3D will only be 1:78:1/185:1 ? - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 129 Old 01-08-2010, 01:20 AM - Thread Starter
CIH USER
 
Franin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Western Australia
Posts: 17,257
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 145 Post(s)
Liked: 205
Will future 3D movies be filmed in scope or are they going to be all in 1:78:1/1:85:1?

_________________________

Frank

Franin is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 129 Old 01-08-2010, 02:56 AM
AVS Special Member
 
CAVX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 8,384
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 21 Post(s)
Liked: 44
It will all depend on the director. 3D versions of Avitar and Monsters Vs Aliens were Scope, yet Bolt 3D was 1.85:1.

Mark Techer

I love my Constant Image Height system!
CAVX is offline  
post #3 of 129 Old 01-08-2010, 03:04 AM - Thread Starter
CIH USER
 
Franin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Western Australia
Posts: 17,257
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 145 Post(s)
Liked: 205
Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVX View Post

It will all depend on the director. 3D versions of Avitar and Monsters Vs Aliens were Scope, yet Bolt 3D was 1.85:1.

I heard Avatar was shot for 1:78:1 but cropped for 2:35:1

_________________________

Frank

Franin is offline  
post #4 of 129 Old 01-08-2010, 03:12 AM
AVS Special Member
 
CAVX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 8,384
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 21 Post(s)
Liked: 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by Franin View Post

I heard Avatar was shot for 1:78:1 but cropped for 2:35:1

Not sure. Given that the film didn't have any heads being cut off suggests that it was framed with Scope in mind if it was originally shot for 35mm Flat or 70mm IMAX. I saw a 2D version in an AMC cinema and it was CinemaScope. Friends that went to see it in 3D also said it was Scope.

Mark Techer

I love my Constant Image Height system!
CAVX is offline  
post #5 of 129 Old 01-08-2010, 03:26 AM
AVS Special Member
 
elmalloc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Cleveland, OH
Posts: 4,776
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 35
does anyone here actually want 3D in their theaters?

Current Projects:

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

ON HOLD - Building Home Gym.
ON HOLD - Building Simulation Room (Eyefinity).
ON HOLD - Building Theater room (Sim2 HT380, 2.35 14ft wide).
elmalloc is offline  
post #6 of 129 Old 01-08-2010, 04:00 AM
AVS Special Member
 
CAVX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 8,384
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 21 Post(s)
Liked: 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by elmalloc View Post

does anyone here actually want 3D in their theaters?

Yes I do and I am happy to wear pollarized glasses to get it. I am not however satisfied with the BS red/green filter versions we are currently getting on BD.

Dolby's 3D system could work in the home now with our 2D projectors. They won't release it becase it would upset too many flat panel lovers that couldn't use it due to the system needing a sync'd filter wheel that sits in the light path.

Mark Techer

I love my Constant Image Height system!
CAVX is offline  
post #7 of 129 Old 01-08-2010, 04:18 AM - Thread Starter
CIH USER
 
Franin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Western Australia
Posts: 17,257
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 145 Post(s)
Liked: 205
Quote:
Originally Posted by elmalloc View Post

does anyone here actually want 3D in their theaters?

Well depends what I have to replace.

_________________________

Frank

Franin is offline  
post #8 of 129 Old 01-08-2010, 05:01 AM
AVS Club Gold
 
Art Sonneborn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Battle Creek,MI USA
Posts: 22,305
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13 Post(s)
Liked: 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by elmalloc View Post

does anyone here actually want 3D in their theaters?

I watch 80% older films and none are 3D. The poop that eventually all films will be 3D indicates that all future films will be action adventure. These could include high quality films such as Transformers II.

For me I'd need to do a major surgical procedure and then more than double my equipment cost for what I believe will amount to a couple worthwhile 3D films per year. Sports is a different subject however. I think I might enjoy that in 3D and it could have real potential.

I guess I'll have to wait and see what happens to determine if I end up doing it but I think for films alone ,the answer ,as I see it now would be no.

Art


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



iRule rules my theater
 

"If she's amazing she won't be easy,if she's easy she won't be amazing"

 

Bob Marley

Art Sonneborn is offline  
post #9 of 129 Old 01-08-2010, 05:06 AM
AVS Special Member
 
CAVX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 8,384
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 21 Post(s)
Liked: 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by Franin View Post

Well depends what I have to replace.

Not replace, just add.
With Dolby's 3D system, you just add the colour wheel in the light path and the sync box. All the 3D systems I've seen have 3D encoded discs that will play on any BD player.

