3D cinematography

[Miguel Bunster]

Hi i am researching something i just only read about here and there but i am looking in different cameras (or setups) for 3d films (not 3d animation). Of course there is the high end james cameron HD setup but i am interested in looking in to lower end ways. Any hellp would be great.

Thanks.

[Terry Mester]

If you're enquiring about Film 3-D methods, there were only three used. The original version from the 1950s used two Cameras and required two Projectors that needed to be kept synchronized. In the 1960s "Space-Vision 3D" used one Camera and two Lenses to combine left and right Frames onto one Filmstrip through a Prism. The L&R Frames were on top of each other on the Filmstrip. In 1970 "Stereovision" put the L&R Frames side by side on the Filmstrip using Anamorphic Lenses. You can find more on the 'American Widescreen Museum' Website and on Wikipedia.

[Leo Anthony Vale]

Hi i am researching something i just only read about here and there but i am looking in different cameras (or setups) for 3d films (not 3d animation). Of course there is the high end james cameron HD setup but i am interested in looking in to lower end ways. Any hellp would be great.

Thanks.

 

Lipton's book mentions a number of systems. It has a big bibliography with patents listed in it.

 

http://www.stereoscopic.org/library/

 

 

The famous Russian Stereo 70 system:

 

http://stereokino.ru/

 

D.Symmes and the various systems he's used:

 

http://www.3dcompany.com/contents.html

[K Borowski]

Howabout this digital version Cameron and Lucas (and now Disney?) have been plugging so heavily lately? Does anyone know what that is all about?

 

~Karl

[Elhanan Matos]

The system that was developed for Cameron, is the Advantage camera made by Vince Pace in Burbank, CA. It's a fantastic system that lets you adjust the convergence of the lenses just as you would focus, this is what gets rid of that headache you get after watching a 3d movie for more than 5 minutes. If you are absolutely serious about shooting a 3d movie I believe that is the only system to look at. The system is made up of two heavily modified F950 T-adapters side by side. You can get it by calling Pace technologies at 818 759 7322.

[chuck colburn]

See also,

 

http://www.paradisefx.com/pages/services/compact3d.html

 

http://www.hineslab.com/

[Terry Mester]

The system that was developed for Cameron, is the Advantage camera made by Vince Pace in Burbank, CA. It's a fantastic system that lets you adjust the convergence of the lenses just as you would focus, this is what gets rid of that headache you get after watching a 3d movie for more than 5 minutes.

Is there any reason this computer-controlled system of Lens control could not be incorporated into a modern version of the 'Space-Vision 3D' Cameras? I assume that these Digital 3D Cameras are at the 2 Million Pixel linear resolution which is considerably lower than the natural optical resolution of a 21.95 x 16mm Film Frame. It's too bad that Panavision doesn't opt to develop a modern Space-Vision 3D Camera given that the Patents are long expired. They would make a lot more money on that setup than on investing in very expensive Digital Cameras whose technology goes out-of-date very quickly.

[Leo Anthony Vale]

Is there any reason this computer-controlled system of Lens control could not be incorporated into a modern version of the 'Space-Vision 3D' Cameras? I assume that these Digital 3D Cameras are at the 2 Million Pixel linear resolution which is considerably lower than the natural optical resolution of a 21.95 x 16mm Film Frame. It's too bad that Panavision doesn't opt to develop a modern Space-Vision 3D Camera given that the Patents are long expired. They would make a lot more money on that setup than on investing in very expensive Digital Cameras whose technology goes out-of-date very quickly.

 

While the Imax 3-D system does't use converge because the size of the screens make it okay to have most of the images come off the screen, most systems going back to at least the 30s have a convergence adjustment.

 

Panavision did handle the Optimax over/under system in the 80s.

There aren't that many 3-D movies made. In the West, they come in spurts or are in theme park theatres. Beginning in the 40s, the Soviets had specialized stereo theatres akin to Cinerama theatres so there was an on going, albeit small, venue for 3-D movies. So they were able to develop stereo systems, culminating in the Stereo 70 system. Two Super35 frames on a 70mm film.

 

Here's a quote from an old movie blog:

 

"Once, when I was speaking with Dan Symmes, he had something very profound to say that I tend to agree with. According to him, 3-D is something that should be taken in small doses by the masses, but not for the reasons most critics would have us believe. Symmes made an analogy to me that still holds true today: 3-D is like the circus-- it is something special when it comes to town once a year, but if it was here all year around, it would become commonplace and dull. Part of the magic of 3-D is that it's a special occurrence, and that you savor it when you get that rare opportunity to experience it."

