Seacam 3D housing

Hmmm I would think Harald is more a Krug drinker rather than Veuve. I think he'd object to his housing sitting next to a bottle of Veuve! LOL

Glad to see the housing is finally out in public! I think we may get test clips with the official announcement.

LOL, I just noticed the bottle of Veuve next to the housing...... You guys are all class

With two cameras and a semi translucent mirror there is a big problem to overcome, namely image loss appears with change of the stereo base. It can be limited by converging one of the cameras, and apparently that is what this rig does.

Ciao

Normally, as far as I know (i am sure someone will have a different view) a 3D rig can't have a dome or a single lens. A flat port allows separation of one camera to another to achieve the 3D illusion. Its flat so no variation through the port. A dome is different. Its curved. I don't know how this works. Maybe the camera is automatically toeing the other like an optical stabilizer but not in the C300 and even if possible only limited to minute distances inside the lens barrel. I suspect it is a fixed distance close wide angle 3D rig. I could be wrong until I see some footage. It would be a shame if 3d has to be correct in post.

I have no idea if this is how they are doing it, but here's a way to get 3D through a dome port: have the axis of both lenses pass through the theoretical center of the dome. The trick is that the two cameras can't be exactly parallel to each other (or, if using a beam splitter, they can't be exactly 90 degrees off from each other). If you want the cameras pointed at the same subject, and that subject moves to a different distance, you would have to move the cameras as though on a curved track (both rotating and translating them).

Care to elaborate how these asymmetrical beamsplitter that you described works? It would be some breakthrough if it is true. I doubt Harald did that. Last time we spoke he was looking at my 3D beamsplitter rig but did not mentioned anything like what you described. I am looking at this not for the computer screen but cinema projection level as the two C300 footage is capable of. Any flaws or misalignment will show up and cause headaches. Dome and flat mirror are fundamentally impossible for beamsplitters but I really would like to be proven wrong.

Anyone seen one at the Seacam booth at DEMA ?

Cheers

David

SEACAM is proud to present the first 3D compact housing at MONTIER EN DER wildlife festival (France).

We also want to thank Roberto RINALDI who brought his housing ( the only one at the moment ! ) to show it, with 3D underwater film that visitors can enjoy on our 3D display on the stand.

This is really an amazing housing with 2 CANON C 300 cameras, large 3D assist color video monitor and full control of the 2 cameras.

The 3D effect is STUNING with the special glasses and people are really impressed by it, as well as CANON PRO french team.

Well, here is the first picture :-)

Here is the full control and editing 3D monitor

Nice. If this really is what it is then I want one LOL

People watching the 3D rush

I wish Seacam would put a demo clip online in 3D. It's not that hard.

It's a mistey to me why Italian underwater photo/videographers are unable to exchange views on internet. Maybe a language barrier or they are mostly digital immigrant or... I don't know

BTW I came across this video showing Roberto Rinaldi using the beast underwater.

Video is 720p but I don't how to link the hd version.

[youtubehd]Du_eQ2PWwrE?hd=1[/youtubehd]

Nice setup and looks really easy to handle. Now it would be even better to show off a sample 3D footage.

Just wondering how the rig could point to the school of Barracudas and presumably for a wide angle shot using a short inter-axial of a beamsplitter. Side by side would make more sense. Must be that mysterious DOME port.

Come "Harald" spill the beans.

Nice footage all the same. No shakes.

I'd rather see the clips from the housing than of the housing.

Side by side does make more sense behind a flat port but the radial distortion would be noticeable with wider lenses. I'm just surprised that Seacam isn't marketing this technological coup. If the image is up to par, then Seacam would be asked to make housings for cameras better than the C300.

Ah yes, Aldo....a gifted photographer for sure...met Aldo on a recent trip and we compared housings. I also was wondering how the dome port handles the cameras with a variable I.O. I had thought this just was not possible to do.

I have been using the Gates housing with B.Cranston and we are quite a bit larger and a flat-port. I would post pics, but seems i have to have them on the web before posting.

