Stacking 2 Cameras for 1000 lines at DVinfo.net

Jed Williamson · December 15th, 2003, 07:36 PM

After watching Pieces of April & seeing the loss of quality with the 35mm film transfer in comparison to Once upon a time in Mexico, I looked at the camera's specs & the most glaring difference seems to be the lines of resolution.

A possible solution to this & to stay short of the $100K pricetag on the HD cameras would be to stack 2 dv cameras with 16x9 converters on top of one another. My initial test for a 10 foot shot is that the 1 camera would have to be about 3 feet above the other to not duplicate coverage.

Assuming the footage could be synced & combined perfectly in a NLE. Would this solve the loss of resolution problems normally associated with minidv when converted to film? I guess an example package would be 2 Dvx100's & 2 anamorphic converters + a device to hold them & balance them. Maybe $7,500 total.

This might be a dumb idea, I'm just curious what anyone thinks :)

Barry Green · December 15th, 2003, 09:59 PM

When Scott Billups first heard about the DVX100, he tongue-in-cheek suggested the same thing: arrange 4 of 'em in a grid and you've got high-definition...

... seriously though, someone shot a film sort of like this. They put two DVX's side-by-side and stitched together the shots in post.

It was one of those three films on the Japanese website where they were showing shorts done with the DVX. I can't for the life of me remember what the site was, maybe someone here will remember? Looked pretty good, but I imagine it was a nightmare to calibrate them together.

Arthur To · December 16th, 2003, 02:34 PM

no, because as much as they are close together

there is sitll depth and perspective

(this is how they make 3d films)

Charles Papert · December 16th, 2003, 05:45 PM

Most 3D setups use a mirror or beam splitter so that the light path to the two cameras are a specific and controllable distance, usually comparable to the distance between the human eyes. This distance is one of the parameters that is adjusted as part of the 3D effect (controls perceived depth).

However for an stitched effect it would be desirable for the cameras to be sharing the same "space", i.e. again using a beam splitter or half-mirror to be essentially photographing the identical light path. Otherwise, parallax may cause problems. In the case of stacking the cameras on top of each other, imagine an object moving horizontally close to camera--it would occupy a different location vertically in the two resulting frames.

Arthur To · December 16th, 2003, 11:06 PM

.... resulting in a cataclysmic nausiation of the entire audience, killing thousands.--- just kidding

Charles Papert · December 16th, 2003, 11:58 PM

...just as I have inflicted with my Steadicam shots for years....also just kidding!

December 15th, 2003, 07:36 PM	#1
Jed Williamson Regular Crew Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Madison, WI Posts: 175	Stacking 2 Cameras for 1000 lines After watching Pieces of April & seeing the loss of quality with the 35mm film transfer in comparison to Once upon a time in Mexico, I looked at the camera's specs & the most glaring difference seems to be the lines of resolution. A possible solution to this & to stay short of the $100K pricetag on the HD cameras would be to stack 2 dv cameras with 16x9 converters on top of one another. My initial test for a 10 foot shot is that the 1 camera would have to be about 3 feet above the other to not duplicate coverage. Assuming the footage could be synced & combined perfectly in a NLE. Would this solve the loss of resolution problems normally associated with minidv when converted to film? I guess an example package would be 2 Dvx100's & 2 anamorphic converters + a device to hold them & balance them. Maybe $7,500 total. This might be a dumb idea, I'm just curious what anyone thinks :)

December 16th, 2003, 02:34 PM	#3
Arthur To Regular Crew Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Cerritos, CA Posts: 78	no, because as much as they are close together there is sitll depth and perspective (this is how they make 3d films) __________________ xL1s

December 16th, 2003, 05:45 PM	#4
Charles Papert Wrangler Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Los Angeles, CA Posts: 6,810	Most 3D setups use a mirror or beam splitter so that the light path to the two cameras are a specific and controllable distance, usually comparable to the distance between the human eyes. This distance is one of the parameters that is adjusted as part of the 3D effect (controls perceived depth). However for an stitched effect it would be desirable for the cameras to be sharing the same "space", i.e. again using a beam splitter or half-mirror to be essentially photographing the identical light path. Otherwise, parallax may cause problems. In the case of stacking the cameras on top of each other, imagine an object moving horizontally close to camera--it would occupy a different location vertically in the two resulting frames. __________________ Charles Papert www.charlespapert.com

December 16th, 2003, 11:06 PM	#5
Arthur To Regular Crew Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Cerritos, CA Posts: 78	.... resulting in a cataclysmic nausiation of the entire audience, killing thousands.--- just kidding __________________ xL1s

December 16th, 2003, 11:58 PM	#6
Charles Papert Wrangler Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Los Angeles, CA Posts: 6,810	...just as I have inflicted with my Steadicam shots for years....also just kidding! __________________ Charles Papert www.charlespapert.com

December 15th, 2003, 09:59 PM	#2
Barry Green Barry Wan Kenobi Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: North Carolina Posts: 3,863	When Scott Billups first heard about the DVX100, he tongue-in-cheek suggested the same thing: arrange 4 of 'em in a grid and you've got high-definition... ... seriously though, someone shot a film sort of like this. They put two DVX's side-by-side and stitched together the shots in post. It was one of those three films on the Japanese website where they were showing shorts done with the DVX. I can't for the life of me remember what the site was, maybe someone here will remember? Looked pretty good, but I imagine it was a nightmare to calibrate them together.