CES Panasonic's 3D Camera!

I'm still very distraught that you cannot change the distance between lenses (at least you can change the point of convergence apparently...) If I'm gonna shoot 3d, I'm gonna want the ability to manipulate it just as I can any other filmmaking tool.


I don't see how it is going to change the 'industry' or how we shoot films... think about HD with the HVX... sure it unleashed it to the masses... but we are still watching crappy little films in HD with bad lighting. So yes. 3D is wonderful. I've always said it is here to stay (dig deeeeep on these boards) and it will stay eventually. But 3d isn't an instant fix to anything... you'll still need good story, good compositions and good lighting... among everything else (acting, sound, editing, etc)

Plus these cameras are a bit like HD in the fact most of us will be able to shoot it... but how many of us will actually see it through distribution... Because it appears that home theater systems will beat the computer to 3d display... this camera would be limited to people who plan on seeing distribution... otherwise, most of us here make our shorts and features to be primarily web distributed... and until we have computer companies advertising 3d displays... how many of us are really going to have 3d as an end product?

But it will be in time. I know it. If I'm wrong I think we will have lost a tool I think is worth keeping.
 
Last edited:
Ryan Patrick O'Hara said:
I'm still very distraught that you cannot change the distance between lenses (at least you can change the point of convergence apparently...)
Click to expand...
You can't change the distance between your eyes either; you can only change their point of convergence. So why would you need to change the distance between lenses?
 
Barry_Green said:
You can't change the distance between your eyes either; you can only change their point of convergence. So why would you need to change the distance between lenses?
Click to expand...

Really Barry? Haha. You're breaking my heart, man.

You can't do many things with your eyes, that we do in cinema... such as zoom. Go through walls... see predator vision. Lol.

By moving the distance between the lenses you can create visuals unattainable by a fixed system. Maybe to cater to a specific shot, or maybe if doing something that gives a different 'feeling' such as over exaggerating the distance and playing with hyper-heightened depth or three dimensions. Think of filmmakers who use super wide angle lenses for special effect (ie Fear and Loathing).

Maybe this will say it best: From the Camera Operator: The Journal of the Society of Camera Operators Fall/Winter 2007 edition titled "Filming in 3D"

pg.34
Interocular and Convergence:
Photography in 3-D has two variables that must be considered in designing the shot, which will affect the way in which the audience perceives the projected image, and how physically comfortable it will be to view. The first variable, 'interocular', is the distance measured in inches between the two lens axes (or e.g., between your pupils, approx. 2 3/4 inches). Simply put, the greater the interocular distance, the greater the perceived 'depth' in the shot. Generally speaking, the closer the subject to the camera, the smaller we set the interocular. For example, a close-up shot that cut at the top of the shoulders would have its interocular set at about one inch. Long wide shots, such as an establishing exterior, might have an interocular at two or two and a half inches. Simply put, the greater the distance to the subject, the greater is the need for a wider interocular, so as to create the illusion of depth.
Click to expand...
It goes on to discuss Convergence.

My point is... Convergence simply establishes the 'screen' plane... and what appears to fall 'further' and what appears to pop off 'closer'. The interocular distance establishes how exaggerated those distances are (in combination with how the objects in the shot are blocked to the camera)

Our ability to perceive 3D in real life only goes so far. Because of our limited interocular distance... I can't remember exactly how far, but around 8ft-12ft we can no longer judge distance based off of our interocular eyes... we then go by logic and life experience... (ie: I know how big a car is... and because that distant car is X big it must be about X far away)... thus things further then our natural interocular distance (or the cameras) which may need to be subtly 3d on screen should be brought closer to the camera, or have the interocular distance changed to accommodate. The same goes with things super close to the camera. If staging for composition requires a person to walk into the extreme foreground (think French films) who's head fills the entire frame, but you don't want the audience flipping out that this giant head is coming at them... then shortening the interocular distance will remedy that problem. See? But it can be used in the opposite way as well, if you want to compress the depth, or exaggerate it. Wonderful tools!

So my loooooong point is... we (cinematographers and directors) can create heightened or even exaggerated states of three dimensions by changing interocular distance. It can either compensate for things we have no power to change in relative blocking... or perhaps allow us to keep normal blocking and create a mood or feeling of subtly greater, exaggerated, or hyper/unnatural three dimensions.... it's a visual story telling tool that is a MUST when shooting 3D.

Since when do we, as filmmakers, stop manipulating visuals because it's not how we see? Isn't that against the point of cinema? :thumbsup:


PS: Does anyone really think James Cameron never changed the interocular distance of the cameras to either heighten or diminish the 3-D effect in Avatar? :P
PPS: Imagine 'pulling' (changing mid-shot) the point of convergence or the interocular distance... not dramatically but just slightly. I bet the effect may be as effective as the Jaws style push-pull zoom, but WITHOUT the compression of the background. Sure the world may not seem to collapse with the compression of the background... but instead expand with the slight drifting of 3D layering apart from each other. A great shot for a subtle 'ah-ha' moment. :) Can't wait for 3D. I'm down.


Panasonic's 3D camera, if it does not have the ability to change interocular distance will be a dead duck in the professional pond. No question.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top