World’s First 4K 3D Digital Cinema Camera System For Studio, Location, and Underwater

[cinepost35]

Saw another post about this on Reduser and this link has images.

World’s First 4K 3D Digital Cinema Camera System For Studio, Location, and Underwater

http://www.filmofilia.com/2009/03/0...tion-and-underwater-filming-with-red-cameras/

 

[Kwan Khan]

experienced production company.

 

[Cüneyt Kaya]

what about p+s and their 3d rig

 

[cinepost35]

Dose P+S go underwater? Has anyone worked with the P+S Rig how is it only seen pictures?

 

[Cüneyt Kaya]

Dose P+S go underwater? Has anyone worked with the P+S Rig how is it only seen pictures?

i want to test it in the next couple of weeks.
Dont know about underwater...

 

[Zakaree Sandberg]

I feel like 3D is a fad.. it will always be a specialty.. but I dont see how 3D will become mainstream for all films.
I think they are neat, and fun to watch every now and then (especially this underwater or any nature type stuff)
But I refuse to watch every day movies with glasses on..

besides.. 3D kinda gives me a headache

 

[Sven Seynaeve]

anyway , I'd love to seem more specs and info on this one.

 

[REDFEAT]

From the pic it looks like the cameras can slide on those rails which makes me think it can take various lenses, a bonus not seen with some of the other 3D systems. Pretty compact based on the sizes of the Red to the whole rig

 

[Joseph Ward]

OMG, I have waited for a long time to see such a rig! Whats the price? :shifty:
OK I know I cant afford it right now but this is so cool!

 

[Chris Swinbanks]

That link seems to be down?
Anyone know if there are any other sites that have info on it?

 

[bobaandy]

I feel like 3D is a fad.. it will always be a specialty.. but I dont see how 3D will become mainstream for all films.
I think they are neat, and fun to watch every now and then (especially this underwater or any nature type stuff)
But I refuse to watch every day movies with glasses on..

besides.. 3D kinda gives me a headache

Isin't that exactly what they thought about color when it came around? Or was that sound?

 

[Dominic Jones]

3D gives people a headache because it's badly shot and/or displayed.

Well shot, edited and projected 3D films should be comfortable to watch - but no-one as of yet has really written the book on 3D filmmaking - there's still a lot of 2D techniques in use which are not appropriate. It is essentially a new medium - for instance, you wouldn't get a painter to make you a sculpture, so why do people feel that a lifetime's worth of experience in 2D means they can make 3D? It's a whole new ball-game, folks!

A lot of the short-comings of 3D display have been solved by digital projection (wow and flutter on the individual reels, film breaking and being re-spliced and therefore not in sync, blanking sections spliced in to try are re-attain sync and a whole lot of other nasties), so if filmmakers actually grasp the bull by the horns and put the work in to learning how to best work with the "new" medium, there's really nothing technical to stop 3D becoming pretty standard.

We'll see...

Cheers,
Dom.

PS: That was certainly true of sound when it came out, but the difference is that stereoscopy pre-dates 2D motion picture, and motion 3D has been around pretty much as long, whereas sound came about later and took off very quickly by comparison...

 

[Diana Janos]

3D gives people a headache because it's badly shot and/or displayed.

Well shot, edited and projected 3D films should be comfortable to watch - but no-one as of yet has really written the book on 3D filmmaking - there's still a lot of 2D techniques in use which are not appropriate. It is essentially a new medium - for instance, you wouldn't get a painter to make you a sculpture, so why do people feel that a lifetime's worth of experience in 2D means they can make 3D? It's a whole new ball-game, folks!

A lot of the short-comings of 3D display have been solved by digital projection (wow and flutter on the individual reels, film breaking and being re-spliced and therefore not in sync, blanking sections spliced in to try are re-attain sync and a whole lot of other nasties), so if filmmakers actually grasp the bull by the horns and put the work in to learning how to best work with the "new" medium, there's really nothing technical to stop 3D becoming pretty standard.

We'll see...

Cheers,
Dom.

PS: That was certainly true of sound when it came out, but the difference is that stereoscopy pre-dates 2D motion picture, and motion 3D has been around pretty much as long, whereas sound came about later and took off very quickly by comparison...

