Cesar Rubio

The minimal pixel size I recommend in sensors is 5.5 microns. If we go smaller than that we get lower sensitivity “lower base ISO/ASA”, less dynamic range, lens diffraction problems etc) For 3D-HDTV productions we need 1080p/2K Bayer resolution for a final true 720p output. So a 2/3” sensor size is needed: 2048 pxs (horizontal resolution of 2K) x 0.055=11.2 mm For regular 3-D Cinema we need at least 3K Bayer resolution for a final true 2K resolution. In order to get 3K Bayer resolution without making the pixels smaller than 5.5 microns size, we obviously need to increase the sensor size: 3072 pxs (horizontal resolution of 3K) x 0.0055 ( pixel size)=16.89mm (horizontal sensor size needed) A Four Thirds sensor size will be good for that kind of resolution: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Thirds_system For IMAX 3-D we need at least 9K Bayer resolution: 9216 pxs x 0.0055mc=50.68mm A Medium Format (645) sensor is needed for that kind of resolution: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:SensorSizes.svg But with Stereo 3-D photography in order to get the deepest DOF, especially in interiors with artificial light and wide lens apertures, we strive for lower sensor sizes. What should we do then? A clever way to resolve this dilemma is to use a sensor design as the Sony F65 camera has! pro.sony.com/bbsccms/assets/files/.../F65_Camera_CameraPDF.pdf That means we can pack double the resolution in any given sensor size! For a 2/3” sensor we could pack up to 4K resolution. That resolution would gives us regular 3-D Cinema resolution (3K) plus room for crop in post when shooting parallel (why in the world we should “toe-in” the cameras or use “convergence”?) I would settle for 12.5 percent more of horizontal resolution for cropping in post, so for 3K we would need: 3072=12.5%=3456 pxs. Easily achievable in a 2/3” sensor size. For IMAX 3-D resolution I would stick to a S35mm sensor size (24mm horizontal): 24mm/0.055=4364x2 (F65 sensor design )= 8728 pxs. The Sony F65 camera has 8K resolution, even if is not 9K, it's pretty close and I would not jump to FF35mm size (36mm horizontal) just to achieve 1K more resolution. Also the prime lenses sizes for S35mm are smaller than FF35mm, and will permit us to work with side-by side camera configurations easier. But in order to do that, first we need to implement small "camera heads" a' la MVC's (Machine Vision Cameras)... How we should call the Sony F65 sensor design? Bayer+ or Bayer x2? Thanks, Cesar Rubio Wisconsin & LA. http://dna-rubio-3d.blogspot.com/ http://dnarubio3d.wordpress.com/

I don't really think that hey are either... They just want bigger sensors than the traditional small ones in camcorders, for the wonderful Bokeh they can get with such sensor sizes (especially with FF35mm sensors like the Canon 5D). And of course the price of the cams for such "upgrade" is something not to disregard! (people paid a lot of money for 35mm adapters before) I've seen guys doing video with their DSLR's at weddings, and they work more than if they were using a regular camcorder. They are always fighting with manual focusing issues, and since most of them use prime lenses on their DSLR cameras, in order to "zoom in and out" they have to walk closer to the action or step back all the time....it's crazy! I would never record video in a wedding with a DSLR, I am not that crazy yet! ;-) Cesar Rubio Wisconsin & LA. http://dna-rubio-3d.blogspot.com/ http://dnarubio3d.wordpress.com/

