Advice Please: Creating And Displaying a 135 Degree Scene

[Searcher7]

The limitations that you have revealed (only after being offered
good suggestions), and the seemingly conflicting requirements
leave many of us dubious that you can do what you are seeking.

I have no idea what you are talking about.

The original goal was a request for info on how to create a
distortion-free video scene large enough to be displayed across three
monitors. The feedback I got help me determine that the only plausble
way to do this would involve a single camera as opposed to three, that
must be set up to pivot at it's CCD plane.

The poster who kept pushing "Scala software" force me to give a reason
why that wasn't plausible, but that had nothing to do with the original
post.

So what "conflicting requirements" are you referring to.

Darren Harris
Staten Island, New York.

 

[Richard Crowley]

Searcher7 wrote ...

The original goal was a request for info on how to create a
distortion-free video scene large enough to be displayed
across three monitors. The feedback I got help me determine
that the only plausble way to do this would involve a single
camera as opposed to three, that must be set up to pivot at
it's CCD plane.

By "video" we are assuming you mean moving images (not
snapshots). We also don't know what your concept of "quality"
is. Doing what you say with a single camera, even a very very
expensive one, would give very limited quality not worth viewing
on three screens, even small ones. At least IMHO. Perhaps not
in yours?

I don't see anything in the record that indicates that three cameras
cannot be used. It is likely done several times a month by scores
or even hundreds of people. If you are saying that you can't
afford to use three cameras, then your project seems to be
stillborn.

How would you propose shooting a 3-panel video with a
single camera by "pivoting at the CCD plane"? That is a valid
solution for shooting still pictures of stationary things: landscapes,
interiors, etc., but not suitable for anything moving, and certainly
not for shooting video.

So what "conflicting requirements" are you referring to.

Maybe you can explain this statement of yours...

"Three cameras cannot be in the same space at the same
time, so that is one reason a seemless video would be
difficult to make."

It appears that you summarily rejected the most commonly-
used solution without even understanding it. What do YOU
mean by "same space at the same time"?

And then you said...

"Another is making sure the verticl is *perfect* between
the three frames. Horizontal can be overlapped and then edited
when putting the three frames together."

Perhaps you will have to explain your definition of "*perfect*"
If you have some sort of requirements that exceed those of
all the previous implementations of this method, you have not
revealed them here.

 

[Searcher7]

The original goal was a request for info on how to create a

By "video" we are assuming you mean moving images (not
snapshots).

Of course...

We also don't know what your concept of "quality"
is. Doing what you say with a single camera, even a very very
expensive one, would give very limited quality not worth viewing
on three screens, even small ones. At least IMHO. Perhaps not
in yours?

?!?

If you are talking about a single full screen video stretched across
*three* screens, then of course the quality would be crappy. But since
that is not what I'm doing...

I don't see anything in the record that indicates that three cameras
cannot be used. It is likely done several times a month by scores
or even hundreds of people. If you are saying that you can't
afford to use three cameras, then your project seems to be
stillborn.

Three cameras cannot be used because it would make the three videos
almost if not impossible to splice together *seemlessly*, due to the
fact that you cannot get the exact same perspective, because the
cameras are in three *different* positions.

How would you propose shooting a 3-panel video with a
single camera by "pivoting at the CCD plane"? That is a valid
solution for shooting still pictures of stationary things: landscapes,
interiors, etc., but not suitable for anything moving, and certainly
not for shooting video.

Have you tried it? There will be very little in the way of movement
because the video will be of a landscape.

Maybe you can explain this statement of yours...

You said, "the seemingly conflicting requirements
leave many of us dubious that you can do what you are seeking."

So I asked what conflicting requirements you were referring to.

It appears that you summarily rejected the most commonly-
used solution without even understanding it. What do YOU
mean by "same space at the same time"?

Incorrect. I understand it. I entertained the idea long before I
posted.

And what I mean by the "same space at the same time" is just that. One
cannot position three camera in the same space at the same time).

This is why I will need to pivot a single camera(at the CCD plane) in
at least three directions to get the three videos that have to be
spliced together(seemlessly).

And then you said...


Perhaps you will have to explain your definition of "*perfect*"
Seemless...

If you have some sort of requirements that exceed those of
all the previous implementations of this method, you have not
revealed them here.

What method? Three cameras? I already explained why three cameras are
not plausible for this project. There is nothing else I could think of
to reveal. Is there something I failed to cover?

Thanks.

Darren Harrise
Staten ISland, New York.

 

[Richard Crowley]

Searcher7 wrote ...

