3D at 2D Economics August  2012  


Table  of  Contents   Introduction  .....................................................................................................  1   Achieving  the  Proper  Results  ...................................................................................  1   Costs  of  3D  Production  ............................................................................................  2  

Proving  the  Premise  .........................................................................................  3   Crew  Training  ...................................................................................................  4   Depth  Budgeting  ..............................................................................................  4   Rig  Evaluation  ..................................................................................................  5   Evaluation  Results  ...................................................................................................  9   Recommendations  ...................................................................................................  9  

The  Production  Package  ...................................................................................  9   Equipment  ...............................................................................................................  9   The  3D  Crew  ..........................................................................................................  10  

Days  of  Our  Lives  ............................................................................................  12   Camera  Considerations  ..........................................................................................  12   Adapting  to  the  Days  Workflow  .............................................................................  15   The  3D  Monitoring  Station   ....................................................................................  17   Crew  Training  ........................................................................................................  17   Depth  Budgeting  ....................................................................................................  18   The  Director  and  3D  ...............................................................................................  19   The  Shoot  ..............................................................................................................  20   Evaluating  Success  .................................................................................................  21  

Battle  of  the  Year  ...........................................................................................  22   The  Cameras  ..........................................................................................................  22   The  Workflow  ........................................................................................................  24   The  3D  Monitoring  Station   ....................................................................................  25   The  SIP  ..................................................................................................................  25   Comparison  to  a  2D  Workflow  ...............................................................................  26   Depth  Budgeting  ....................................................................................................  26   Dance  Sequences  ...................................................................................................  27   On  Location  in  Montpellier,  France  ........................................................................  27   Technical  Issues  .....................................................................................................  29  


Shooting  at  the  Battle  of  the  Year  Competition  ......................................................  29   Post-­‐production  .....................................................................................................  30   Evaluating  Success  .................................................................................................  30  

Happy  Endings  ................................................................................................  31   Adapting  to  the  Happy  Endings  Workflow  .............................................................  32   Depth  Budget  ........................................................................................................  33   The  Shoot  ..............................................................................................................  33   Technical  Issues  .....................................................................................................  33   Evaluating  Success  .................................................................................................  34  

Lessons  Learned  .............................................................................................  35  

©2012  Sony  Pictures  Technologies.  All  Rights  Reserved  


3D  at  2D  Economics   A  case  study  on  producing  3D  on  a  2D  budget  and  production   schedule       Stereoscopic  3D  television  shows  and  motion  pictures  can  be  produced  within   the  constraints  of  normal  2D  production  schedules  while  adding  only  marginally   to  the  overall  production  and  post-­‐production  costs  if  made  with  foresight  and   planning,  the  right  technology,  a  properly  trained  crew,  and  an  appropriate  use   of  proper  stereoscopic  parameters  for  interaxial  and  convergence.  

Introduction   The  productions  described  in  this  document  prove  some  important  factors  about   producing  scripted  television  and  movies  in  3D.  When  properly  planned  and   executed,  3D  production  schedules  are  no  different  than  2D  production   schedules  because  there  is  no  waiting  for  3D  on  set  and  3D  post  production  work   is  largely  confined  to  creative  changes,  meaning  that  alignment  and  geometry   adjustments  (“3D  fixes”)  in  post-­‐production  can  be  avoided  through  selection  of   the  correct  equipment  and  crew  training.     Budgets  are  always  closely  tied  to  shooting  schedules.  Thus  with  the  same   shooting  schedule  as  2D,  the  delta  in  producing  3D  comes  down  to  the  additional   equipment  and  the  additional  crew.  The  additional  equipment  includes  rigs,   camera  and  3D  monitoring  gear.  On  the  productions  described  in  this  white   paper  which  used  up  to  three  rigs  at  once,  there  where  three  additional  crew   members:  a  stereographer,  a  rig  technician  and  a  stereo  image  processor  (SIP)   operator.    In  these  scenarios  the  overall  increase  in  the  costs  for  3D  can  be   modest.   Furthermore,  as  3D  production  becomes  more  commonplace  other  existing   members  of  a  traditional  crew  can  take  on  the  duties  of  the  rig  technician,  the   SIP  operator  and  potentially  the  stereographer.  

