being Realistic about 3D
 

Hi guys,

I work as a film maker/videographer and I have plenty of experience in the 2d/standard field.
I was recently approached by a possible customer about a 2 minute video which would have to be shot in 3D ANAGLYPH/ STEREOVISION.
I've never done this kind of work before. I've been researching about it and I thought that I could possibly tackle the job. But again I might not know enough about it and end up not delivering a good product which in the end will leave an unhappy customer and a bad reputation for my company.
I have quite a curious mind and I quite like a challenge but this might be beyond my limits. what do you think? what kind of equipment/rigs/cameras (i normally would work with a canon XHA1) should I be looking to get/hire? what about editing, could I just edit with Adobe CS4 package? ....and most importantly is it realistic for me to go ahead with the project?

thanks in advance

G

3D is a buzz word at the moment mainly because it gives the studios a way to force cinema owners to upgrade to digital projectors.
At the moment there isn't a huge incentive because audiences can't see any difference between film and digital when watching 2D.
The cinema owner has to spend a fortune on new projection equipment to show 3D without reaping a lot of benefit.
There is a big saving for the studios because they don't have to make prints.
Some of this saving they pass onto the cinema through the mechanism of a 'virtual print fee'.
As you can imagine this is a big area of negotiation between the studios and the cinemas.
There's a bit more to it than this of course.
However it goes some way to explaining all of the hype around 3D. Which may be why you are getting this request.
Whether it is a passing fad or here to stay remains to be seen.
Personally I wouldn't have a clue how to make 3Dwith my XHA1 or any other camera but I think I'd want something tangible on the table before I went to too much trouble to find out more.
Is it a cinema commercial? That could make sense in 3D.

Hi,

thanks for your reply.
It's nothing that pro, not for cinema. Just a short demo video for a university.
Can I learn how to shoot 3d for a short 2 minute video with not very complicated shots in order to create a good 3d product in less than a month?
Is there any special piece of equipment where I could mount two cameras together and achieve the 3d look/effect (the one that you watch with the red/cyan glasses)? an special tripod head maybe? something that I can hire?
Is it as simple as mounting the cameras together and shoot normally? I guess there must be certain considerations to take into account

thanks

Yes, and no. You have to make sure the cameras are perfectly horizontal, not at an angle. They must be at the same height, so any object's y position is the same in both. And you need to space the cameras apart properly. Assuming your lenses are of normal focal length, the centers of the lenses need to be as apart as the centers of an average human's eyes. Also, the cameras have to be parallel.

And of course, the two cameras have to be focused identically, have the same f-stop, shutter speed/angle, fps, etc. The shutters need to be synchronized, so both cameras do their work at exactly the same time.

Any object or subject that matters needs to be fully between the left and right edges of both images. In other words, do not cut it off at the sides of the image(s). Just use something to frame the image, such as the sides of buildings, foliage of trees, or (best) the sky. All of your action needs to be close to the center of the image, or at least well within the image (in both cameras).

Play with it first. Do some test shoots and watch them in stereo, to see the different gotchas of 3D.

You may want to read this FAQ and follow the links within it.

Main things to worry about...

camera spacing: Needs to be about 2.5 inches or roughly 65mm apart. That is the average distance between human eyes.

Camera Settings: Both need to be run in full manual, identical settings, and you may want to consider running one step brighter, being that you will lose a step with the glasses on.

Editing: you will need to create 2 layers of video, one with cyan tinting, and the other red tinting. Color will go out the window, it is hard to reproduce accurate color with the glasses. It can be done, but it will not turn out as it was shot.

You can use 2 XH-A1's. just place them as close as possible, I think you can get the centers to about 2.5 inches if the are touching. Just make sure both lens are parallel to each other, No toe in or out. if you are going to shoot something close, you can toe in, (Like crossing your eyes) to make a good image with little eye strain... and just shoot alot of shots with different settings. That way you will have something to work with.

Indy Mogul did a farily good video about how to do 3d with a couple handycams... Same principles apply.
Indy Mogul - DIY filmmaking

Good luck! Let us know how it turns out!

There is a lot of incorrect information about how to shoot 3D flying around.

The camera spacing or interaxial (distance between the lens centers) does not always need to be the same as the the human interoccular. A lot will depend on the type of scene and how much depth you want to give the scene. For example are you using 3D for the "wow" factor or are you trying to create something completely natural looking. For scenics and landscapes it is often desirable to have a much wider camera separation. If you don't then the scene will appear very flat. If you are working very close to the cameras or doing any macro work then the cameras will need to be closer together than 2.5". It also depends on the field of view of the lenses that you are using. If this is close to that of the human eye and you are displaying on a large screen that fills your field of view then using a 2.5" interaxial works well. But change the focal length of the lens or the screen size and you may need to adjust your interaxial to suit. There are many, many variables that effect the camera separation that you need.