Three cameras cannot be used because it would make the
three videos almost if not impossible to splice together
*seemlessly*, due to the fact that you cannot get the exact
same perspective, because the cameras are in three
*different* positions.

If I understand your requirements, you don't want "exactly
the same perspective". You want three different perspectives,
each matched to the adjacent one. One to show on each of your
three screens.

Have you actually seen any multi-camera, multi-screen
productions? Cinerama was one of the first, some 50 years ago.
But there are many in use today. My favorite is the travelouge
of France at Epcot. The images are eye-popping and the music
exquisite. I have only seen it 4 or 5 times, but I never noticed
any problems at the junction between the three images which
are projected on screens several metres tall and something like
20 metres wide.

Have you tried it?

Hundreds of people have shot dozens of successfull productions
with it.

There will be very little in the way of movement because the
video will be of a landscape.

If the landscape is so stationary that you can shoot your three
perspectives sequentialy (as contrasted with concurrently),
without temporal discontinuities, then likely all you need is a
series of still images.

And what I mean by the "same space at the same time" is
just that. One cannot position three camera in the same space
at the same time).

Well, first of all the cameras don't occupy "the same space at
the same time". This is obviously impossible. If you have seen
the description of Cinerama, you would know that the three
cameras shoot across each other.

This is why I will need to pivot a single camera(at the CCD
plane) in at least three directions to get the three videos that
have to be spliced together(seemlessly).

To paraphrase you: "you cant shoot three perspectives at the
same time with a single camera". The "fourth dimension"
(time) prevents you from doing what you propose "seamlesly".

 

[Larry J.]

Waiving the right to remain silent, (e-mail address removed)2.com said:

Three cameras cannot be used because it would make the three
videos almost if not impossible to splice together *seemlessly*,
due to the fact that you cannot get the exact same perspective,
because the cameras are in three *different* positions.

I've described briefly how this is done earlier in the thread. by
carefully controlling angle and focal length, it's been accomplished
many, many times with good results.

--
Larry Jandro - Remove spamtrap in ALLCAPS to e-mail

Are you a Sound/Video/Lighting/Staging Freelancer..?
If so, think about joining our mail list.
Send an e-mail to: (e-mail address removed)
(Requests from Yahoo & Hotmail will be rejected.)

 

[Searcher7]

Searcher7 wrote ...

If I understand your requirements, you don't want "exactly
the same perspective". You want three different perspectives,
each matched to the adjacent one. One to show on each of your
three screens.

Or three different views from one perspective, depending on how you
want to say it. Spliced together all three views would cover a 135
degree perspective.

Have you actually seen any multi-camera, multi-screen
productions? Cinerama was one of the first, some 50 years ago.
But there are many in use today. My favorite is the travelouge
of France at Epcot. The images are eye-popping and the music
exquisite. I have only seen it 4 or 5 times, but I never noticed
any problems at the junction between the three images which
are projected on screens several metres tall and something like
20 metres wide.

Yes, but this is not Cinerama. The closer the foreground objects, even
if stationary, the more difficult it is to keep everything in their
proper perspective. I have been saying that a single camera will have
to pivot "at the CCD plane". If this can be accomplished, then it
automatically keeps everything in their proper perspective. The camera
of course will not move when each of the three(or more) video frames
are being recorded.

Hundreds of people have shot dozens of successfull productions
with it.

Then why did you say the following?

"How would you propose shooting a 3-panel video with a single camera by
"pivoting at the CCD plane"? That is a valid solution for shooting
still pictures of stationary things: landscapes, interiors, etc., but
not suitable for anything moving, and certainly not for shooting
video."

If the landscape is so stationary that you can shoot your three
perspectives sequentialy (as contrasted with concurrently),
without temporal discontinuities, then likely all you need is a
series of still images.

Exactly, that is what I've been attempting to convey.

Well, first of all the cameras don't occupy "the same space at
the same time". This is obviously impossible. If you have seen
the description of Cinerama, you would know that the three
cameras shoot across each other.

I saw that site. But that was the only way to do it since there is so
much movement in the scenes. As a result, there is a limit to how close
to the three cameras objects/people in the scene can be.

To paraphrase you: "you cant shoot three perspectives at the
same time with a single camera". The "fourth dimension"
(time) prevents you from doing what you propose "seamlesly".

?!? You didn't paraphrased me. I never said that.(And we've both
misspelled "Seamlessly").

Anyway, I've decided that for now, I'll just do this project for
displaying a single monitor like I mentioned. I'll just have to
incorporate a way to use the horizontal scroll to see the entire
video.(Of course, only 1/3rd of the video at any time can be seen this
way).

But I still need to find a video card that can handle this.