Most engineers in the Machine Vision Cameras (MVC's) Industry don't even know what is an OLPF! (Optical Low Pass Filter) MVC's are designed to resolve the most resolution the Bayer sensor is capable of, while regular video and digital photography cameras use an OLPF to “soften” the image a little bit (especially useful for people photography). That is nothing new, “old film” portrait photographers used “soft” lenses, and even filters for the same purpose. Most MVC's have an IR (Infra Red) Cut out filter as standard, which is useful for our purposes while recording snow scenes in 3-D (so I've heard)... Also such filter serves as a “seal” for the inside camera components (including the sensor), so while changing lenses your sensor will never get dust! Great. There are some aftermarket OLPF that are being used now mostly for DSLR's while recording video, to minimize the aliasing and moire problems. But I don't think that they are the best answer to the problem, in order to work the best (minimize aliasing and moire while retaining the most resolution) OLPF have to be implemented in top of the sensor...so all aftermarket solutions will be sub-par at best. What I do to minimize aliasing and moire with bayer sensors in MVC's, is what I learned 22 years ago when I started in professional portrait photography....I use “soft” lenses, that believe it or not serves as a “natural” OLPF! Then in post I re-size or “down-convert” the footage by a 1.5 factor, and voila most (if not all) the aliasing and moire is gone, while retaining the sharpest image possible! 1080p to 720p will give you the best image quality. (1920x1080 pxs. to 1280x720 pxs.) That's what most working with the Alexa Raw footage do as well, they start with 2880x1620 pxs. and re-size to 1920x1080 pxs in post. That 1.5 factor works great for Bayer sensor cameras. Although there are 5 MP and even 10 MP resolution lenses in the 2/3” c-mount lenses industry, usually I prefer the lenses that are rated as “Mega-Pixel” like these here: (and are cheaper as well) http://www.machinevisionstore.com/catalog/ByCategory?category=4&group=9&pageSize=10 Cesar Rubio Wisconsin & LA. http://dna-rubio-3d.blogspot.com/ http://dnarubio3d.wordpress.com/

Hi Brian: Well, the 3-D effect in some scenes was practically none...it was like a regular 2-D movie! There was also a lot of conversion from 2-D to 3-D according to the Wikipedia page of the movie. It seems that the producers did not like the big 3-D rigs for certain scenes. I am not a big fan of such movies, I just went to watch it because I read about the fillmimg in Wisconsin and Chicago, and I was curious to see them in 3-D. Cesar Rubio Wisconsin & LA. http://dna-rubio-3d.blogspot.com/ http://dnarubio3d.wordpress.com/

Wordpress “free host” service has taken down my 3-D blog...just after 5 days, without any explanation! See? There is not such thing of a “free lunch” in life... That's why you always must have your “eggs” in more than one basket! Does anyone has a server that can provide for me to host my blog please? Thanks, Cesar Rubio Wisconsin & LA. http://dna-rubio-3d.blogspot.com/

BTW, some 3-D camcorders remind me of Wall-E's head ;-) CR.

Do I like 3-D camcorders, would I use them? Yes and not for both questions. I like the way some of them look, they're cool! I probably would use them to record my little kids in 3-D, but for professional (and paid) 3-D work, I wouldn't. Why? 1-Because those 3-D camcorders have a fixed StereoBase (or Interaxial like some calls it), that limits your stereo creativity a LOT. You need to change the StereoBase constantly depending on the nearest subject/object on the frame, and when using different FL (Focal Lengths). Please see the 1/30th Stereo Rule here: http://dna-rubio-3d.blogspot.com/2011/10/stereo-3-d-rules.html 2-Although I like the use of smaller sensor sizes for a deeper DOF (Depth of Field), especially useful when using wide lens apertures like f1.4 in low light environments, a 1/4” or 1/3” sensor sizes packing 1080p resolution (or more in some cases) are plainly too small. At least a 2/3” sensor size is called for that kind of resolution. Even the Panasonic AG-3DP1 3-D camcorder that is supposedly the current “top of the line” professional camcorder has 1/3” tiny sensors. Smaller pixels mean lower light sensitivity and lens diffraction problems, see this: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-series/u-diffraction.shtml 3-Most consumer grade 3-D camcorders (read: cheap) compress the 2 side images into 960x540 pxs resolution in a side by side 1080 video format. 4-Highly compressed recording video codec. There is not such thing like “lossless” compression for video. Don't believe me? Read this guy's website for more info: (click in “Our Work”) http://www.graff.tv/ Thanks, Cesar Rubio Wisconsin & LA. http://dna-rubio-3d.blogspot.com/