Mark Techer

I love my Constant Image Height system!
CAVX is offline  
post #10 of 129 Old 01-08-2010, 05:13 AM - Thread Starter
CIH USER
 
Franin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Western Australia
Posts: 17,257
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 145 Post(s)
Liked: 205
Quote:
Originally Posted by Art Sonneborn View Post

I watch 80% older films and none are 3D. The poop that eventually all films will be 3D indicates that all future films will be action adventure. These could include high quality films such as Transformers II.

For me I'd need to do a major surgical procedure and then more than double my equipment cost for what I believe will amount to a couple worthwhile 3D films per year. Sports is a different subject however. I think I might enjoy that in 3D and it could have real potential.

I guess I'll have to wait and see what happens to determine if I end up doing it but I think for films alone ,the answer ,as I see it now would be no.

Art

Hey Art I had a bit of a debate on another forum regarding the current PQ vs 3D. I was saying until you see a proper calibrated projector and a proper screen to match you will be suprised how good a picture will look. In your case being that you have a high end projector your PQ will be in the very high standards were some movies the picture will just pop out(Not 3D pop out but you get what I mean) I know in mine (Dont get me wrong not even close in comparison) once i got it calibrated on the Stewarts the Pq is quite impressive. Whats your thoughts?
Jeff(Thebland) can also answer as you guys have similar projectors.

_________________________

Frank

Franin is offline  
post #11 of 129 Old 01-08-2010, 05:17 AM - Thread Starter
CIH USER
 
Franin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Western Australia
Posts: 17,257
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 145 Post(s)
Liked: 205
Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVX View Post

Not replace, just add.
With Dolby's 3D system, you just add the colour wheel in the light path and the sync box. All the 3D systems I've seen have 3D encoded discs that will play on any BD player.

I was told I have to replace my projector? I will replace it anyway to LED in the future. Aaron(Avical) told me to wait a few years for LED to be 100%

_________________________

Frank

Franin is offline  
post #12 of 129 Old 01-08-2010, 05:20 AM
AVS Special Member
 
CAVX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 8,384
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 21 Post(s)
Liked: 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by Art Sonneborn View Post


For me I'd need to do a major surgical procedure and then more than double my equipment cost for what I believe will amount to a couple worthwhile 3D films per year.

Are you planning on a dual projection system? There is a local cinema that is run by an independant, not a chain, and they have annouced the upgrade to two 2K projectors for their digital 3D system.

Mark Techer

I love my Constant Image Height system!
CAVX is offline  
post #13 of 129 Old 01-08-2010, 06:05 AM
Advanced Member
 
ilsiu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 867
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVX View Post

Not sure. Given that the film didn't have any heads being cut off suggests that it was framed with Scope in mind if it was originally shot for 35mm Flat or 70mm IMAX. I saw a 2D version in an AMC cinema and it was CinemaScope. Friends that went to see it in 3D also said it was Scope.

Check out this post from darinp2; according to the article link, Cameron prefers 1.78 for 3D, and scope for 2D composition. Since Avatar was intended to be 3D from the start, that would indicate that composition for 1.78 was the highest priority.

But that's just Cameron's artistic preference. Other directors may prefer to shoot 3D in scope.

Quote:
Originally Posted by darinp2 View Post

This article may shed some light on the issue:

slashfilm.com/2009/05/31/3d-avatar-vs-2d-avatar-and-the-importance-of-aspect-ratios/

Here is one thing it shows as coming from James Cameron:

"For Avatar we're shooting in a 16:9 ratio, we're extracting a cinemascope ratio from that for 2D theatrical exhibition, and for 3D theatrical exhibition we will do, in the theaters that can, we'll be in the 16:9 format and the theaters that can't we'll be in the scope format. Because I actually think that the extra screen height really works well in 3D. It really pulls you through the screen. So I'm actually going back on years of kind of eschewing the kind of 1.85 format, now saying 1.85 - or actually, it's 1.78:1 - actually works really well in 3D. But only in 3D. I still like the scope ratio compositionally for flat projection."

--Darin

ilsiu is offline  
post #14 of 129 Old 01-08-2010, 06:10 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Gary McCoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: San Jose, California, USA
Posts: 6,249
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13 Post(s)
Liked: 43
3D films are now either being produced via animation studio or captured live in the "PACE/Cameron Fusion 3D Camcorder", which is a side by side pair of Sony camcorders (both HDC-F950 and HDC-1500 models are being used).

