EXPERIMENT: Use 3-D Rig For HDR?

[Steve Hertler]

The 3D rigs that Element are producing will be convertible between Beam Splitter and Parallel modes. This is because we realized very early on that in order to generate a proper 3D image for EVERY shooting situation, most productions will need to utilize both forms of image acquisition. The reality is that while a Parallel Rig can function properly in most circumstances, as the subject moves closer to the camera you require an interocular distance that can simply not be achieved without a Beam Splitter system. Conversely, as the subject moves further away and the focal length gets longer, a Parallel System becomes the most appropriate tool. This is not to say that great results can't be achieved by just using one system or the other...but ideally both systems would be employed dependent on subject distance and focal length.

Ketch said it right when he said that, for some stereographers, replicating the human experience will be the key. Personally speaking, the optical center of my eyes are about 2.5" apart from one another. In order to best replicate my experience of viewing an object that is about 5' from my face, a Beam Splitter would be the only way to do it "realistically".

EDIT: I thought about this some more, and decided I needed to be a little more specific. Theoretically, with Iconix cameras in parallel you could get an interocular distance of about 1.4"...although I don't know of anyone who is using an Iconix as an "A" Camera. With SI-2K Minis in parallel, you could get a minimum interocular of 2.5"...but with no travel left to move the camera's closer in the event that artistically this were preferable. With the RED-One the minimum interocular achievable with a Parallel system is about 6.5".

 

[Ketch Rossi]

That is a fantastic news Steve, to hear that your S3D gear will be able to accommodated both style configurations of Parallel and Beam Splitter 3D rig, as I mentioned more then once I prefer very much the look and fill achieved by Parallel system as I fill it gives some what a more realistic point of view as the human eye would, in turn involving the viewer in a greater experience, but nonetheless a Beam Splitter configuration is essential when having shots in your story that requires the focusing of either your subject or scenery been closer then 6'.

So I truly look forward in knowing more about the rig, I do have a big hope for the release of the Scarlet FF35 and make a rig for them, then later next year for the Epic FF35 or 645.

I know at the moment you guys are only renting a number of units in order to provide great care to your customers on set, but I hope that the release for sale of the rigs for Scarlet will be available at the same time that Scarlet becomes available.

I have been pushing production back, and now getting ready for the first of many S3D films, so I hope that time will be on my side.


On the fact of what S3D really should be about, at list from my point of view, experience (very limited yet but passionate ) is exactly that, you must, both as a FilmMaker and a Stereographer provide the viewer with such an experience that it so real life, that the difference from standard movie watching must be HUGE!! It is in fact said that an S3D film experience should closely replicate true life, and that in this way the Brain it self should produce more NEURONS, during the viewing of good S3D films, and in turn such a stimulation will give just a great pleasurable movie going experience.


EDIT:

Steve Hertler

"Quote:
EDIT: I thought about this some more, and decided I needed to be a little more specific. Theoretically, with Iconix cameras in parallel you could get an interocular distance of about 1.4"...although I don't know of anyone who is using an Iconix as an "A" Camera. With SI-2K Minis in parallel, you could get a minimum interocular of 2.5"...but with no travel left to move the camera's closer in the event that artistically this were preferable. With the RED-One the minimum interocular achievable with a Parallel system is about 6.5". End Quote"


Correct Steve, and this is why for now I have decided to wait for the release of Scarlet, the specs and size plus design make it for a far better suited S3D system, then any current camera in the market, I don't consider the Iconix, neither the SI-2K, even so they have been used successfully in more then one project, including " My Bloody Valentine" were their footage was intercut with that of RED>

For the style and story lines I like to tell I must have the possibility of been able to achieve the Parallel Interocular distance of 64mm plus very tight Convergence to allow for specific looks, I just hope that the Designs for Scarlet and Epic, will take serious consideration on their impact to the 3D market, and if any changes apply , for them to apply with the needs for 3D in mind.

The other consideration which greatly impacts the Interocular distance possibility is also the almost forced use of Zooms for S3D shooting, as it just makes no sense in the use of primes when the time for setting up the rig is so very long, but hoe that gets better, for now, at list from what I have been able to experiment and learn, Zooms are just the way to go.


ciao

 

[Radoslav Karapetkov]

I guess that a two-camera HDR rig won't be necessary for the entire shoot, just for specific shots that need the latitude.