 

http://centraltheater.blogspot.com/

 

Panavision is going to make more money on frequently used digital cameras than on a rarely used 3-D system.

 

Incidently, Bernier probably plagurized his spaceVision system from the Hungarian director/ cinematographer Felix Bodrossy's Plaztikus system.

[Mitch Gross]

I can't recall the name ofit at the moment, but there's a guy in NYC who developed a 3D camera rig using DVX100 cameras with the Andromeda upgrade to make them HD 4:4:4. Do a Google s e arc hand you should find it. I've seen some footage and it's very impressive. Certainly theonly 3Drig thatcan go on a Steadicam.

 

I know that Silicon Imaging has already been talking to clients about a 3D rig s in cethe Miniversion of the camera has aninteroccular limited only bythe size of the lenses themselves.

[Terry Mester]

Panavision did handle the Optimax over/under system in the 80s.

There aren't that many 3-D movies made. In the West, they come in spurts or are in theme park theatres. Beginning in the 40s, the Soviets had specialized stereo theatres akin to Cinerama theatres so there was an on going, albeit small, venue for 3-D movies. So they were able to develop stereo systems, culminating in the Stereo 70 system. Two Super35 frames on a 70mm film.

Leo, was there any difference between this Optimax system and the Space-Vision 3D? I'm completely astonished that Dimension 3 Lenses (single camera) can be fit into some existing Cameras. Do I assume correctly that this Arri Camera has 6 or 8 Perforation advance? Do you know if this Dimension 3 system can be run in Regular Projectors with a special Lens? The Stereo-70 Russian system is interesting, but I'm always skeptical about former communist technology. Given the problems of eyestrain, it's a good thing that 3D Movies can still be released in 2D. I can't recall if I suffered eyestrain with Jaws 3D.

[Leo Anthony Vale]

Leo, was there any difference between this Optimax system and the Space-Vision 3D? I'm completely astonished that Dimension 3 Lenses (single camera) can be fit into some existing Cameras. Do I assume correctly that this Arri Camera has 6 or 8 Perforation advance? Do you know if this Dimension 3 system can be run in Regular Projectors with a special Lens? The Stereo-70 Russian system is interesting, but I'm always skeptical about former communist technology. Given the problems of eyestrain, it's a good thing that 3D Movies can still be released in 2D. I can't recall if I suffered eyestrain with Jaws 3D.

 

The major difference between the over/under widescreen 3-D systems is the vertical distance between the centers of the frames.

The usual double prism projector attachments can be adjusted for the various systems.

Dimension # and over/under Stereovision are intercutable.

'Jaws 3-D' mostly used Arrivision, but had some Stereovision 2nd unit footage. That had to be optically printed to adjust the vertical spacing to match Arrivision.

If the Arri camera you're referring is for the Arrivision system, it's 4 perf.

 

Spacevision uses two periscopic prisms and two 32mm lenses ( the Lipton book has a patent diagram of it and claims it's a complex design which is crap), while Optimax uses a relay system which has a pair of ArriZeiss standard speed lens at the front of the device which are relayed back to the camera lens.

The lens are cockeyed, one highr than the other. So vertical parralax is also introduced.

'The Man wasn't there' 1983 used it. A very bad movie. Stereo was okay. Stedicam shots were good. But it was soft.

 

The 50s Soviet system used an 8 perf over/under system with the same optical design as Bernier's Spacevision. I think both were copies of Bodrossy's Plasztikus.

[Terry Mester]

If the Arri camera you're referring is for the Arrivision system, it's 4 perf.

Does this Arrivision Camera advance 8 Perforations (to accommodate both Frames)? Dimension 3 states that their 3D Lens fits one of the Arriflex Cameras. I'm assuming the 'height' of each Frame (L&R) is either 3 or 4 Perforations which would mean that the Film must advance 6 or 8 Perfs.

[K Borowski]

To me (except where its suited of course, ride movies for theme parks, cartoons, etc) 3D was, and will continue to be a GIMMICK ;-)

[Leo Anthony Vale]

Does this Arrivision Camera advance 8 Perforations (to accommodate both Frames)? Dimension 3 states that their 3D Lens fits one of the Arriflex Cameras. I'm assuming the 'height' of each Frame (L&R) is either 3 or 4 Perforations which would mean that the Film must advance 6 or 8 Perfs.