<p>I saw 3D footage at my booth during ADEX (Asia Dive Expo, Singapore, 2013) last week. I was impressed with the quality of the work and so did many shooters. There were parts of the 3D footage that I thought really worked when the subject is very close to the dome port.  Beamsplitter rig is good for close up work. For wide work it is something new to me.<br />

<br />

Fast moving stuff going at all angles and distances really showed the limit of 3D. Looks interesting and even better in full HD (but in 2D). Most of the time subjects in 3D are in tack sharp focus and our eyes adjust to each particular thing we want to focus on. The motion blur usually test the limit of any equipment. Any equipment. There is no rig I  know could do that and have the different interaxials set for different subjects in 3D space and moving all the same time. May be that could be done by CGI. I would love to have the chance to test the rig myself. I am not sure how the dome port would work. It simply defies physics. I only know that a flat port would work with a beamsplitter. I only shoot wide scenic stuff with side by side rigs and set the 3D depth according to the shooting script.<br />

<br />

Any rig shooting 3D would need to be built with scientific precision. What goes on inside Seacam is some amazing precision engineering. Genlock and time code I believe could be sync with two canon C300. Lens used was 14mm prime and the 16-35mm F2.8. How two Canon lenses could be calibrated is beyond me. I could never find a non-breathing pair. For compactness it would have to be manually adjustable and manually calibrated. Would be good to eventually see two C500 and recording in 4K. Or 2K per eye. The footage I believe is 1080i per eye for 3D due to the original camera limit of 2K HD. Even so the footage shown did turn a lot of heads during the show. The Canon C300 produces some amazingly clear and colourful footage. It is good to see some 3D is still being shot live. Most of the producers I know is talking about conversion. It would be a shame if live 3D acquisition is slowly dying off in favour of computer generation. These are just my opinion so please take it with a pinch of salt.</p>

The great thing about post 2D-3D conversion is that you don't have any issues with cameras not aligning etc. Then again, most times it looks not so great. Look at IRON MAN 3, Titanic etc. Not so impressive.

James Cameron's Titanic in 3D was a hit inSingapore at least. Again! I like the film as it is in 2D as the story and feeling in that film is more than enough for me. Lets take another example say the Life of Pi, directed by Ang Lee. If you have not watch that movie it is worth watching IMHO. Its good in 3D or 2D. The visual effects is just stunning. I read the book and I actually like the film more. The scene with the ship sinking and the boy floating in mid-water is probably the coolest clip I have seen in years. The animals especially the Tiger is mostly 3D computer generated. Most of the scenes with animals in that film is. Okay the night scene and the leap of the glowing Humpy is artistic license. I could not tell the difference most of the time what is real and what is generated. Its so seamless.

Okay 3D conversion at that level may not be practical now for everyone. Still early days. But hey computing is getting more powerful and cheaper. Just my hunch that more and more of this is going into 3D film production. It is happening in the US and now spreading in Asia film industry. I am still a fan of live 3D acquisition. It is very difficult to do correctly and there is something more satisfying shooting with real rigs and crew. May be it is because my computing knowledge sucks more than my shooting skills.

Certainly with my other hat as a transport architect my team regularly have to create 3D environments, textures and landscapes for clients' approval. 3D photorealistic stuff and even some projects needing walk throughs in 3D TV displays all to get the message across. Came a long way since those little cardboard models. This kind of 3D animation is still relegated to very big budget jobs. If you happen to ride the MRT during ADEX to Marina Bay south station you could see the Bubble cushion roof our team has built. All of that in the design stage was created inside 3D space and "filmed" and approved by the client before the contractor could built it. All with passengers and animated walk throughs and music. Like a film clip. I wish I could show that but that render belongs to the client. I was pretty impressed with the whizz kids who did that.

From what I have learnt so far 3D creation inside a computer animated world is similar to shooting 3D in the real world. Some programs even let you create and use a 3D rig to shoot. Just like shooting with real world cameras except setting is done vis the keyboard and you could set the IO (or more correctly Interaxial) like a real rig. Any focal length of lenses even tilt shift. One of the most interesting thing about this type of 3D creation is you do away with the need for beamsplitter rig. Almost all is done using a side by side. IO could be as close or as far apart as you like. Everything works perfectly . Lighting is also created like the real world including sun angle and atmospheric conditions or artificial lights. It is a fascinating industry in its own right and seems to have cross over to many other industries such as film and media. I have know friends started out in design school and went to do just 3D animation. I am just saying that 3D conversion is here and still need some gestation and development before it become more widespread and more affordable. Its another choice me thinks.

Cheers

D

Gee David, I never thought you'd be the romantic drama kinda guy.

Learning software like Cinema 4D, Maya, Mudbox etc is a degree in itself no doubt. A long way from Form Z!

Rhino and Grass hopper 3D is da bomb!

I just draw. My team does the rest. Then some whiz kid from Jakarta turns it into 3D animation. Pretty close to magic.

Yeah I am getting too soppy these days. I thought Titanic was a disaster movie?