35mm sensors, lenses will soon be useless, Red Two?

[Cesar Rubio]

Good. But DOF is not the main reason. You could get everything in focus with a master prime 14mm and for example the red one, with enough light. I feel the stereobase is the issue here.

 

Now you brought up another issue, I found this on your site:

Some professional (more expensive) sensors like the ones used on the SI-2K camera (AltaSens sensor) and the

Red Camera (Mysterium sensor), being CMOS sensors, suffer from this problem also! Although they manage

to "correct" the problem that rolling shutters have by shooting at twice the speed and dropping every other frame

Not matter what they say and do, I prefer a global shutter instead!

 

That is interesting. Someone comparing red and f23 pointed this out as well. Not many are putting these cameras to the extreme yet. Since stereo should be shot and presented at >=60fps, maybe those cmos artifacts will start to be a real issue. If you are right this would exclude cmos cameras as well.

 

35mm lenses and cmos sensors = useless. Drastic but perhaps very true if we want optimal stereoscopic cinema.

 

Thanks

Joakim Sandstrom

 

Joakin:

 

With enough light you can close your lens more, hense you would get a better DOF.

 

The problem is when working in low light environments.

 

I don't know if you've seen the video with sound that I shoot inside my house with the Pike F-210c camera. I use normal light, nothing of special "cinema lighting" was used.

 

I used a 25mm Fujinon f1.4 lens opened at f2...did you notice how everything is in focus?

 

That is due to the size of the sensor and lens used to cover this view.

 

 

Yes all CMOS sensors have "Rolling Shutters" that expose the sensor in a rolling mode. You can visualize that as how a 35mm film camera exposes a frame. The shutter curtain (or blades) travel up/down or left/right to permit the light to reach the film.

 

 

CCD's in the other hand, use "Global Shutters" that expose the sensor completely at once! Every single pixel is exposed at the same fraction of a second.

 

That can be compared perhaps to a Rangefinder camera (like Leica) or a field camera (4x5, 5x7 etc) that exposes the film at the opening of the lens diaphragm, and even that is not as exact as a electronic Global Shutter!

 

I don't know exactly how the Nikon D3 CMOS sensor and the Red camera one manage to overcome the shortcomings of rolling shutters at all.

 

I received a poster of a motorcycle in a race taken with the D3 (its advertising material). I did not see rolling shutters "artifacts" in the picture.

 

Probably they have a new technology that we are not fully aware of yet. In any case I wouldn't say that they are in the road of extinction.

 

The only problem that I see with big sensors is that in order to pack more pixels (in 4K, four times more than 2k) and preserve the same PIXEL

size for good light sensitivity and dynamic range, they have to make the sensor 4 times bigger!

 

Some manufacturers have packed HD 1080 in 1/3 sensors!

 

My DVX-100 is a SD camera, it uses 3 CCD 1/3 sensors. If I wanted to get the same light performance in HD, the sensor would have to be 2/3 for 720p and 1" for 1080p.

 

Guess what? The Pike F-210c is a 1080p camera and has 1" sensor! Problem solved.

 

Cesar Rubio.

Cambridge Wisconsin, USA.

http://www.davidrubio3d.com/

[Joakim Sandstrom]

The only problem that I see with big sensors is that in order to pack more pixels (in 4K, four times more than 2k) and preserve the same PIXEL size for good light sensitivity and dynamic range, they have to make the sensor 4 times bigger!

 

Some manufacturers have packed HD 1080 in 1/3 sensors!

 

NHK has this 8K camera, using some type of quad 4K cmos setup

Optical format approx. 1.25 inch

7680 x 4320 pixels

60 frames per sec. progressive scanning

 

http://www.nhk.or.jp/digital/en/technical/pdf/02_3.PDF

 

Some zeiss glass on that then we are talking.

 

I guess that must mean they got 4K on a ~ 2/3 inch cmos

[John Sprung]

When sound was introduced, many resisted the change, then color was invented....they did the same....then digital....now with the current digital cinema 3-D many resist the inevitable change as well.

Sound was a very quick revolution, silent production was dead in a couple years. It wasn't really resisted so much as that there were some major silent stars whose voices killed their careers.

 

Color didn't come after sound. It had a much longer period of research and development. It started in the teens with hand painting certain scenes, and printing on tinted stocks. Then in the early 20's, there were two color processes using bipack negatives, and prints with emulsion on both sides. They didn't work particularly well, because with only two primaries you can only represent a line rather than a triangular area on the 1931 CIE chromaticity chart. Three strip Technicolor in the 1930's finally brought good looking color to the screen, and multi-layer film in the 1940's made it much more practical to use. By the 1950's, most of the market was color, but B&W was and still is used for creative reasons on some films.