Currently, there are only spherical Fujinon lenses available for these 2K resolution camcorders. This means that all such 3D images are captured at 2048x1080 and an AR of 1.78:1. In fact, some further R&D is required before anamorphic lenses can be made for these camcorders, they are mounted too close togather for any existing anamorphic lens to fit. New lens grinders must be designed before such lenses can be made, and frankly, the 3D format must be a commercial success first before the money will be spent.

Avatar crops the 1.78:1 image to 2.39:1 for 2D film prints. Digital theaters are being allowed to project 3D in either 1.78:1 in CIW theaters, or 2.39:1 in CIH theaters, whichever will result in the largest image. I have seen the film in both AR's, at two different RealD 3D theaters. Reports that 1.78:1 is only used in IMAX 15/70 film theaters are mistaken.

As for which AR will be used for the Blu-Ray, nobody really knows. However Avatar has been widely announced as the first 3D Blu-Ray release.

I'll have to say that so far, Avatar is the only film that has tempted me to upgrade the Home Theater for 3D capability. Prior 3D films were a bit less compelling.

Gary McCoy
The United States Constitution ©1791. All Rights Reserved.

Gary McCoy is offline  
post #15 of 129 Old 01-08-2010, 06:17 AM
Advanced Member
 
ilsiu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 867
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Art Sonneborn View Post

I watch 80% older films and none are 3D. The poop that eventually all films will be 3D indicates that all future films will be action adventure. These could include high quality films such as Transformers II.

I think initially, 3D will be dominated by the big-budget blockbusters (animation, action) due to the cost of 3D production. If 3D establishes a solid foothold and costs get streamlined, perhaps we'll start to see other types of movies (dramas, independent films) released in 3D.

But I have trouble believing that all films will eventually be 3D. 3D vs 2D should be an artistic choice, the same as composing for 1.78 vs scope aspect ratio.
ilsiu is offline  
post #16 of 129 Old 01-08-2010, 06:23 AM - Thread Starter
CIH USER
 
Franin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Western Australia
Posts: 17,257
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 145 Post(s)
Liked: 205
Quote:
Originally Posted by ilsiu View Post

I think initially, 3D will be dominated by the big-budget blockbusters (animation, action) due to the cost of 3D production. If 3D establishes a solid foothold and costs get streamlined, perhaps we'll start to see other types of movies (dramas, independent films) released in 3D.

But I have trouble believing that all films will eventually be 3D. 3D vs 2D should be an artistic choice, the same as composing for 1.78 vs scope aspect ratio.

drama in 3D? What would be the benefits?

_________________________

Frank

Franin is offline  
post #17 of 129 Old 01-08-2010, 07:09 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Maestro J's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Madison, WI
Posts: 1,986
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary McCoy View Post

3D films are now either being produced via animation studio or captured live in the "PACE/Cameron Fusion 3D Camcorder", which is a side by side pair of Sony camcorders (both HDC-F950 and HDC-1500 models are being used).

Currently, there are only spherical Fujinon lenses available for these 2K resolution camcorders. This means that all such 3D images are captured at 2048x1080 and an AR of 1.78:1. In fact, some further R&D is required before anamorphic lenses can be made for these camcorders, they are mounted too close togather for any existing anamorphic lens to fit. New lens grinders must be designed before such lenses can be made, and frankly, the 3D format must be a commercial success first before the money will be spent.

Avatar crops the 1.78:1 image to 2.39:1 for 2D film prints. Digital theaters are being allowed to project 3D in either 1.78:1 in CIW theaters, or 2.39:1 in CIH theaters, whichever will result in the largest image. I have seen the film in both AR's, at two different RealD 3D theaters. Reports that 1.78:1 is only used in IMAX 15/70 film theaters are mistaken.

As for which AR will be used for the Blu-Ray, nobody really knows. However Avatar has been widely announced as the first 3D Blu-Ray release.

I'll have to say that so far, Avatar is the only film that has tempted me to upgrade the Home Theater for 3D capability. Prior 3D films were a bit less compelling.

The IMAX theater I saw Avatar in displayed it at 1.78:1. I noticed it right away and was surprised because I thought the film was supposed to be 2.39:1 (or 2.40:1). All this time I thought I saw the film in the wrong AR but now I don't feel so bad because of your post, Gary.
Maestro J is offline  
post #18 of 129 Old 01-08-2010, 07:46 AM
AVS Special Member
 
coolscan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,794
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Liked: 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary McCoy View Post

3D films are now either being produced via animation studio or captured live in the "PACE/Cameron Fusion 3D Camcorder", which is a side by side pair of Sony camcorders (both HDC-F950 and HDC-1500 models are being used).