 

No. only the pre Stereo70 Soviet camera from the 50s had an 8 perf pulldown. All of the others have 4 perf pulldowns. The over/under systems are often referred to as using Techniscope frames, but they're actually smaller because they need wider frame lines. They use standard projectors in theaters.

 

Down load the Lipton book. It shows the various formats.

[Matt Goldberg]

Is there any footage, additional information, etc. available pertaining to Pace and Cameron's 3D camera for "Avatar"? Sounds like an exciting concept-- two attached 950s.

 

Thanks in advance,

 

-Matt

[Terry Mester]

To me (except where its suited of course, ride movies for theme parks, cartoons, etc) 3D was, and will continue to be a GIMMICK ;-)

Believe me Karl, if you ever had an opportunity to see Jaws 3 in 3D, you'd become a 3D believer too. It will be 24 years ago this summer, and I have never forgotten the experience. When Jaws came crashing through the window at the end, it literally came into your face, and felt like it was going to bite your head off! Everyone in the Theatre jerked their head backwards to save themselves. It was hilarious. There were other Scenes throughout the Movie -- such as a frog jumping -- which came into your face, and forced you to move your head back. I tell you, it's a fantastic experience.

No. only the pre Stereo70 Soviet camera from the 50s had an 8 perf pulldown. All of the others have 4 perf pulldowns. The over/under systems are often referred to as using Techniscope frames, but they're actually smaller because they need wider frame lines. They use standard projectors in theaters.

I'm flabbergasted that the over/under setup only used a 2 Perforation Frame height. I thought they had used a special Camera that could provide 6 Perf pulldown. I became a complete believer in 3D as soon as I seen 'Jaws 3D', but I would never even countenance filming a Movie with only a 2 Perf Frame. It would be good if a 65mm 3D Camera with 10 or 12 Perforation pulldown could be produced. If a Movie is worth filming in 3D, then it deserves better than 35mm.

[Elhanan Matos]

To me (except where its suited of course, ride movies for theme parks, cartoons, etc) 3D was, and will continue to be a GIMMICK ;-)

 

 

Thats what I thought until I saw the Superbowl 3d trailer a few years ago at an imax, I dont know if it was ever released to the public, but it was amazing, it was a completely different experience, definitely not a gimmick. Also from what I heard they shot the NBA all star game in 3d this year.

[K Borowski]

Believe me Karl, if you ever had an opportunity to see Jaws 3 in 3D, you'd become a 3D believer too. It will be 24 years ago this summer, and I have never forgotten the experience. When Jaws came crashing through the window at the end, it literally came into your face, and felt like it was going to bite your head off! Everyone in the Theatre jerked their head backwards to save themselves.

 

Well, as Marty says in "Back to the Future II": "That shark STILL looks fake!" ;-) I think the exagerated perspective used in 3D movies (cameras are further apart than the average set of human eyes is, often twice as far apart) makes it gimmicky. If cameras were the proper distance apart, so it doesn't apear that everything moving towards the camera is going to hit the viewer in the face, then I wouldn't mind as much. I'd say that there are also some shots where 3D is hard if not impossible to do regardless of what medium you are using to capture the visual information.

 

Thats what I thought until I saw the Superbowl 3d trailer a few years ago at an imax, I dont know if it was ever released to the public, but it was amazing, it was a completely different experience, definitely not a gimmick. Also from what I heard they shot the NBA all star game in 3d this year.

 

Elhanan: do you know if the Superbowl commercial was done by NFL films? They still shoot everything on 16mm, with zooms I believe. I'd be curious as to how that commercial for the Superbowl would have been shot.

 

Regards,

 

~KB

[Leo Anthony Vale]

Well, as Marty says in "Back to the Future II": "That shark STILL looks fake!" ;-) I think the exagerated perspective used in 3D movies (cameras are further apart than the average set of human eyes is, often twice as far apart) makes it gimmicky. If cameras were the proper distance apart, so it doesn't apear that everything moving towards the camera is going to hit the viewer in the face, then I wouldn't mind as much. I'd say that there are also some shots where 3D is hard if not impossible to do regardless of what medium you are using to capture the visual information.

 

The Stereo 70 system has a 26mm interaxial on the camera.

 

The convergenge contols determine what comes out of the screen.

[Will Earl]

Is there any footage, additional information, etc. available pertaining to Pace and Cameron's 3D camera for "Avatar"? Sounds like an exciting concept-- two attached 950s.

 

Sorry no footage, but an interesting clip about the new 3D cinema.