So, it's a viable option.

 

[Peter G]

that sounds like a great idea. using a beamsplitter for hdr-video.

i certainly will give it a try and keep you posted.

it so happens that i have a beam splitter stereo rig to spare at the end of december.

 

[Dan Hudgins]

2xREDONE=HDR

2xREDONE=HDR

I made a large number of posts on the subject of using two REDONE with a 3D rig here about a year or so ago, and put many drawings up.

There are also options to use relay optics so you can shoot with one prime lens to avoid issues with follow focus shots and or zoom.

My DI software can free resize the 4K images and rotate them to get alingment, it can put the right S curves on and fuse the two image sets for each shot, and it is freeish to try.

==

The only problems you might have are:

1) Is the SMPTE LTC lock within 1/10 frame of so

2) For the over-exposed image will the RED ONE sensor solorize and give the brightest highlights the "black sun" problem.

You can find the answer to #2 by overexposing your RED ONE several stops and see if you get any solorization, if not then if the sync is close you should be free to get more dynamic range for the shots you need it for.

As for alignment issues, projected 35mm film prints are close to 1280x720 on the screen, and the OLPF reduces the contrast of single pixels so you do not have a 4K image on the single pixel level in the color information, there is quite a bit of blur, if you try to sharpen the images you will get aliasing. So you should concider the so called 4K images an "oversample" of the required RGB resolution of 1280x720 for transfer to 35mm film to look as good as something shot on ECN or better as HDR.

==

If you want to see how the HDR images will look without going to the cost of getting a rig setup, just shoot a more or less static subject with your single REDONE, the process the two shots with exposure spread into a single HDR shot and see how the noise looks on playback. Costs nothing, if it looks good then go ahead and try two cameras, if not save your trouble. If anyone in the Bay Area wants some help doing tests I have the free time to help with such HDR tests and frame processing at 4K etc.

 

[paulherrin]

HDR from RAW

HDR from RAW

It should be obvious that for any HDR shot - you want two or more images that are perfectly identical, yet represent different exposures, or value ranges of that same composition. Since a stereo rig is purposed after the concept of two slightly different viewpoints of the same scene, you would want some kind of mirroring rig to capture the exact same image on two cameras - exposure bracketed (or ND filtered seperately).

I believe there are some other options as well - with a single camera. The type of shots that need HDR treatment, are (obviously), those that contain a high dynamic range of values - typically scenes with uncontrollable lighting, such as sweeping landscapes. When lighting is under direct control - I believe it's always best to light for the camera's native range. However, say a landscape shot with motion control (or still for that matter) could be bracketed out and shot two or more times in succession and toned in post. But this is a viable option only on rare occasion. That's why RAW is so great - it holds a greater latitude of exposure. In theory, you could bake out multiple exposure levels of the original RAW files and then composite for an HDR tone. Though you may lose some quality as opposed to other means (increased noise) - it may be made up by the overall achievement of the image. It should be noted that the RAW may still not carry the full dynamic range of the image in some or many situations with high ranges of light levels.

By manually adjusting one frame in photoshop and recording your actions, you should be able to make a simple script and run each frame through. That seems to me like the best way to tone it. All this can be practiced with a Digital SLR. Shoot a sequence RAW or exposure bracketed (or both!), bake it out. Run them through the toning - and be impressed with yourself. Then consider that the RED will (make you) look at least twice as good
EDIT: Evidently, Photomatix (under $100) supports some batch processing that may be more easily done than trying to wrangle a bunch of files. A trial version of the standalone or plug-in software (complete with free watermark) can be downloaded to fully test this. As far as functionality, I'm honestly not sure how it compares to Photoshop (or other HDR processors for that matter). Experiment.

Check out this article about capturing time-lapse HDR - this equally applies to traditional frames as it does to time-lapsed stills.

Those are just my thoughts. I'm no expert on it, I don't have much experience with HDR recording or stereoscopic rigging - and I admit there could be other viable options out there. If I was doing really serious work - I might check out two REDS with some kind of mirroring rig, especially exploring some way to use one lens for both cameras. However, we can imagine the expense (time) involved in managing this set up, so, I do think for many applications it would be quite reasonable all around to work with a single camera technique.

"Better than what they had."

paul herrin