Wow Dom,

I couldn't have said it better... you are so correct. We've all seen BAD 3D. The key is to know how to shoot good 3D and with digital projection, display is much easier. The glasses are improving and knowledge about divergence is becoming more well known.

There have been many quotes about sound in film as well as color in film. Both were believed that they would be unsuccessful as well as distracting in film work. I'm so glad they were wrong.

All the best,

 

[Tim Whitcomb]

Isin't that exactly what they thought about color when it came around? Or was that sound?

not even close...

3D was active in the 50's with THE BLOB... and big time in the 70's as well... and it bombed... mostly because of absolute shit stories like

JAWS 3-D ... could very well be the worst 3D movie EVER!

faded out ... and I tend to agree ... glasses suck... save at least they
are more comfortable plastic... versus paper bridge of nose scratchers.

not sure it will be more than a niche until we have holographic TV's

however, Coraline... went a long way to help the genre... check it out.
best 3D movie I have seen by far... and a few Super Bowl commerials
were hilarious.

 

[Robert Berger]

saw another post about this on reduser and this link has images.

World’s first 4k 3d digital cinema camera system for studio, location, and underwater

http://www.filmofilia.com/2009/03/0...tion-and-underwater-filming-with-red-cameras/

this is cool

 

[Dominic Jones]

Thanks Diana - I'm glad there's someone out there singing the same tune as me - I feel like I've been beating that particular horse to death for eternity! ;-)

I jest of course, but it is sadly still a little understood fact...

I'm just about to embark on a very interesting 3D project, so anyone interested, watch this space!

Take care,
Dom.

 

[istvanttt]

Totally agree! I come from painting and I remember how angry our teacher in the Academia became when we used similar colors or lights on sculptures. You just cannot!

In s3D its the same beside the known problems of the geometrical rules, you cannot make a motion picture with the same lightening, color and framing concepts like in a traditional movie. Or it comes badly or you use the s3D only as gimick and not for stroytelling.

I'm affraid that for now the studios need to have both versions working so for some time we will have only "neither meet nor fish" solutions in the cinema. And I'm very sorry because s3D can be soooo much more..
Istvan

3D gives people a headache because it's badly shot and/or displayed.

Well shot, edited and projected 3D films should be comfortable to watch - but no-one as of yet has really written the book on 3D filmmaking - there's still a lot of 2D techniques in use which are not appropriate. It is essentially a new medium - for instance, you wouldn't get a painter to make you a sculpture, so why do people feel that a lifetime's worth of experience in 2D means they can make 3D? It's a whole new ball-game, folks!


...

 

[Eric Lange]

Speaking of sculptors not being able to paint and vice versa, Michelangelo didn’t do such a bad job of the Sistine Chapel, (even though he didn’t quite know what he was doing ) so maybe some mainstream cinematographers will get a handle on stereo too.

I think the problem with recent 3d releases is that these movies have to be churned out very quickly and the cinematographers and directors have had very little time to get to grips with the technology let alone develop new modes of visual communication and storytelling.

If you want to first learn how to make a good stereo movie, I honestly think that you need to spend at least a couple of years taking really good stereographic stills. At the film school/UCLA open house Martin Scorsese was very big on the idea that people should spend a lot of time with a stills camera to really learn how to push the boundaries. I.e. if you can’t do it in stills you're not going to be that much better in a dynamic format. [Of course if you are really talented you can make an entire movie from stills, like la Jete (Chris marker.) ] One of my favorite movies from a photographic point of view is the Hustler, almost every other shot you could blow up to giant poster size and frame on the wall, an incredible imagination and sense of composition from Eugene Schufftan that is still hard to beat.

I agree that many, but not all of the methodologies used in monoscopic film making will need a substantial rethink. But in a certain sense stereo requires perhaps an older or more classical sense of composition and really pre-thinking the shot in relation to all the other shots, which is somewhat counter to the current style of shooting with hand held dynamics, fast cutting etc., as exemplified by Black Hawk Down, (and much imitated since). In stereo, really frenetic cutting and camera dynamics with different ranges of parallax are a bit of a nightmare unless you want to shoot each separate element in chromakey and carefully compose/copmposit later.