 

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2...meron&hl=en

 

From what I've seen in the last couple of years, stereo cinematography and stereo projection has improved.

[Leo Anthony Vale]

The Stereo 70 system has a 26mm interaxial on the camera.

 

The convergenge contols determine what comes out of the screen.

 

I did't have time to mention that there are two camera stereo rigs where the camera is shooting into a beamsplitting mirror. The inter-axial can be brought down to 0.0mm or inches if you prefer.

 

This set up was used on 'Space Hunter' and the miniatures on 'Jaws 3-D'.

But it's a bulky and heavy set up.

'Space Hunter' used Panaflexes, a few 50s shows used 3-strip Technicolor cameras on such a rig.

 

cameras with over/under lenses are the most convenient, because of the prisms/mirrors in the optical system you're lucky if you can get a 2.5" inter-axial, let alone a closer one.

[Leo Anthony Vale]

Sorry no footage, but an interesting clip about the new 3D cinema.

 

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2...meron&hl=en

 

From what I've seen in the last couple of years, stereo cinematography and stereo projection has improved.

 

LIES! LIES! LIES!

 

Out right lies.

 

Here's another piece that perpetrates the same damn lies:

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070408/ap_en_mo/3_d_movies

 

Polaroid glasses have been used since the 30s.

The Pete Smith/MGM shorts used anaglyph (red&blue glasses), some world's fair shorts and german features from the late 30s used polaroid glasses.

The 50s 3-D movies were polaroid. It was the comic books that were anaglyph.

 

The same with the 70s, 80s and Imax 3-d movies.

 

As to the new features on the Cameron cameras, they were on all the practical stereo systems.

Though Imax doesn't use much in the way of convergence, allowing most of the scene to come off screen.

 

As I pointed out in earlier posts there are systems that allow interaxials that are closer than Cameron's.

 

The use of HDTV and zooms seem to be the big advance.

 

So why lie about previous systems?

 

What next? Previous systems used yellow cake uranium?

[Andrew Gage]

Hi guys... newbie here, with a special interest in 3-D filming.

 

OK... from what I understand, many of the films made in the 50's that were originally released in polarized versions were later reformatted to anaglyph so they could be shown without dual projectors or silver screens. Creature From The Black Lagoon is one example. Or, they were released as 2-D films, such as Dial M for Murder. This, according to what I've seen and read out there.

 

Also, a technical term: when the lenses/cameras are moved further apart than the human eyes to enhance the stereo view it's called Hyperstereo

 

Now... to my question. I'm curious about the convergence thing. Since the eyes tend to focus toward the center the closer an object is to the face, I would assume that good 3-D filming would require the cameras to do the same thing. Is that how they are set up (does anyone know)?

 

I'm also curious about frame synchronization in a 2 camera set up, and if that's as much of a concern when using video cameras as it would be in film cameras.

 

I'm looking at setting up a jig to mount a pair of digicams to play around with 3-D. Anyone have any experience?

 

Thanks :-)

Drew

[Andrew Gage]

Also, I have to agree with Leo. The examples of theatrical 3-D I have seen in recent years (not including IMAX) have left me rather disappointed. I'm sure the studios are trying hard to breathe a little new life into the medium, but the 2-camera polarized material is still really heads above the CG 3-D, which has been anaglyph. The red/blue technique destroys the colors, and half the time I can't even tell what I'm looking at or where in the 3-D plane the subjects are supposed to be.

 

CG is fine for creating 2-D special effects, but from what I've seen so far there's an awful lot of room for improvement on the 3-D score. I would think it would be more economical to run the 2 camera system rather than pay animators to create dimension out of thin air.

[Nick Mulder]

Made a 3D film a couple of days back ...

 

Two bolexes about 2' apart shooting B+W, converging on a point about 20' away ... Keep them in sync by simply shooting timelapse, it was a dolly we trucked about inner city in the middle of the night, each exposure about a second long ... Transfered it via the ultra spec process we call 'wall-e-cine' and have been playing around with the two streams in FCP trying to get them together as a happy anaglyph ...

 

Made the glasses out of a bit of red gel (26) and peacock I think its was called (116 or 115) - either that or just do the magic eye or cross eye trick with the images next to each other (a bit of training involved)

 

Mostly works, some pretty impressive bits as we tracked down long streets and looked up at buildings, suspect we need to keep the cameras closer in future (like a human head) as the close up stuff was just too hard for our eyes to converge ...

 

Would be SUPER easy with a couple of DV cams.