Jump to content


Photo

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


  • Please log in to reply
65 replies to this topic

#1 Joakim Sandstrom

Joakim Sandstrom
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 21 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 06 January 2008 - 07:07 AM

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
  • 0

#2 Brian Drysdale

Brian Drysdale
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5070 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 06 January 2008 - 07:25 AM

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


  • 0

#3 Brian Drysdale

Brian Drysdale
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5070 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 06 January 2008 - 07:35 AM

My reply didn't post.

RED has been used on 3D films, so there's no reason why can't be used in the future. Agreed smaller cameras are more handy for 3D work and the SI mini seems to be fitting in there.

Regarding 3D films being the future, that remains on open question. 3D films haven't taken off in the past and they'll have to offer more than just poking objects at the audience in order to succeed in a mainstream sense.
  • 0

#4 Joakim Sandstrom

Joakim Sandstrom
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 21 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 06 January 2008 - 09:54 AM

RED has been used on 3D films, so there's no reason why can't be used in the future. Agreed smaller cameras are more handy for 3D work and the SI mini seems to be fitting in there.


Well IMAX 3D has been done for quite some time as well...
Human eyes are approx 70mm apart. Two hacked red one:s + for example two master primes 14mm + hacksawing the lenses, you
will still not get 70mm stereo base. You will get some doll house effect. Future sensors must and will be smaller than 35mm.

Thanks
Joakim Sandstrom
  • 0

#5 Brian Drysdale

Brian Drysdale
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5070 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 06 January 2008 - 10:41 AM

Well IMAX 3D has been done for quite some time as well...
Human eyes are approx 70mm apart. Two hacked red one:s + for example two master primes 14mm + hacksawing the lenses, you
will still not get 70mm stereo base. You will get some doll house effect. Future sensors must and will be smaller than 35mm.

Thanks
Joakim Sandstrom


I didn't think there was a 14mm Master Prime (they go to 16mm), there's only the Ultra 16 14mm for Super 16. Regardless these are large lenses, so you have to use a different layout to that used by small cameras like the SI or the Pace modified F950s for James Cameron.

On the larger cameras there is usually a more complex layout, often with one vertical to the other, so that the cameras aren't physically side by side, which would cause restrictions.

I don't think it's a case of must be smaller than 35mm, but more a case that it's physically easier if they're smaller.
  • 0

#6 Joakim Sandstrom

Joakim Sandstrom
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 21 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 06 January 2008 - 11:09 AM

you have to use a different layout to that used by small cameras like the SI or the Pace modified F950s for James Cameron.


This is exactly my point. The Pace Fusion 3D camera is the only one doing this right. And I am sure they will upgrade it to use the F23.
But everyone is crazy about 35 mm sized sensors and 35mm dof in general. Which is so 1930. H*tler used 35mm cameras and lenses.
This is 2008. Think >=4K stereoscopic cinema with 60fps playback rate. And you need to shoot these stereoscopic films with real wide,
premium glass lenses. All these other systems you mention produce sub-optimal stereo because they fail to do all these things right.
Having the lenses and sensors ~70mm apart ( Pace 3D camera ) is the way to go for all systems. You would even want to have a smaller stereo base to shoot scale models which has real-time non-repeatable action ( otherwise you can do this 2-pass ).

Master prime 14 was just an example but here it is
http://www.arri.de/n.../mp_14_150.html

Thanks
Joakim Sandstrom
  • 0

#7 David Namir

David Namir
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 27 posts
  • 1st Assistant Camera

Posted 06 January 2008 - 01:33 PM

The future of cinema will be stereoscopic.


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

Thanks
Joakim Sandstrom


In the 1960's & the 1970's all kind of format were made to attract the audience: 180 degrees screen Cinemascope and even 360 degrees screen. At the end of the day we were mostly back to super 35 which was the silent movie format. I think part of the audience is looking for some escapism in the movie and want to look at a movie relax with joy and fun, especially when he is at home at the end of his working day. Digital may replace film but I think the way the story will be told will remain mostly the same. Like the good old books are still printed on paper.
  • 0

#8 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19765 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 06 January 2008 - 01:57 PM

Somehow I doubt that ALL movies will go 3D -- there really isn't a call for it in every movie. Look at "Juno" for example.

Or what about "The Diving Bell and the Butterfly"? Most of the movie is the POV of a man with only one eyeball working, so 3D would make no sense! ;)
  • 0

#9 Joe Taylor

Joe Taylor
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 397 posts
  • Other

Posted 06 January 2008 - 02:21 PM

Somehow I doubt that ALL movies will go 3D -- there really isn't a call for it in every movie. Look at "Juno" for example.

Or what about "The Diving Bell and the Butterfly"? Most of the movie is the POV of a man with only one eyeball working, so 3D would make no sense! ;)



I'm sure they could find a way around that. Besides, how many other movies have you seen that are the POV of a man with one working eyeball? I haven't seen "The Diving Bell and the Butterfly" so "Johnny's Got His Gun" might have that sort of shot but I haven't seen that either.