There are a lot of discussions all over the web about how to perfectly synchronize 2 DSLR cameras for 3-D work... Many people are working in this difficult issue. And that is besides the most problematic issues with video in most DSLR's, that are: 1-Extreme aliasing and moire (due to line skipping read of the sensor) 2- Skew from the rolling shutter in most CMOS (there are already CMOS with Global shutters but AFAIK, none DSLR's have them yet) 3-Extreme video compression And my question is this : WHY try to reinvent the wheel??? MVC's (Machine Vision Cameras) already offer everything these people want for 3-D, and MORE: -Perfect synchronization -Uncompressed Raw recording -2/3" sensor size for a deeper DOF, especially useful in low light with wide open lens apertures like f1,4 -Side by side stereo configuration down to 30mm StereoBase. -Price, now with 2K cameras starting at $1500 US Dlls. I don't see a reason for a "shortcut"with other systems... -Small Uncompressed Raw recorders -Up to 340 fps for cool slow-mo 3-D! -Better display for focusing and preview of cameras alignment with a laptop monitor having both displays side by side on the screen. And 3-D pre visualization with stereo viewers like these: http://www.berezin.com/3d/viewers1.htm What else do you WANT or need??? The only thing is that MVC's wont make the coffee for you in the morning, sorry...;-) Here is more info on the cameras: http://dna-rubio-3d.blogspot.com/2011/10/p-margin-bottom-0_16.html http://dnarubio3d.wordpress.com/2011/10/16/basler-cameras-for-3d-hdtv-productions/ Thanks, Cesar Rubio Wisconsin & LA. http://dna-rubio-3d.blogspot.com/ http://dnarubio3d.wordpress.com/

It seems that Kodak is behind the Laser projector technology: http://www.dcinematoday.com/dc/PR.aspx?newsID=2525 Cesar Rubio Wisconsin & LA. http://dna-rubio-3d.blogspot.com/ http://dnarubio3d.wordpress.com/

Someone mentioned to me that the Alexa camera when recording 1080p (RGB) outputs less resolution than the 2.88K Raw full sensor resolution. And I know that 1080p is less resolution than 2.88K, but I thought that internally the whole sensor resolution was read and then downsampled to an 1080p output. But it seems that is not the case. I already brought this issue on the Alexa Digital forum on the Arri website, but so far no comments about this issue. Probably what the Alexa camera does is what DSLR cameras do when recording video, skipping lines of pixels to record less resolution without “windowing” the sensor... Also it seems that when recording directly RGB color with a Bayer sensor you lose light sensitivity: (the person previously mentioned says that as well of the Alexa when recording RGB): http://info.adimec.com/blogposts/bid/54091/The-Pros-and-Cons-of-Color-Processing-with-Machine-Vision-Cameras So for the time being, for 3D Cinema I will stick with the Alexa-M camera recording Uncompressed Raw 2.88K (Arriraw) at 48 or 60 fps. Then downconvert in post to a final 1080p delivery. And for 3DH-DTV productions after reviewing all the pros and cons more carefully, I think I will stick with 2K bayer resolution in a 2/3” sensor camera like the Basler camera recording Uncompressed Raw 2k at 50 or 60 fps. Then downconvert in post to a final 720p delivery. Thanks, Cesar Rubio Wisconsin & LA. http://dna-rubio-3d.blogspot.com/ http://dnarubio3d.wordpress.com/

It seems that I forgot to include the link to the download the grab, sorry (unless it was removed by a moderator here): http://www.megaupload.com/?d=A8ER12BX Thanks, CR.

