Creating a 3D Video

A forum for sharing views on the art of film, video and AV sequence making as well as on competitions, judging and festivals.
Post Reply
edin
Posts: 57
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 11:13 pm
Location: Edinburgh

Creating a 3D Video

Post by edin » Sun Jul 08, 2007 11:21 am

During the 1950's there was a 3D craze with film-makers. People used cardboard glasses with different coloured lenses to view the film. Can this 3D effect be achieved today using digital video? What equipment would you use to capture the image, edit it and finally project and view it? Is there still a source of cheap 3D viewing glasses? It would be an interesting project to attempt!

User avatar
billyfromConsett
Posts: 489
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 3:27 pm
Location: Consett

Post by billyfromConsett » Sun Jul 08, 2007 12:07 pm

I think the pictures were filmed from 2 cameras, like binoculars.

So you would two cameras place side by side to start with. Then you would need to put them on the timeline so both could be seen, but one seen obscured with a coloured filter.

So you would need to filter both pictures and overlay them. The projection bit seem simple though. I just don't understand the first bit.

edin
Posts: 57
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 11:13 pm
Location: Edinburgh

Creatin a 3D Video

Post by edin » Sun Jul 08, 2007 12:51 pm

I agree that you will need two camera to capture the image from two slightly separate viewing points before converting it to the 3D effect. I suppose if you put the captured footage on two separate time lines and altered the colour of each. If the left lens is red and the right lens is green, then you perhaps removing the red from the left and green from the right footage, adjusting the opacity of one of the tracks to let the other show through - then viewing the combined output with your 3D glasses may allow you to see a 3D image. If this is the way it works then it could be be done.

To cut to the chase, and bypass the conjecture, has anyone out there ever made a 3D film/video, how did you do it and what were the results like!

User avatar
stingman
Posts: 442
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2007 10:37 am
Location: Isle of Wight
Contact:

Post by stingman » Sun Jul 08, 2007 8:18 pm

You are both right. But there is another way. The BBC did a special Children In Needs Doctor Who special. The user wore a set of glasses that had on glass darker then the other one.
The cameraman had to keep the camera moving for the illution to work. Basicly the camera would move around the subject. But it had to move all the time. If the camera was still then it would look normal.
With the special pairs of glasses. The Brain would see one image slightly delayed from the other one. My guess would be the darkside. This gave a spacial look. It did work and it looked good.

Ian Gardner
Ian Gardner
Film Maker

User avatar
FILM THURSO
Posts: 241
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 1:37 pm
Location: Thurso
Contact:

