Does anyone film with 3 cameras per mount? (To best allow for 2D & 3D releases) - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 12 Old 07-26-2014, 10:55 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
tgm1024's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 6,869
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 677 Post(s)
Liked: 946
Does anyone film with 3 cameras per mount? (To best allow for 2D & 3D releases)

It's been fairly clearly established that 2D and 3D have different filming issues and that 2D->3D post-con isn't ideal, and 3D->2D "single eye" isn't either.

So a complicated set up for 3 cameras on a single mount would make sense, provided it were easy to control all 3 in a unified way. This obviously is complicated for the servo-based convergence setups, but that business is complicated anyway.

To what extent does 3 camera (2D + 3D/left + 3D/right) shooting exist?

Java developers, when I saw what has been placed into Java 8 I was immediately reminded of how I've spent so much of my life trying to protect engineers from themselves. Lambda expressions are a horrible idea. Gentlemen: the goal isn't to make code readable for a competent mid-level engineer. The goal is to make code readable for a competent mid-level engineer exhausted and hopped up on caffeine at 3 am. What a disaster Java 8 is!
tgm1024 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 12 Old 07-26-2014, 05:23 PM
Senior Member
 
tomtastic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Wichita, KS
Posts: 434
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 79 Post(s)
Liked: 39
I was wondering that too, but after shooting with the 3DA1, a third "2D" lens isn't needed and it isn't needed among pro rigs either. You can simply just use one of the output channels left or right video streams for a 2D version.

It depends on the camera though. I know I can't do it with the Panasonic Z10k (and maybe other prosumer cams), if you look at the 3D output in 2D the bitrate is much too low for any real professional look with that camera. You have to make your decision ahead of time if you want 2D or 3D. If you shoot in 2D you get the full bit rate for that lens, if it's 3D, some of these prosumer cameras halve the bit rate.

But with the 3DA1 you get 22 mbps per lens so it would be real easy to do a 2D version with the same 3D output. Or you can output both streams via HD SDI for uncompressed HD. Pro rigs such as mirror rigs with dual Red Pro Cameras are like that too, uncompressed video, so using one of the streams is fine. No director would setup an isolated 2D camera if shooting 3D, it would be redundant and also more gen locking and syncing doubling the work flow.
tomtastic is online now  
post #3 of 12 Old 07-26-2014, 05:36 PM
Senior Member
 
Marc Wielage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Hollywood, USA
Posts: 458
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 234 Post(s)
Liked: 125
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024 View Post
It's been fairly clearly established that 2D and 3D have different filming issues and that 2D->3D post-con isn't ideal, and 3D->2D "single eye" isn't either.
No, you can get perfectly acceptable 2D from a 3D setup, just using one camera, as long as you drop in a correction for gamma and the light-loss in the mirror (assuming high quality pickups, lenses, good exposures, and reasonable alignment). I believe you're over-thinking this.

What is true is that the dual-camera 3D rigs are fragile, more expensive, take longer to set up, and blow through a huge amount of data every day. I know of projections where the actors rejected the 3D rig and demanded just using regular cameras and dimensionalizing later on. Given the billion-dollar success of movies like Alice in Wonderland (which I worked on) and The Avengers, I don't think anybody cares anymore as long as the 3D effects are good and designed from the start, rather than as an afterthought.

It's sobering to note that almost nobody has tried to shoot a 3D film in 4K and keep it in 4K throughout the entire process. Not even Peter Jackson was able to sustain 4K through his Hobbit workflow, because of the issues with 48fps.
Marc Wielage is offline  
post #4 of 12 Old 07-26-2014, 07:05 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
tgm1024's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 6,869
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 677 Post(s)
Liked: 946
But then you're stuck using the same depth of field / focusing tricks for both. In 3D it's far more comfortable to give the user more control over what he's able to focus on where as in 2D you more often than not want that dictated by the picture (or it wouldn't look right), no?