 

3D research began about the same time as color, but has never had much success beyond the special venue market. Instead of a continuous ramp up as happened with color, 3D has been an off and on thing. It seems to come back every 20 years or so.

 

Other senses, smell and touch, have had even less attention. Smell was tried briefly in the 1950's, and Disney has those funny little things that poke you in the tush rigged in the seats at their 3D bug movie.

 

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[Leo Anthony Vale]

When that becomes available, 3D projection to an audience will be as obsolete as an 1890's stereopticon.

 

A stereopticon is a "magic lantern", a slide projector with two lens for disolving between the two glass plates.

 

You would be refering to a stereoscope.

 

---El Pedante

[Joakim Sandstrom]

3D research began about the same time as color, but has never had much success beyond the special venue market. Instead of a continuous ramp up as happened with color, 3D has been an off and on thing. It seems to come back every 20 years or so.

 

The reason stereoscopic films could work this time, in terms of technology, is that it can be done without any flaws. The move from film/artifacts to digital/exactness. Razor sharp, digital capture and projection, zero noise, zero grain, infinite focus, lenses with zero distortion. 60fps or higher playback rate (per eye). Humans can detect ~72 fps. All this is just getting possible today. 20 years ago it was silly to even try all this. The quality of the lenses was enough for it to fail. For example Imax 3D is the exact opposite to all this, it is doing everything wrong.

[Leo Anthony Vale]

The reason stereoscopic films could work this time, in terms of technology, is that it can be done without any flaws. The move from film/artifacts to digital/exactness. Razor sharp, digital capture and projection, zero noise, zero grain, infinite focus, lenses with zero distortion. 60fps or higher playback rate (per eye). Humans can detect ~72 fps. All this is just getting possible today. 20 years ago it was silly to even try all this. The quality of the lenses was enough for it to fail. For example Imax 3D is the exact opposite to all this, it is doing everything wrong.

 

What about those damn glasses?

How do you put them over a pair of prescription glasses?

[Max Jacoby]

Anyone notice how this is another one of those threads where a guy joins the forum and immediately states something incredibly provacative and only semi-coherent, and invariably links it to RED?

Yep.

 

Most people who tried to predict the future ended up looking pretty silly because they eventually turned out to be way off base.

[Cesar Rubio]

3D research began about the same time as color, but has never had much success beyond the special venue market. Instead of a continuous ramp up as happened with color, 3D has been an off and on thing. It seems to come back every 20 years or so.

 

Other senses, smell and touch, have had even less attention. Smell was tried briefly in the 1950's, and Disney has those funny little things that poke you in the tush rigged in the seats at their 3D bug movie.

 

-- J.S.

 

John:

 

3-D has failed in the past for the technical difficulties of recording and projecting 2 strips of film at the same time.

 

Now the mechanical aspect of recording and projecting stereoscopic movies has been left for the history books.

 

With Digital recording and projection, 3-D is a NEW game. A Better and although we are far away from perfect, is visually stable...no more headaches or anaglyph (blue/cyan) lenses.

 

Now the future of 3-D will depend in good 3-D producers who know the craft and will not settle for sub-standard results.

 

Thanks,

Cesar Rubio.

[A. Whitehouse]

Now the future of 3-D will depend in good 3-D producers who know the craft and will not settle for sub-standard results.

 

Great, Anyone seen any good 3d films lately? Ive seen a couple and I didn't think it added to the film or was anymore enjoyable at all. I guess for some people 70mm projection seems a bit last century, despite looking fantastic. Just because the 3d images will be easier to achieve doesn't mean it will be anymore engaging.

[Cesar Rubio]

Great, Anyone seen any good 3d films lately? Ive seen a couple and I didn't think it added to the film or was anymore enjoyable at all. I guess for some people 70mm projection seems a bit last century, despite looking fantastic. Just because the 3d images will be easier to achieve doesn't mean it will be anymore engaging.

 

I cannot believe what I am reading! And I won't engage in time wasting discussion with negative people that have a policy of fighting just because the sake of it.

 

Whitehouse please answer this question to yourself:

 

Do you see FLAT images, or do you have a 3-D vision?

 

If you have the first, then ok keep with that technology, but if you have the second....oh well...you know the answer right?

 

CR.

