RED One....3D 4k w/cameron/pace rig?????

[Anders Yarbrough]

I was just working on a 3-D movie using the Cameron/Pace 3D rig. Has anyone been thinking of setting up 2 reds on the Cameron/Pace rig instead of vipers/F900's/F23's? That would be pretty cool! You could use really good, sturdy precise lenses instead of rinkydink broadcast lenses, and the depth of field would rock!

 

[Brandon Fraley]

dunno about the cameron/pace rig, but there are number of people who have used the RED ONE for 3D, supposedly with amazing results.

 

[Pawel Achtel]

I was just working on a 3-D movie using the Cameron/Pace 3D rig. Has anyone been thinking of setting up 2 reds on the Cameron/Pace rig instead of vipers/F900's/F23's? That would be pretty cool! You could use really good, sturdy precise lenses instead of rinkydink broadcast lenses, and the depth of field would rock!

Not sure what you mean by "depth of field would rock". For 3D shallow dof is a disadvantage and not a benefit.

 

[Warren Kommers]

Not sure what you mean by "depth of field would rock". For 3D shallow dof is a disadvantage and not a benefit.

I'm not so sure about that. Have you seen 70mm IMAX 3D? 3D Space Station is shot at a deep stop but is perhaps one of the most cinematic movies in history in my opinion.

I also felt that there was too much DOF and too little resolution in the recent 2/3" U23D. There were certain shots where for example, Bono and The Edge were standing on the z and a little x axis from each other in a waist up shot. It was very confusing to tell which one I was supposed to be looking at and was confusing enough to take me out. I think a little DOF with a rack would have been better and more natural perhaps.

The main problem I believe with the cameron/pierce rig is that it doesn't allow the RED's inner ocular distance to be close enough like smaller cameras bodies are capable of doing in that configuration. That's why people use Reds on a beam splitter for doing 3D. Those physical limitations are alleviated.

 

[Darren Orange]

Just have to know where to look. EDIT* Our 3D Rig Plans are changing *EDIT. Check out our website www.r88s.com and our production forums. We are in development of production facilities that will allow you to work with Red Cameras in 3D start to finish. We, just released a lot of final equipment details to marketing and they will be updating the website shortly.

 

[Pawel Achtel]

I'm not so sure about that. Have you seen 70mm IMAX 3D? 3D Space Station is shot at a deep stop but is perhaps one of the most cinematic movies in history in my opinion.

Absolutely sure. It is how our eyes and brains work. Stereoscopic effect is best put together by our brains when in focus. Many IMAX 3D were shot with HDCAM, including James Cameron's. The 3D depth effect looked much less straining on the eyes when dof is similar to that of human eye, which is deeper than that of 70mm and deeper than that of fully open S35 and more like 2/3" at f/5.6.

This is of course different than shallow dof in 2D, where our eyes and brains have no problem interpreting and are assisted in drawing our attention onto the sharp bits of the image.

 

[Bang WOW Bang]

I was just working on a 3-D movie using the Cameron/Pace 3D rig. Has anyone been thinking of setting up 2 reds on the Cameron/Pace rig instead of vipers/F900's/F23's? That would be pretty cool! You could use really good, sturdy precise lenses instead of rinkydink broadcast lenses, and the depth of field would rock!

Talk to Steve Gibby and he was the 1st RED one owners to make it happen,

and may I ask you that why still using HD Cameras as a 3D gig ?

HD is for TV and 4K is for Digital 3D RED Cinemas.

Stewart Chong
CEO
WOW Digitainment
HKG
http://www.facebook.com/photo_search.php?oid=12632950188&view=all

 

[BortD]

James Cameron on 3D and depth of field.

James Cameron on 3D and depth of field.

This is a quotation from an interview Variety did with Cameron - very in depth (excuse the pun). Found this on marketsaw.blogspot.com

http://www.variety.com/VR1117983864.html

"Someone told me that "Citizen Kane" was a great example of how to shoot for 3-D: great depth of field, wide-angle lenses, etc.

I think it's a myth that you want deep focus in 3-D shots. I find the opposite is true. Selective focus, created by working at low f-stops with longer lenses, evolved as a cinematic technique to direct the audience's attention to the character of greatest narrative importance at a given moment. With 3-D, the director needs to lead the audience's eye, not let it roam around the screen to areas which are not converged. So all the usual cinematic techniques of selective focus, separation lighting, composition, etc., that one would use in a 2-D film to direct the eye to the subject of interest, still apply, and are perhaps even more important. We all see the world in 3-D. The difference between really being witness to an event vs. seeing it as a stereo image is that when you're really there, your eye can adjust its convergence as it roves over subjects at different distances. Convergence is the natural toe-in that the eye does to align the left and right eye images of objects at specific planes of depth. In a filmed image, the convergence was baked in at the moment of photography, so you can't adjust it. In order to cut naturally and rapidly from one subject to another, it's necessary for the filmmaker (actually his/her camera team) to put the convergence at the place in the shot where the audience is most likely to look. This sounds complicated but in fact we do it all the time, in every shot, and have since the beginning of cinema. It's called focus. We focus where we think people are most likely to look. So I've found that just slaving the convergence function to the focus works exceedingly well, and makes good stereo a no-brainer on the set.

 

[istvanttt]

Absolutely sure. It is how our eyes and brains work. Stereoscopic effect is best put together by our brains when in focus. Many IMAX 3D were shot with HDCAM, including James Cameron's. The 3D depth effect looked much less straining on the eyes when dof is similar to that of human eye, which is deeper than that of 70mm and deeper than that of fully open S35 and more like 2/3" at f/5.6.

This is of course different than shallow dof in 2D, where our eyes and brains have no problem interpreting and are assisted in drawing our attention onto the sharp bits of the image.

I think Hollywood Schmollywood is right. The possibility to control the DOF and apply a shallow one if needed is important. If you look at the basketball plays of PACE then you see that it is very disturbing that the audience in the back is too sharp. In 3D with a given inter-ocular distance you can have only for a limited depth the 3D effect, further away you risk to get the card-board effect.

 

[Warren Kommers]

Absolutely sure. It is how our eyes and brains work. Stereoscopic effect is best put together by our brains when in focus. Many IMAX 3D were shot with HDCAM, including James Cameron's. The 3D depth effect looked much less straining on the eyes when dof is similar to that of human eye, which is deeper than that of 70mm and deeper than that of fully open S35 and more like 2/3" at f/5.6.

This is of course different than shallow dof in 2D, where our eyes and brains have no problem interpreting and are assisted in drawing our attention onto the sharp bits of the image.

I understand your thinking technically but disagree aesthetically.

The whole eye is a 2/3 at 5.6 thing may be true but DOF in cinema represents something beyond our eye's proeprties. It also represents our attention which is part of the brain and can't be measured. Shallower DOF than 2/3 wide open seems more organic to me. i had the same problem with medium shots in zodiak. i couldn't tell who i was supposed to be looking at cause the rack was so small. took me out. and that's bad

 

[DNomer]

I think that there is a lot more to this whole subject than has been brought up so far. When I was at Sundance earlier this year I attended a panel discussion where some industry 3D tech leaders spoke about 3D technology (Dreamworks, Disney/Pace, 3ality, etc), then showed some clips where we all wore the polarized glasses. I became an instant convert. 3D / Stereovision done right delivers an immersive effect that's amazing. You really feel like you are in the movie, especially if they use more like POV shots a lot.