I've heard this said in various ways, and I don't agree with everything he says, but Dr. Raymon Soneira says it this way here:

Quote:
Originally Posted by displaymate.com
Recommendations for 3D Producers

The biggest issue for 3D production is using the same cameras and camera techniques for combined 2D and 3D shooting. For 3D try not to have anything out of focus anywhere in the picture – in particular don’t use focus and limited depth of field to highlight the main object of attention the way it is normally done with 2D. It’s very important to maximize the depth of field and keep everything in focus at all times for 3D content.

Java developers, when I saw what has been placed into Java 8 I was immediately reminded of how I've spent so much of my life trying to protect engineers from themselves. Lambda expressions are a horrible idea. Gentlemen: the goal isn't to make code readable for a competent mid-level engineer. The goal is to make code readable for a competent mid-level engineer exhausted and hopped up on caffeine at 3 am. What a disaster Java 8 is!
tgm1024 is offline  
post #5 of 12 Old 07-26-2014, 08:49 PM
AVS Club Gold
 
Don Landis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 11,240
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 324 Post(s)
Liked: 166
I use a 3 camera system to add a second view that is closer and offer a camera switch in post. Both are 3D. Below is my setup using a twin Nex5n with extra wide angle 10mm lenses with 20" IA plus a TD10 in the center with it's own fluid head that can pan, tilt and zoom independently of the twin cams which are in lock down once the framing is set. The rig is simple to set up and easy to transport.

I believe that very good 2D can be extracted from your 3D camera if 2D is needed. It is how I do it here. I have used the above rig with my Z10K in the center as well.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	P1000462.jpg
Views:	21
Size:	217.0 KB
ID:	181818   Click image for larger version

Name:	P1000604.jpg
Views:	18
Size:	150.3 KB
ID:	181826  

Last edited by Don Landis; 07-26-2014 at 08:54 PM.
Don Landis is online now  
post #6 of 12 Old 07-26-2014, 11:15 PM
Senior Member
 
tomtastic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Wichita, KS
Posts: 434
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 79 Post(s)
Liked: 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024 View Post
But then you're stuck using the same depth of field / focusing tricks for both. In 3D it's far more comfortable to give the user more control over what he's able to focus on where as in 2D you more often than not want that dictated by the picture (or it wouldn't look right), no?

I've heard this said in various ways, and I don't agree with everything he says, but Dr. Raymon Soneira says it this way here:
When shooting 3D, I don't see much difference in focusing 3D vs. 2D., there's still the need for manual focus for various depth points. You can't always get 2D shots to have a complete image in focus either, which is really all 3D is too. It's just two 2D images, not that much difference really. A partially out of focus shot in 3D isn't bad technique or something to always avoid, not sure why that individual would indicate that 3D needs to be 100 percent in focus. It just depends on if it's intended or not and if it adds perspective.

I've seen plenty of 3D films that use the same traditional 2D filming methods and work just fine. Many of them with out of focus shots. Out of focus, putting emphasis on a particular point is good technique and it works in 3D too.

Getting back to a 2D lens in a 3D workflow. There really isn't a good way to add a 3rd lens to an already large and heavy 3D rig. There isn't a way to get the lens close enough to the same alignment points. No matter where you put that lens it won't line up right and will be a completely different angle. With 3D you have a center point which every shot is lined up on and your left and right lens are equidistant apart of it.

So where would the 3rd lens go? Above? Below, to the left or right of the 3D rig? It won't work. There were some movies, long ago that did completely different angles of the same movie. I seem to forget the title of one I'm thinking of right now. You could do it, it won't look the same, won't be the same angle or same framing, but you could. Easier to just use one of the 3D streams and then your viewers will see exactly the same feature in 2D, that is, a less noticeable change without the right lens.
tomtastic is online now  
post #7 of 12 Old 07-27-2014, 09:27 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
tgm1024's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 6,869
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 677 Post(s)
Liked: 946
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomtastic View Post
When shooting 3D, I don't see much difference in focusing 3D vs. 2D., there's still the need for manual focus for various depth points. You can't always get 2D shots to have a complete image in focus either, which is really all 3D is too.
Why not? A very tight aperture (high f-stop) produces an enormous depth of field.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tomtastic View Post
When shooting 3D, I don't see much difference in focusing 3D vs. 2D., there's still the need for manual focus for various depth points. You can't always get 2D shots to have a complete image in focus either, which is really all 3D is too. It's just two 2D images, not that much difference really. A partially out of focus shot in 3D isn't bad technique or something to always avoid, not sure why that individual would indicate that 3D needs to be 100 percent in focus. It just depends on if it's intended or not and if it adds perspective.
3D grants me, the viewer, the chance to shift my gaze not only left, right, up, or down, but fore and back along the Z axis. Having the scene in full focus allows me to do just that.

