Jump to content


Photo

3D cinematography


  • Please log in to reply
27 replies to this topic

#1 Miguel Bunster

Miguel Bunster
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 301 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 12 March 2007 - 05:08 PM

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.
  • 0

#2 Terry Mester

Terry Mester
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 323 posts
  • Other
  • Welland, Ontario, Canada

Posted 13 March 2007 - 11:58 PM

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.
  • 0

#3 Leo Anthony Vale

Leo Anthony Vale
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2010 posts
  • Other
  • Pittsburgh PA

Posted 17 March 2007 - 12:37 PM

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
  • 0

#4 K Borowski

K Borowski
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3905 posts
  • Camera Operator
  • I.A.T.S.E. Local # 600 Eastern Region

Posted 20 March 2007 - 12:16 AM

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
  • 0

#5 Elhanan Matos

Elhanan Matos
  • Sustaining Members
  • 432 posts
  • Digital Image Technician
  • Santa Monica, CA

Posted 23 March 2007 - 02:01 AM

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.
  • 0

#6 chuck colburn

chuck colburn
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 389 posts
  • Other
  • orygun

Posted 23 March 2007 - 12:39 PM

See also,

http://www.paradisef.../compact3d.html

http://www.hineslab.com/
  • 0

#7 Terry Mester

Terry Mester
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 323 posts
  • Other
  • Welland, Ontario, Canada

Posted 23 March 2007 - 07:57 PM

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.
  • 0

#8 Leo Anthony Vale

Leo Anthony Vale
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2010 posts
  • Other
  • Pittsburgh PA

Posted 24 March 2007 - 02:34 PM

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.
  • 0

#9 Mitch Gross

Mitch Gross
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2873 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 24 March 2007 - 09:15 PM

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.
  • 0

#10 Terry Mester

Terry Mester
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 323 posts
  • Other
  • Welland, Ontario, Canada

Posted 24 March 2007 - 11:59 PM

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.
  • 0

#11 Leo Anthony Vale

Leo Anthony Vale
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2010 posts
  • Other
  • Pittsburgh PA

Posted 26 March 2007 - 03:07 PM

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.
  • 0

#12 Terry Mester

Terry Mester
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 323 posts
  • Other
  • Welland, Ontario, Canada

Posted 26 March 2007 - 05:05 PM

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.
  • 0

#13 K Borowski

K Borowski
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3905 posts
  • Camera Operator
  • I.A.T.S.E. Local # 600 Eastern Region

Posted 27 March 2007 - 12:21 AM

To me (except where its suited of course, ride movies for theme parks, cartoons, etc) 3D was, and will continue to be a GIMMICK ;-)
  • 0

#14 Leo Anthony Vale

Leo Anthony Vale
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2010 posts
  • Other
  • Pittsburgh PA

Posted 27 March 2007 - 11:47 AM

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.
  • 0

#15 Matt Goldberg

Matt Goldberg
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 23 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 27 March 2007 - 11:16 PM

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
  • 0

#16 Terry Mester

Terry Mester
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 323 posts
  • Other
  • Welland, Ontario, Canada

Posted 29 March 2007 - 07:13 PM

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.
  • 0

#17 Elhanan Matos

Elhanan Matos
  • Sustaining Members
  • 432 posts
  • Digital Image Technician
  • Santa Monica, CA

Posted 02 April 2007 - 03:41 AM

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.
  • 0

#18 K Borowski

K Borowski
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3905 posts
  • Camera Operator
  • I.A.T.S.E. Local # 600 Eastern Region

Posted 09 April 2007 - 03:32 PM

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
  • 0

#19 Leo Anthony Vale

Leo Anthony Vale
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2010 posts
  • Other
  • Pittsburgh PA

Posted 09 April 2007 - 03:42 PM

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.
  • 0

#20 Will Earl

Will Earl
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 385 posts
  • Other
  • Wellington, NZ

Posted 10 April 2007 - 01:32 AM

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....2...meron&hl=en

From what I've seen in the last couple of years, stereo cinematography and stereo projection has improved.
  • 0


Opal

rebotnix Technologies

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Abel Cine

CineLab

Aerial Filmworks

Paralinx LLC

FJS International, LLC

Ritter Battery

Willys Widgets

The Slider

Wooden Camera

Technodolly

Tai Audio

Rig Wheels Passport

Metropolis Post

CineTape

Visual Products

Glidecam

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Paralinx LLC

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Wooden Camera

Abel Cine

Rig Wheels Passport

CineTape

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Ritter Battery

Aerial Filmworks

Glidecam

Metropolis Post

Tai Audio

Visual Products

Opal

FJS International, LLC

rebotnix Technologies

Willys Widgets

The Slider

Broadcast Solutions Inc

CineLab

Technodolly