Darren Harris
Staten Island, New York.

 

[Searcher7]

There will be very little in the way of movement because the

If the landscape is so stationary that you can shoot your three
perspectives sequentialy (as contrasted with concurrently),
without temporal discontinuities, then likely all you need is a
series of still images.

Exactly, that is what I've been attempting to convey.

Actually, I wasn't attempting to convey that.(It's difficult keeping up
with all of your misunderstandings).

I am looking for a realistic effect that cannot be achieved using
"still images".

Darren Harris
Staten Island, New York.

 

[Searcher7]

Waiving the right to remain silent, (e-mail address removed)2.com said:


I've described briefly how this is done earlier in the thread. by
carefully controlling angle and focal length, it's been accomplished
many, many times with good results.

What thread did you describe this in?

And does it involve scenes with close foreground objects?

Thanks.

Darren Harris
Staten Island, New York.

 

[Gene E. Bloch]

What thread did you describe this in?

And does it involve scenes with close foreground objects?

Thanks.

Darren Harris
Staten Island, New York.

Just for reference - if you are indeed going to pivot a camera to
accomplish your task, better rotate around the optical center of the
lens, not around the CCD.

Gino

 

[Searcher7]

Just for reference - if you are indeed going to pivot a camera to
accomplish your task, better rotate around the optical center of the
lens, not around the CCD.

Thanks.

That saved me some trial and error time.

Darren Harris
Staten Island, New York.

 

[Searcher7]

Actually, would it be better to set it at a popint in between the
optical center and the CCD?

Thanks.

Darren Harris
Staten Island, New York.

 

[Gene E. Bloch]

Actually, would it be better to set it at a popint in between the
optical center and the CCD?

Thanks.

Darren Harris
Staten Island, New York.

No.

Draw pictures and it should clarify this.

HTH,
Gino

 

[Searcher7]

No.

Draw pictures and it should clarify this.

Okay.

The reason I asked is because the light stream is narrowest and the
image inverts at that point between the lens and the CCD.

Darren Harris
Staten Island, New York.

 

[Richard Crowley]

Searcher7 wrote...

Okay.

The reason I asked is because the light stream is narrowest and the
image inverts at that point between the lens and the CCD.

This was all worked out a couple generations ago. Studing the
history of the craft may prove valuable.

 

[Searcher7]

Searcher7 wrote...

This was all worked out a couple generations ago. Studing the
history of the craft may prove valuable.

I know enough history.

What I'm doing hasn't be done before. And if it was, it isn't well
documented.

Darren Harris
Staten Island, New York.

 

[Gene E. Bloch]

Okay.

The reason I asked is because the light stream is narrowest and the
image inverts at that point between the lens and the CCD.

Darren Harris
Staten Island, New York.

What you say is either false or doesn't make sense - I'm not quite sure


The light stream is narrowest at the optical center, and that is where
the inversion happens.

However, the above is a bit of an abstraction for today's multi-element
lenses. So the optical center is often pictured as if there were a
simple (one-element) lens substituting for the actual lens.

It even sometimes ends up being defined as the point around which you
can pivot the lens without shifting the image oddly ;-)

Once more: try drawing the conventional picture where the rays of light
from various points on the object pass through the center of a double
convex lens on the way to the corresponding points of the image on the
film and you might actually come to understand this.

Bye-bye,
Gino

 

[Paul Jackman]

Darren,

What is it you want to do? Is this just a fun project or are you trying to
develop something?

The technology exists in projection systems, it's called Jackman Media(tm)
and probably goes far beyond your expectations.

Jackman Media(tm) is to video what Dolby is to sound. It's not past history,
it is current and available technology. It is eight years of development. A
lot of it is in the public domain but much of it is still proprietary. Using
three monitors is not feasible and screen blending would be impossible
however, It is intended to be used with a single video projector and single
video source. and in is viewed seamlessly on our SharkScreen front/rear
projection screens are available in several types and configurations.
Multiple scaleable screens used are in stock aspect ratios of 32:9, 16:9 and
5:9. other ratios are also available.

Content and production is just as important as the hardware. It can be
simple static .jpg images to MPEG3, miniDV, and all the way up to Sony
CineAlta 1080i/24p high definition digital video at 40mbps with Dolby 5.1

One layout similar to your 135 degree inquiry is our 180 degree virtual
view, the main screen is normally 40" high by 144" wide with 2 flanking
right and left screens 40X72". Three camera productions provide new creative
tools for the videographer. and three views per frame really challenge the
animators.

Tell me more about your project! and where you want to go with it.

Paul Jackman
Jackman Media Group