Today, 3D movies are still pretty much a ticket gimmick. In order for 3D movies to really be the future, they'll need to be a representation of real-life and not have their money shots calling attention to themselves. And who wants to sit next to their date for two hours looking ridiculous? Once 3D can look real without making the audience sick and feeling stupid.. if the audience can relax, even the most simple movies might work.
  • 0

#10 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19765 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 06 January 2008 - 02:57 PM

Today, 3D movies are still pretty much a ticket gimmick. In order for 3D movies to really be the future, they'll need to be a representation of real-life and not have their money shots calling attention to themselves. And who wants to sit next to their date for two hours looking ridiculous? Once 3D can look real without making the audience sick and feeling stupid.. if the audience can relax, even the most simple movies might work.


Sure, but what's the point? Your typical indie movie shot on a tight budget and schedule already has a hard enough time delivering decent 2D photography...
  • 0

#11 Joe Taylor

Joe Taylor
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 397 posts
  • Other

Posted 06 January 2008 - 03:29 PM

Sure, but what's the point? Your typical indie movie shot on a tight budget and schedule already has a hard enough time delivering decent 2D photography...



The point is is that if ALL theatres are 3D in the future, the medium will only work as long as ANY and all films can play for the audience like reality. The picture has to be real. Actors can't look like T-REXs jumping off the screen every time they walk past the camera. The audience has to be as comfortable watching 3D in the future as they are watching 2D today. I don't believe that even the biggest 3D lover honestly feels comfortable watching their favorite movies today that way. There's just too much luggage.

Anyway, I despise 3D. I've seen one IMAX 3D movie and have attended only one 3D feature but found out only after it was too late. After the two hour show I felt like I'd just flown in after a eight hour flight. I gave that same movie a second chance on HDVD and found pars of it enchanting. I missed that in the theatre. I hope the movies remain 2D as they should-- at least as long as I'm alive.

But "if" the future is 3D then it simply will have to be a much simpler technology and EVERY movie will have to work. The cameras would have to wield like today's lightweight cameras and without a bunch of 3d "technicians" standing around. And finally your basic movie lover would need to be relaxed enough to enjoy the show and not running for the exits.

I'm not worried. It will never happen.
  • 0

#12 Jérôme Keller

Jérôme Keller
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 21 posts
  • Student

Posted 06 January 2008 - 03:43 PM

"Or what about "The Diving Bell and the Butterfly"? Most of the movie is the POV of a man with only one eyeball working, so 3D would make no sense!"

I somehow find that hilarious!

Or what about "The Cyclops" from 1957 or pirate movies or "2001"? ;)

"In order for 3D movies to really be the future, they'll need to be a representation of real-life and not have their money shots calling attention to themselves."

Well, that sort of thing has been around for quite some time now, it's called THEATRE! :P

Other than that, 3D remains a great attraction for amusement parks. I remember seeing "Captain Eo" with Michael Jackson over a decade ago in Euro Disneyland in Paris, the onscreen action was mixed with a live stage show, what a sight! Seriously, this is nothing more than a marketing gimmick, a fashion thing, it comes and goes, or does anyone still believe that real actors will soon be obsolete because of their CGI counterparts?
  • 0

#13 Joakim Sandstrom

Joakim Sandstrom
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 21 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 06 January 2008 - 04:01 PM

I'm not worried. It will never happen.


The more powerful a technology, the more skilled operator you need to use it. In the same sense, the stronger the medium, the more it hi-jacks you brain. That's why you'll totally hate it until it is done right. But when it is, which may take a while, nothing will be able to compare. Perhaps flying in space. It will completely take over vision and hearing. The screen will disappear. People will be having trouble separating these screenings from reality. Add to this the fact that a stereoscopic image gives a much stronger imprint in peoples memories, it is no longer an image you are watching.
  • 0

#14 Jérôme Keller

Jérôme Keller
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 21 posts
  • Student

Posted 06 January 2008 - 05:49 PM

The stronger the medium, the more it hi-jacks you brain.


It seems to me that you are no longer talking about art, it's all about brainwashing and propaganda.
There's no point in having absolute reality in art unless you plan on altering it.
It's sad, instead of asking for total war we are now asking for total entertainment for totally dumbed down people.
By the way, I don't think the cinema is the right place for such a spectacle. The cinema by it's very nature is designed for the purpose of projecting flat images. Colosseum like buildings would be way more suitable for 3D action, the audience is placed around the spectacle as opposed to sit in front of it. People become agressive when they sit in a circle, they become docile when everybody is looking in the same direction. The gladiator fights as far as their social dimension is concerned would never have worked on a theatrical stage.

Edited by Jérôme Keller, 06 January 2008 - 05:50 PM.