But there are some new rules that everyone is going to have to learn, and the panel did not elucidate these new rules much. However, I ran across the Paradise FX people later (they handled the 3D rigs and sterography for Dark Country, using a rig for 2 Red Ones and a smaller rig for 2 SI 2K's). I was particularly interested in the issue of DOF, and how you decide on the interocular (or inter-axis) distance for a shot and what kind of DOF you would want. Initially it seemed to me that you would nearly always want a large DOF for stereovision. However they told me that it depends. Sometimes you might want more DOF, other times less. I was given only a thumbnail sketch of how the stereographer makes some of these choices and gets everything lined up. Other key issues that were brought up are how you do overlays, as seen in U23D quite a bit, showing one figure from one shot in the foreground, perhaps bigger than life, overlayed over a background audience which is based on a totally different POV. If you fade it in, it can work. Some of the impressive shots in U23D had huge DOF, with a pretty narrow interocular distance. I am not sure at all that you have to match human interocular distance to avoid eyestrain. One thing that will very definitely give viewers eyestrain is if you move the focus distance quite a bit in a given period of time, say a minute or two. A major issue with stereovision is that the effect is very powerful, and the brain WILL FOCUS at the distance that is represented by the two images, and if you jerk that around quite a bit for an extended period (e.g. a minute or so), it does give some eyestrain. That happened to some extent when they did the streaming letters at all different depths toward the end of U23D. Another huge issue is that both cameras have to see the same object, with no extra lens flare or artifacts in one side that don't exist on the other. There are also some serious errors that you can make that will go BLOOP! and knock everyone right out of the picture, and I don't have that figured out yet, but I saw it on one of the clips shown. By contrast, Dark Country, in spite of a pretty small budget, had some really bitchin' stereo clips to show -- quite impressive.

Almost no one knows anything at all about shooting and editing stereo vision, and a whole lotta people are going to have to learn it in the next few years. But having seen some good examples, I can confidently predict it will take over in the cinema. The industry luminaries on the subject all sang the same tune about it: don't try to do the trick stuff where you make something appear to reach out and touch the viewer, etc. Just make a quality movie with a real story and real actors in a real drama, and just use the 3D to increase immersion. That's the future, and a bright one it is!

dn

 

[istvanttt]

DNomer welcome to s-3D

Stereoscopic viewing is an old art, it was born even before (or somewhere there) the photography was invented. Sir Charles Wheatstone described it first time between 1820 and 1830. At the beginning he used drawings. Later the use of stereoscopic tecnics came up again and again and disappeared always for the same reason: the viewing experience was limited to one person; involving more people was technically very complex.

In the last 100 years there have been thousands of publications, calculations, researches done on the limits and possibilities of stereoscopic photographing and representations. By using Google you can find literature for the next 2-3 months to read. If this is too much work then try to come to San Josè, CA, in January, there is since, I think 20 years, the annual world-congress of stereoscopic technologies. They have excellent introduction courses on s-3D.

Eyestrain comes mostly for one of the following reasons:
- convergency/accommodation mismatch: While we convert our eyes to an object closer to us in the space (negative parallax), the focus of the image is still on the screen. Even if we do have different muscles for this it takes time to get used to it. Solutions are: less negative parallax and more light in projection (big problem with the z-screen technology imo)
- divergence of eyes: sometimes when during editing the size of the screen was not considered, the parallax distance on the screen could force our eyes to diverge. We do not like this and feel bad
- when during the shooting the technic of camera-converging was used, then because of keystone distortions, we will get vertical parallax disturbs on the corners; we don't like this either
- sx/dx frame violation: in reality we do not see 3D, but because of the 2 different images our eyes receive, our brain fuses them into a virtual 3D image. If an object gets cut on the right or left frame line it can happen that the brain doesn't receive enough space information and the fusion collapses. As this may happen partially it can confuse a lot.

Now lets get to the inter-ocular distance (IOD) problems.
First do me a favor and hold up one finger 1 feet away in front of your eye, then focus your eyes on some object behind your finger which should be around 3 feet away. As you focus on the distant object you will notice that your finger doubled. Now focus on your finger and you will see that the object which is further away will double.
Our brain is used to this geometrical conflict and filters it in dailies life without giving us bad feelings. But it doesn't work when you would film it and converge ie on the finger. Because of the given geometry the doubling of the object further away would give us bad feelings.
The easiest way is to reduce the IOD to solve this problem.