Hi All: I am starting a couple of blogs to try to “recapture” my best posts on the internet about Stereo 3-D during these past 5 years. As always, I will continue to post here, but I don't want all my knowledge and experience on the matter to “go away” one day so to speak... The blogs are just in case this forum or group goes offline for any reason in the future (I hope not!). Somebody suggested me to write a book about S-3D, but I want to share my knowledge worldwide for FREE, just like Wikipedia does. If I could distribute a book for free, probably I would write it, but I can not at this point in my life. The best I can do is to share my findings on the internet. http://dna-rubio-3d.blogspot.com/ http://dnarubio3d.wordpress.com/ Please let me know if you have something important to share about S3-D that I can publish on my blogs. I will credit you personally for that. Thanks, Cesar Rubio.

According to what others are working with, can we lets say that these apply to the circumstances? (screen sizes) The 1/30th Rule of shooting is good if the final output is intended to be displayed in 3D-HDTV or 3D Home Projection? The 1/50th Rule is ok for regular Cinema 3D screens? The 1/100th Rule would be for huge IMAX 3D screens? Thanks, CR.

I didn't pay a lot of cash either, $5 bucks (including the 3-D glasses)...;-)

This whole discussion might sound like if I am an “anti” Red guy, I am not. I like the Epic Camera form factor very much. 8 years ago I fell in love with the Panasonic DVX-100 camera the first time I saw it because of the same reason, small handheld form factor. I never liked “full size” (shoulder mount cameras).They are horrible and a pain in the butt to work with. I think the DVX-100 is one of the best camera designs ever, a classic and I will never sell it nor my DVC-80 (same camera but with only interlaced recording). I also like the Red Camera Company policy of not sending to build their cameras overseas...that's what we need now here in the USA to improve the economy. 400 families have a descent life style because of the decision of one man. If more CEO's had that in mind, instead of more profits at all cost the economy wouldn't be as bad as it is now. And the whole world economy would be improved as well because Americans are expenders by nature and everybody benefits if they have jobs and money in their pockets to spend. That reminds me of the movie “300” that is of my favorite movies of all time. Jim you have awakened “Xerxes” congratulations! Now you have to do what David did against Goliath, select very careful the stones you are going to throw... This is a free “consulting” if you will, my 2 pesos. First, OPEN the UNCOMPRESSED RAW GATES! It's time, you CAN do it. I am not saying to drop the Redcode Raw compression, some people might like that for certain projects. But give them FREEDOM to choose what they want, Uncompressed or Compressed workflows. Second, The movie industry (and by default you) should move two steps forward and 1 step "backwards" from the “standard” S35mm/24fps format... For 2-D productions, (and given the fact that the Sony F65 camera is already here) bring in Epic FF 35mm 6K ASAP! Offer Uncompressed Raw 8 bit at the moment for that camera, 6K 8 bit requires the same bandwidth than 4K 12 bit. Those thousands of Canon 5D shooters aren't going back to S35 after the beautiful Bokeh or out of focus backgrounds they can get with the FF 35mm format. Drop Epic-X and offer an upgrade path for current Epic-M owners to Epic FF35. Leave the Red One-MX camera as it is with 4K resolution in the S35 sensor size (or replace it with an Epic size design but with the same specs). That's one step forward, the other is double frame rates, 48p or 60p. You already can do that so it's not a big deal. For 3-D go one step “backwards”...to the 16mm format (or 4/3” that is like 18mm wide). Offer a 3K or even better, a 3.3K camera sensor in such format to shoot parallel stereo and have spare resolution to crop in post. If people wants more resolution than that for 3-D, then a Foveon X3 sensor approach or even a traditional 3 sensor video camera design will give them that without increasing sensor size (the Sony F65 sensor approach is a clever idea too, but I would guess that they have that sensor design already patented and they wont sell it no anyone else any time soon). Thousands of people probably will hate me for this but oh well business is business, drop the 2/3” 3K Scarlet...leave it at 2K resolution to compete with the prosumer market like Ikososkop dll and Sony F3 cameras. Those at Scarletuser forum will be angry at the beginning for sure, but it will pass and they will get over it sooner or later...or move on to the next “level”. I think that is all for now. All this might sound crazy, but hardcore 3-D people like me are kind of “nuts” anyways, we have stick to an almost “impossible throw” (quote from Hector in the movie Troy-2004) with S3-D for years... Take it from a 7 year old boy who fell in love with 3-D the very moment he saw the first Viewmaster reel back in 1978. And in 2011, 33 years later he is still in love with it like the first time. Cesar Rubio.

