Where the hell are the 35mm 3-D Cameras?

[K Borowski]

They have a 3-D film projection system out, with two 2-perf. frames each eye out. I'm assuming there were cameras just like this in the '80s for 3-D.

 

 

So why "can't" we make a real 3-D movie in 2010 without an IMAX monstrosity or a digital camera? Especially with all the work done in two perf., it should be easy to devise something with a pair of Aaton's with 2-perf. pulldowns to do just this, and it would offer a superior result to what is out there. The system only requires 1.4K per eye of resolution.

 

Something that just really bothers me in all the articles I read about how HD is the only option here.

[John Sprung]

You could put a pair of Arri II-C's on the same kind of vertical/horizontal mirror rig that's commonly used with a pair of Red's. Add some sort of spline linkage and a stronger motor to get them in perfect shutter sync, and you'd have it.

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[Charles Haine]

As much as it is depressing to say it, they don't exist at least partially because they don't make a lot of sense.

 

One of the driving elements behind the rebirth of stereoscopic is digital image capture.

 

Not only does 35mm 3D involve shooting twice as much footage, it also means keeping two film cameras with their shutters perfectly in sync (not impossible, or even hard really, but a layer of complication). And it means having perfectly matched sets of cinema lens.

 

Not impossible, hence the waves of stereo in the 50s and the 70s/80s, but complicated and pricey. 3D is already complicated and pricey enough without adding these elements into the mix.

 

Thus, the growth of 3D as a digital-capture only phenomenon.

[K Borowski]

Not only does 35mm 3D involve shooting twice as much footage, it also means keeping two film cameras with their shutters perfectly in sync (not impossible, or even hard really, but a layer of complication). And it means having perfectly matched sets of cinema lens.

 

Not impossible, hence the waves of stereo in the 50s and the 70s/80s [Emphasis added], but complicated and pricey. 3D is already complicated and pricey enough without adding these elements into the mix.

 

First: How is shooting twice as much footage or having to sync digital shutters different? The concepts are fundamentally different: Two strips of film versus two harddrives/HDCAM tapes, and a spinning metal disc versus an electronic shutter, but there's still two of everything in both systems. That is as old as photography itself, almost.

 

 

You left out the 3D film phenomenon that continues to this day with IMAX and ride park attractions, but the '80s phenomenon already solved all the problems you mentioned. DI methods further ease printing over-under 35mm, although I'm sure it was solved simply enough mechanically. I could probably do it on a contact printer just by cutting a 2-perf. mask, printing all the left eye camera plates OVER and all the right eye camera plates UNDER, swapping the plate in between and re-winding the dupe film for a second pass. But, oh, sorry, yeah we don't want to talk about primitive photo-chemical means.

 

 

So, again, I don't know where any complexities would be. It was already solved in the '80s, correct me if I'm wrong. And the DI makes the whole process worlds easier.

[manoj paramahamsa]

They have a 3-D film projection system out, with two 2-perf. frames each eye out. I'm assuming there were cameras just like this in the '80s for 3-D.

 

 

So why "can't" we make a real 3-D movie in 2010 without an IMAX monstrosity or a digital camera? Especially with all the work done in two perf., it should be easy to devise something with a pair of Aaton's with 2-perf. pulldowns to do just this, and it would offer a superior result to what is out there. The system only requires 1.4K per eye of resolution.

 

Something that just really bothers me in all the articles I read about how HD is the only option here.

[manoj paramahamsa]

hi.....

recently i shot with steroscope lens 20mm and 32mm which was bought way back in 1984 for the first indian 3D film(my dear kutticheatan) and the most successful 3D film ever shot in india....i am lucky to be part in their production in which they want to re release the same movie now with some newly shot footage for 15 mins...

i used a arri 3 camera with steroscope ground glass.....we should appreciate the director of the film for saving those lenses.....yup it had some fungus and some alignment issues...we tried to restore it for some extent and we shot with f8 aperture with one stop push processing.....and the entire film is scanned in 4k along with new footage restored de-grained and color corrected with quantel and ready to release now

[manoj paramahamsa]

here is the link for the original version imdb

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0280968/combined