[Jason Debus]

Hi Cesar,

 

I'm curious as to what your thoughts are on a Smell-O-Vision revival (or moving seats for that matter).

 

I think of 3D movies more like a cross between a film and a theme park ride. It will take a large number of non-gimmicky, high quality 3d films to change the current paradigm, it's not just a matter of perfecting the technology. Just look at movies like Beowulf and Polar Express.

 

I lived through the 3d revival in the 80s and it wasn't that different from the current batch of REAL D movies image-wise. The subject matter and stories have got to get better too, check out this list from the 80s:

 

Amityville 3-D

Comin' at Ya!

Treasure of the Four Crowns

Friday the 13th Part 3

Jaws 3-D

Metalstorm: The Destruction of Jared-Syn

Parasite

Silent Madness

Spacehunter: Adventures in the Forbidden Zone

Starchaser: The Legend of Orin

[Cesar Rubio]

Hi Cesar,

 

I'm curious as to what your thoughts are on a Smell-O-Vision revival (or moving seats for that matter).

 

I think of 3D movies more like a cross between a film and a theme park ride. It will take a large number of non-gimmicky, high quality 3d films to change the current paradigm, it's not just a matter of perfecting the technology. Just look at movies like Beowulf and Polar Express.

 

I lived through the 3d revival in the 80s and it wasn't that different from the current batch of REAL D movies image-wise. The subject matter and stories have got to get better too, check out this list from the 80s:

 

Amityville 3-D

Comin' at Ya!

Treasure of the Four Crowns

Friday the 13th Part 3

Jaws 3-D

Metalstorm: The Destruction of Jared-Syn

Parasite

Silent Madness

Spacehunter: Adventures in the Forbidden Zone

Starchaser: The Legend of Orin

 

Hi Jason:

 

What you mention is called "4-D".

 

I've seen those kind of movies, the last one that I saw was "Shrek 4D" in Universal Studios in Orlando FL.

 

In my personal opinion, I don't like them. Who likes water sprayed at their face, cold air, heat and things sticking in their backs all the time?

 

You are more worried for the next painful BTW hit in your back, than the actual movie.

 

For me 4-D is a NO GO.

 

The first 3-D movie that I ever saw (and the only from your list) was Jaws 3D in LA in 1983. I remember that even though I like it very much, it was kind of hard on the eyes, especially from where I was sited (very close to the screen to the right...the Cinema was packed with people).

 

I agree with you, there is a void in good stories for 3-D. And also I want to see a real life 3-D movie from the current revival of 3-D.

 

I've seen some good IMAX documentaries and all the current computer animated movies. They are good, but 3-D can be used in a more complete way yet.

 

If there is a void....then there is also a LOT of opportunities for new aspiring filmmakers (like my-self) to fill that void!

 

There are not enough good 3-d movies in the present, because only a handful of people are learning the trade with all the new 3-D rigs that are popping all over the world.

 

My 3-d rig is not perfect, but its the cheapest (for 1080p) and will fill a void for Indy filmmakers in the future.

 

3-D is not an easy task, but with the right equipment and LOTS of practice, it can be mastered by the ones that have the passion and guts to do it.

 

Thanks,

Cesar Rubio.

[Mitch Gross]

The fact is that there is currently a huge resurgence of 3D in production. This will be coming to theaters in the next year or so and then we will see how it plays out. It's very possible that 3D will have a very strong presence, but that doesn't necessarily mean it will wipe away 2D cinema. We shall see, but I wouldn't dismiss any possibility out of hand.

 

I will dismiss those who make grand statements of absolutes in predicting the future. Did you know that film is dead too? How about the fact that by 1985 we were all going to be working in paperless offices? The IMAX 3D versions of a number of films have outgrossed per screen their 2D counterparts, even after factoring in the higher ticket prices of the 3D venues. That's nothing to ignore, and it is why we are seeing a surge of 3D production.

[Cesar Rubio]

The fact is that there is currently a huge resurgence of 3D in production. This will be coming to theaters in the next year or so and then we will see how it plays out. It's very possible that 3D will have a very strong presence, but that doesn't necessarily mean it will wipe away 2D cinema. We shall see, but I wouldn't dismiss any possibility out of hand.

 

I will dismiss those who make grand statements of absolutes in predicting the future. Did you know that film is dead too? How about the fact that by 1985 we were all going to be working in paperless offices? The IMAX 3D versions of a number of films have outgrossed per screen their 2D counterparts, even after factoring in the higher ticket prices of the 3D venues. That's nothing to ignore, and it is why we are seeing a surge of 3D production.