For many shoots the big challenge is getting the cameras close enough together. As a general starting point you can't have anything in a scene that is closer to the cameras than 30x the interaxial (and that includes the ground) for small screen display and 40x for large screen. This is a very general rule, but it's how I started and will at least get you going in the right direction. For very small interaxials it is common to use beam splitter or mirror rigs but these add a whole bunch of new problems as the exposure, white balance etc are going to be slightly different for each camera as well as issues with light polarization which makes reflections and glass look different for both cameras.

There is a lot to be learned when shooting 3D and then another load of stuff to learn when editing and post producing it. Badly done 2D is just that, bad to watch. Badly done stereoscopic is impossible to watch and may simply just not work at all. However the best way to learn how to shoot 3D is to go out and do it. You can read all the text books and forums etc and follow the theory but there is no substitute for getting out there and trying it.

It is digital projection in cinemas that has made 3D possible at the level we have now. Once a cinema has a 2D digital projection system in many cases it doesn't cost that much to upgrade to 3D. The Real-D system can often be added to an existing single digital projector. Cinemas are upgrading to digital projection anyway as the cost savings for both the cinemas and studios is significant. The studios don't have to produce extremely costly film prints and the cinemas don't have to have skilled projectionists to splice and handle the prints. There is less maintenance, consistent, high quality with no more worries about dust, dirt and film damage. Films can be distributed globally at the same time almost instantly. This is what is driving digital projection, 3D is simply a bonus in the same way that the new ability to show live events in the cinema is a further benefit.

Not if you live in Rhinelander, Wisconsin! I went to the local cinema to see a 3D movie (clearly so marked by the posters). When I asked the theater owner where the glasses were, he said if I wanted 3D I would have to go to Chicago! That is hundreds of miles away.

He does not have digital projectors and he certainly does not show 3D.

There are several 3D theaters in Minneapolis including the 3D IMAX at Apple Valley so you don't need to go to Chicago.

As I said, once you have a digital theater conversion to 3D is not (in the big scheme of things) all that expensive. Obviously your local theater is still film based so the step to 3D is more expensive.

Minneapolis, Chicago, both are far from Rhinelander. I would have to take a plane either way. We have two theaters, an old one owned by an elderly Greek immigrant, and a new one (several years) owned by the same guy but operated by his son.

It was the Greek fellow who remarked I'd have to go to Chicago. He was also annoyed I decided to go home instead of watching the 2D version (that was the Journey to the Center of the Earth movie). He is a very nice guy, but I think he considers himself pretty much retired and does not really want to spend any more money on his business. And yes, it is all film based here.

No offense but I don't think you should make a 3D camera until you've used a real one. The answer to your question is extremely long, but you'd understand it quickly if you could see it. The main problem though is that your 2 videos need to run perfectly in sync, if they drift a little bit the 3D illusion doesn't work. Unless you only need to film stagnant landscapes?

hi guys,

thanks for you replies. It turns out that the project is not as big as i thought that it´d be so i decided to jump into it and take the challenge.
I just read the info in your messages and it kind of confirms what I had previously thought, I need to do a few practice shots.
I recently got a canon 7d and i was thinking to pair it with another 7d both with the same lenses, aperture, shutter, etc... I was wondering if DOF is a big problem when shooting 3d. Should i aim for low aperture and everything on focus?
Also, I´ve been looking at support for the cameras and I wonder if you can point me in the direction of a tripod adaptor that can hold both cameras and so I can still move them around to play around with the footage. would something like this work --> Hague Twin Camera Mount
I´m sure that I have more questions but I´ll read the links that you supplied and try to get more info

thanks!!

That is similar to what a lot of people use. But you should get one with a bubble level, similar to the first two seen here. That will help you to make sure all objects are at the same y-level, as I mentioned before.

I think the image looks more deep without shallow depth of field. I don't know that shallow DOF could ruin a 3D movie, but the point is kind of to be able to see individual objects to create depth.
The problem with the side by side mount is that the cameras can't get close enough together. I would think they should be as close together as our eyes.

right so far so good.
I shot the video an considering the equipment and previous knowledge some of the shots are quite good. It definitely works better when the action happens a bit far from the camera as the distance between the lenses was high (15cm) but it works.
Now, I'm editing with AFX and some great scripts that I found on the web but....i want to include 3D titles and I can't seem to find any help. There's a tutorial from the guy that makes 3d Toolbox but I'm on PC so...
can anyone point in the right direction, please?
I'll upload the video as soon as I finish it.

cheers

But of course! Placing 2D Objects in 3D Space.