Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register 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 :)

RED 3D Camera??

George D.

George D.

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 22, 2008
Messages
980
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
N. California, USA
Does anyone have any idea how I can get "any" info at all on the RED 3D Camera System?

Have they released it yet?

What is the estimated cost?

Are "both" interocular distances and convergence "adjustable" ?

What size is the sensor?

Where can I find it on RED's Website? I found it once, but I can't find it now.

Etc, etc, etc??

Thanks.
 
There isn't a RED 3D camera, at list not yet :~)

What there has been posted was a render of TWO Red Scarlet, were on the right Scarlet the Compact FLash Card Module has been removed as to allow a close Interocular distance, and as you can see form the pic below, this are two 2/3 Scarlets.

In this rendering is also clear that the rig offers both I/O and C control.

page15-748011.jpg
 
How about a Scarlet 2/3" 3D brain? With two mini-PL mounts... Could the mini primes be small enough to allow 2.5" interocular distance?

Inspired by the Ikonoskop A-Cam3D
a-cam-3d-ikonoskop-2-1.jpg
 
Nils J. Nesse said:
How about a Scarlet 2/3" 3D brain? With two mini-PL mounts... Could the mini primes be small enough to allow 2.5" interocular distance?
Click to expand...

In order for it to allow the I/O distance of 2.5" the Mini Prime and or any lens, has to have a front element circumference of 2.5" and allow for them to be literally touching each other, were they are not impeded by the frame of the camera body in achieving it.
 
Geroge D.

It seems there are distinctly two schools of thought about the use of convergence in stereoscopic photography.

See page 34 on in Michael Starks' excellent review of the literature.

http://www.3dmagic.com/pdf/Digital_3D_projection_12-08_with_BIO.pdf

"One of the most pernicious problems is the insistence on using
converged rather than parallel lens axis cameras. There is absolutely no
question that this causes vertical parallax (even when a virtual camera
is rotated for CGI stereo) and other aberrations and contributes
significantly to eyestrain. This has also been mathematically
demonstrated many times, e.g., by Diner and Fender above and by Mel
Siegel et al in an SPIE paper a few years ago."

We just returned from a six week stereoscopic shoot in remote parts. All of our material employed shot by shot convergence adjustment. Now in the processing of working with the the 20plus hours of material we produced, I can appreciate some of the finer points of Michael Starks' argument.

David
 
All that is well and good. But without convergence you have no control over where the window is.

To me, it is just as essential as the interocular distance. And, BOTH should be adjustable in a good 3D system.
 
George D. said:
All that is well and good. But without convergence you have no control over where the window is.

To me, it is just as essential as the interocular distance. And, BOTH should be adjustable in a good 3D system.
Click to expand...

Totally!

What good is the use of a tool if it can't be used to its full potential of creative options?

S3D with out the I/O and Convergency control is like shooting 35mm only and always to get video like images with absolutely no DOF.
 
Here here!

Just look at the 3D rig that James Cameron and his DP came up with for shooting Avatar. TOTAL, absolute control over the interocular distance AND the convergence.

For "no-eye-strain" viewing, the focus point and the convergence point MUST be at the same point. This is why there was no discomfort at all viewing Avatar.

You have to give Cameron credit for being damn smart, and knowing exactly what he's doing. Take a tip.
 
Michael Olsen said:
Nor IO, it looks like, since everything is set into a plastic box.
Click to expand...

We are approaching the day when cameras/sensors and recording capability is so cheap that it may make sense to have multiple camera setups with different i/o rather than the complex, fully adjustable but extremely expensive 3d rigs.
 
KETCH ROSSI said:
What good is the use of a tool if it can't be sued to its full potential of creative options?
Click to expand...

Not to thread-derail, but this is one of the best typos I've seen this year.
 
George D. said:
Here here!

Just look at the 3D rig that James Cameron and his DP came up with for shooting Avatar. TOTAL, absolute control over the interocular distance AND the convergence.

For "no-eye-strain" viewing, the focus point and the convergence point MUST be at the same point. This is why there was no discomfort at all viewing Avatar.

You have to give Cameron credit for being damn smart, and knowing exactly what he's doing. Take a tip.
Click to expand...

Well I found it uncomfortable viewing - couldn't wait to get the darned glasses off. Sorry.

Graeme
 
Graeme Nattress said:
Well I found it uncomfortable viewing - couldn't wait to get the darned glasses off. Sorry.

Graeme
Click to expand...


Graeme,

Well, you're probably the ONLY one. Ha,ha, ha!! Nothing is "absolutely" perfect.

Maybe "you" can answer this question, which I have not been able to find the answer to: Will the 3D camera that RED is going to be putting out, have control over BOTH the interocular distance, AND the convergence?? If I could find the answer to just that one question, it would help me out a great deal.

Thanks.
 
There are a few things that I didn't like with respect to the Avatar experience:

The supplied glasses are too small and uncomfortable for prescription spectacles wearers. They'd be ok for a 15 min theme park ride, but not for a long movie.

Shiny surfaces in stereo look similar to how they look when I wear polarized sunglasses, and that is distracting.

Use of shallow DOF doesn't work as the stereo makes your eyes want to pull out of focus backgrounds into focus, but of course, they don't.

And nope, it doesn't sound like I'm the only one. The only redeeming feature was that it was less headache inducing than the previous week's CES Panasonic shutter glasses experience which was a full headache in under 10 minutes for me.

What would have seriously helped Avatar would be that the movie lasts 90mins and/or has intermissions during the show. Or just the CGI stuff was in stereo, and the rest was not, to give your eyes a break (like they did in Spy Kids 3D).

Graeme
 
Graeme,

You brought up some interesting points. I wear glasses too, and I have to admit, it was not easy keeping those 3D glasses over them during the entire show.

My negative feelings on Avatar, are not with the 3D, which I loved, but with other issues, more having to do with the story line and "repeated" similarities to Cameron's other movies. But, it's obvious, that most of the public does not agree with me, so there's no use to getting into that here.

I STILL wish someone, anyone, knew the answer to my question. Oh well, maybe even RED doesn't know the answer, because their 3D camera is still in development or something.

Life goes on.
 
Yes, I think my first thoughts leaving the movie were that you'd never guess it was a Cameron movie just by watching it :-) - Aliens / Titanic / Abyss, crossed with Miyazaki's Nausicaa. Indeed, a very crowd pleasing movie which again, like with Titanic, Cameron seems great at. And there's nothing wrong with that, but to me, there are plenty of "I'd watch that again" movies I'd put ahead of it my list, although I would be tempted to see Avatar flat so I can enjoy the movie without the eyestrain.

I'm not the right guy to answer your RED question though. Maybe the time isn't right either.

Graeme
 
Not meaning to belabor a point; but to me, Avatar was Dances With Wolves in space.

The "big boys" don't care what's wrong with that movie. All they care about is how much money it can make. As a result, he can make any movie, about any thing, at any time, anywhere, and with any amount of money he wants.

I, personally, think Star Trek was a better movie. Maybe that's just because I'm a fan.

Remember: "Movies are our best entertainment."

PS - Maybe I should call Sean at RED for an answer to my question.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top