And those numbers also show that the F65 camera does NOT output direct 8K Raw resolution like their PDF brochure suggests: -“Your choice of resolution: gloriously supersampled HD, supersampled 2K, true 4K or EVEN 8K” It's “super-sampled” 4K resolution... CR.

I am not sure if the Sony F65 offers TRUE 16 bit Raw output... According to the info here: •”60 Minutes of 16 bit Linear RAW file recording onto a 1TB SRMemory card at 24FPS” http://www.engadget.com/2011/09/07/sonys-f65-cinealta-4k-camera-now-available-for-a-paltry-65-000/ Let's do some math...I love it ;-) For 1080/24p I get a file size of 3 GB per minute with 8 bit Uncompressed Raw. For 2K/24p that would be 3.2 GB/minute. For 4K/24p would be 12.8 GB/min. For 4K/24p 16 bit that would double it at 25.6 GB/min. Now, 25.6 GB x 60 min=1536 GB or 1.5 TB. What those numbers tell me? That either the Sony F65 is outputting 12 bit Uncompressed Raw, or it's using 1.5:1 Compression for 16 bit Raw... CR.

At first sight, one thing that concerned me about the Sony F65 camera is that in order to pack 8K resolution into a S35mm format they would have to make the pixels size smaller, that would be the case if they used a typical Bayer pattern sensor. But they don't!: pro.sony.com/bbsccms/assets/files/.../F65_Camera_CameraPDF.pdf That sensor array reminds me a little bit of what the Fuji S3/S2 DSLR cameras offered in their sensors: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/s3-pro.shtml They also include a clever “rotary shutter option” on the F65, to get rid of the rolling shutter artifacts of traditional CMOS sensors (see their explanation in what those do in a 3-D beam splitter rig). The Sony F65 camera being 8K Bayer will be close to an IMAX 15/70 (65mm) frame. And for 3-D work, having a S35mm sensor size will be better than the larger sensor on the Epic 645 camera (9K). But only if they could make the Sony F65 smaller, like the Epic-M or Alexa-M cameras for 3-D work... And I couldn't see anywhere on the Sony PDF brochure if they offer Uncompressed Raw recording on the F65, does anybody knows if they do? Thanks, CR.

Somebody posted this link in another forum: http://carltonbale.com/1080p-does-matter That's why in Cinemas when you seat in the middle of the theater, even true 1080p or 2K material looks fantastic. But if you seat in the front row it will look like crap...(even 4K). CR.