 

You are right Mitch, 2-D will stay for a long time before it goes to history.

 

The problem with 3-D has been (and still is) the BIG difficulty to maintain perfect alignment of the cameras all the time.

 

That why we see a lot of 50 min IMAX documentaries, but we don't see an actual story made with a script.

 

IMAX takes a lot of 3-D material and after reviewing everything, they choose only the best footage and then will make a story and record voice overs in what is left.

 

The same is for Computer Imaging movies, its easy to "align" the movie in the PC but not in a real life shoot.

 

The U2-3D movie has been reschedule several times to a later date...and I think that is because they don't get it right because the kind of live event movie that actually is presents a lot of challenges.

 

Until someone invents a perfect device to maintain 2 cameras perfectly vertical aligned (even in movement), 2-D will be used by most fast action and live productions.

 

So yes, never say never. 2-D is not going anywhere for the time being.

 

Cesar Rubio.

[Gary McClurg]

I've never liked 3D... it always seemed a gimmic to get a cheap scare...

 

I can't think of the name of it... maybe its Pace... but I saw the U2 footage at the Sony Cine Alta event at NAB... the only thing I liked was listening to U2 instead of a boring meeting that was setup to promote the retirment of the who pushed for the Cine Alta...

 

But then again I saw nothing that really jumped out of me... maybe I just don't have 3D eyes...

[Cesar Rubio]

I can't think of the name of it... maybe its Pace... but I saw the U2 footage at the Sony Cine Alta event at NAB... the only thing I liked was listening to U2 instead of a boring meeting that was setup to promote the retirment of the who pushed for the Cine Alta...

 

But then again I saw nothing that really jumped out of me... maybe I just don't have 3D eyes...

 

 

The people from 3ality digital are the ones that are doing u2-3D:

 

http://www.3alitydigital.com/

 

In real life, we don't see anything jumping out to us all the time, and we have a 3-D vision.

 

In movies 3-D is like a window to a scene that the producers saw when they were recording it.

 

If you go to any IMAX 3-D movie, you will see the "IMAX countdown" at the beginning of every feature.

 

That is an evolving and "jumping at you" 3-D excellent example. 3-D when worked properly, it will leave you in awe!...there is nothing that it can compares to it.....sometimes, not even real life.

 

Cesar Rubio.

[Leo Anthony Vale]

Did any of them attend the Leipzig trade fair of 1937, when the first mirror shutter reflex Arri Model I was introduced? The best I can figure it, something between 1100 and 1500 Model I's were produced between then and July of 1944.

Certainly we have a lot of hand held footage of all the top leaders of the Third Reich, probably most of it from those cameras, and shot at fairly close distances. My guess is that Goering would have been the most likely of them to be interested enough in technology to want to try out a camera.

 

Not all of that footage was with Arriflexes.

 

This 1935 Askania Shoulder camera seems to have through the film veiwing, a system anti-halation backings made problematical. Lenses are 28mm, 50mm and 75mm Astro Pan-Tachars.

Well, it looks like it can be switched between the optical finder and through the lens.

There seems to be a path going from the finder to the taking lens and a slittlle black switch.

 

& that photo of Fraulein Riefenstahl at the 1936 Olympics shows an unknown Eyemo like camera which also has viewing through the film.

 

Goeggels was quite excited by Agfacolor.

[Leo Anthony Vale]

Did any of them attend the Leipzig trade fair of 1937, when the first mirror shutter reflex Arri Model I was introduced? The best I can figure it, something between 1100 and 1500 Model I's were produced between then and July of 1944.

Certainly we have a lot of hand held footage of all the top leaders of the Third Reich, probably most of it from those cameras, and shot at fairly close distances. My guess is that Goering would have been the most likely of them to be interested enough in technology to want to try out a camera.

 

Not all of that footage was with Arriflexes.

 

This 1935 Askania Shoulder camera seems to have through the film veiwing, a system anti-halation backings made problematical. Lenses are 28mm, 50mm and 75mm Astro Pan-Tachars.

 

& that photo of Fraulein Riefenstahl at the 1936 Olympics shows an unknown Eyemo like camera which also has viewing through the film.

 

Goeggels was quite excited by Agfacolor.

[chuck colburn]

The future of cinema will be stereoscopic.

 

Steroscopic cinema requires a stereo base of 70mm. Or you will get wrong scale ( doll house effect )

 

It is hard to get two 35mm sized sensors and lenses that close.