Currently, there are only spherical Fujinon lenses available for these 2K resolution camcorders. This means that all such 3D images are captured at 2048x1080 and an AR of 1.78:1. In fact, some further R&D is required before anamorphic lenses can be made for these camcorders, they are mounted too close togather for any existing anamorphic lens to fit. New lens grinders must be designed before such lenses can be made, and frankly, the 3D format must be a commercial success first before the money will be spent.

If you mean that the Fusion 3D Camcorder is the only digital 3D system in use you are quite wrong.
All digtal cameras are used for Live 3D shooting in a variouse configurations and rigs.
You can of course use anamorphic lenses for all these rigs, but very few movies shot for 2.35.1 uses anamorphic lenses. Most are cropped, only those that want the "anamorphic look" as in anamorphic flares or care about resolution shoot with anamorphic lenses.

Here are some 3D rigs in action with RED 4K camera, both in sidebyside and with beamsplitter.












As one see, that to shoot close up in 3D requires the very large beamsplitter rig which makes 3D shooting quite cumbersome even with small cameras like RED.

Here are Cameron with a beamsplitter shoulder rig (Fusion/Sony).





By the way; Cameron has said that he shot, lighted and focused/DOF Avatar for 3D without caring much for the 3D except the technological side because it foremost had to look good in 2D as that was the format most people would see the movie and generate most revenue. So whether it's shown as 1.78 or 2.35 he still had to protect what was in the image for both AR.
coolscan is offline  
post #19 of 129 Old 01-08-2010, 08:58 AM
Advanced Member
 
Drexler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
Posts: 927
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7 Post(s)
Liked: 23
Coolscan,

What strikes me is that all the cameras except perhaps the last on the left have much wider gaps between the lenses than any human has between the eyes. The 3D can't really look realistic that way no?

I'm guessing it must look something like what you can get from binoculars which have lenses set far apart (like the ones below). That is, objects look very 3D, but too much in an unnatural way and you get a somewhat cut-out cardboard effect.

Drexler is offline  
post #20 of 129 Old 01-08-2010, 09:35 AM - Thread Starter
CIH USER
 
Franin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Western Australia
Posts: 17,257
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 145 Post(s)
Liked: 205
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolscan View Post

If you mean that the Fusion 3D Camcorder is the only digital 3D system in use you are quite wrong.
All digtal cameras are used for Live 3D shooting in a variouse configurations and rigs.
You can of course use anamorphic lenses for all these rigs, but very few movies shot for 2.35.1 uses anamorphic lenses. Most are cropped, only those that want the "anamorphic look" as in anamorphic flares or care about resolution shoot with anamorphic lenses.

Here are some 3D rigs in action with RED 4K camera, both in sidebyside and with beamsplitter.












As one see, that to shoot close up in 3D requires the very large beamsplitter rig which makes 3D shooting quite cumbersome even with small cameras like RED.

Here are Cameron with a beamsplitter shoulder rig (Fusion/Sony).





By the way; Cameron has said that he shot, lighted and focused/DOF Avatar for 3D without caring much for the 3D except the technological side because it foremost had to look good in 2D as that was the format most people would see the movie and generate most revenue. So whether it's shown as 1.78 or 2.35 he still had to protect what was in the image for both AR.

Thanks for thise pics coolscan

_________________________

Frank

Franin is offline  
post #21 of 129 Old 01-08-2010, 09:52 AM - Thread Starter
CIH USER
 
Franin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Western Australia
Posts: 17,257
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 145 Post(s)
Liked: 205
Have any other film used this type of technique that you see on those pics? Or is Avatar the first?

_________________________

Frank

Franin is offline  
post #22 of 129 Old 01-08-2010, 09:53 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Planet Boston, source of the spice, Melange.
Posts: 20,086
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 291 Post(s)
Liked: 357
Quote:
Originally Posted by Franin View Post

drama in 3D? What would be the benefits?

Alfred Hitchcock obviously thought there were some benefits. He made Dial M for Murder in 3-D back in 1954.

Your question is akin to those who assume that only action and sci-fi movies are worth watching in high definition, and that DVD is good enough for regular dramas and comedies. 3-D is just one of many tools in a filmmaker's kit, the same as other tools like composition or lighting or color. Talented individuals will find creative ways to use it for all types of content.

