Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

Huge bullettime rig

hunterrichards

hunterrichards

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 5, 2007
Messages
730
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Grand Rapids, Michigan
I randomly found this picture on google:

multicamera_car_ad.jpg


120x Canon 30d's

How do you go about renting a bullet-time rig like that? Is there a company someone could point me to?
 
There are many companies using different systems - I have a list buried somewhere - hopefully some knowledgeable chap on RedUser can clear it all up before I have to go and dig for it.

TimeTrack comes to mind - but I don't think that's their rig.

Basically, you just try to find someone who'll service your area, get the client to put up the money, and go...

EDIT: ahh... http://www.freshdv.com/2007/01/bullet-time-options-in-post-matrix.html

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com
 
Heya Hunter!

I'm picturing one of these with a few hundred Scarlets, all running at 120fps :-).
 
fxphd shows you how you can get bullettime-like effects with a much lower # of cameras. You use optical flow retiming to morph the in-between frames where you don't have cameras. The background/3-d stuff you fake via camera projectors.

A ghetto solution in case you can't afford this.
 
GlennChan said:
fxphd shows you how you can get bullettime-like effects with a much lower # of cameras. You use optical flow retiming to morph the in-between frames where you don't have cameras. The background/3-d stuff you fake via camera projectors.

A ghetto solution in case you can't afford this.
Click to expand...

Actually, people use optical flow retiming, even if they have large numbers of cameras.

It just means you get 360 frames instead of 120...

Stephen Williams said:
Hi,

Contact Dayton Taylor, dayton_taylor@digitalair.com
He owns the patents, you need a license from him whoever shoots it.

Stephen
Click to expand...

Hmm... I don't think you can patent something that basic. It's like trying to patent multicam. I can understand him patenting the rig, but the idea itself?

Anyway, his patent mostly seems to focus on absolutely *simultaneous* still photos? That's not interesting to me. I think most people would be more interested in having each photo taken some fraction (1/500 of a second etc) or so after the other one, methinks.

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com
 
Shawn Nelson said:
I wonder if his patents are still valid if instead of SLRs, you use Scarlets.
Click to expand...

I wonder if they were ever valid. If you read the wikipedia article on "bullet time", other people may have "invented" it. In the early 1980's, Tim Macmillan did experiments that have that effect in it as well:
http://timeslicefilms.com/chronology_f.html
If you go back to the early 80s on that timeline, you can download QTs of his films.

I can see if digital air patents the rig used or the software that they design - but they way they claim it is that they own any content that uses that technique? That seems pretty broad.
If you want to see what other things they've patented:
http://digitalair.com/techniques/


Garrett
 
pheboglobi said:
I wonder if they were ever valid. If you read the wikipedia article on "bullet time", other people may have "invented" it. In the early 1980's, Tim Macmillan did experiments that have that effect in it as well:
http://timeslicefilms.com/chronology_f.html
If you go back to the early 80s on that timeline, you can download QTs of his films.

I can see if digital air patents the rig used or the software that they design - but they way they claim it is that they own any content that uses that technique? That seems pretty broad.
If you want to see what other things they've patented:
http://digitalair.com/techniques/


Garrett
Click to expand...


Hi,

I think paying a lecense is rather less than you might pay in Legal fees.

Stephen
 
This RED bullet time idea was discussed a while back: http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=66

The idea that the concept of an arrangement of cameras for an effect shot is patented is still completely ridiculous and has got to be the most pretentious patent I've ever heard of.

I can see patenting a particular product/rig, but not patenting the use of someone else's products to achieve visual art. The Patent office was smoking crack that day. You know that part in Shrek when Princess Fiona jumps up in the air to fight Robbin Hood and there's a "bullet time" spin around her, I wonder if this dude tried to get them to pay him for the use of the concept in that animation? He sure tries to scare you into hiring him or paying him on his website to achieve said effect through a system he patented from other people's ideas and equipment.

Maybe Kubrick should have tried to patent long tracking dolly shots. It's akin to patenting the idea of 3D movies all together, according to their patent on Bullet-Time they've patented the idea of moving within time by a system of cameras. So I'm surprised they haven't tried to patent the idea of 3D imagery alltogether through the use of multiple cameras as well.

Could you imagine having to pay someone a license so that they would allow you to shoot two of your own cameras side by side and use software you purchased to create a 3D image of your design?
 
The idea that the concept of an arrangement of cameras for an effect shot is patented is still completely ridiculous and has got to be the most pretentious patent I've ever heard of.
Click to expand...
Well there's even more ridiculous patents out there. ;)

A sampling of them...

Recording video at 24p (companies actually pay license fees for this); interestingly enough, the patent is for 24p and not 23.98 (or 24 * 1000 / 1001)

Rotoscoping

Color correction

Quantel / Dynamic rounding (prior art)

Method for exercising a cat (with a laser)

2- It might make a lot of sense for the guy to file the patent (and make it as broad as possible) to avoid somebody from patent trolling him.

Or some people just like to get patents for resume padding. I don't think the patent holder is harming anybody by holding the patent, and there are some legitimate reasons to file such a patent (even if the patent is silly in how broad it may be; I've not read it).

2b- It's probably a good legal strategy to file a patent as broad as possible.
 
Hmm... would need lots of light. Especially since you need a low shutter speed to reduce motion blur.

2- Potentially dangerous.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top