2/3" Scarlet: Best for 3D?

[Steve White]

There's a lot of clamouring for a cheaper S35 Scarlet. I would consider myself one of those people more inclined towards S35 or FF35 just so that I could use cheaper DSLR lenses, but the $7k entry price throws me off. I'm much more in the home-enthusiast market the $3k w/ lens Scarlet, or the $2.5k 2/3" Scarlet body price points target.

That said, it seems to me that a 2/3" Scarlet is by far the best solution for stereo or '3D' imaging - precisely due to the deeper DOF and smaller lenses. It would also be much easier to get two Scarlets close enough to approximate human eye spacing without gargantuan 35 mm glass. In fact, you would deliberately want to avoid 35 mm for all the associated hassle with focus, DOF and glass.

After seeing both Beowulf and Bolt in 3D, I'm not convinced it's the 'way of the future' - particularly since it makes compositing way more complicated... but I can certainly see it has a place in spectacles, CGI movies, and documentaries.

Thoughts?

 

[Tim Hole]

3D documentary...man thats something I had never considered before.

 

[Brent J. Craig]

3D documentary...man thats something I had never considered before.

Someone's gotta be the first!

Since the current crop of 3D movies seems to be OK with shooting on modified F900/950's I would think a 2/3 Scarlet would be perfect.

 

[harjotsingh]

perfect for 3d.. agree. the fixed lens one may also be good. depending on how much lens cost for the 2/3 lenses

 

[Steve White]

3D nature documentaries. You know you want to see them. There was some absolutely gorgeous footage from Alaska shot on a Red One, and I can only imagine what it would look like in stereo. I want to see 3D martial arts films as well.

I really do wonder what the rules for 3D cinematography and editing will be. I think there's a lot to be done that hasn't been explored. Makes me wonder how flexible Red's 3D rig will be.

 

[Weston Ford]

I really do wonder what the rules for 3D cinematography and editing will be

I would really like to know. From everything I have read it seems like an inexact science...and that bothers me.

 

[Steve White]

It's not a science for 2D either - that's why cinematography is an art!

I think there's a lot to be done, as was done in the early days of 2D cinematography. With Red, the tools will be cheap enough that a bunch of people can try it.

You know the old Alfred Hitchcock "Vertigo" trick (dolly + zoom)? Well in 3D you can imagine a bunch of tricks - changing the camera spacing, camera axes, plus all the 2D stuff. There should be some really interesting illusions that are possible.

 

[Weston Ford]

I'm sure it will be a lot of fun creating previously unseen illusions. I just worry it will be hard to get a look that is real to life. That seems like it would be more difficult.