Josh Z
Writer/Editor, High-Def Digest (
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
)
Curator,
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily reflect those of my employers.

Josh Z is offline  
post #23 of 129 Old 01-08-2010, 10:01 AM - Thread Starter
CIH USER
 
Franin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Western Australia
Posts: 17,257
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 145 Post(s)
Liked: 205
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post

Alfred Hitchcock obviously thought there were some benefits. He made Dial M for Murder in 3-D back in 1954.

Your question is akin to those who assume that only action and sci-fi movies are worth watching in high definition, and that DVD is good enough for regular dramas and comedies. 3-D is just one of many tools in a filmmaker's kit, the same as other tools like composition or lighting or color. Talented individuals will find creative ways to use it for all types of content.

It will be intresting to see how far 3D will go especially for the different types of films it will come out with. I'm hoping we shall see 3D movies in scope.

_________________________

Frank

Franin is offline  
post #24 of 129 Old 01-08-2010, 10:23 AM
Advanced Member
 
taffman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 651
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
This whole 3D thing is a big yawn as far as I am concerned. It is a current novelty, and audiences will quickly tire of it, as they have repeatedly done over the last 75 years. Have you noticed that most of the films now coming out of Hollywood are fantasy or sci-fi films loaded up with CG effects, and 3D is just the latest gimmick to be added. All of which is no substitute for great plot, great camerawork, and great acting. These movies are obviously designed to appeal mainly to adolescent audiences, and are seldom worth more than a single viewing, if that. I think that great movies are now an endangered species and 3D is not going to change it.
taffman is offline  
post #25 of 129 Old 01-08-2010, 11:39 AM
AVS Special Member
 
coolscan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,794
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Liked: 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drexler View Post

Coolscan,

What strikes me is that all the cameras except perhaps the last on the left have much wider gaps between the lenses than any human has between the eyes. The 3D can't really look realistic that way no?

I'm guessing it must look something like what you can get from binoculars which have lenses set far apart (like the ones below). That is, objects look very 3D, but too much in an unnatural way and you get a somewhat cut-out cardboard effect.


The gap between the cameras are dictated by the distance to the object. For every shot the distance between the cameras/lenses have to be adjusted.
That's why they need those big beamsplitter rigs for anything closer than 8 feet because the cameras are too big to get close enough.

Just to show then how big a underwaterhous with beamsplitter with two RED One becomes compared to IMAX under water housing.





The only solution is for the cameras to get smaller so the beamsplitters can get smaller and easier to work with.

Here are a picture of a test that someone did with a RED one and two anamorphic lenses shooting into a mirror box capturing two sidebyside images on the sensor. They where then separated and unsqueezed, giving two 4 megapixel images.



Imagine that method on a 20 megapixel (6K) sensor (or larger) and you have two 4k images.

But smaller cameras will help a lot for Live 3D features, like the proof of concept RED render. Two of these small "boxes" can easily be mounted to a small beamsplitter for closeups.



The situation now is that nobody, including Avatar, have really shot real 3D digital yet. Because real 3D movies should have deep depth of field. Everything should be in focus except the most distant background.
That's when you get real 3D. To get that to work you also need superior image quality. 2K/2x24fps isn't good enough. 4K/2x48fps is a minimum with projector at the same resolution/framerate and a lot of lumen on the screen.
That is the only future for 3D to survive.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Franin View Post

Have any other film used this type of technique that you see on those pics? Or is Avatar the first?

All 3D movies shot on either film or digital have been using this kind of rig's for decades.
There are lot of reports of 3D shooting activity, but how much of that end up in features only the lists of future 3D features can tell.

The next "BIG" 3D feature is Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland in march. All the live action there is shot with one camera and the 3D is done in post.

In addition comes all the 2D to 3D conversions of older movies that will in a big part be done by the Spielberg/Lucas/Dreamworks In-Three Inc. company that are doing a investment collaboration with India company Reliance MediaWorks Ltd.
It supposedly only cost $8-10 mill to convert a 2D feature into 3D.
How good the result is remain to be seen.
coolscan is offline  
post #26 of 129 Old 01-08-2010, 12:19 PM
Advanced Member
 
taffman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 651
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolscan View Post

..
In addition comes all the 2D to 3D conversions of older movies that will in a big part be done by the Spielberg/Lucas/Dreamworks In-Three Inc. company that are doing a investment collaboration with India company Reliance MediaWorks Ltd.
It supposedly only cost $8-10 mill to convert a 2D feature into 3D.
How good the result is remain to be seen.

