The All 3D-Stereo Thread

[Benni Diez]

So, as suggested by Eric, this is the place to discuss everything related to 3D stereoscopic production and technology. Or let's just call it 3dS. :matrix:

Here's a nice page for starters:
http://marketsaw.blogspot.com/
Daily updates on what's new in the stereo world. Also a list of current 3dS films in production, as well as a list of 3dS capable theaters.

And two interesting white papers on the matter:
http://area.autodesk.com/images/tips/the area/080911_2145/stereoscopy_whitepaper.pdf ...about 3dS basics and
http://www.fxguide.com/qt/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/stereowhitepaper.pdf ...with info on The Foundry's new Ocula plugins for Nuke.

And before we endulge in a pro and con discussion: Yes, story comes first! You can't pimp a bad script with in-yer-face 3D-effects and expect it to become a masterpiece. We all hopefully learned that from the last few years of CG-abuse.
But on the other hand: The visonary filmmakers that used groundbreaking technologies IN FAVOR of a good story came up with some pretty amazing flicks and really made a change in the industry. Think Cameron, Spielberg, Lucas. Ok, some of them have lost their Mojo somewhere on the way. But they proved more than once that inventive technology combined with great storytelling can create a whole new experience. That's what movie magic is about.


Soooo...
That said, let's get into the geek zone: I'd really love to get my hands dirty with 3dS content creation. But it will be a while until I can afford 2 Reds and a professional 3dS rig.
So my question is: Does anyone know an affordable camera module (SD will be enough for starters) with enough control so that I can synchronize two of them (capture, exposure, shutter)? And also an affordable capture solution (hardware, software)?
I'm planning to build a small beginner's rig just to get my hands and brains around all the basics of 3dS.

 

[number6]

Good idea for a thread.

 

[Roberto B]

stick it..

 

[Dan Hudgins]

CCTV for SD 3DS?

CCTV for SD 3DS?

So my question is: Does anyone know an affordable camera module (SD will be enough for starters) with enough control so that I can synchronize two of them (capture, exposure, shutter)? And also an affordable capture solution (hardware, software)?
I'm planning to build a small beginner's rig just to get my hands and brains around all the basics of 3dS.

For SD you can get two CCD CCTV cameras that have external sync inputs, use a external sync generator, set them to manual exposure + external sync + AGC off, adjust the exposure using C mount machine vision lenses with an iris, and record on two computers with video digitizer boards to uncompressed AVI (rather than MPEG2?). You could get close to DVD resolution maybe?

Just slate and you have two stereo sets of frames with Vsync. Maybe the cost would be under $1000 not counting the two computers?

I did some tests recording to the internal Digital tape in a camcorder and direct to the video input on a digitizer board on a computer, and going direct into the computer is much better than taping in the camera, at least with the stuff I was testing...

 

[Joseph Ward]

When is Ocula coming out?

 

[number6]

So, if I'm shooting two duplicate locked off cameras, probably with lots of DOF, side-by-sideish (both centered on the central subject by initially focusing on a laser dot?) do I simply overlay the two images in post at 50% opacity? Or do I cut each image in half (or at the center of interest) on the same vertical plane and place them side by side? Or do I do an overlay of the center third and do the 50% opacity and leave the side panels original and at 100% opacity? Or, none of the above but something else.

Does this even qualify as 3-D?

As you may guess, 3-D is not something I'm that familiar with.

 

[number6]

stick it..

Second that.

 

[Benni Diez]

So, if I'm shooting two duplicate locked off cameras, probably with lots of DOF, side-by-sideish (both centered on the central subject by initially focusing on a laser dot?) do I simply overlay the two images in post at 50% opacity? Or do I cut each image in half (or at the center of interest) on the same vertical plane and place them side by side? Or do I do an overlay of the center third and do the 50% opacity and leave the side panels original and at 100% opacity? Or, none of the above but something else.

Does this even qualify as 3-D?

As you may guess, 3-D is not something I'm that familiar with.

None of those I'm afraid.

You have to treat both images separately throughout post production.
Each of those images is supposed to be seen by one eye only! Left camera -> left eye, richt camera -> right eye.
There are several methods how to achieve that:

-Polarization filters. Only possible if images are projected (rear or front projection). You need to wear polarized glasses to watch. The Imax 3D way.
-Anaglyph. The two images are overlayed into one. But they are tinted separately, mostly red and cyan. You need to wear red-cyan glasses to watch.
-two separate small monitors, each for one eye. Like those fancy cyberspace helmets.
-Shutter glasses. Only works with flickering monitors. Glasses with lcd shutters are synced to a monitor which shows both images alternating.
-Monitor with lamella coating. Each 2nd vertical pixel row is directed a few degrees off via the prism coating. Problematic because it heavily depends on interocular and viewing distance.

