JVC GS-TD1 3D-Capable Camcorder - Page 51

I also forgot to mention that PD10 allows Fuji W3 owners to create 3D slide shows and burn them to 3D Blu-ray - easy as pie.

I got the Cyclopital3D 77mm adapter and Marumi +3 Achromat Macro lens today and took them over to the Garden for a couple of hours. Unfortunately, it was a miserable, rainy day to try to shoot.

I could kick myself for not using manual convergence on the shots I took this past weekend. It would have eliminated the serious left/right pair separation. I used it for all the following shots. I also used the TD1 mostly at full wide angle (no limitations on zoom with this adapter); area touch for focus/exposure (love that feature). I played around at different distances, but I guesstimate that I ended up around 15 inches or so from the main subject most of the time (don't quote me on that, though). Ken Burgess suggested that it would be better to back up and zoom in full while using the adapter, but I was getting funky results when I tried to do this, so I went wide. I'll experiment with zooming in next time.

Some of the shots didn't work at all, some worked quite well, others fell somewhere in the middle. A couple of the ones in the following iso don't work at all, but I threw them in to demonstrate what NOT to do.

Here are a few shots.

Don,

I think you'll find that there's no reason to be concerned about edge to edge sharpness/distortion, at least not with the Marumi Achromat lens. I'm very impressed with the quality. A few of the shots had rain drops, and some were foggy because of the humid conditions in our Climatron. It took several minutes to be able to use the camera when I got inside.

I want to make sure I clear up a comment I made yesterday. I said that there were shots taken with the stereo base extender that would not cut together with my regular JVC TD1 shots, or even with other stereo base extender shots, without cropping the image in Neo or Vegas. While this is true, it's a self-inflicted wound on my part. Had I used manual convergence on the TD1, I would have eliminated almost completely any need to crop or adjust the stereo pairs during editing. I believe that by converging each shot on the main subject manually as I framed, the shots would have cut or dissolved together quite well.

Along those lines, manual convergence stays locked on whatever setting you use, until the camera is turned off. Then it defaults back to auto convergence until it's reset manually once again. This may force you to take a few extra seconds to set up for a new shot. As far as I know, this is unavoidable.

Joe, to my opinion adjustment of the convergence can take best at shooting, but can also be done in the postpro by adjusting the horizontal shift (but then you have to crop the material).

BUT you cannot adjust the i.o. in the postpro. I do not know a way how to do that.

Joe- While I admit my experience is short, I felt that using different IA in scenes cut next to each other is a jarring effect on the viewer, as it takes more time for the viewer to adjust. If going to/from a wide IA shot to a shot using TD-10 IA ( 1.125") I found it better to shoot the TD-10 IA of a new shot in 3D but small Z axis separation such as another shot of great distance before moving in closer. I find that doing this allows the viewer to adjust gradually to the different IA 3D. My tests were using 12" IA mix with TD-10. I'm sure 5.5" IA is an easier transition. Mendiburu mentions this in his book on rules of 3D editing to avoid troubles.

I think the only way to "adjust" the interaxial distance in post is by performing 2D to 3D conversion. That is, you take video shot in 2D and manipulate the objects in the frame to make it appear as though there is depth. Of course, this doesn't work nearly as well as true 3D, and there is no true separation.

But that is something that is not editing 3D footage really. So either we are able to adjust the i.o., or we have to take care with our fixed i.os (what is not hard for both JVC TD1 or Sony TD10, but harder with the SE).

Where I have a problem is with several of the Imax films. They often cut together shots that have wide separation of the left/right pairs with shots in which the separation is minimal (at least wrt the main subject). My eyes get "bounced" from converging at one point to converging at a completely different point. That just doesn't happen in real life and it's very jarring. What I was referring to was that in the shots I took this past weekend, there's wide separation between almost everything in frame. By adjusting parallax manually when shooting, I can bring the main subject of the shot closer to what is was in the previous shot. Although it may not work perfectly, at least it minimizes the jarring effect. The proof will be in the editing. What I plan to do is edit together a short scene that demonstrates this problem, then adjust convergence by cropping the shots and see how well it works. I'll also cut together several shots where I've already adjusted convergence maually while shooting, and ask people to give me their impressions of how "smoothly" the scene flows.

