Hi all,

It's been a long time since I last started a thread here. It's good to be back.

I'm currently looking for a mid-range or semipro 3D camcorder. 99% of its use will be recording during in/outdoors pro photoshoots, so light is not really a problem. Also the shooting distance will always be between 50cm and about 2m. I'm looking for something that's easy to use, with a sharp image and nice colors. I won't be shooting, just editing the footage, that's why I want to keep it simple on the client side so he doesn't panic with the new toy.

I've been looking and I'm thinking the new TD20 from Sony may be a good option. I've seen a few samples and it looks ok, although most people don't really know how to correct 3D footage and most tests suffer from ghosting and bad/excessive compression. Is it possible to download any original TD10/TD20 footage to play with somewhere?

Is there anything clearly better than the TD20 in terms of image, definition and color below $2,000-2,500?

Also, what's the best option to separate both streams to edit anaglyph 3D on a Mac?

Thanks a lot.

By the way, reading the specs for the TD20 it says 60p recording. Is it available during 3D shooting or that's just for 2D? If it does give 60p in 3D, is it really progressive or some kind of strange interlaced container?

Thanks.

Personally, I would use a Panasonic Z10000 and edit in either Edius 3D (my choice) or Sony Vegas.

Yes, that's probably the obvious choice for the task. It's actually a pro camera, it has everything a pro needs and also offers better color and better image. The only problem is its $3,500 price tag which may be a bit too much for my client (don't really know yet). Anyway you're right and I'll try to convince him about it.

Just in case the budget ends up being around those $2,000 is there something better than the TD20 out there for that price?

And about Vegas and Edius, isn't there anything more "mac friendly"? I know I have bootcamp, but still I'd like to be able to do everything in OSX.

Try to get one of the outrunning Sony TD10, if the Z10K is too expensive. The TD10 has a better IO of 31 mm what was reduced with the TD20 to something about 20 mm. Even if I am not sure for your short distance to the objects of 50 cm - that is something where the Z10K has a macro modus, but if you will be able to produce something with the TD10/20 really, I am not so sure. I will give that a try with my Sony TD10.

Maybe that is a solution for you:
Stereo3D Toolbox Lite Edition (http://www.dashwood3d.com/stereo3dtoolboxle.php)

Thanks! I really appreciate the testing.

By the way, the TD10 doesn't have a fullhd progressive mode, right? Anyway you can always deinterlace in post.

Jose, I've been running the Edius 3D beta software on Win7 under Parallels on an i7 iMac without any issues. I don't have full realtime playback because of all the software layers but I'm hoping to resolve this with an external video interface. A bit experimental at the moment but it's been fine for editing my Z10k footage.

Cheers

Neil

For the TD10, with a distance of 50 cm, the disparty tends to be still fine if you adjust it in wide angel to the object But be aware that there are limitations - in the farpoint is not very near, with such an adjustment disparty will become to large at the farepoint.

To work with objects 50 cm from the camera, if your background is any more than 3m away your going to need a much narrower IO than 30mm. Even 20 mm is wide for such a close subject. Either limit how close you get to your subject to at least 1m, preferably 2m or your going to need to use a beam splitter rig.

There is an old 3D rule of thumb known as the 30 x rule which says that the closest you can bring your subject to the camera is 30x the IO. In my opinion that rule should be the 50x rule for TV and 70x for big screen productions.

Ok, I'll keep that in mind. Thanks!

That would be one advantage of the Z10000 - that has a 3D macro mode.

Hi All,

Minimum distance to object for 3D with the TD10 is 80cm whilst the TD20 is 30cm

Paul :-)

Something like this is handy for macro/closeups.

Hi All,

Minimum distance to object for 3D with the TD10 is 80cm whilst the TD20 is 30cm

Paul :-)

Nonsense. Perhaps for focussing or closest possible convergence. But the stereo will be painful to watch. The 30x rule has been around for decades, it originates from 3D photography for printed publications where the finished image would be around A4 size, these days we are talking about TV's with screens 4 times that size or more. Even just using the 30x rule the minimum distances are 96cm and 60cm and frankly that's still to way too close.

Try running the numbers through a stereoscopic calculator and you'll see that to get as close as 30cm with a moderately wide lens (the TD10 and TD20 are not particularly wide) for comfortable 3D you really want a single digit I/O. Realistically the closest you want to bring these cameras to your subject is about 1.5m and 1.2m.