  • 0

#15 Adamo P Cultraro

Adamo P Cultraro
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 157 posts
  • Producer

Posted 06 January 2008 - 07:46 PM

Who cares about 3D. Not I. They are such a gimmick. As David pointed out, the much of the film industry is struggling with two dimensional photography not to mention writing a decent script.
  • 0

#16 A. Whitehouse

A. Whitehouse
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 267 posts
  • Director
  • Melbourne

Posted 06 January 2008 - 08:21 PM

But everyone is crazy about 35 mm sized sensors and 35mm dof in general. Which is so 1930. H*tler used 35mm cameras and lenses.
Thanks
Joakim Sandstrom


Cinema is a 2d medium. Much of the language relies on this lack of depth. Ive never seen anything in 3d which helped advance the story rather than the "experience". If I see another 3d film were a monster leaps out of the screen or a branch passes overhead then I might just throw my copy of Freddy Krueger 6: the comic in 3d with the red and blue glasses in a fire.
What 3d might do is help bring people back to the theater, but I don't see why it would be a compelling option for most films and film makers. I don't find it any more immersive and from a direction point of view it seems to be another headache to worry about now that all the action must be staged with depth in mind. Are we talking about the same style of editing and coverage we've always had? Is that appropriate for 3d? Id rather have larger screens and better sound and projection at my local cinemas. Thats immersive.

Sasha
  • 0

#17 Keith Walters

Keith Walters
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2219 posts
  • Other
  • Sydney Australia

Posted 07 January 2008 - 04:58 AM

I think some of you might be still be a bit stuck in the 20th century :rolleyes:

I don't think you will be seeing too much 3-D in cinemas; that experience is too much like watching the world through a department store window.

I think the Next Big Thing is going to be lightweight viewing goggles, which will allow you to watch high-resolution 3-D video, in a manner analogous to listening to Hi Fi stereo sound through high quality earphones.

I saw a Sony prototype some years back that was quite impressive, giving the illusion of a widescreen TV screen hanging in space. However, I think the necessary technology is going to be OLED-based, not LCD. I would imagine a typical setup would be a pair of OLEDS on clear plastic, with an LCD "variable ND" behind it, which would you to either completely block out the outside world, or allow you any required level of transparency. (The LCD's polarizing filter would also serve as a handy pair of Polaroid-type sunglasses!)

If you have ever tried watching a movie on a laptop or portable multimedia device on a train, you will know it's not terribly satisfactory. Adults tend to get motion sickness, although children seem remarkably immune!

I would imagine it would be a totally different experience with a pair of goggles, because the image would follow the motions of your head, rather than jerking all over the place.

So I think 3-D will be a significant force in the future, but probably more for music videos and the like.
  • 0

#18 Leo Anthony Vale

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

Posted 07 January 2008 - 03:08 PM

Which is so 1930. H*tler used 35mm cameras and lenses.


So right. And 1930s Nazi scientific research showed that smoking tobacco caused lung cancer.
So there's something else that needs to be tossed aside.

Did Hitler, or even Goebbels, actually use any 35mm cinecameras themselves?

Having the lenses and sensors ~70mm apart ( Pace 3D camera ) is the way to go for all systems. You would even want to have a smaller stereo base to shoot scale models which has real-time non-repeatable action ( otherwise you can do this 2-pass ).


Live action that's going to be shown on a large screen needs to be shot with a smaller stereo base.
The Russian Stereo70 system uses a 26mm stereo base.

Look at Lipton's book, Spottiswoode's book and paper from the 50s and the MotionPictureResearchCouncil paper from the 50s.
  • 0

#19 John Sprung

John Sprung
  • Sustaining Members
  • 4635 posts
  • Other

Posted 07 January 2008 - 03:34 PM

I think some of you might be still be a bit stuck in the 20th century :rolleyes:

My guess is that 3D will remain an interesting special venue technology for the rest of its useful life. Work on cochlear implants and similar but more difficult technologies now being investigated to aid the blind will eventually result in the ability to bypass our old fashioned eyes and ears, and present pre-recorded pseudo-experiences directly to the brain. When that becomes available, 3D projection to an audience will be as obsolete as an 1890's stereopticon. Just as live theater survived the advent of movies, so too will 2D projected motion images remain, though with a diminished market share, after direct brain linkage becomes available.

I gotta agree with David. 3D isn't going to take over the whole world of cinema.





-- J.S.
  • 0

#20 Mitch Gross

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

Posted 07 January 2008 - 03:40 PM

I vote for virtual Reality implants, like in Brainstorm. So much for all this movie crap.

Of course, all anyone will use it for is porn...


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?
  • 0


Opal

Glidecam

rebotnix Technologies

Broadcast Solutions Inc

FJS International, LLC

Metropolis Post

Ritter Battery

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Aerial Filmworks

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

CineTape

Willys Widgets

Abel Cine

The Slider

Tai Audio

Rig Wheels Passport

Visual Products

Paralinx LLC

Technodolly

Wooden Camera

CineLab

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Tai Audio

Wooden Camera

Rig Wheels Passport

Aerial Filmworks

Ritter Battery

CineLab

Visual Products

The Slider

FJS International, LLC

Glidecam

Technodolly

Opal

rebotnix Technologies

Paralinx LLC

Abel Cine

CineTape

Willys Widgets

Metropolis Post

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS