REDROCK MICRO 3D - ANY GOOD?

[Nick Morrison]

Anyone have any experience with this?

REDROCK MICRO 3D

We have 2 scarlets on order, so it's an intriguing, affordable starter kit.

Question. I have at this point two Contax Zeiss prime sets. A number of lenses at 1.4/F2, and a whole slew of others at 2.8.

If I shot the Left cam with a 35 1.4 at 5.6, and the Right cam with a 35 2.8 at 5.6, would this be similar enough that we'd get away with it for 3D? Or should you always shoot 3D on identical matching lenses (for example, I have two 50 1.4's).

thx

 

[Doug Beatty]

Go for identical glass. Different speed lenses, even though you are matching aperture during the shoot, are going to have different characteristics as you stop them down (fringing, breathing, color shift, etc.) However slight these differences may seem, it'll all add up to an enormous headache trying to get them to work in concert.

Worst of all would be a differences in the focal plane. If that doesn't match, there's no way to 'fix it in post' as horrible producers often say.

You could maybe make it work, but square peg round hole...

 

[Nick Morrison]

Go for identical glass. Different speed lenses, even though you are matching aperture during the shoot, are going to have different characteristics as you stop them down (fringing, breathing, color shift, etc.) However slight these differences may seem, it'll all add up to an enormous headache trying to get them to work in concert.

Worst of all would be a differences in the focal plane. If that doesn't match, there's no way to 'fix it in post' as horrible producers often say.

You could maybe make it work, but square peg round hole...

Great. Super helpful.

 

[Mick van Rossum NSC]

A side by side rig like this will limit your 3D options very much. Depending on the minimum Inter Ocular distance; expect only shots where you have your closest subject at least 15 feet away and more. Objects which are closer even not being your subject will ruin your 3D experience. Otherwise you should use the much more expensive and complicated mirror rigs.....

 

[Nick Morrison]

A side by side rig like this will limit your 3D options very much. Depending on the minimum Inter Ocular distance; expect only shots where you have your closest subject at least 15 feet away and more. Objects which are closer even not being your subject will ruin your 3D experience. Otherwise you should use the much more expensive and complicated mirror rigs.....

Good to know. Sounds like its a wast of time then!

 

[Loren Simons]

Good to know. Sounds like its a wast of time then!

I wouldn't call it a waste of time exactly. While it is true mirror rigs can allow you to get the interaxial distance lesser then it's side by side counterpart, there are multiple more points for failure, like mirror misalignment and resulting reflections. With these smaller bodied cameras, side by side 3D becomes more and more useful at a much lower price point.

 

[Michael Hastings]

A side by side rig like this will limit your 3D options very much. Depending on the minimum Inter Ocular distance; expect only shots where you have your closest subject at least 15 feet away and more. Objects which are closer even not being your subject will ruin your 3D experience. Otherwise you should use the much more expensive and complicated mirror rigs.....

Nick: you are correct about the IA and need for mirror rigs, but we are making a nice rig at about $4K that isn't out of range for Scarlet users and can be used quite successfully for docs, nature, corporate and some types of low budget cinema. We have sold a few but got sidetracked with underwater housing development (my other biz) as well as sourcing very high quality beamsplitters, but will be posting more info shortly.

 

[Joey R.]

I wouldn't call it a waste of time exactly. While it is true mirror rigs can allow you to get the interaxial distance lesser then it's side by side counterpart, there are multiple more points for failure, like mirror misalignment and resulting reflections. With these smaller bodied cameras, side by side 3D becomes more and more useful at a much lower price point.

Well hold on a sec...

For cinematic/feature/commercial work its generally shot under 2" of IO and sometimes in the 1/8" to 1/4" of IO. Pick your side by side flavor, you won't get those IOs. SxS generally speaking is seeing less and less usage as 2D to 3D conversions get better, especially on the broadcast side, we see it everyday. But for most of what productions shoot, a SxS isn't used anywhere near as much as the beamsplitters. As for "multiple points of failure", well sure if you've never shot 3D before you WILL see multiple points of failure. Having a SxS that cannot be adjusted along all necessary axis is a much larger headache. Price point is all relative to what you are shooting.

Nick, I would do some test shots first with a BS and a SxS and play with IO before you make your choice.

 

[Nick Morrison]

Well hold on a sec...

For cinematic/feature/commercial work its generally shot under 2" of IO and sometimes in the 1/8" to 1/4" of IO. Pick your side by side flavor, you won't get those IOs. SxS generally speaking is seeing less and less usage as 2D to 3D conversions get better, especially on the broadcast side, we see it everyday. But for most of what productions shoot, a SxS isn't used anywhere near as much as the beamsplitters. As for "multiple points of failure", well sure if you've never shot 3D before you WILL see multiple points of failure. Having a SxS that cannot be adjusted along all necessary axis is a much larger headache. Price point is all relative to what you are shooting.

Nick, I would do some test shots first with a BS and a SxS and play with IO before you make your choice.

Thanks guys. Appreciate all the feedback. As we are getting 2 Scarlets, and have a few matching lenses, 3D is a natural interest for us. I think doing some test shots will be the best way to go. Thanks all!