Hi All,

Minimum distance to object for 3D with the TD10 is 80cm whilst the TD20 is 30cm

Paul :-)

I would be very surprised if these cameras could even focus that close. 30cm is very close to the lens.

TD10 , TD20 and other consumer level cameras are just useless if you said "pro".
Just because they are not shooting 24p, and because is almost the only way to distribute stereoscopic movies: on blu-ray , encoded in MVC, currently only supported in 1080p24.

The NX3D1 (awfully expensive since it is more or less the same camera than the TD10 for about 3 times the price) is a solution.

Be surprised then, this "nonsense" comes from the Sony website and my TD10 handbook,

Paul :-)

Everyone can be right in this case. If the farthest point is not much further than the closes point, you can violate the 30x (or 60X or whatever) rule and fix the video in post at the cost of final resolution, or in camera, if the sensors are sufficiently oversized. The viewing screen size matters, and the manufacturer's specs usually take the most favorable case, while some of the feedback deals with more conservative (realistic?) case. Add to it that most of 3D cameras can shoot 2D as well, and the closest focal distance maybe explained. Unfortunately that makes general rules incorrect in certain situations.

I use Ocula from The Foundry, within Nukex -check out what it can do here: OCULA | Features | The Foundry (http://www.thefoundry.co.uk/products/ocula/features/)

Even the tools within Edius 3D manage almost everything except depth mapping, which is relatively simple in Nukex.

Paul :-)

All these rules tend to manage that the disparty does not become to high. But that is no hard limit - it is something that differs in the perception of different humans. We will agree that the stress from 3D should not be to high - but the limit is a little bit different for different people.

It will also depend how far the farpoint is away - if the positive disparty becomes an issue or not.

And it will depend how we adjust the camcorder - with convergence to the object/nearpoint, or without convergence.

So my feeling would be that the 500mm are to small maybe. But 800 mm is to large maybe. But as said, it depends. And no handbook and no calculation tool will help us to overcome the fact that this is something that can be calculated - but that perception will differ for different people. And yes, we should tray to stay conservative here.

I just placed a test of closeup video on YouTube taken at very close distances at the NAB 2012. Played it on 65" TV, it seems to be o.k. The background would be too diverged on movie screen, but then I didn't try to minimize the functional depth either, so it could be pushed, if taken with that in mind. The clips were taken by the Sony Bloggie 3D. I cannot find the interocular specs anywhere, but I measure it at 20mm. It is strange that the manufacturers do not show the stereobase specs very often. They are probably scared that ignorant buyers will think that smaller is worse. Here is the clip: Stereoscopic 3D Closeup Test of Sony Bloggie 3D - YouTube . Of course better cameras and operators could do a better job.

"Be surprised then, this "nonsense" comes from the Sony website and my TD10 handbook,

Paul :-)"

No, the "nonsense" comes from thinking that closest *focusing* distance and the minimum distance for appropriate 3D are the same. The same TD10 manual also tells you the minimum distance for 3D is 3-4 feet. The TD10 is a 2D camera as well, so closest focusing distance is certainly a relevant spec. :-)

All these rules tend to manage that the disparty does not become to high. But that is no hard limit

There is a hard limit and it comes at the point when you are forcing your viewers eyes to look apart. This is not natural and almost everyone will find it uncomfortable and disturbing. This point can be calculated provided you know the viewing size. While other than this hard limit there are no fixed limits, most people will find anything with more than 20% total disparity difficult to watch.

The 30x(60x) rule is a guide, it's not a hard and fast rule, but in most typical situations it makes a very good starting point, is easy to understand and easy to implement. If I choose to abide by this rule, then it is rare for my 3D material to not work. If I ignore the rule then much of my material is uncomfortable to watch.

You should not even come near to 20% - at least not if you define that as % of the monitor width. With the 70 minute rule you end up with 3 or 3.5% of the monitor width, as maxium disparity. And you should stay on the conservative side - it you use 2% or 3% or 3.5% increases the stress, but you are still far away from what you point out.

The best 3D productions that I have seen are with low disparity, shoot with parallel optics, and are adjusted in the postproduction to a low numbers of the negative disparity. What reduces the danger of ghosting.