So for example a simple medium wide shot of an interior followed by a close up on a face can present real problems, as the range of parallax has to change fairly substantially, which also affects the sense of space. A partial close up in stereo on a face may result in the background having a really massive on screen parallax, (even after you have switched to a narrow base separation) and it is even possible to have no stereo resolvable features in the background at all (a big stereo-headache for the viewer). Even with a narrow depth of field producing unresolved blurs in the background, can make for uncomfortable viewing. Some film makers do not want to pre organize their shots all the time and instead play it safe by shooting with a really narrow base separation making everything seem very flat and boring unitll they make something jump out of the screen, (not exactly high art yet, but O.K. for trashy horror flicks and Donald Duck).

I think VR based pre-planning software tools could really help cinematographers get a handle on what’s required as well as to come up with inventive or more subtle stereoscopic motifs (as Istvan sugests). I will be very interested to see what James Cameron’s new stereoscopic baby will be able to achieve with Avatar (as everything technically is still under wraps). I think It will take someone to make a real masterpiece of film making in S3D before other cinematographers will take the medium seriously and make the effort to further develop their art and craft in the new medium. All it takes is one Michelangelo?

(Be nice to see what Liquidpictures roll out with their new rig, the under water shots should be absolutely stunning)

 

[istvanttt]

Eric, sorry if I was unclear, I never said that a painter is not able to make sculptures or viceversa, what I ment ist that they are two totally different mediums which require a different artistical approach. The same is true in my oppinion with mono- versus stereoscop visual comunication. It is not just about the geometric problems or limitations we have to deal with but also about the very specific emotional possibilities we can get with one or the other.
istvan

Speaking of sculptors not being able to paint and vice versa, Michelangelo didn’t do such a bad job of the Sistine Chapel, (even though he didn’t quite know what he was doing ) so maybe some mainstream cinematographers will get a handle on stereo too.
....

 

[Eric Lange]

No Istvan, what you said was clear and cool. I was not clear (not very good at doing complicated quotes).

I was referring to the theme that Dominic set up when he said.

Dominc wrote: “3D gives people a headache because it's badly shot and/or displayed.
Well shot, edited and projected 3D films should be comfortable to watch - but no-one as of yet has really written the book on 3D filmmaking - there's still a lot of 2D techniques in use which are not appropriate. It is essentially a new medium - for instance, you wouldn't get a painter to make you a sculpture, so why do people feel that a lifetime's worth of experience in 2D means they can make 3D? It's a whole new ball-game, folks!”

It was the “You wouldn’t get a painter to make a sculpture…” that really stuck in my mind, especially when one of the world’s greatest sculptors (Michelangelo) was able to create one of the greatest Frescos in existence. It is also interesting to note that Da Vinci was very derisive of Michelangelo’s work insinuating that there was something base or retarded about an actually realized 3d form in sculpture as opposed to Leonardo’s illusions of 3d space in 2D. A lot of parallels here, with how regular cinematographers regard stereo.

In this sense I am questioning this notion (that may or may not be true) that a lot of people believe that stereo opens the door to invite in a new set of stereo-cinematographers because “regular” cinematographers allegedly don’t understand stereo very well. I.e. notions that stereo will be a game changer, or will level the playing field etc. As someone who grew up on many film sets, and someone that has almost twenty years of experience taking stereograms of very challenging subjects with a deep technical knowledge in this area, I still think the lion share of the skills required to pull off good stereo-cinematography are good mono-cinegraphic skills. I.e. It can take a good cinematographer perhaps about fifteen years to develop their eye, skills and style for a range of subject matter. Such a cinematographer if he is interested in stereo (is technically minded, or has useful consultants) and the time, can get a handle on the technology in less than a year to good effect. In contrast, a young or less talented shooter that understands stereo very well (or is a stereo enthusiast) might have to work very hard for fifteen years or more to develop their basic visual communication and storytelling skills.

I used to think that most cinematographers would be too inflexible or closed minded to embrace the new technologies and its implications, but these days I am much more optimistic, and I think within five years a more incisive new visual grammar and technique will start to develop using stereo.