James Neihouse

I've just recently seen this done as well, it works really great, in fact it's the best I've seen and I've tried this with all of the above mentioned techniques. Good luck, JN

Shoot it on the Canon 5D with a fast prime lens, you'll get the most out of your small lighting package and the limited depth of field on that camera will help hide other problems you may encounter.

Don't really know why you would be including specific camera types in this, maybe include them in the depth of field discussion for the sensor size. If you haven't seen "Citizen Kane", go now, rent it, watch it, see a film print on the big screen if at all possible. It's probably the best "3d" movie ever shot in 2D. Motion parallax is one of the most telling of the 2D depth cues, seeing the relationship of objects change as the camera moves is very powerful. Occlusions and interposition, one object in front of another is another 2D depth cue. Motion, the apparent speed of an object at a distance seems slower than the same object at the same speed when it's close at hand. Geometric perspective is one you're missing as well as texture gradient, and relative size. I'm assuming by the term Ambient Smoke you are meaning aerial perspective, the haziness you see at a great distance. Hope this helps, be glad to try to clarify anything for you. Feel free to get in touch if you want. neihouse@1570films.com www.1570films.com Cheers and good luck, JN

the issue is getting two filters that match, if you are putting a separate filter on each camera. I can't imagine doing that with anything other than neutral density or correction filters. I have always hated putting anything between the back of the lens and the image plane. For the IMAX 3D dual strip camera we had custom built 14"x14" filters made, along with a really big matte box. That way we can use ND grads, with a single filter for both lenses. I would think putting any sort of diffusion on the lenses for 3D would be very counter productive.

Projecting films that were shot for a flat screen on to a dome screen tends to produce some very interesting effects. I remember watching some rushes from the Michael Jordan film on a dome screen. Some of the shots were almost laughable, one in particular was a head to toe shot of MJ shoot a basket. He was center frame the goat was on the left side of frame. It looked as though the goal was less than a quarter his height and about 100' away. The dome likes to have things centered, and low in frame. When you start getting toward the edges the distortion starts really kicking in, and anything at the top of the frame is way above the audiences' heads, almost impossible to see. Tilt up reveals are almost impossible to pull off since your subject is coming in the top of the frame. If you project with a longer lens on the center of the dome you are throwing away a large part of the screen and you may as well see it on a smaller flat screen. Films shot for the dome look great on the doomed screens, but it's tough to get something shot for "flat" screen to look good on a dome unless you really know what you're doing. We used to double shoot on shots that we knew would be troublesome for the dome, we have also done some shrinks to bring things into the center a little more when there was no other alternative. The 35mm blow ups are a totally different animal all together. None of them are shot with a big screen in mind, much less a giant dome screen. None of them use the full flat screen just because they would have to throw out the sides of the image due to aspect ratio issues. Hope this answers your questions, sorry for not getting back on this quicker. James Neihouse

A very bad idea indeed! If these shorts were made for the TV market there will be some big issues when projected on a large screen. Unless the material has been re-converged for the larger screen there is going to be some major problems especially for the poor souls in the front row! This is why Cameron made about 15 versions of Avitar, for different screen sizes.

The question should not be what rigs are out there, it should be which ones are worth working with. Buyer, or renter beware! Lot's of "snake oil" out there these days!

Zoom lenses add too many variables to the already complicated 3D equation. Any miss-match between the lenses focal lengths causes undue eyestrain in the viewer. For the best 3D, everything should match! The primary reason for using zoom lenses on beam-splitter rigs is the reduction in lens change over time. Some of the beam-splitter rigs I have worked with take quite a long time to change lenses, so zooms are the easy answer. When choosing a rig always take into consideration the time required to switch lenses. Most serious stereographers will tell you that you should never zoom in a shot, because zoom lenses do not track perfectly. One lens may deviate left and up while the other is deviating right and down. This is due to the complexity of the lens mechanical system that is need to move the optics facilitating the zoom. Most all of the optical mismatch problems can be fixed in post, if you have the time and budget, but what if you're going out live? James Neihouse Director of Photography IMAX Hubble 3D

IMAX 15 perf. 65mm is only over kill if you are projecting on a conventional sized movie screen, you know the small 40' - 50' wide ones. You are actually throwing away a large part of the image as well if you are not projecting in 1.34:1, for 2.35 you are better off shooting 5 perf 65mm, which is what I believe they did for Shutter Island. For your reference a true IMAX sized frame is approximately 12K (11,734 x 8,772) James Neihouse Director of Photography IMAX HUBBLE 3D

Pieter, Have a look at the Phantom 65 with their cinemags. They will give you 4K with on-board recording of their raw data. They can be synced together. Put them on a rig and you have a (relatively) small, self-contained system, with good adjustment capabilities. Good luck, James Neihouse Director of Photography HUBBLE 3D

Thanks, David! The film opens on March 19th in LA at the California Science Center. James Neihouse Director of Photography - HUBBLE 3D

I saw a demo of the Swiss Rig last week, looked pretty simple to setup/use. http://www.swissrig.com/. James Neihouse Director of Photography IMAX Hubble 3D

I would think it would be easy with a couple of wireless systems (Prestons?) with two receivers on a single frequency and one transmitter. Both receivers receive the same info via the wireless. The issue is matching the lenses, so they are in focus at the same place. This would be a mechanical issue with the focus mechanisms (helicals) traveling the same distances in order to get both lenses to the same distance. James Neihouse Director of Photography IMAX Hubble 3D