Question for Native 3D RED

[Zack Birlew]

Hi, guys, I was thinking about 3D filmmaking while I watched "Journey To The Center Of The Earth 3D" today. For 3D films today, you have to use two cameras either side-by-side or in a mirror setup with one on the top and one in a normal straight on position. Well, with P+S Technik making their 3D rig that can be used with the RED in particular, it got me thinking about the structure of a 3D camera built today.

Why couldn't you simply do the same thing as the mirror setup but with everything integrated into the camera? I don't know if it's even possible, but why not have two sensors within the camera in their own little mirror setup, versus having two physical cameras hooked to a big rig like the P+S Technik model, and have the dials on the front of the camera to adjust the spacing between the two necessary lenses? This way, you can always have the option of turning one sensor (the top one) off for normal shooting and when you do 3D, you can turn it back on and plug in another lense and be on your merry way. What do you think?

 

[Darren Orange]

Modular is better, my thinking might change but for the most part...if one sensor goes down or one part of the camera has a problem. I would rather be able to swap it out and keep going then down the whole rig.

 

[jbeale]

With two normal lenses you have to allow quite a bit of room, assuming you're not using a two-prism specialty lens like the Loreo 3D http://www.loreo.com/pages/products/loreo_3dcap.html )

In particular, if you want to mimic the human interocular distance by putting the optical centers of your lenses 2.5 inches (6.3 cm) apart, that limits you in your choice of lenses.

I think it is possible from an engineering viewpoint, but not reasonable from a fiscal one. 3D is currently a very limited market and few people would want the extra weight & expense of a 2nd sensor/lens mount/backend processing if they weren't using it. So there would be few of them sold and the cost would exceed that of simply buying two regular 2D cameras + the extra 3D mirrors & mounts.

(this is just my opinion, of course.)

 

[James T Mather]

camera doubles in price - 2 sets of matched lenses per camera required - sounds pretty "niche market" to me right now. wait until Avatar proves 3d movies are viable I say. 3d didn't work in the fifties (as in, it was a fad), I don't see why it shouldn't be a fad today.

 

[Dave Neathery]

For what it's worth, I was contacted Friday by an outfit that is planning to release their next film in 3D. They want to send my 2 Reds to the company here in central Florida who will develop the system.

So, it appears, there may be another source for 3D systems for Red Ones soon.

 

[Noah Kadner]

Also I'm not a 3D expert but I imagine two sensors in the same body would restrict the inocular distance too much to be useful. This is pretty variable when you have two distinct cameras you can move. Or it would have to be a monster huge body to work out. Either way I don't ever see this being made by RED- when it's relatively easy enough to simply adapt two off the shelf bodies for a 3D modular system.

Noah

 

[cinemano]

I think two Scarlets together would be ideal.. they're small and 3K plus 3K isnt so bad

 

[Joseph Ward]

Hi, guys, I was thinking about 3D filmmaking while I watched "Journey To The Center Of The Earth 3D" today. For 3D films today, you have to use two cameras either side-by-side or in a mirror setup with one on the top and one in a normal straight on position. Well, with P+S Technik making their 3D rig that can be used with the RED in particular, it got me thinking about the structure of a 3D camera built today.

Why couldn't you simply do the same thing as the mirror setup but with everything integrated into the camera? I don't know if it's even possible, but why not have two sensors within the camera in their own little mirror setup, versus having two physical cameras hooked to a big rig like the P+S Technik model, and have the dials on the front of the camera to adjust the spacing between the two necessary lenses? This way, you can always have the option of turning one sensor (the top one) off for normal shooting and when you do 3D, you can turn it back on and plug in another lense and be on your merry way. What do you think?

I thought of the same thing and it has been discuss for HDR also. You can get better DR from two sensors also. Would be cool.:sorcerer:

 

[Darren Orange]

http://marketsaw.blogspot.com/

Check out the bottom RED ONE's in 3D side by side.


You can check out Tom Jane talk about Dark Country he gives a nice nod to RED ONE shortly after 9 minutes in.