There are scenes where I've seen the director intentionally limit the DOF to the central characters, but in 3D this tends to be deeper. At least as far as I have seen. There are few things less comfortable than actively trying to focus on items at a location on the Z axis that are blurry in the source.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tomtastic View Post
Getting back to a 2D lens in a 3D workflow. There really isn't a good way to add a 3rd lens to an already large and heavy 3D rig. There isn't a way to get the lens close enough to the same alignment points. No matter where you put that lens it won't line up right and will be a completely different angle. With 3D you have a center point which every shot is lined up on and your left and right lens are equidistant apart of it.
The vector you want would start at the center of the rig with the 3D cameras rotating around it I would guess.

Logistically, 3 cameras could fit (as evidenced by Don's setup, regardless of how he's using them).

Java developers, when I saw what has been placed into Java 8 I was immediately reminded of how I've spent so much of my life trying to protect engineers from themselves. Lambda expressions are a horrible idea. Gentlemen: the goal isn't to make code readable for a competent mid-level engineer. The goal is to make code readable for a competent mid-level engineer exhausted and hopped up on caffeine at 3 am. What a disaster Java 8 is!
tgm1024 is offline  
post #8 of 12 Old 07-27-2014, 11:21 AM
Senior Member
 
tomtastic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Wichita, KS
Posts: 434
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 79 Post(s)
Liked: 39
I've run into focusing problems several times attempting deep focus shots, doesn't always work, limited to lens and camera abilities as well as light. I'm just saying if someone is saying that all 3D shots need to be deep focus (shooting all depth points in focus), they don't know what they're talking about, not to mention it's a production team's nightmare since they have to have all parts of the set alive and pristine for those shots. Deep focus is just one method, not the go to method for all scenes.

As far as problems as a viewer focusing without deep focus, I've never had a problem with it. I don't see it any different than 2D. It's director intent or director of photography. If we had all scenes shot a particular way the product would be boring and uninteresting, which is why there are so many methods of shooting. You do have to be more careful with 3D but you can still achieve the same results if done right.

For the isolated 2D lens, you can't put a lens in the center either, as it would be in the shot or block the other two lenses. It would work as in Don's setup, but that's for extreme long shots only with the two cameras spaced farther apart. For close ups to long shots, that won't work. You need to have a 2D lens mounted in close proximity to the main 3D rig you're using, but with sbs lenses or mirror rig, it's just not possible. For most scenes in any project, medium shots are the most common, another reason a center lens won't work since the majority of the content would require the mirror rig or SBS rig with close lenses.
tomtastic is online now  
post #9 of 12 Old 07-27-2014, 12:00 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
tgm1024's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 6,869
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 677 Post(s)
Liked: 946
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomtastic View Post
For the isolated 2D lens, you can't put a lens in the center either, as it would be in the shot or block the other two lenses. It would work as in Don's setup, but that's for extreme long shots only with the two cameras spaced farther apart. For close ups to long shots, that won't work. You need to have a 2D lens mounted in close proximity to the main 3D rig you're using, but with sbs lenses or mirror rig, it's just not possible. For most scenes in any project, medium shots are the most common, another reason a center lens won't work since the majority of the content would require the mirror rig or SBS rig with close lenses.
If the lenses all reach outward the same extent how can they be in each other's shot? I'm assuming that the entire rig turns together keeping the line of them perpendicular to the line of sight to the center of the field, no?