So to define the IOD we have here some basic optical and geometrical considerations to start with:
- 3 distances of a scene have to be considered: the nearest and the farest, and the distance of the virtual plane (on the last maybe an other time)
- as nearer the objects are, as closer the cameras have to come in the IOD; the same is for the opposite, as further away the scene is as wider has to be the IOD
- please note: the chosen focal lens will also influence the IOD

There are many publications with different formulas which consider those interrelations.

Now comes the tricky part: our brain recognizes sizes as natural when we see them at 6.5cm IOD (children at 6cm or less). When the IOD gets smaller, we will feel everything bigger, its also called Goliath-effect; the same when the IOD becomes very wide, then we get the Lilliput-effect its like looking at a toy-town. (BTW, in the U2 there was a scene where the piano and the player looked like having a size of 1 meter). This visual "deviations" are not like in normal cinema when you see ie an extreme close-up. Even if the beautiful kiss is magnified, in 2D it is still real in s-3D not! So the problem is that on one side we HAVE to play with the IOD, but it can be very risky and distracting.

To make things even worst here are 3 other considerations on the screening:
- every place in the theater will give a different s-3D experience. I think that one third of the places in the current cinemas will not work, but they will be sold
- every different screen-size will give a different s-3D effect and story emotions. Again because of the geometrical rules the virtual screen will be elsewhere then where the director wanted it.
- light power: today the z-screen technology seems to be the winner. I think it is a genius product. Mr Lipton who invented it is I think he biggest genius in 3D technology. But it has not enough light-thru-put, so some of the nicest advantages of s-3D get lost.

Hm, if somebody is still reading, then for them I would like to add a personal note:
When I talk to people about s-3D then most of the time the conversation is limited to the fact that how and when can we see objects in the virtual 3D space. I think this is very limited, because the advantages of s-3D go beyond the simple 3D-object effect.

I think that as filmmaker I have beside the 3D-object effects 2 additional storytelling tools with s-3D. For me the excitement comes that
- I can play with space, the physical feeling of distances between the object.
- I can make feel the texture of materials like I could never do with traditional film-technics (OK, maybe except Laszlò Kovacs)

Lately I read often that it would be enough just to hire a stereoscopic specialist. I think this technology gives us as filmmaker so many new and unexpected advantages that everybody who is interested in it should just buy 2 cheap small video cameras, rig them together at 6.5cm distance and film whatever passes your way. You don't even need expensive synchronizations tools, you can do it by using the sound-track to get clips together. Then buy 2 cheap Epson LCD projectors (they have a good lens-shift), a pair of cheap linear pol-lenses and screen it on a cheap silver-screen and look at them with cheap linear pol glasses. Against the common opinion, I do prefer linear polarization, because you get more light and I personal do not tilt my head during screenings
Have fun
Istvan
(OK I forgot, you need also a cheap NVidea card, maybe the 1700)

 

[Warren Kommers]

Almost no one knows anything at all about shooting and editing stereo vision, and a whole lotta people are going to have to learn it in the next few years. But having seen some good examples, I can confidently predict it will take over in the cinema. The industry luminaries on the subject all sang the same tune about it: don't try to do the trick stuff where you make something appear to reach out and touch the viewer, etc. Just make a quality movie with a real story and real actors in a real drama, and just use the 3D to increase immersion. That's the future, and a bright one it is!

dn

yup. I agree. strongly.

and yes there is more to it than DOF for sure. oh and wide shots(even on RED) that are more common in 3D filmmaking do tend to have deep DOF because of the focal length chosen. However at the end of the day there are going to be many times when you need T2 with this camera or any camera for that matter.

great posts istvannttt.

 

[Pawel Achtel]

Thanks istvannttt for good explanations. I have been involved in stereoscoping imaging for nearly 20 years and you captured the essence of it on one page :bleh:

 

[Martin Weiss]

Geoff Boyle from the UK was shooting a 3D feature earlier this year with 3 sets of cameras, one of them being Reds.

He did blog about it, but had to take it down later on...