It is a funny thing: we had the 3Dimensionale the last 3 days here in Vienna, with a lot of presentations. Any my impression as somebody who makes both shooting and editing has been, that in most cases you are able to see in the first few seconds if a production is good or not. Even within the 3D community, there are still some (few) productions where you see that they have not understood the basics of disparity.

But Wolfgang in response to my first post about the 30x rule you posted that there are no hard rules or absolute limits and everyone 's viewing experience is different.

Now you are saying that we should stick to a maximum of 3.5% monitor width for positive disparity, so which is it? Can we all shoot whatever we want provided it looks OK to you or should we follow the guidelines that have existed for quite some time now and help produce S3D that is viewable by the majority of people?

Yes 20% is extreme, but on a small screen like a youtube window, it can be viewable and I'm talking total disparity, not just positive. Most people won't tolerate anything beyond 20% because of the way our own visual system starts to behave in the real world when we experience more than about 20% of positive disparity. This is normally only reached when we are looking at something very close to our eye's, for example reading a book or if you bring your finger close to your eyes. At this point our own visual system breaks down and when we look at a very close object our brain gives up trying to fuse the background and instead presents us with an unfused double image. This is the extreme limit of what our brain can deal with. I'm NOT however saying that is how to shoot, just pointing out that there are contrary to your original statement there are absolute limits.
All these things can be calculated very accurately, there is actually very little variation between most adults interoccular distance, FL and HFOV and as a result you can figure out the optimum settings provided you also know the exact viewing conditions, but very often we don't know how things will be viewed so generally have to err on the conservative side. Yes, different people may perceive the scene slightly differently, but the calculations allow us to present everyone with the optimum images.

As well as disparity we should also consider roundness. While if you have an extremely shallow scene, you can shoot with a wide interaxial and not end up with excessive disparity, the filmed scene will have exaggerated depth and objects will appear to be deeper than they actually are. Very bad news for actors, balls and any other spherical objects in particular. Of course as you know the reverse is also true, but we tend to be more forgiving of artificially flattened objects than artificially deepened objects as we often see three dimensional objects that appear flat in our every day lives, when they are too far array for our own interoccular to resolve.

The bottom line is that the IA of a camera will limit how close you can sensibly get to your subject, get too close and you may have excessive disparity and/or you subject will have exaggerated depth. The 30x rule is a good starting point for evaluating how close you can get.

Software like Ocula has a place, but you have to consider that it is largely dealing with manipulating flat planes in a 3D space, so if you shoot at one IA and then manipulate the disparity you will end up with some depth distortions, for most amateurs the $10k price of Ocular put's it out of reach and it's better to shoot correctly in the first place rather than try to distort a pair of 2D images to fix a 3D problem.


In case you don't know me, I am the designer of the Genus Hurricane rig, one of the biggest selling professional 3D rigs, with over 100 units in use on everything from features to corporates. I consult for S3D movies, produce S3D cinema commercials and documentaries for 3Net, BSKYB, Nat Geo and many others. I will be one of the instructors at the Seoul International 3D fair and have run over 20 workshops around the world. I do have a pretty good idea of what works.

Alister, I think that we talk here about indiviudal stress perception. Somebody may feel significnat stress with 3%, another one with 3.5% disparity - and who is right? To my opinion both are right, because it is not a hard limit but a limit driven by perception.

But I agree with you that we are talking about total disparity, I agree with you that divergence would be painfull for everybody, and that the size of the presentation display is important (and that a small display may require even more disparity). And even some other parameters.

In terms of calculation - every calculation will be done based on some basic assumptions. For examle, that the 70 minute rule (or some call it 90 minute rule) is the limit that we assume. You will end up with precise results, but since that is based on a little bit unprecise assumptions the results can be rough a little bit too. The best that somebody can do is to handle that in a conservative way. But for sure we should do some calculations especially if you design what you are doing - but beside that it is also true that there are a lot of very experienced 3D guys who never ever use the calculators.

What is the better way? Well I think it is also a decision about how somebody wants to work, and in a commercial environment like yours you have to protect yourself against risks in a very different way. I really agree about that. There are other guys who run 3D productions for fun, and for the user of a small TD10 it may be less important to use a professional calculator like you will do. Both is fine I think.