I thought IMAX used a specific (rather narrow 2.5") interaxial fixed separation in their 3D camera. Everything I've seen in their film productions uses that basic IMAX 3D camera. I have never seen any variable IA IMAX cameras used for Hollywood films. Didn't think they existed.
So, how it was shot is always the same IA. Not saying they didn't do something in post because we all know those tools exist to mess with the screen position.
There are systems in use for 35mm and various digital including RED cameras that work on a variable IA bench. And maybe you saw one of the IMAX experimental tests that used two IMAX single cameras in very wide separation for a test but I don't recall this ever being used in any commercial movie.

As for changing an IA in post or simulating that, by conventional means, that would be impossible because when we shoot real world twin cameras from two different locations, even the 3/4" Bloggie 3D we are seeing the same object from two locations at the same time. In otherwords, it's like being in two different places at the same time. Theoretical physics aka quantum mechanics says this is possible for one camera to be in two different places at the same time but nobody has yet achieved real world QM capability. So, there is no way to simulate interocular camera separation with one camera presently. And, there are also those theoretical physicists who don't believe quantum mechanics is possible either, aka string theory or parallel universes. By suggesting that a single camera view can photograph a scene from two different places at the same time requires the use of this new area of physics. So, presently we can only shoot a scene from two different locations at the same time by using two cameras.
What the parallax or horizontal separation adjustment of the two images does in post is not change the 2 camera perspectives but just change the viewing screen plane along the z axis location. The only way to change the size of the z-axis stage is to change the interaxial camera separation.
Bottom line, I don't believe we'll ever have the capability to make true stereoscopic movie from a single camera as it violates conventional laws of physics. It is possible to freeze the scene, move the camera and take a second image from a different location later in time but this can only be done by freezing the scene in time, therefore not possible in movies, only good for still photos.

edit-
Regarding your editing test- I think your demonstration will work as long as there are no extremely close objects sticking in the scene when the overall scene extends into the great distance. I think you had one shot like that in your iso where the lower part of the scene was extreme negative parallax and the upper half was extreme negative. My eyes were adjusting greatly to take in the lower part and then again for the upper part but to view the whole image at the same time became quite a challenge. You may be able to adjust the horizontal separation and place the lower part of that scene at the screen plain. Only testing will tell. I had the same issue with my extreme IA of 26" with the water of the river extending way in front of the TV and the buildings and sky over a mile away way behind the TV. Moving the entire scene into positive parallax helped.

Hi Don,

I might prove you wrong. Look at this light-field camera that can capture different realities of the same image using one camera. It's in principle a 4D camera:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDyRSYGcFVM

You can test the pictures here, it's impressive:
https://www.lytro.com/living-pictures

EDIT:
I just found a movie that shows that Lytro can capture 3D:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D_aAqAvf43g

Maybe my comment about 2D to 3D conversion confused the issue here.

I was just responding to Wolfgang's comment that there is no way to change the interaxial distance in post. If we take a 2D video and artificially apply depth to it in a conversion process, in effect what we're doing is to taking a left/right separation of 0" and giving the video an artificial interaxial. I'm not debating the wisdom of doing that, just that in effect that's what's being done. In any case, it's not real stereo separation.

Right, Joe.
You can create artificial depth with 2D for sure but without manual manipulation is still is not real looking and will contain flaws. What I said was TRUE stereography, chang69. What the examples you produced look about as good as artificial stereo audio made from a monaural source that is manipulated with phasing. It is flawed stereo just as is those images, which BTW look totally flat to me. The best manipulation of 2D for 3D look to date is where the scene is manually separated by object and positioned manually along the Z axis. Unfortunately, this process at best separation produces the cardboard pop-up book effect, not true 3D stereography.
One simply can't make something from nothing.

The Lytro uses an old way to produce depth illusion in 2D pictures called racking the focus. When you shoot an image like this and run it through traditional conversion software, you get the effect of depth. Nothing new I see here. Been doing rack focus for years. What is new to me is that they are offering a dedicated software pack to refocus different objects in the frame.
We are going to see many more 2D to 3D conversions with varying levels of quality. Check out this new converter http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1367394

I don't mind a new gimmick for entertainment but I won't try to claim one of these replaces the real thing.

Don,

I don't think you are correct. Check out Lytro's web site for their light field camera: http://www.lytro.com/. Light field cameras have been the subject of research at Stanford University for over 15 years. The technology appears to me to be using compound lenses for the light receptors on the sensor to store the direction information for all light rays emanating from the scene being photographed. The camera's software then processes this data to allow one to selectively focus on any object in the 2D presentation of the image. I believe this is quite different than merely rack focusing, which indeed has been available for years.