 

[Anders Yarbrough]

Good one istvanttt! It was pretty crazy playing with the IO, convergence and focus. Took me a few hours to wrap my head around. Definitely a new way of thinking and an amazing tool to tell a story!

 

[istvanttt]

Thanks to everybody for your kind words. I'm glad I could give a contribution i this field
Istvan

 

[DNomer]

Istvanttt (or anyone), a couple of questions:

1. I notice that you did not mention this business of forcing different focus distances on the brain in any of your listed causes of eyestrain, yet that was emphasized to me by practitioners, and I experienced it myself directly, plus it seems natural that since this cannot occur in normal life, the brain has on 'answer' for it, and it might be a problem. You also did not mention this problem of having different material in the two sides, which can really happen. I don't think I have experienced that last one, but I bet it causes an earthquake in the brain.

I think it is important to at least attempt to quantify these things, i.e. indicate which things can cause a big problem that you really feel. For example, when I look at some video coded to use the red & blue cheap stereo glasses, inside of one minute I get a definite headache, and I take those things off, no matter what I am looking at. That is a serious problem that you feel right away. With the new polarized glasses, I can watch an entire feature and if they did not make too many mistakes, I can walk out without ANY sense of eyestrain at all.

2. You say that for nearer objects the IOD has to be closer, and for farther objects it needs to be wider. Why? In what sense is this true? What seems true to me is that a smaller IOD gives greater DOF, and an interesting effect.

Also, regarding viewing positions, which ones do you claim will not work well? Months ago I saw Beowulf in 3D at Imax, and I did not pre-buy my ticket, so I sat near the top row, all the way at the side aisle. The movie was pretty good for me, and the 3D looked quite good throughout. However, I feel sorry for anyone who sits in the bottom rows of a giant Imax theater, since even without stereo vision, their perspective is pretty weird looking upward at a sharp angle at a huge screen.

dn

 

[DNomer]

Geoff Boyle from the UK was shooting a 3D feature earlier this year with 3 sets of cameras, one of them being Reds.

He did blog about it, but had to take it down later on...

Are you talking about Dark Country? If so, I believe production was wrapped by January, but yes it is a landmark shoot because of the quality they acheived using prototype cameras on a short schedule with a small budget, and the fact that they solved their technical issues without bloating the schedule, yet delivered quite a few impressive shots. In that case the better blog was by a crew member, who also posted on Red User, I forget his name. I think it may be down now, too. A lot of the credit in that shoot needs to go to Paradise FX, IMO, for handling the stereo rigs and getting good shots. Geoff had no experience with this (even though he has LOTS of experience!!), and he relied on them to handle the new complexities of stereo shooting.

I will go to see Dark Country when it releases, even though I probably will not like the story, just to see the shots and the experience. For example, there is this one shot in Dark Country where this old fifties car is coming toward you at night in the New Mexico desert, and it swerves a little and hits the skids, stopping maybe 8 or 10 feet away and kicking up some dust that rolls toward your POV, which seems about two feet off the ground. I really felt like I was there in that shot! I was worried about getting dust on myself. The sense of immersion that you get from good 3D is really something to experience.

If Geoff is doing another feature using a pair of reds, I would like to hear more about it.

dn

 

[istvanttt]

Istvanttt (or anyone), a couple of questions:

1. I notice that you did not mention this business of forcing different focus distances on the brain in any of your listed causes of eyestrain, yet that was emphasized to me by practitioners, and I experienced it myself directly, plus it seems natural that since this cannot occur in normal life, the brain has on 'answer' for it, and it might be a problem. You also did not mention this problem of having different material in the two sides, which can really happen. I don't think I have experienced that last one, but I bet it causes an earthquake in the brain.

I think it is important to at least attempt to quantify these things, i.e. indicate which things can cause a big problem that you really feel. For example, when I look at some video coded to use the red & blue cheap stereo glasses, inside of one minute I get a definite headache, and I take those things off, no matter what I am looking at. That is a serious problem that you feel right away. With the new polarized glasses, I can watch an entire feature and if they did not make too many mistakes, I can walk out without ANY sense of eyestrain at all.