And then I posted this info today: I just saw that Red plans to release a 9K camera, that would camera would give you true IMAX resolution. Epic 645 Sensor size: 56×42mm (2.2×1.7in) Resolution:9,334 × 7,000 (9K) Price (“brain” only) $43,000 US Dlls. But the problem with such large sensor is the same that always existed for IMAX 3-D films, DOF (Depth of Field) and low light shooting. This is extracted from the IMAX Bugs 3D movie website: “The complex motion-controlled camera system weighed three tons, had more lights than it normally takes to light a cathedral, and all this focused on a scene sometimes not bigger than a postage stamp. In studio this meant wearing sunglasses to film and bringing in industrial air conditioning units to keep the ambient temperature down and localized air conditioning units to keep the sets/bugs/crew cool.” http://www.giantscreenbugs.com/HTML/bugs_html.html To get the same DOF of f1.4 in a 2/3” optical format (11mm wide approximately) with a 56mm wide optical format, I would need f5.6! How many more lights would I need from f1.4 to f5.6? 4 more? WRONG. Lets say I am using 1 candle of light for f1.4, then for: f2 I would need 2 candles f2.8, 4 candles f4, 8 candles f5.6, 16 candles So from f1.4 to f5.6 I would need 15 times more power in lights! Just so you can make calculations as how much light those numbers mean, when shooting in a normal house light (“1 candle”) I would need a ISO/ASA 800 1/60th shutter speed and a f1.4 lens opening. Probably you can say, no problem I can set my ISO/ASA higher on camera....BUT, you will increase the noise levels, and noise looks horrible in 3-D! ( just like if they were "dancing" bacterias all over the frame). So the only professional choice you will have is to bring in more lights! Film is very “forgiving” with artificial lighting, but video it isn't, you have to be very careful in lights placement so the light can feel more “natural”. Also the heat and discomfort to the eyes that powerful lights brings in actors is something that you should avoid when possible, so they can work more comfortable specially in long hours days of shooting. Another important aspect would be the needed recording media speed and capacity for a dual 9K capture, especially working with Uncompressed Raw/RGB for the best Image quality, and the needed hardware in post to work with such large resolution. Such hardware doesn't exist yet in the consumer field. 9K is more than 4 times the resolution than 4K, and many people are having a hard time in post with a 4K workflow going from a reasonable priced 4K monitor/projector to the fastest consumer available workstations....and they work with Compressed Raw (Redcode Raw) and the Red Rocket. In conclusion, I am NOT against more resolution in 3-D Digital Cinema in general, and I love IMAX 3-D films. But to be honest, not all 3-D productions would need such resolutions and hassle to work with... And don't get me started on the non sense 4K and 8K resolutions for HDTV! I have a Sony SD TV (720x480 pxs) and people think that is a “HDTV”...also I have a Samsung 720p HDTV at home and everything looks good. I watch Bluray Discs with a 720p projector and I use a more than 100 inches screen size and everything looks superb. What we need for home HD viewing is not more resolution, but LESS compression! HDTV transmission bandwidth at the moment can not do more than 720p (or 1080i) and for 3-D we need double that bandwidth. I don't think that anytime soon TV Broadcasters will invest billions and billions of dollars in infrastructure worldwide so they can start transmissions at 4K, not even at 1080p that requires double the bandwidth than 720p. 4K is more than 8 times 720p! And all that just because TV manufactures now can do 4K TV panels more affordable... TV manufactures are going the way still digital cameras went at the beginning, more and more resolution to be “ahead” of the competition... Now still digital camera manufacturers have reached a wall, especially in those tiny sensors packing millions of extremely diminutive pixels in point and shoot consumer cameras. I can get better pictures with a DSLR camera with 6 MP (Mega Pixels) than with a 14 MP consumer camera, that proves that “more” is not always better. Why? Because the pixels are larger in DSLR's and offer better low light performance, dynamic range, color reproduction and yes better visual resolution! CR.

I just want to add these interesting additional info, In another 3-D forum I was discussing IMAX resolution with a member who said that he thinks that IMAX resolution would be true 12K Digital resolution. And I said this to him: “I don't know if an IMAX 65mm frame really has a true 12k resolution. It depends in what settings you scan it. In my own experience scanning 35mm full frame film (not S35), I would rate it at around 3K resolution. You can scan it at higher resolutions if you want to, but its pointless, the visual resolution won't go higher than that. And actually in my comparisons making large prints from my Nikon D70 camera (3k resolution) it beats anything shot with FF 35mm film. I have made 30x40 inches enlargements with the 6MP file and the results are actually comparable to the prints I get with a Mamiya RB67 film frame! I would personally rate an IMAX 15/70 frame at around true 6K resolution (9K bayer resolution). Some people who have seen Epic 5K footage projected on a big screen say that it is comparable to a 65mm film... “