Certainly there are a number of articles describing the Lytro light field camera as a "revolutionary" development in photography. It does seem to me to offer something that has not previously been available in any camera and is quite different than rack focusing.

Tom

GoPro just announced new versions of Neo and Neo3D (called CineForm Studio Premium and CineForm Studio Professional). Here's the announcement:


Dear CineForm Studio user,

Announcing a new version of the free GoPro CineForm Studio application. Download it now:

The GoPro CineForm Studio Software Update Includes:

White balance, rotation and dynamic stretching through the use of Active Metadata™
Ability to load and save projects
Automatic update of Hero camera firmware
Quality control for transcodes
YouTube uploads will recognize 3D without manual tags
Framing controls
Support for popular .mov/.mp4 video formats (including Canon DSLRs)

For those of you doing professional video work, new versions of the classic CineForm products Neo and Neo3D, will be released as CineForm Studio Premium and CineForm Studio Professional.

These new versions include all the features listed above plus:

A new, easy to use interface based on the GoPro CineForm Studio look and feel
Support for MVC 3D camera format

We will make these two products available in the coming few weeks. Please check the CineForm web site for updates and to purchase these products."


This appears to be Cineform's long rumored built-in support for "frame packing for interlace" formats.

Just read over in the PD10 thread that the JVC TD1 will not be supported natively in the Cineform software. So, I we'll still be using MVCtoAVI.

My JVC GS-TD1 will arrive this week and I was wondering what is the preferred workflow to go from camera to 3D Blu-Ray?

I have extensive experience in Premiere Pro CS5 (I have recently purchased Neo 5.5) and I have already downloaded the trials for PD10 and Vegas 11 Pro.

Well Dennis, I think that is an excellent question - and maybe the TD1 user like Joe are the best who can support you with an experienced answer (I use the Sony TD10). There has been long discussions about how to edit the TD1 footage, if you read this thread from the first pages.

Since you have purchased neo 5.5 - there is the question are you talking about Neo 3D or Neo - that are two different products. Neo 3D seems to be compatible with CS5/5.5, but also Vegas. What I do not know is if Neo can now do the conversion of JVC TD1 MVC files - or if you still have to use the mvc to avi converter of Peter Wimmer.

To create 3D Blu Rays you will need Vegas or the PD10 - only this two products have incorporated an MVC encoder, what is necessary to create 3D BDs (beside some very expensive more professional encoders).

Hi, Dennis. I can't go into detail right now, but I'll be happy to do so later. The basic workflow is this:

1. Convert the mp4 clips in Peter Wimmer's MVCtoAVI utiliity. You can batch convert using drag and drop. Use one of the Cineform codecs when you split the files.
2. Import your left/right clips into Neo and mux them into Cineform 3D AVIs.
3. Import those files into either Vegas or Premiere Pro and edit normally (lots of details in that process, obviously). If you're in Vegas, you can create your 3D Blu-ray discs or iso files there.

Motion can be an issue going from 60i to 24p 3D Blu-ray. I use the "blend fields" option in Vegas to minimize the issues. For tough motion problems, I use the Yadif utility (Yet Another De-Interlacing Filter). It allows me to use clips that Vegas doesn't process well.

I don't have much experience with PowerDirector 10 yet, but I like it. it's fast and very easy to use. However, I think Yadif will be essential if you want to use that program. Motion was very bad in my admittedly very limited testing. I'd use PD10 to create a 60i m2ts file and then Yadif to de-intelace that before burning it to 24p 3D Blu-ray. I haven't done that yet, though, so I don't know what "gotchas" you might run into with such a workflow.

I think you're going to like the TD1, but I'm curious why it and not the JVC HMZ1 (pro version of the TD1)? Unless the reason is price, the HMZ1 has a 24p shooting mode that could end up saving you a lot of trouble in editing. I've seen it for just over $1,700. That's almost exactly what I paid for the TD1, and it has even more manual controls (like zebra). I've always hated dealing with interlaced video.

BTW, so far I've used Premiere Pro for editing titles. I port the avi files over to Vegas when I'm finished.

I forgot. If you are willing to take the hit to resolution, you can always create a 720p/60 3D Blu-ray. Motion is very smooth in that conversion, even if the total resolution is lower. Gotta run now. More details later.