Achieving  the  Proper  Results   To  achieve  these  results  the  production  needs  to  take  the  following  steps   1. Plan  the  3D  aspects  of  the  production  ahead  of  time  by  knowing  how  to   use  3D  as  cinematic  language.  Use  3D  alongside  light  and  lens  to  define   depth.     2. Understand  how  to  shoot  3D  for  the  screen  size  that  the  audience  will   view  it  on  whether  it  be  a  television  or  a  cinema  screen.   ©2012  Sony  Pictures  Technologies.  All  Rights  Reserved  


3. Know  what  good  3D  looks  like  and  make  sure  the  production  has  good  3D   before  leaving  the  set.    3D  geometry  misalignment,  differential  focus,  and   other  problems  must  be  avoided  on  set  and  not  left  to  post  production.     4. Use  a  3D  system  that  is  quick  to  set  up  and  calibrate,  and  which  remains   calibrated  throughout  the  production  day.  

Costs  of  3D  Production   The  key  factor  in  reducing  the  overall  costs  of  3D  production  is  in  the  selection  of   equipment  to  be  used.    The  choice  in  3D  equipment  employed  has  a  direct  and   potentially  dramatic  effect  on  other  costs  associated  with  3D  production.  The   right  equipment  eliminates  3D  related  delays  on  set,  minimizes  additional  crew   and  minimizes  3D  post-­‐production  processes.  However,  this  same  equipment   will  not  necessarily  be  the  cheapest  to  procure,  but  will  result  in  the  minimum   overall  increase  in  production  budget  for  3D.  Choosing  the  right  equipment  over   cheaper  alternatives  is  a  decision  that  productions  need  to  make  all  the  time.   With  3D  in  particular,  making  the  wrong  choice  in  equipment  because  it  seems   cheaper  up  front,  can  cause  a  dramatic  increase  in  the  costs  to  budget  later.   To  reiterate,  having  the  right  plan  for  3D  production  is  essential.  To  formulate   such  a  plan  requires  a  clear  understanding  of  what  constitutes  good  3D  including   the  creative  and  practical  uses  of  3D  in  the  depth   Depth  Budget:  a  pre-­‐determined   budget  and  script.  To  execute  the  plan  requires  the   set  of  interaxial  and  convergence   right  3D  rig  system  and  the  ability  to  review  3D  on   values  that  limit  the  effects  of  3D  to   a  standard  prescribed  for  the   set  to  ensure  the  desired  effect  is  achieved.  By   production.   choosing  the  right  rig  system  the  speed  and   rhythm  of  3D  production  is  the  same  as  that  of  2D   Depth  Script:  a  plot  of  the  3D   production.       effects  used  throughout  a   production  including  their   frequency,  duration  and  magnitude   relative  to  the  screen  plane.       Interaxial:  the  distance  set   between  the  two  camera  lenses.       Convergence:  the  point  at  which   the  two  cameras  or  “eyes”  meet   and  define  what  appears  on  the   screen  plane,  in  front  of  it,  or   behind.    

In  order  for  a  3D  production  to  work  on  a  2D   shooting  schedule  the  production  cannot  be   delayed  by  rig  set-­‐up  and  rig  calibration  during   camera  moves  and  lens  changes.    Delays  on  set   such  as  leaving  cast  and  crew  “waiting  on  3D”   while  a  rig  is  realigned  are  not  just  costly  but  are   also  disruptive  to  the  flow  of  the  production.    Yet   by  the  same  token,  acquiring  good  3D  on  the  set  is   imperative  in  order  to  leave  the  3D  component  of   the  post-­‐production  budget  intact  and  confined  to   primarily  creative  rather  than  technical  changes.  

Filmmakers  shooting  in  2D  for  over  100  years  have  been  ones  who  practiced   their  art  and  perfected  their  skills  with  the  tools  available  in  order  to  produce   outstanding  motion  pictures.    The  same  is  true  with  3D:  it  requires  both  the  right   tools,  and  the  right  amount  of  practice  and  preparation  to  perfect.  