Does 3-D works for sports coverage? Yes if only wide angle shots were used, but since it's impractical to cover a whole event like that and close-up shots are a must, then in my opinion it doesn't. Why do I say that, because 3-D to work correctly is governed by the Stereo Base 1/30 Rule. You can find out more about that here: http://www.cinematography.com/index.php?showtopic=53425 Telephoto lenses for 3-D work have these drawbacks: 1-You have to use a large Stereo Base (or Inter Axial) to have a proper 3-D effect, and that is based on the 1/30 Rule. Example, when shooting a person lets say 35 mts. away from the camera (based on a soccer game and the camera placed just outside of the field in a 64 meters X 100 meters FIFA specifications game). Then the cameras Stereo Base would need to be 1.16 mts. (35/30). 2-When zooming in and out, the Stereo Base must be adjusted accordingly. Yo would need a different Stereo Base for a person 5 mts. or 35 mts. away from your camera. 3-Working with such large Stereo Bases causes a Hyper Stereo effect, and people and objects look like miniatures. 4-Telephoto lenses flatten the images or compact the background with the foreground, in 3-D that looks terrible and the 3-D effect is lost. 5-Working with telephoto lenses people and objects appear to be a “Cardboard Cut Out” effect in 3-D. Recently James Cameron and Vince Pace said (at IBC 2011) that with their 3-D technology, only a regular 2-D camera operator would be needed for 2-D and 3-D (the 3-D cameras are on top of the 2-D camera) and he (or she) didn't have to worry about the 3-D part since their 3-D system would take care of that automatically. My question is, such 3-D system would comply with point #1 and #2 that I already mentioned? Also Panasonic was granted the rights to shoot 3-D at the Olympic Games of 2012, as far as I know they only have 3-D cameras with fixed lenses, how are they going to do it right? Are they aware of those 3-D limitations for sports coverage? I think they are. But it is perhaps the urge to “cash out” the current 3-D craze blinding them? People aren't stupid, and sooner or later they will learn to differentiate a good 3-D than a crappy one... I hope that such “pioneers of digital 3-D” don't mess up 3-D again just for greed (it would be the third time in history). Cesar Rubio.

Now that I think it better, it was the summer of 2005 when I took my first 3-D pictures there in Milwaukee. My wife was my model and she was pregnant with David our first son who was born on February of 06. She was holding those cardboard signs indicating different stereo bases, distances of her vs the camera, lens apertures and even flash settings. It was tiresome for her, but I always like to test everything! In the summer of 2006 is when I went to see my second 3-D movie, Monster House, I had to go all the way to Chicago too see it in 3-D. My first 3-D movie was Jaws 3-D in 1983. That was in LA. CR.

I just came back from watching the last Transformer movie in 3-D. I wont comment on the 3-D technical aspects of the movie, only in what I liked...and it was seeing the Milwaukee art museum in 3-D! I remember taking my first 3-D pictures there on the summer of 2006. I used 2 Nikon FM2 cameras side by side and the stereo slides came out very beautiful! I also did my first Quinceanera shots in 3-D there as well. Its the first time that I see that museum in a movie. I also liked to see Chicago in 3-D. For some reason most movies when filming Chicago don't show the Willis tower (Sears tower before) I think because they charge for it. And in this movie you can see it...in 3-D! Great. CR.

I just want to add that for a final Digital Cinema delivery I prefer the Cineform HD codec, it preserves the best image quality of Uncompressed RGB that I ever seen with any video codec. And its' faster to encode than jpeg-2000, and you can do it in any modern fast speed computer. jpeg-2000 is super slow and requires especial and expensive hardware to encode in a way that doesn't drive you crazy or have your computer running for days encoding.... I think in India Cineform HD is the standard for Digital Cinema delivery, and I wish other countries would follow that too. CR.