 

Also, you want everything in focus, ie the exact opposite of what seems to be an obsession with "narrow 35mm-like dof".

 

This means all 35mm cameras, 35mm sensors and 35mm lenses will be useless once the stereoscopic revolution takes off.

 

I think Red Two should be a dual 2/3" cmos or foveon, but digiprime-compatible.

 

Thanks

Joakim Sandstrom

 

You should read up on current 3D shooting techniques. So much of what you have stated is just flat out wrong.

[John Sprung]

Thanks, Leo -- That's all very interesting.

 

I saw a documentary about Riefenstahl in which she talks about using several Eyemos at the Olympics. It's hard to tell from that photo, but it could just be an Eyemo, perhaps with some modifications. The thing that looks like a viewfinder is quite narrow and not quite lined up with the operator's eye, but this could have been them posing for a still, not in the actual positions they'd be in while shooting. That extremely long lens doesn't look like it would be much good for handheld use. Unfortunately, the near side of the camera is in shadow, off the toe of the curve. Another possibility is that the picture is flipped, and we're looking at the spring chamber side of an Eyemo.

 

Thanks again,

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[Joakim Sandstrom]

You should read up on current 3D shooting techniques. So much of what you have stated is just flat out wrong.

 

What? Can you specify? Nothing is wrong. I am 100% right. I don't read I shoot.

 

Thanks

Joakim Sandstrom

[John Sprung]

Let's see if I can upload a picture. I found another still of Reifenstahl probably taken within a few minutes of the one with the mystery camera.

 

 

The thing that looks like a viewfinder in the other shot is definitely a viewfinder. But now the camera seems to have a divergent turret, unlike the Eyemo. The long lens looks just a little different, there's some kind of extra ring around it. Also, the box by the operator's foot is gone -- perhaps it was a battery.

 

 

-- J.S.

[Joakim Sandstrom]

3-D when worked properly, it will leave you in awe!...there is nothing that it can compares to it.....sometimes, not even real life.

 

Cesar Rubio.

 

Cesar,

I cannot agree more. Once this takes off ( by being properly executed ) it will change everything. It will have huge implications on art, science as well as politics. It will completely blur the line between what is real and what is artificial. Combined with the evolution of computer graphics we are about the see the most fundametal revolution in mankind. We will not be able to trust our eyes anymore ;) Apart from the ability to completely hypnotize ( in a good way ) cinema-goers, think about for example remote presence. We will be able to walk around on mars, or walk around on a computer chip, down at the scale of atoms, as if we were really there. Just two out of eighteen thousand examples.

[Cesar Rubio]

Cesar,

I cannot agree more. Once this takes off ( by being properly executed ) it will change everything. It will have huge implications on art, science as well as politics. It will completely blur the line between what is real and what is artificial. Combined with the evolution of computer graphics we are about the see the most fundametal revolution in mankind. We will not be able to trust our eyes anymore ;) Apart from the ability to completely hypnotize ( in a good way ) cinema-goers, think about for example remote presence. We will be able to walk around on mars, or walk around on a computer chip, down at the scale of atoms, as if we were really there. Just two out of eighteen thousand examples.

 

 

We need more people like you Joakim. People that have passion, vision towards the future, a LOT of courage, and above all, LOVE for 3-D!

 

The revolution has begun...we need soldiers and "weapons" in order to WIN!

 

I almost finish my "3-D weapon" to start shooting at will!

 

 

Cesar Rubio.

Cambridge Wisconsin, USA.

http://www.davidrubio3d.com/

[Thomas Worth]

Steroscopic cinema requires a stereo base of 70mm. Or you will get wrong scale ( doll house effect )

 

It is hard to get two 35mm sized sensors and lenses that close.

 

Also, you want everything in focus, ie the exact opposite of what seems to be an obsession with "narrow 35mm-like dof".

 

This means all 35mm cameras, 35mm sensors and 35mm lenses will be useless once the stereoscopic revolution takes off.

I don't agree with this. You're assuming that all 3D acquisition requires a dual sensor camera. You don't need two sensors to shoot 3D. The most efficient way would be to use either a mirror or prism to alternate between a dual-lens arrangement and send images from both lenses to one CMOS sensor at 2x the playback frame rate. Or, it can be at the SAME frame rate, just using a CMOS with 2x the output resolution. Either way, this eliminates the need for another sensor and still gives you a full stereo image. The size of the sensor is irrelevant. This technique was used on 300 during the battle scene that "zooms in and out" during the shot. The same technique could be used to shoot stereo images.