RED One....3D 4k w/cameron/pace rig?????

[DNomer]

Hi Istvan,

I think we are 'converging'! But the principle point about eyestrain that I was making had to do with a sequence of images which force the eye to focus at different distances, ala an MTV-style cut-cut-cut sequence, but imagine if each new cut was at a different distance, thus forcing the eye to adjust, again and again for a solid minute, it makes eyestrain. Because stereovision 'forces' the eye-brain to adjust, as opposed to a typical 2D projection where you can choose what to focus on. Or, for example, if you make something move at a close distance, then something moves at a farther distance, then jump again, etc. it forces the eye-brain to shift, because motion is extremely attractive to the human eye. If you keep it up, it gets tiring, as in a real physiological experience of eyestrain, not merely 'distracting' or distaste.

I agree that with narrower IOD, the stereo effect lessens, even if you have deeper DOF for the same lens, so that has to be considered.

Re: the minimum distance to an object, is this a practical problem in shooting? It seems that you could converge your two images to typical shooting distances for pretty much all normal shooting situations of people, etc. But macro shots of bugs might be tough!

Re: 'different material' a poor choice of words, I guess. I meant that if the left side camera has a lens flare and the right side does not, that now the two images are thoroughly different, and the brain will freak out, since that does not happen in real life. Many other possible causes might exist to cause the two images to not match, but it is the same idea.

Another fruitful area for discussion might include camera capabilities to support stereo shooting, such as syncing time code and the ability to put out a monitor signal that is flipped, for use on a beam-splitter rig.

Also, I just heard an industry player, who is a fan of 3D for cinema, say that the 3D effect is most effective when shooting objects coming toward you. Have you heard of that? He went on to say that for sports you are going to need to get the camera down on the field more to really get a significant benefit from 3D. This matches my experience. I also saw some objects receding that looked really cool in Beowulf (the bird of prey carrying the rat up through the trees near the beginning of the movie).

dn

 

[chuck colburn]

http://www.paradisefx.com/pages/services/red3d.html

 

[Anders Yarbrough]

I'd love to see pics of it.

 

[istvanttt]

Hi Istvan,

I think we are 'converging'! But the principle point about eyestrain that I was making had to do with a sequence of images which force the eye to focus at different distances, ala an MTV-style cut-cut-cut sequence, but imagine if each new cut was at a different distance, thus forcing the eye to adjust, again and again for a solid minute, it makes eyestrain. Because stereovision 'forces' the eye-brain to adjust, as opposed to a typical 2D projection where you can choose what to focus on. Or, for example, if you make something move at a close distance, then something moves at a farther distance, then jump again, etc. it forces the eye-brain to shift, because motion is extremely attractive to the human eye. If you keep it up, it gets tiring, as in a real physiological experience of eyestrain, not merely 'distracting' or distaste.

I agree that with narrower IOD, the stereo effect lessens, even if you have deeper DOF for the same lens, so that has to be considered.

Re: the minimum distance to an object, is this a practical problem in shooting? It seems that you could converge your two images to typical shooting distances for pretty much all normal shooting situations of people, etc. But macro shots of bugs might be tough!

Re: 'different material' a poor choice of words, I guess. I meant that if the left side camera has a lens flare and the right side does not, that now the two images are thoroughly different, and the brain will freak out, since that does not happen in real life. Many other possible causes might exist to cause the two images to not match, but it is the same idea.

Another fruitful area for discussion might include camera capabilities to support stereo shooting, such as syncing time code and the ability to put out a monitor signal that is flipped, for use on a beam-splitter rig.

Also, I just heard an industry player, who is a fan of 3D for cinema, say that the 3D effect is most effective when shooting objects coming toward you. Have you heard of that? He went on to say that for sports you are going to need to get the camera down on the field more to really get a significant benefit from 3D. This matches my experience. I also saw some objects receding that looked really cool in Beowulf (the bird of prey carrying the rat up through the trees near the beginning of the movie).

dn

Hi Dn

RE- MTV-cuts: the problem is in the time the brain needs to build up the stereo-fusion. Therefore when in a story strong movements are present and quick cuts are needed, directors often just skip the 3D approach and film simply in 2D. Because of the so called motion-parallax, when well done, audience doesn’t have time to notice the difference and keep trying to follow the story.

RE-choose what to focus on: as I tried to explain the other time, during a s-3D projection the eyes of the audiences are always focused on the screen. What will be adjusted are the convergences of the eyes. Those are different muscles. So there is nothing what forces the eyes to re-focus on new stereo-images. What can happen is that on low-light projections the so called convergence/accommodation (focus) mismatch gets too exaggerated and then an audience which is new to s-3D may feel sometimes uncomfortable. Never the less you are totally right that jumps which may give abrupt changes in the size of the objects may be very distracting in s-3D and kick you out of the story.

RE-best effect if objects come to camera: I really think it depends what you are expecting from s-3D. If somebody is looking only for the effects of the 3D object in the space, well in this case this is true. But I strongly believe there is much more to get from s-3D then just effects. To explain it better I want to describe a short experience I had a couple of year ago.

A friend of mine is an expert in laser-scanned surveys in architecture. It was late summer when he invited me into a presentation in Venice, Italy about one of his last works, a stereoscopic projection of an old palace. I went there and felt immediately very lucky because in front of me there was sitting an extremely beautiful girl and I could admire her outstanding shoulders, which reminded me of an incredible Greece sculptures I saw some time ago in Cyprus. It was summer and her hair just... OK, you got the idea. I was sitting there, dreaming about the beauty of a real 3D existence and didn’t follow so much the presentation. At a certain moment she made a very unnatural move by squeezing her shoulder in a way which was not in harmony with her. Something unexpected has happened here. I raised my head and saw that the virtual camera simply followed a path with very uncomfortable narrow walls. Wouw an explicit physical reaction on a simple image.

I was impressed! For a minimum of 30 seconds I forgot the girl and reflected: We live in a society with so much overwhelming image communications that we are spoiled and somehow resistant to stronger reactions. Indeed I asked myself, what would we need today to get a physical reaction of the audience? 5 helicopters blown up on Highland? What level of violence still moves us to make instinctive reactions? How much sound investments do we have to make to enforce with the loudness the image?

Please note, it was not the usual gun pointed with exaggerated negative-parallax to the audience, it was the space, the physical reaction on experimenting the limits of space which triggered the event! Well for me those are the tools I’m looking for when I plan to tell stories with s-3D, this is what makes me excited and not the simple effect of just having a 3D object in front of me.

To conclude this post:
My cultural back-ground is basically painting. So if I have to compare 2D versus s-3D, then I would use the experience of painting versus sculpturing. There are 2 totally different worlds, with different rules and experiences, different freedoms and limitations.

I wish a pleasant weekend to everybody
Istvan
PS: her name was Claudia