Post by FILM THURSO » Tue Jul 10, 2007 12:41 am

I saw that Doctor Who Special and in one way there was an element of reality missed with the 3D. Now I disagree with the idea of needing two lenses (I'll come back to this pending 39 year old memory).
In our view onto the world 3D is more a state of mental awareness of the fact that we can move around things. It's genetically inherited knowledge that we come to understand very early in life and it is not taught to us. We just simply become aware that there is space around objects within which we can move.
To this end 3D in actual live viewing is determined by our movement, non-movement and distance. Because we have two views to any given object if we stand still our awareness of it's dimensionallity is seen in two different ways.
If the object is outwith a distance of 30ft ('ish') and occupies less than our thumbnail in view it will only be viewed as 2D although it's proximity to anything behind it with make it a dimensional location. The further away the object and the background the less dimensional it is and movement of the viewing position is the only thing that re-itterates the dimesional perspective.
Objects inside of 50ft, depending on size will more readily be seen by our brains as dimensional either because of movement or if close up the two different viewpoints of our eyes make it mentally clear because of focus differentials between the eyes.
(Are you still awake at the back?)
Lighting also plays a big part in 3D. In dull weather film makers and photographers can be affected by what is called "Flat Light" which is exactly like it says on the tin. Dull weather creates even light leaving everything destincly 'flat'. Without direct or diffused sunlight dimension is not clearly exposed. (I'm going to put the kettle on, you should do the same)
3D needs a HELL UVA LOTTA OF LIGHT to make sure it's good to watch on the screen both in filming and projection but one thing you don't need is two lenses.
A means to create two viewpoints is needed though! But it definately doesn't take two lenses to make 3D.
The BBC see realised the dimensional effect is mostly viewed by moving. High resolution film with lots of movement on a big screen is more than sufficient to create 3D perception.
If you offset the color primary elements in a picture and place the red very slightly to the left and blue to the right, the wearing of red/blue glasses will render a dimensional view. If the picture is high res' enough and viewed at an appropriate distance it can also draw out 3D but without the need for glasses. Not all 3D movies are actually filmed as 3D. The split primary method is sometimes used to generate dimensional prints.
Polarisation is the next generation of 3D in movies although Imax are still working it out.
3D can be rendered from a standard flat film print in projection without anaglyphs (red/green or red/blue). Polarised split lenses also work. I have one from the 1950s, quite interesting but you need a glass bead screen.
I used to experiment in 3D systems and back in the 1980s I created monochrome 3D (red/green) using a red/green strip filter in a vertical arrangement in front of a single camera lens. The camera lens had to be very slightly out of focus to enable the split filter refraction to generate 2 images on the film. The strips were 2mm wide and proved sufficient in 3D generation but not sharply focused. The film remains in my archive. Now here's the rub- young lad me, no money no patent, so 3 years later I read about the Vivitar Q-dos 3D lens for color 3D photography. How does it work- two filters of Red Blue in vertical arrangement but between the optical elements in an out of focus position :shock: Single lens 3D works.
So I have one in my camera cupboard and long to get a Nalcom super 8 to film. If I find a video camera that takes SLR lenses I will be buying it.
Finally I did an experiment a few weeks back with "Picture House Gazetteer" (man that's getting a lot of mention). It's a black and white movie. I had an idea about the blue screen system for some months and I took to trying it. It took a fair bit of poking at the mule but eventually I got a fairly successful 3D test movie out of it.
Simply I took the film and placed it in both the main picture line and the overlay line. The gamma and contrast were increased 50% on top of color layers of red on one film file and blue on the other. It was important to bring up the light in the film because color overlay darkens the picture. The viewers' glasses would darken it even further. Additionally the blue screen setting was put to 50% opacity to alow both files to be seen evenly andthe files were slightyly miss-aligned to match eye positioning.
Overall this worked but the faults are as follows:
The gamma could have done with being pushed up by plus 100% for projection purposes. The red/blue was extremly striking. The color couldn't be locked down and as the film progresses the files seem to swap over so that blue dominance gives way to red dominance. Also the blue screen set up doesn't recognise the overlay file as needing to retain it's full size so it has to be manually reset to match the dimensions of the other video file before being set off line. This also was not accurate but accurate enough to have some success through the whole film.
I would love to make a full on 3D movie and have asked about editing software for this kind of film. The big problem is a digital era thing. When we say "3D" in these modern times people assume we mean 3D graphics in CGI which are not actually 3D on screen, only in terms of how the computor sees the graphic in the system. Really it's a term cgi should not use because it does have anything to do with what we see of the finished product. But that's the digital brigade for you- always knicking cinema terms and using them wrongly!
Anyway I too want to know if there is editing software designed to turn flat movies into 3D.

User avatar
stingman
Posts: 442
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2007 10:37 am
Location: Isle of Wight
Contact:

Post by stingman » Tue Jul 10, 2007 9:28 am

Wow Film Thurso, you`ve done a few things. I remember the red/green glasses. Television South (TVS) did a special on this and it was quite good.
We went to London IMAX in the history museum, and we saw a 3D film useing Poloroid Lenses in the glasses. It sends shivers down my spine now but it was FANTASTIC! It REALLY was. I cannot say this enough. It was great, so clear and realistic. You could stick your arm out and grab the characters. I cannot wait untill they do a film about Pamila Anderson, I digress a bit.

Ian Gardner
Ian Gardner
Film Maker

User avatar
FILM THURSO
Posts: 241
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 1:37 pm
Location: Thurso
Contact:

Post by FILM THURSO » Tue Jul 10, 2007 10:14 am

Pamela Anderson... You're likely to get poked in the eye by any one of her protrudences in 3D. :shock:

User avatar
stingman
Posts: 442
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2007 10:37 am
Location: Isle of Wight
Contact:

Post by stingman » Tue Jul 10, 2007 10:33 am

FILM THURSO wrote:Pamela Anderson... You're likely to get poked in the eye by any one of her protrudences in 3D. :shock:
Yes. Who cares :D :D
Ian Gardner
Ian Gardner
Film Maker

Post Reply