Approximate Cost of Epic/Atom 3D Rig

[Rob Ruffo]

So what are the cost of shooting in 3D vs 2D? Knowing that the only difference is 3D, the rest of the cost stays the same, so if we’re going to shoot the film using a 5K Epic X to begin with;

Well let’s look at them, the additional cost;

1. One Epic Cameras; $28,000
2. One 7” LCD Current Model will probably change, not sure to what, I’m leaving the extra LCD so we can monitor both cameras; $2,500.00
3. One SSD Side Modules; $2,500.00
4. Two 256 GB SSD Cards, for shooting HDRx™™ Footage, in actuality there will be more than that ($3,200 X 2); $6,000.00
5. One Red Power Pack with two batteries and one charger we’ll keep as-is, because again there is more power needed; $1,400.00
6. One 16mm to 42mm ANGENIEUX Optimo DP Rouge Zoom Lens 3D Ready Package (with a 32 mm Image Diameter) or whatever other lens one likes; $20,999.00
7. Element Technica Atom Magnesium 3D Rig; $84,000.00
8. Element Technica Pro Kit; $20,000.00
9. Element Technica Lens Control System; $12,600.00
10. Hedén Lens Drives; $16,000.00
11. Extra Hard Drives for transferring the SSD, it’s an unknown, depends on shooting ratios and all sort of other things, just to kwon that there is an extra cost in personnel (extra hours) and equipment.

Total ‘approximate’ additional cost for one 3D camera rig; $193,999.00

Now the question is how many extra rigs, as a Director I would prefer two or three cameras, but that’s just me! So adjust accordingly. All the other Scripting cost, Casting, Rehearsal, Pre-production, and Production cost remain relative the same. Of course there is the addition of an extra set of lenses that have to be included. In Post-production there is slightly higher cost, but it’s not that much more in relation to everything else. Now you have insurance for ‘Future Distribution’! Something to consider. The Element Technica web page with description and the individual cost can be found in their pdf; http://www.technica3d.com/downloads/downloads/Atom-Specs.pdf

Humberto Rivera

Well no - there are many costs, to be fair - heavier camera, more tech issues, more complex post and much higher SFX costs - means all kinds of costs. Not saying those will not be worth it, but they are there. It's not just the camera. Even sets cannot be cheated in the same way - for example matte backdrops could easily look funky.

 

[Humberto Rivera]

Agree, Rob! You have to be “more careful” in how you approach the sets, and all sorts of things. The camera will be heavier, no question, but the important cost of production will be slightly increased in contrast to the “enhanced version” that must be constructed for a production that was scheduled to be shot in 2D with the “Epic 5K Camera”, remember that it must also have the same cost for the “enhanced version” due to the higher resolution of the camera to begin with, 2D or 3D, it’s there no matter who you look at it. Just something to think about.

Humberto Rivera

 

[Humberto Rivera]

Let’s say for the purpose of discussion that we have three options; (1) shot with the Epic 5K Camera in 2D, (2) shoot with a 65mm Film Camera, or (3) shoot 3D with the Epic 5K Camera. In all the options we have pay closer attention to the sets, with the 65mm Film Camera and the Epic 5K 3D Camera we have larger camera. With the Epic we have a DTI and with the 65mm Film Camera we have to changing magazines constantly, so the cost will vary somewhat for different reason. I did not consider 35mm film, because that stayed behind when we move to the Epic 5K Camera in terms of resolution and dynamic range (utilizing HDRx™).

Humberto Rivera

 

[Dave Blackham]

Here's another question that I posted on CML. That may be relevent to the list of kit. I hope it doesnt hijack the thread

<We are intend to buy a pair of Zooms for a forth coming 3D project. With in reason we would like the physically smallest lens possible. Here are two possible contenders, Angenieux 16-42 or Red 17-50.

Some more obvious pros and cons- The Angenieux is available in matched pairs of lenses, Red tell us their lenses arnt matched in pairs but perform to tight standards, and Im sure they do.The Red lens is 1mm tighter at the wide end and is shorter and lighter. I've only seen stills from the Red lens but they do look good. Im sure the Angenieux is Optically better but Im not sure by how much and if they are worth the additional cost and larger size.

Does any one have practical experience of both lenses or can point me at some recent 2D or 3D work and could offer a view.>

The 17 50 is very fat ! which is not great for us. I am told Duclos may be able to replace the front flange to make it more 3D rig friendly which Im sure will have warranty issues but may solve the flange issue. What Im more interested in is what the 17 50 image quality looks like optically against the Rouge lenses. Anyone know if there any example of work around to look at ?

Also a concern about bad (not smooth) bokeh on lenses used for 3D, Ive seen this on small C mount lenses for instance. I realise that depth of field should be extended for 3D but any odd artefacts that can crop up in the out of of focus areas is not good. I don't this this issue should affect either the 17 50 or 16 42.

 

[Brandon H]

It might be cheaper to go with just the two epics, and stick them together with duct tape....

And buy a nice bmw.

 

[Doug Horton]

Here's another question that I posted on CML. That may be relevent to the list of kit. I hope it doesnt hijack the thread

<We are intend to buy a pair of Zooms for a forth coming 3D project. With in reason we would like the physically smallest lens possible. Here are two possible contenders, Angenieux 16-42 or Red 17-50.

Some more obvious pros and cons- The Angenieux is available in matched pairs of lenses, Red tell us their lenses arnt matched in pairs but perform to tight standards, and Im sure they do.The Red lens is 1mm tighter at the wide end and is shorter and lighter. I've only seen stills from the Red lens but they do look good. Im sure the Angenieux is Optically better but Im not sure by how much and if they are worth the additional cost and larger size.

Does any one have practical experience of both lenses or can point me at some recent 2D or 3D work and could offer a view.>

The 17 50 is very fat ! which is not great for us. I am told Duclos may be able to replace the front flange to make it more 3D rig friendly which Im sure will have warranty issues but may solve the flange issue. What Im more interested in is what the 17 50 image quality looks like optically against the Rouge lenses. Anyone know if there any example of work around to look at ?

Also a concern about bad (not smooth) bokeh on lenses used for 3D, Ive seen this on small C mount lenses for instance. I realise that depth of field should be extended for 3D but any odd artefacts that can crop up in the out of of focus areas is not good. I don't this this issue should affect either the 17 50 or 16 42.

We use both Optimo lenses on 95% of our jobs. When we can, we take multiple rigs, and keep lens sets married on bodies. They're great lenses, and optically they match nearly perfect. As far as zooms go, I don't really think you can get a much better "bang for your buck". I've personally never used the 17-50's on our Quasars, however I do enjoy using RPP's or any matched primes over zooms any day of the week.

The way to make zooms work fast is with A LOT of prep, and careful handling. It is VERY easy to throw off tracking ever so slightly, especially if you're swapping lenses. So, the BEST practice is to try and have one body/brain per lens, and never let them be separated for the duration of a job, and if they must be, then be prepared to tweak tracking, or adjust the alignment module.

 

[PatrickW]

And what would a Scarlett 3D kit run?