In terms of increased IO I really have a little bit mixed feelings. We had that last 3 days the 3Dimensionale here in Vienna, beside some workshops where I have run a presentation about both consumer camcorders and tools like Vegas we have seen a lot of presentations. Great presentations. And for sure some went into the range of hyperstereo, by increasing the IO to such an extend that the end up with a huge depth bracket but also with a signficant amount of liliputism. I am not sure if that is fine for everybody, but we are talking also about an art.

Hyperstereo does not have to have a large depth bracket. I've done some deliberate Hyperstereo work where the desire has been to create a distorted 3D space, everything from cityscapes to the Northern Lights where the IA was almost 2km, but that is not what is being discussed here.

I rarely use a stereoscopic calculator these days. Probably the only times I use one is when I'm in pre-production and choosing lenses or working out how best to shoot a scene. The rest of the time I shoot to specific sets of guidelines based on the target audience. But a calculator can help someone new appreciate the relationship between IA, FL and disparity and roundness.

I think you're both right, but you're not mentioning the need to take into account the time duration of the 3D you're watching or the depth of the scene you are shooting.

You can break ultra-conservative 1-3% disparity guidelines if the object/s are not in shot for very long, like someone walking past quickly or towards the camera before a cut. This can, and often is, used for dramatic effect.

Background disparity, which may remain in view for some time, does need to be more carefully controlled as this is what is most likely to lead to eyestrain in the longer term.

Some judgement needs to be made as to what you can or cannot get away with depending on the shot and the subject.

Alister shoots storms for a living amongst other things so I suspect he's in the great outdoors a lot shooting to infinity. This will need very careful control of the far disparity and a more conservative approach. Shooting a drama in a front room with nothing more than 10-15m away allows you a different set of trade-offs with the depth budget.

These factors, plus intended screen size, etc all lead to the conclusion that you can't slavishly apply any one single rule - in the end you have to monitor and check and see if it works ok, preferably at the time you shoot. If you can't do that, then err on the side of caution.

One thing I really liked about "Hugo" was that Scorcese broke the "rules" - some of the disparity was enormous by current cinema standards - and audiences didn't run screaming from the cinema. The scene where Sacha Baron Cohen as the Stationmaster leans towards the audience must have been 8-9%, approaching theme park levels, a bit too much in my opinion but it worked and had the intended effect.

I have seen 3D which met the "rules" (e.g. for Sky 3D broadcast) which looked awful and 3D which broke the rules look great. There's some artistic judgement to be exercised. The "guidelines" are your starting point, ad lib from there.

Cheers

Neil
still trying to get it right

These factors, plus intended screen size, etc all lead to the conclusion that you can't slavishly apply any one single rule - in the end you have to monitor and check and see if it works ok, preferably at the time you shoot. If you can't do that, then err on the side of caution.

But only if you are able to monitor with the same size screen as the audience will have. Change the screen size and the parallax/scale ratio changes and the 3D looks very different.

Hugo did break many of the conventional rules, but they did it by having much of the film occurring in negative space. That's fine on a big cinema screen where many of the edge violations go largely unnoticed, but it will be interesting to see how that works on the small screen. Perhaps it will be fine as they will be able to push the space back into positive with the attendant increase in positive disparity which may benefit small screen display.
I agree that the "rules" can be bent and twisted, but tread very carefully. Your example of using extreme positive disparity prior to a cut is normally to be avoided as it creates an issue with the incoming shot and the time it takes the viewers brain to re-map the depth. This is a big cause of 3D fatigue. It might add dramatic effect, but the effect might break the 3D illusion across the cut, which then momentarily distracts from the story telling and instead of helping tell your story it just becomes a poorly executed gimmick.

I am also keen to see Hugo when the 3D BD is available - I read at Amazon.de that this will be aroung August only. :(

For the point that somebody walkes through the video and generates a strong positiv disparity - I tend to try to correct that in the postpro similar to Alister, by moving that to positive disparty. The only question is if that will increase total disparty beyond the limit that is acceptable.

