James Cameron, and one crazy shopping spree.

I have an inkling that he's constructing some Transformer-like machine that will breakdance at the premiere of "Avatar 2".

In all seriousness, what has he planned that calls for fifty RED cameras?
 
Honestly, I think it's just motion-capture. Modern mo-cap works with a crap-load of cameras capturing the movement of tiny little dots placed on a person's body and face. The higher the resolution of the camera, I would think the more accurate (and more life-like) the motion-capture. I would think this especially helpful in facial motion-capture. I expect "Avatar 2" to make "Avatar" look quaint, by comparison.
 
It's for 3D applications. Shooting in actual 3D, that is.

He's trying to prepare a hub for other large productions to come in, learn 3D, and shoot with his cameras. Buying 50 EPIC's means 25 3D rigs, which means anywhere from 3 to 5 productions in big budget land can shoot with 5 to 8 cameras per shoot.

This is how he's going to push 3D over the edge, by offering what SONY could not for him: the chance to build MORE rigs and fully pioneer the medium.

I don't think Arri had the ability supported his needs, either, with Arri M's.

He probably made the right choice. Having shot EPIC myself, two of them connected to an ATOM rig, Ultra Primes attached, you could still go handheld without flinching. It makes me want to ditch the RED MX + Cooke setup I roll with ritually, asap...

Here's another short list of advantages:

1. 120FPS @ 5K means they can get really great slow motion effect without losing 35mm+ sensor size.
2. Sensitivity: 3D benefits from deep focused image, so shooting at deep stops without worrying about pumping light into the image is a plus.
3. Workflow speed: at this point you can take Redcode right to nearly any post workflow and churn through it quickly.
4. 48 and 60fps capable configurations

I'm all for the 48 an 60 push, as well. It should be pretty interesting in theaters! But, it's also good to know that we aren't stuck with 48. Pulling a 24P from the 48 should look equally awesome if not slightly better, without compromising the traditional motion picture aesthetic.
 
Kholi said:
It's for 3D applications. Shooting in actual 3D, that is.

He's trying to prepare a hub for other large productions to come in, learn 3D, and shoot with his cameras. Buying 50 EPIC's means 25 3D rigs, which means anywhere from 3 to 5 productions in big budget land can shoot with 5 to 8 cameras per shoot.

This is how he's going to push 3D over the edge, by offering what SONY could not for him: the chance to build MORE rigs and fully pioneer the medium.

I don't think Arri had the ability supported his needs, either, with Arri M's.

He probably made the right choice. Having shot EPIC myself, two of them connected to an ATOM rig, Ultra Primes attached, you could still go handheld without flinching. It makes me want to ditch the RED MX + Cooke setup I roll with ritually, asap...

Here's another short list of advantages:

1. 120FPS @ 5K means they can get really great slow motion effect without losing 35mm+ sensor size.
2. Sensitivity: 3D benefits from deep focused image, so shooting at deep stops without worrying about pumping light into the image is a plus.
3. Workflow speed: at this point you can take Redcode right to nearly any post workflow and churn through it quickly.
4. 48 and 60fps capable configurations

I'm all for the 48 an 60 push, as well. It should be pretty interesting in theaters! But, it's also good to know that we aren't stuck with 48. Pulling a 24P from the 48 should look equally awesome if not slightly better, without compromising the traditional motion picture aesthetic.
Click to expand...

Interesting. I'm not doubting what you're saying, cuz my speculation that it was probably for motion-capture was just that -- uneducated speculation. You clearly sound like you know a little more about the subject.

I'm curious, though -- I thought Cameron built his own 3D cameras, partially because in order for the 3D to work, the two lenses needed to be really close to each other -- much more close than just smashing two cameras together would allow. Is that wrong?

Not arguing. Sincere question.
 
Cracker Funk said:
Interesting. I'm not doubting what you're saying, cuz my speculation that it was probably for motion-capture was just that -- uneducated speculation. You clearly sound like you know a little more about the subject.

I'm curious, though -- I thought Cameron built his own 3D cameras, partially because in order for the 3D to work, the two lenses needed to be really close to each other -- much more close than just smashing two cameras together would allow. Is that wrong?

Not arguing. Sincere question.
Click to expand...

That's where beam splitters come in handy…

Jason_Goodman_21st_Century_3D.jpg
 
Cracker Funk said:
Interesting. I'm not doubting what you're saying, cuz my speculation that it was probably for motion-capture was just that -- uneducated speculation. You clearly sound like you know a little more about the subject.
Click to expand...

Oh, all good, man! It's fun to think about what the tech can be used for! I may be wrong, but MoCap's usually actually done on a stage pre-rigged with smaller cameras that have live feeds into arrays.

Last year, in San Diego, I shot some live action content for Killzone 3 (Sony) and the two stages that they had Malcom McDowell and Ray Winstone on were just like this. Lots of blaring red lights, etc. The cameras are usually rigged with Sigma zooms and balanced, zoomed, etc.

It's all really wicked stuff! And real time!
I'm curious, though -- I thought Cameron built his own 3D cameras, partially because in order for the 3D to work, the two lenses needed to be really close to each other -- much more close than just smashing two cameras together would allow. Is that wrong?

Not arguing. Sincere question.
Click to expand...

Cameron had engineers at Sony construct a rig comprised of F23's, I believe. Not F35, as the F23's are smaller sensors and the deep focus is a great asset to 3D. However, I don't think they built more than four or so. F23's are expensive cameras, they're also large and heavy.

The Epic opens up a new world of high quality image acquisition coupled with the freedom and ease to go handhed or move fast. Where it may take three to four guys to move a 3D rig of F23's, it'll take one or two to grab an EPIC 3D rig and throw it into a different location.

Also, the EPIC's cost a ton less than any other camera in its class. Machined M's are coming in at around 60K or so with accessories that you need to get it moving, Arri's Alexa is 80+ and doesn't come with much at all.

F23's are still in the 100+ range, F65 (although I want to shoot with this sucker) is going to be 200K+ I bet.

There are clear advantages to purchasing 50 EPics (25 3D rigs) that would allow him to really push 3D into places where it may not have gone before, including lower budget productions that normally couldn't afford to shoot in 3D.

Cameron's big deal is that everyone should SHOOT 3D, not post-convert, and this'll be his way of really hammering away at it.
 
Last edited:
chilipie said:
That's where beam splitters come in handy…

Jason_Goodman_21st_Century_3D.jpg
Click to expand...

This is pretty much what needs to happen to acquire a proper 3D image, only the Element Technica Rig and the Atom rig both have the second camera pointing upward instead.

They do on the fly adjustments for camera and glass to make sure that they're both seeing the right fields for proper 3D.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top