might fill the bill. Also, given that the "desired" or "proper" interocular distance can vary a bit depending on how far away the key subject/action is from the camera, for some things an Epic might do just fine as well. I am sure there are many people here on REDuser that can provide much better insight than I.

It really depends on the final dimensions of the Scarlet/Epic. Beam splitter technology is still considered the -go forward- approach to acquiring hi-quality 3d images. Otherwise every 3d feature would have been shot on the SI2k. Scarlet 2/3 has some real potential for good 3D. Deep focus capablities being a big one.

[Luis Otero]

After studying the HDR concept a bit more in depth, and knowing Epic will have it for both, still and motion, I don't see why its captured image using HDR cannot be used instead of 3D to provide the audience with the same experience that 3D preaches it offers: look at the image on the screen and provide a visual sensation to the brain of depth on a 2D environment.

Any thoughts on this?

[Charles Angus]

I would guess Alice looked better then Titans because Disney knows how to do 3D, and they ain't going to spare no expense when it comes to a 2D to 3D conversion. Tron Legacy is is being shot in 3D, can't say the same for the original cult classic with should have a Blu-Ray release before Christmas.

If you shoot a film at say a 16x9 aspect ratio, you don't want any loss of vertical lines.

Well anyway, did you know that it would be very easy to make a 3D version of 1959 film Ben-Hur? It's full aspect ratio is actually 2.76:1 because they used these anamorphic lens specially made for 70mm film cameras. When the film was released in theaters back then for CinemaScope showing, the sides where chopped off so they could get a 2.35:1 aspect ratio. The didn't want to treat the full 2.76 as a flat wide screen format by just putting black bars on the tops and bottoms between frames. This is how you would make a the 3D version.
1. Use the 2.35:1 version as your guide
2. Take the full 2.76:1 and see what they chopped off. You'll need two of them, one with the left side cut off and one with the right side cut off.
3. Use the version marked in step 1 as a guide to make the alinement for both left and right eye. Make sure you have the proper distance between both eyes.
4. Trim off the excess and run it throw your imaging software, remember that not all 2D to 3D conversion are not perfect.
5. Render into a 3D video file.
6. Put on your 3D glasses and view the final product. Results may vary depending on what your 3D imaging software is capable of.

I think this makes a good example of how you can do a 3D conversion of currently existing film, do any other experts have opinions?

And besides, whether you do shoot in 3D or do a 2D to 3D conversion, aren't you going to need 3D imaging software anyway to the editing room?

Post of the week for me...

I usually don't swear on the tubes, but this is just too fucking funny. As someone who works doing 2D-3D conversions, the thought that my whole department's job is summed up as one bullet point really cracks me up.

Not how it works, Robert. Don't know where you're getting your info, but it ain't right. 2D-3D conversion takes skilled people a LOT of time. There is no "imaging software" that will just do it for you.

Oh, and as already pointed out - that image at the top is not 3D. I don't even need to put on my glasses to tell that.

[Charles Angus]

Even if you have a set up of say like 2 Red ones, you would still have to put the video files throw imaging software.

Not sure what you mean here - put it through imaging software to do what? Watch it in an editor? I guess so, but in the case of a 2-camera rig, the stereo is already there. You don't need to do anything to the images except put them on your stereo display device...