Just so many who are more familiar with consumer camcorders than professional, we should advise that Zebra is not a manual control. Zebra is a metering system that displays how much over the Zebra threshold your white areas are being exposed. In the most basic Zebra feature, it is calibrated to 100 IRE where the white clip point in digital is 100 IRE. Therefore, the way to use Zebra is to adjust any setting that controls the level of light or exposure including filters and key lighting to that which just makes all zebra disappear from the screen. On higher levels of Zebra implementation such as broadcast cameras the Zebra is user calibrated. I always prefered to use a 90 IRE so that no peak whites would appear in my shots when the iris is set for no Zebra. Another shooter may choose to use the 90 IRE calibration and then adjust iris for a tiny bit of Zebra which places the white levels between 90 and 100 IRE. This method could allow some white cliping however.

Without Zebra metering of your scene, you have no way to tell if you are white clipping and losing detail in the bright whites except if really bad white clipping. Then it would still require a high resolution monitor of reasonable size.

But just turning on Zebra does not necessarily auto adjust your exposure. It just tells you when your manual settings are correct. Zebra is an excellent quick and dirty monitoring tool to replace the more precise waveform monitor on a Broadcast level field production.

Good clarification.

Yeah, I said "not necessarily" because about time I say something can't be done in a traditional way some youngster comes in here and tells me I'm all wrong because yesterday a new camcorder came out that ties Zebra to an auto adjust mode. LOL! But as far as I know Zebra is just a metering feature.

Yeah, zebra wouldn't be worth much unless the camera allowed you to adjust exposure in response to the indicator. Even though it's a meter and not a manual control, it would be a useless tease unless the camera gave you the ability to control peak white somehow. Actually, the area select feature on the TD1 (touch the LCD screen to set the area that's used for focus and exposure) is a more useful feature. In many cases, I let one area blow out, because exposure averaging would make the overall image far too dark to use. This is the case for many backlit shots. You either expose for the foreground or you can't see your subject.

Thanks Joe and all.

Yes, I have read the posts for several weeks now, and I've closely followed those of Joe Clark. Like everyone else, I'm looking for the quick and easy way to get started with the TD1.

My Neo is Neo (Win): NEW55. I upgraded from Aspect HD, which I used extensively with my JVC GY-HD100, editing in Premiere Pro.

I choose the TD1 because of the $1200 delivered price. I wanted somthing a little more prosumer than my Fuji W3, which has provided me with a lot of fun through the Spring/Summer season, but it just doesn't produce the quality that I'm used to with some of the better prosumer cameras I've owned. Let's face it, the files produced by the Fuji W3 don't even come close to being DVCPro HD quality.

Hi Joe,

In item #3 of your previous message you mentioned the posibility of being able to create 3D Blu-Ray from within Vegas 11. I have never actually tried it yet, but does Vegas 11 actually have the capability of burning 3D Blu-Ray right from the timeline? Or, would I have to export to ISO and then burn the 3D Blu-Ray from DVD Architect? Or, would I be better off burning with IMGBurn?

What has me stumped is, what is my best option for burning to 3D Blu-Ray.

I always create an iso file in Vegas and then use ImgBurn to burn the discs. You can burn from the timeline, but I never would. If something happens to the computer during the burn, you have a shiny coaster. Create the iso and then drag it to ImgBurn - simple. If you want another one later, drag it over again. This always works unless the blank disc itself fails.

Sounds pretty much like the path I've taken.

IMO, Vegas and Premiere Pro are quite comparable in terms of features, workflow and overall usability. I'm still much more comfortable in Premiere, but the transition to Vegas was mostly painless. I still miss the smooth realtime response of Premiere for multiple regular HD streams and titles. I think such routine smoothness will come in the next few months for 3D editing, too. When I get a breather, I plan to do a lot more experimenting with PowerDirector 10. It's not a pro editor by any stretch, but it can do 3D menus, which not even Vegas can do right now. Based on my limited testing, the quality is short of what Vegas and especially the Adobe solutions are capable of, but for "quick and dirty" editing it can't be beat right now.

I too am most comfortable in Premiere. My OC'ed i5 with 16GB RAM and GTX470 makes small work of multiple AVCHD streams. The true 64bit workflow really rocks. I'm very much looking forward to an integrated 3D workflow in CS6. Especially nice would be timeline integration with PhotoShop and After Effects for 3D media.

I too have noticed that PD10 is very quick and easy to use especially when doing something like simple slide shows from MPO files and quickly working with mixed images from the Fuji W3, for creating simple 3D projects for uploading to YouTube, etc... But it's definately not beefy enough for pro use.

Yep, PD10 is great for MPO slide shows. I've created a few 3D Blu-ray discs. For 3D stills, the W3 is great, just not for video.