There are some others, but those are the main ones in use.

See also:
http://www.stereo3d.com/projection.htm
http://www.visionaryforces.com/downloads/Stereoscopic-Cinema-from-Film-to-Digital-Projection.pdf

 

[number6]

So, if I understand correctly, there is no way currently to PRODUCE 3-D without some external viewing trick to experience it?

 

[Alex Carr]

I watched Max Penner have two customized inputs into a Red LCD and I would wear 3-D glasses which were hanging on the camera. He has quite an elaborate setup, with the cameras on Preston Motor Controls to keep the cameras aligned.

check out Paradisefx.com

 

[Benni Diez]

Right. And all those different tricks have their own advantages and disadvantages.
And even the best system has to be very carefully calibrated in order not to destroy the viewing experience.
Another issue: Screen size. 3D content for an Imax screen has to be treated differently than for a rear projection TV.

 

[Benni Diez]

I watched Max Penner have two customized inputs into a Red LCD and I would wear 3-D glasses which were hanging on the camera. He has quite an elaborate setup, with the cameras on Preston Motor Controls to keep the cameras aligned.

check out Paradisefx.com

Yeah they rock! They made an incredibly small stereo rig with two SI-Mini cameras and combined it with a fancy steadycam system for "Dark Country".
reel-show.tv has some great making of videos.

 

[Alex Carr]

I saw the Si rig a few days ago, Its pretty impressive, even with a tether

 

[number6]

I watched Max Penner have two customized inputs into a Red LCD and I would wear 3-D glasses which were hanging on the camera. He has quite an elaborate setup, with the cameras on Preston Motor Controls to keep the cameras aligned.

check out Paradisefx.com

No, I meant viewing it on screen. I'm just wondering if someday we'll see home and public theaters you can watch 3-D movies or either the current 2-D? movies we have without utilizing special equipment for the viewer.

If so, I will take the extra time and expense to shoot something I feel is universal or timeless on 3-D and do post on one camera angle. Later on, re-release it as 3-D. But for a movie with a "use by" date on it, I'll just do it as inexpensively as I can.

 

[Benni Diez]

3D capable screens are always capable of showing 2D, too.

I've just spotted this:
http://www.zalman.co.kr/ENG/product/Product_Read.asp?idx=219

Those are 22" lcd monitors used with passive circular polarized glasses. Pretty cool, and affordable.

For SD you can get two CCD CCTV cameras that have external sync inputs, use a external sync generator, set them to manual exposure + external sync + AGC off, adjust the exposure using C mount machine vision lenses with an iris, and record on two computers with video digitizer boards to uncompressed AVI (rather than MPEG2?). You could get close to DVD resolution maybe?

Just slate and you have two stereo sets of frames with Vsync. Maybe the cost would be under $1000 not counting the two computers?

I did some tests recording to the internal Digital tape in a camcorder and direct to the video input on a digitizer board on a computer, and going direct into the computer is much better than taping in the camera, at least with the stuff I was testing...

http://www.cctvcamerapros.com/ seem to have a good assortment of stuff. Which of those cameras would you recommend? And do they sell sync generators? Unfortunately I'm not quite an electronic engineer. Any other ideas where I can get the stuff I need?

 

[Dan Hudgins]

Camera with external sync...

Camera with external sync...

http://www.cctvcamerapros.com/ seem to have a good assortment of stuff. Which of those cameras would you recommend? And do they sell sync generators? Unfortunately I'm not quite an electronic engineer. Any other ideas where I can get the stuff I need?

I guess you would want PAL SD cameras?

Looking around I think things have changed a little in the CCTV camera market since the video input boards seem to take wild sync cameras and lock onto each signal like a scan converter, so many of the cameras do not have external sync input any longer.

Cameras made for "broadcast" or some kinds of video production still have sync inputs. These are cameras that are made to hookup to a "switcher" thing that lets you fade between two cameras, before digital the cameras needed to be in FULL sync in order to do a fade or super. So the sync wire would go from the switcher to each camera to keep the cameras in sync.

If you get a switcher and two cameras, you can put RED/CYAN filters over the cameras, set the fade to 50/50 and put on anaglyph glasses and see 3D of a sort on a color monitor. Or you can get a two monitor set with the switcher and make a mirror box for a much sharper image since each eye woud have its own 9 inch monitor.

You should be able to find used video stuff on ebay cheep. The switcher should have video outputs for each camera for the monitors, you could feed the monitor signal to two computers to record as uncompressed AVI files.

I would not record the images MPEG2 since the compression could cause "cardboarding" of the 3D images when viewed.

A camera like the Sony XC-555P might work, but without example images it is hard to tell what the image quality of the camera is,

http://www.aegis-elec.com/products/sonyxc-555p.html

I have not used that camera, so I cannot say what issues it might have, but the specs are in the general direction, maybe something lower in cost would be a better fit for your project. Also its not a C mount? It is small though.

