Comments

very nice!

Everybody's a critic. Me? I just want to say thanks. A stunning effect.

May the 4th be with you.

That's big, and such tidy shelves! I see you also have the unmodified special effects version of the original Star Trek DVD set.

Welcome in the NX Club.

Nice sharp image. It would be a pretty simple task to paint out the support bar and photoshop a star field in the background, or even put a planet or Death Star there.

Yes, it's a shame about the placement of the connectors on the Sony, because their cameras are very nice. I was able to pick up these two Samsungs from (separate) second-hand sellers for basically £100 each here in the UK. I've been very happy with my older Panasonic rig (the one in my profile photo) but cameras have evolved quite a bit in the seven years since that model was released. I'm very impressed with the Samsungs, and of course there seems to be quite a lot of support for them within the 3D community, which is a plus.

Yes indeed! These were just a few quick tests of the new camera rig, so I was keeping the alterations to a minimum.

Very nice. I just upgraded to Sony a5100's. An issue with them is for a Z mount the connectors are in the middle. With cut down 90 degree connectors I think I can get the IO spacing down to 85 mm. Samsung was a brand I was considering, but they don't seem to readily available in my market (Thailand).

Your support rod is showing :) Should be easy to paint out to match the black background.

Cool viewer! Your 3d collection is massive! My pales in comparison.

It was worth a shot!

Looks cool though.

Thanks!

What a nice collection

Ooooooo.......SCARY!!!

I realize I don't know enough about 3D filmmaking to speak real accurately on the subject, but I've always had the impression that the main reason earlier films had such exaggerated depth was due to the earlier 3D movie cameras not allowing for a smaller stereo base. As a result, most scenes ended up with screen violations, as well as that exaggerated 'hyper' depth. Today not only are the camera technologies improved, but we have all sorts of post-production things we can do with software to fix window location and other issues, and we have many more years experience learning what audiences will enjoy or tolerate.

That's very true about the impact of the screen size, but I have also noticed significant variations between films made in the current era. Some films (like the Toy Story re-issues) feature very muted 3D, while others (Hugo, the "Step-Up" series, The Jungle Book, to name a few) use a much more pronounced sense of depth. And 3D films from the 50s generally have much stronger stereo than anything being produced today. Even Dial M for Murder, which famously dialled down the 3D looks quite strong next to many modern films.
Both approaches are perfectly valid; I just find it interesting to see the variation.

Love it! You're quite the collector, aren't you?

You're certainly right. There is a huge difference. The thing is, I own all the Pixar 3D movies and when I watch them, I think the 3D is done beautifully. I have a friend who is one of their animators, and he mentioned that they've "learned a lot over the years, about how to make the 3D more comfortable to view". You have to remember that in a projected format like a movie only a much smaller amount of deviation can be tolerated. On a computer screen the images look boring, but it's plenty of deviation to look beautiful on screen.