And yes, 3D must support the story and not try to substitute the story - that is something that never works. For sure not in a professional production, maybe a little bit in consumer videos where the story is more about things like "show us grandma". :)

Hugo did break many of the conventional rules, but they did it by having much of the film occurring in negative space. That's fine on a big cinema screen where many of the edge violations go largely unnoticed, but it will be interesting to see how that works on the small screen.
It’s terrible! I got the 3DBD+2D BD+DVD package. I only watched the 3D BD once. It was extremely distracting from the story, and I was just thinking that clearly they had no idea what they were doing, and sure enough on thge commentary track the director said that this was the first time both he and the cinematographer did 3D and how good it looked. Ha!

I now only watch Hugo in 2D and it is so much better. In 3D everyone and everything looked so tiny. In 2D everyone and everything looks great, and I can actually follow the story.

BTW, why are people saying amazon has not released Hugo in 3D BD yet? I’ve had it for almost two months now. Amazon.com: Hugo (Three-disc Combo: Blu-ray 3D / Blu-ray / DVD / Digital Copy): Asa Butterfield, Chloë Grace Moretz, Christopher Lee, Ben Kingsley, Sacha Baron Cohen, Martin Scorsese: Movies & TV

Odd... I'd rate Hugo as one of the most comfortable-to-view 3D Blu-ray releases I have seen (and I have seen a number of them). They did a very good job of masking window violations and controlling for background divergence. I got poked in the eye at the end, right where I did in the theater, but everything else was lovely.

This disc is getting a lot of play @ my house at the moment. Seems to be a real crowd pleaser.

BTW, why are people saying amazon has not released Hugo in 3D BD yet? I’ve had it for almost two months now. Amazon.com: Hugo (Three-disc Combo: Blu-ray 3D / Blu-ray / DVD / Digital Copy): Asa Butterfield, Chloë Grace Moretz, Christopher Lee, Ben Kingsley, Sacha Baron Cohen, Martin Scorsese: Movies & TV (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B006OAXL92/ref=oh_details_o01_s00_i00)

Because it has not be launched in Europa yet.

Hugo Cabret 3D Blu-ray + DVD: Amazon.de: Filme & TV

Because it has not be launched in Europa yet.

Sorry to hear that. I have often found the opposite, for example I got the last Harry Potter 3D BD from the UK amazon because they released it there first, so I thought maybe they release everything there first. But, clearly not.

Maybe it is the German/Polish or whatever translation. I assume the English-spoken version could be availabele at amazon.co.uk maybe - have not checked that.

I bought the Hugo BD about 3 weeks ago here in the UK and watched it with my family. We all enjoyed the film and the 3D but there are specifically 3 shots IIRC which had very large disparity, sufficient to make me struggle a little and I watch a lot of 3D. I took my glasses off to check what they were doing and since this was on my 50" domestic TV could only assume it was even more extreme at the cinema unless they have changed the stereo grading between the two. Unfortunately I didn't get to see it at the cinema so can't compare.

I didn't really notice any miniaturisation effects in Hugo, if there was I just absorbed it as part of the look of the film - there's nothing wrong with doing that if the director intends it. Pina was more noticeable for this I think.

Alister, I am aware of the effect of convergence jumps (which I find more tiring than short term excessive disparity) and also that if care is taken this can be mitigated in post by using intermediate framed shots or automating the HIT either side of the cut - of course, provided you've allowed enough depth for it when shooting. I have often moved stuff back into the screen in post and it is one way, if done carefully, that you can use the 3DA1 in places you're not supposed to be able to.

I wasn't specifically advocating extreme disparity before a cut - I correct myself a little here - rather that short-term disparity excess or even (rarely) minor edge violations are sometime ok if they are transient within a clip. The goal is to be able to enter and exit a scene cleanly from a stereo point of view, either by getting it right in the camera first (preferred) or allowing enough latitude that small errors can be easily adjusted in post. For the record, on TV-sized screens I rarely exceed about 4-5% disparity and usually less than that but I am aware that even this breaks Sky guidelines, for example. However I go nowhere near the max disparity I saw in Hugo.

I usually monitor on set if possible with a 50" 3D TV and if I was shooting for a larger screen I would try and have a projector available at some point. I take enough glasses for as many people as possible to have a look-see. You can get a long way with a smaller on-camera monitor and the usual guides and aids but personally I feel much more comfortable once I've seen it for real on a TV of this size at least. I've monitored live to the TV using both normal cables and also a wireless transmitter when handheld and have found this is by far the best way to work with the producers/directors/DoP's. Not always possible if you're out in the frozen north though :)

Cheers

Neil