Because the newer Digital switchers may not require external sync on the cameras, you would need to shop around to find equipment that will give two analog video putputs that are in sync, so you get good 3D on fast motion.

Maybe someone who has done SD broadcast could make some low cost suggestions for:

1) two PAL cameras with a good image that have manual exposure and external sync.

2) A low cost SD external sync source.

3) two Video digitizer cards that can save uncompressed AVI files at PAL resolution (8 or 10bit?).

You could go with machine vision cameras and frame grabbers, some of those also have a frame start frame trigger input, you would then need to have a crystal pulse generater set to 25Hz so you can convert the machine vision frames into AVI with freeware VirtualDub (tm) for editing. You would just wire the camera's trigger inputs in parallel to the pulse generator.

When you shoot you do not want to turn the cameras in too much if the far point (wall) is not close behind the subject since that can make the viewers eyes diverge too much on the distant points.

BTW: My program can format two BMP frames into stereo for viewing with lenticular 3D screen, side by side, over under, and such so you can do the editing with one stereo frame in place of two. You can probably also format the frames in other programs as well. You can use VirtualDub to break up the video files into frames, format the two sets of frames into one, then use VirtualDub to turn that one set back into a AVI video file with sound. If you make crossed eyes side by side you can then view 3D on any size screen without glasses.

 

[Dan Hudgins]

...a precursor to showing movies in 3-D.

...a precursor to showing movies in 3-D.

Has everyone see this article,

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article/article?f=/c/a/2008/10/02/BUPC139RGG.DTL

Quote:

[Hollywood studios to pay for digital screens

Associated Press

Thursday, October 2, 2008
Hollywood studios to fund digital screens in theaters

Five Hollywood studios have agreed to help pay for a $1 billion-plus plan to provide digital technology for about 20,000 movie screens in North America, a precursor to showing movies in 3-D.

Digital Cinema Implementation Partners, a consortium of major theater chains, announced the deal Wednesday. The digital project, covering about half of all screens, is planned to start early next year.

To help offset the costs - about $70,000 per screen - the studios plan to pay the consortium nearly $1,000 per movie per screen, roughly the same amount it costs them to print and ship a celluloid film copy.

Adding digital equipment is the critical first step in the technological upgrade to being able to show 3-D movies. The technology uses a filter in front of a digital projector to polarize separate images for the left and right eyes, which viewers use polarized lenses to see.

More than 20 3-D movies are set to hit theaters through 2010, but only 873 locations are available now, according to the Walt Disney Co., which was joined in the deal by Paramount Pictures, Twentieth Century Fox, Universal Pictures and Lions Gate Entertainment.

The project is expected to take more than three years.]

If half the theatres are going to be 3D Digital, and the other half are going to close, then does that mean that I am wasting my time today improving the highlight detail and other parts of my DIY filmrecorder software?

People with two RED ONEs should be in good shape, but people with just one will need a mate?

 

[Benni Diez]

It's sad, but I'm afraid so. Film will be replaced completely within the next few years, like it or not. We have reached a point where digital can be more profitable if handled right. And it will get cheaper, thanks to inventive folks like Red.
And the new 3D can only work when it's 100% digitally produced from shoot to screening. So that's one more nail in Celluloid's coffin.

 

[Benni Diez]

Björk's new music video was done in 3D and can be watched here:

http://www.wired.com/entertainment/music/news/2008/04/bjork_wanderlust_index

They also show the 3D version for use with anaglyph (red/cyan) glasses. The effect is not too great, because anaglyph 3D always stresses the brain. I'd love to see this one with proper display equipment.

As far as I can tell they used a self made SI-Mini stereo rig. Most of the weird stuff is built as a set piece or miniature, some stuff is hand painted, only a few elements are CG, the actors are green-screened. Mostly compositing work. Pretty impressive!
They had 100k$ and 4 months, but went 5 months over (unpaid) in order to finish this.

 

[Luis de la Cerda]

There's a serious shortcoming I find with current 3D technology used in movies... Focusing.
In real life, when you experience something through your eyes, your point of interest determines the focus distance and as you jump from one thing to another, so does the focus. 3D movies however, either force focus at a certain distance, which makes you aware of the situation, breaking the "spell" of the movie experience; of forces everything into focus, making it feel unnatural. Ideally, there should be some kind of system that tracks your eye movement and brings the correct plane into focus as your eye wanders throughout a scene.
Another problem is lens flares. Since 3D is supposed to mimic a real life experience, lens flares are not a part of human vision, not to mention they look different for each camera, making for a very weird artifact. I was very aware of this when I watched U23D at my local IMAX screen. Great experience though