Oh No! Please tell me this is not happening! Was'nt colourization bad enough!
taffman is offline  
post #27 of 129 Old 01-08-2010, 02:15 PM
Advanced Member
 
ooms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 568
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolscan View Post

If you mean that the Fusion 3D Camcorder is the only digital 3D system in use you are quite wrong.
All digtal cameras are used for Live 3D shooting in a variouse configurations and rigs.
You can of course use anamorphic lenses for all these rigs, but very few movies shot for 2.35.1 uses anamorphic lenses. Most are cropped, only those that want the "anamorphic look" as in anamorphic flares or care about resolution shoot with anamorphic lenses.

Here are some 3D rigs in action with RED 4K camera, both in sidebyside and with beamsplitter.












As one see, that to shoot close up in 3D requires the very large beamsplitter rig which makes 3D shooting quite cumbersome even with small cameras like RED.

Here are Cameron with a beamsplitter shoulder rig (Fusion/Sony).





By the way; Cameron has said that he shot, lighted and focused/DOF Avatar for 3D without caring much for the 3D except the technological side because it foremost had to look good in 2D as that was the format most people would see the movie and generate most revenue. So whether it's shown as 1.78 or 2.35 he still had to protect what was in the image for both AR.

except that 75% of Avatars revenue has come from 3D showing!
ooms is offline  
post #28 of 129 Old 01-08-2010, 02:58 PM
AVS Special Member
 
tbase1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: medina Ohio
Posts: 2,371
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 13
I won't buy a 3D projector until they bring "X" out in 3D, which is real immersion or perversion depending on ones frame of thinking.

tony4k
tbase1 is offline  
post #29 of 129 Old 01-08-2010, 03:09 PM
Advanced Member
 
chucky08016's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 708
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVX View Post

It will all depend on the director. 3D versions of Avitar and Monsters Vs Aliens were Scope, yet Bolt 3D was 1.85:1.

Actually Avatar in 3D was shown in 1.78 : 1... at least my local theater was showing it that way.

Edit: just saw the James Cameron comment above... nevermind.
chucky08016 is offline  
post #30 of 129 Old 01-08-2010, 05:25 PM - Thread Starter
CIH USER
 
Franin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Western Australia
Posts: 17,257
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 145 Post(s)
Liked: 205
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolscan View Post

The gap between the cameras are dictated by the distance to the object. For every shot the distance between the cameras/lenses have to be adjusted.
That's why they need those big beamsplitter rigs for anything closer than 8 feet because the cameras are too big to get close enough.

Just to show then how big a underwaterhous with beamsplitter with two RED One becomes compared to IMAX under water housing.





The only solution is for the cameras to get smaller so the beamsplitters can get smaller and easier to work with.

Here are a picture of a test that someone did with a RED one and two anamorphic lenses shooting into a mirror box capturing two sidebyside images on the sensor. They where then separated and unsqueezed, giving two 4 megapixel images.



Imagine that method on a 20 megapixel (6K) sensor (or larger) and you have two 4k images.

But smaller cameras will help a lot for Live 3D features, like the proof of concept RED render. Two of these small "boxes" can easily be mounted to a small beamsplitter for closeups.



The situation now is that nobody, including Avatar, have really shot real 3D digital yet. Because real 3D movies should have deep depth of field. Everything should be in focus except the most distant background.
That's when you get real 3D. To get that to work you also need superior image quality. 2K/2x24fps isn't good enough. 4K/2x48fps is a minimum with projector at the same resolution/framerate and a lot of lumen on the screen.
That is the only future for 3D to survive.




All 3D movies shot on either film or digital have been using this kind of rig's for decades.
There are lot of reports of 3D shooting activity, but how much of that end up in features only the lists of future 3D features can tell.

The next "BIG" 3D feature is Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland in march. All the live action there is shot with one camera and the 3D is done in post.

In addition comes all the 2D to 3D conversions of older movies that will in a big part be done by the Spielberg/Lucas/Dreamworks In-Three Inc. company that are doing a investment collaboration with India company Reliance MediaWorks Ltd.
It supposedly only cost $8-10 mill to convert a 2D feature into 3D.
How good the result is remain to be seen.

What a waste to redo the old movies.

_________________________

Frank

Franin is offline  
Reply 3D Displays

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off