2. You say that for nearer objects the IOD has to be closer, and for farther objects it needs to be wider. Why? In what sense is this true? What seems true to me is that a smaller IOD gives greater DOF, and an interesting effect.

Also, regarding viewing positions, which ones do you claim will not work well? Months ago I saw Beowulf in 3D at Imax, and I did not pre-buy my ticket, so I sat near the top row, all the way at the side aisle. The movie was pretty good for me, and the 3D looked quite good throughout. However, I feel sorry for anyone who sits in the bottom rows of a giant Imax theater, since even without stereo vision, their perspective is pretty weird looking upward at a sharp angle at a huge screen.

dn

Hi dn
well first I would like to make sure, I didn't want to teach anything to anybody. My attempt, like Pawel Achtel kindly said, was: to bring the essence to one page. There is much much more to know and follow then what I wrote down.

I strongly believe that stereoscopic knowledge has to be developed by experiences more then by simple theoretical questions. I hoped to give with my points some basics to help to orientate in the mass of literature which exists on this mater.

BTW, somebody reminded me that I didn't tell how to get the pictures out of the computer once you are ready to send them to the projector.

There is a very nice and cheap software: Stereoscopic Player by 3dtv
http://www.3dtv.at/Index_en.aspx
The trial version is free and the final version costs around 100 Euros. Even if I own the more expensive (5.000.-$) DepthQ software, for my own purpose I use most of the time for studies the 3dtv software.

To your first question: well I think I did consider that point. It was when I wrote about the experiment to focus on the 1 feet distance finger and then n the 3 feet distance finger. The whole problem always dances around space geometry.

Concerning different materials: I really don't understand what you mean with it.

Anaglyph viewing (red/blue), well of course it is not pleasant and nobody is seriously considering to view a feature film with it. BUT professional stereoscopic experts still use it for fast analyses of the space situation. It is easy, fast to get made and once you are used to it even your stomach accepts it.

BTW, pol-glasses for s-3D is not new. It started to be used in the fifties and on some experiments also already in the thirties if I recall well.

Your second question: again I think the finger-experiment gave the answer already. The problem is that for every given IOD, depending on the focal-lens used, there is a max. nearest distance you can have to the object you film, you cannot get closer to it. This is pure geometry. If you want get closer then you have to lower the IOD.

Beside this there is to consider the distance till where we can see/feel stereoscopic effects. I don't want to enter here this general discussion which is going on between scientists. I think currently 1/2 degree is considered the limit where we still perceive the stereoscopic effect. Personally I think that we can see it also further away. Anyway for the pure rules of geometry, it is true that as wider the IOD is as further you can get the stereoscopic effect. So expect to see in the future 2 helicopters over LA filming the chaise.

Viewing positions in the theater: grrr... I hate this argument because I'm afraid that this problem again could kick out many people from the s-3D experience. So in short, as closer and more on the side you are, as less you see the s-3D effect, actually on some places you start to see ghosting effects. Next based on the distance to the screen the virtual screen is different. Then , if during editing I fixed the parallax distances for a 10 feet screen size, but screen it on a 20 feet canvas, then people who will sit closer then somewhere the middle of the theater, will get problems because they may have to diverge their eyes to fuse the images. And last but not least here is the problem of the sizes, actually in a theater there is only one (!!!) place where you can see the objets in an orthomorphic (some call it orthostereo) representation. In all other places the object will seem or smaller or lager then you wanted. Now as I wrote it yesterday, this can be acceptable but can be also very distracting. Probably in the coming years we will get used to it and don't feel it so disturbing, but who knows. Today we have to consider also those limits.

To conclude, I think the potentials of s-3D for storytelling are outstanding, but to get over the simple use of the technology as effects, we have to use it all over to study it. ie this winter I rigged together 2 small Panasonic cameras on a Merlin Steadycam and skied all the time with it. Well most of the stuff was just crap, but I learned about other limits and new possibilities and some where .. ahhh..
Istvan