Last edited by tgm1024; 07-27-2014 at 12:08 PM.
tgm1024 is offline  
post #10 of 12 Old 07-27-2014, 12:45 PM
Senior Member
 
tomtastic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Wichita, KS
Posts: 434
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 79 Post(s)
Liked: 39
In order to fit the camera and lens between the two the lenses would need to be further apart which won't work on close to medium shots. You'd have to shoot everything 50 feet away. Laws of physics prevent two bodies from occupying the same space. The mirror rig works around that but you still can't do it because there's no place to put the camera, no space plus the angle would be wrong against the mirror's 45 deg angle. It's just physically impossible to shoot 3D and an isolated 2D camera that are framing the same scene, except on extreme long shots, even then it really isn't needed.

The only way to do it would be to shoot your scene in 2D and then reset up everything and shoot in 3D, and I imagine that won't be happening for awhile since it'd probably double the budget of any production.

Last edited by tomtastic; 07-27-2014 at 12:58 PM.
tomtastic is online now  
post #11 of 12 Old 07-27-2014, 01:17 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
tgm1024's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 6,869
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 677 Post(s)
Liked: 946
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomtastic View Post
In order to fit the camera and lens between the two the lenses would need to be further apart which won't work on close to medium shots. You'd have to shoot everything 50 feet away. Laws of physics prevent two bodies from occupying the same space. The mirror rig works around that but you still can't do it because there's no place to put the camera, no space plus the angle would be wrong against the mirror's 45 deg angle. It's just physically impossible to shoot 3D and an isolated 2D camera that are framing the same scene, except on extreme long shots, even then it really isn't needed.

The only way to do it would be to shoot your scene in 2D and then reset up everything and shoot in 3D, and I imagine that won't be happening for awhile since it'd probably double the budget of any production.
What's the camera L/R separation distance (I forget the term).

Java developers, when I saw what has been placed into Java 8 I was immediately reminded of how I've spent so much of my life trying to protect engineers from themselves. Lambda expressions are a horrible idea. Gentlemen: the goal isn't to make code readable for a competent mid-level engineer. The goal is to make code readable for a competent mid-level engineer exhausted and hopped up on caffeine at 3 am. What a disaster Java 8 is!
tgm1024 is offline  
post #12 of 12 Old 07-27-2014, 01:42 PM
Senior Member
 
tomtastic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Wichita, KS
Posts: 434
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 79 Post(s)
Liked: 39
I have both the 3DA1 and Z10k, the Z10k has the lenses closer, about 45mm, the 3DA1 is around 58mm I.A., —without the wide angle lenses on the 3DA1 I wouldn't be able to shoot any closer than 10 feet with it's about 20 inches. And that's with 43mm lenses, which Hollywood isn't going to use anything that small. So if you add a lens between those 43mm lenses that will widen the I.A. even more, to somewhere around 100mm I.A. and I'm not sure how to calculate out the closest range but I'd say it'd be no closer than 20 feet maybe 15. And this would be the absolute best possible outcome for a center lens if you could get the lenses small enough and close enough, so around 20 feet. Not ideal and all the shots would need a long focal set. No director would want that.

Now that's with the built in lenses, if you use separate cameras the bodies and lenses get bigger and even wider I.A.'s. Most likely with the cameras and lenses that a professional crew would use in a parallel setup the I.A. will be much wider and would be more like 35 to 50 feet minimal distance. The new digital IMAX camera is about the same as the 3DA1's I.A. so roughly the same minimal distance required, but also fixed lenses and no space for a center lens.

If you go to the mirror rig, which allows you to have the lenses right on top of each other (overlapping) exactly overlapping would be 2D, then a slight shift for 1" distance and then you can move the lenses out for long shots. However, there's no place to fit another camera and lens in this setup either. In this setup the cameras are quite large of course, the horizontal camera moves left or right so you can't put it next to that one. The vertical one, maybe, then again, not much room and might not even have enough room for it on the same mirror. It wouldn't frame right. The two cameras have to hit the mirror exactly on the same plane, a 3rd camera, no space and no way to hit the mirror right.
tomtastic is online now  
Reply 3D Tech Talk



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