©2012  Sony  Pictures  Technologies.  All  Rights  Reserved  


Proving  the  Premise   To  prove  this  premise,  Sony  Pictures  Technologies  worked  alongside  with  three   productions  representing  different  entertainment  genres  and  styles  to  shoot   their  shows  in  3D.    The  first  production  was  an  episode  of  Days  of  Our  Lives,  a   “multi-­‐camera”  style  television  series.  The  second  was  Battle  of  the  Year,  a  mid-­‐ budget  feature.  The  third  was  an  episode  of  Happy  Endings,  a  situation  comedy   shot  “single-­‐camera”  style.       Sony  Pictures  Technologies’  overall  goal  with  these  productions  was  to   demonstrate  that  it  is  possible  to  produce  limited  budget  motion  pictures  and   television  productions  in  3D  practically,  efficiently  and  effectively,  with  little   impact  on  schedule  and  cost.    For  all  three  of  the  productions  both  the  3D  and   2D  versions  of  the  show  were  created  simultaneously  using  the  same  cameras  –   the  picture  from  one  of  the  two  cameras  in  each  3D  rig  was  used  for  the  2D   deliverable  of  the  final  production.   For  the  “multi-­‐camera”  style  show  Days  of  Our   Lives,  the  plan  was  to  integrate  a  3D  production   A  “single-­‐camera”  style  of  shooting   is  with  one  or  more  cameras  where   workflow  into  the  show’s  existing  2D  infrastructure   each  camera  setup  and  lighting   so  that  a  3D  episode  (along  with  its  2D  deliverable)   situation  is  shot  as  a  single  separate   could  be  produced  while  not  interfering  with  the   event  within  a  scene.       infrastructure  of  the  regular  daily  production  that   continued  to  go  to  broadcast.    With  this  in  mind,   A  “multi-­‐camera”  style  is  where   there  are  multiple  cameras  set  at   the  goal  was  to  work  within  the  show’s  normal   different  focal  lengths;  i.e.  wide,   shooting  schedule  and  the  established  production   medium  and  close,  which  are   and  creative  practices  of  the  director,  talent  and   intercut  for  each  camera  setup  and   crew.    To  complicate  matters,  Days  of  Our  Lives   lighting  situation  and  are  typically   typically  shoots  portions  of  more  than  one  episode   recorded  as  a  full  uninterrupted   scene.   in  a  single  day,  so  the  3D  production  shared  its   shooting  days,  stages,  and  sets  with  a  separate  2D   episode  being  shot  simultaneously.  Any  issues   encountered  by  3D  production  that  slowed  down  the  process  would  have   equally  impacted  the  separate,  yet  concurrent  2D  episode.   The  plan  for  the  show  Happy  Endings  was  different  than  for  Days  of  Our  Lives.   Happy  Endings  not  only  shoots  in  “single-­‐camera”  style  on  location  (rather  than   “multi-­‐camera”  style  on  a  stage),  but  also  shoots  a  single  episode  over  a  five-­‐day   period.   The  3D  production  of  the  feature  film  Battle  of  the  Year  was  selected  for  the  test   project  because  the  filmmakers  saw  how  3D  could  enhance  the  story   aesthetically,  while  the  budget  and  production  schedule  would  seem  to  preclude   3D  production  as  an  option.    This  theatrical  production  differed  from  the  two   television  productions  in  two  ways.  Firstly,  it  was  shot  for  exhibition  on  a  cinema   screen  (which  has  a  direct  impact  on  the  choices  made  in  3D),  and  secondly,  this   production  was  not  a  test:  the  motion  picture  would  be  released  in  theaters   ©2012  Sony  Pictures  Technologies.  All  Rights  Reserved  


worldwide  in  both  2D  and  3D.  By  comparison  the  3D  episodes  of  the  television   series  would  be  system  tests  to  prove  the  premise  but  only  the  2D  versions  were   for  broadcast.   Sony  3DTC  –  3D  Workshop     Day  1  –  Lecture   • • • • • • • • •

History  of  3D   3D  Terminology   Divergence   2D  vs.  3D  Techniques   Orthostereoscopy   Types  of  3D  Cameras   3D  Productions  Types   Stereoscopic  3D   Productions   Examples  of  S3D    

Day  2  –  Stage/Production   • • • • • •

Artistic  Choice  in  3D   Terminology  Review   Stereo  Exercise   Orthographic  Stereoscopic     Stereographic  Scripting  +   Budgeting   Review  Day  2  Production  

Day  3  –  Production/Screening     •

Proper  production  crew  training  is  critical  to  a   successful  3D  shoot.  Crew  members  from  each   production  attended  1-­‐2  days  of  training  at  the   Sony  3D  Technology  Center  at  the  Sony  Pictures   lot  in  Culver  City,  California.  The  training  offered   them  the  opportunity  to  learn  the  principles  of   stereography,  to  see  firsthand  what  makes  good   and  bad  3D,  and  have  hands-­‐on  shooting  3D  on   a  sound  stage.   Most  of  the  crew  members  who  worked  on   these  productions  had  never  been  involved  in  a   3D  production.  In  the  training  sessions  they   learned  3D  terminology  and  the  basics  of  what,   from  a  creative  point  of  view,  makes  “good  3D”,   as  well  as  what  can  lead  to  “bad  3D”  which  can   make  viewers  uncomfortable.  The  crew   ultimately  learned  a  great  deal  about  what  they   could  achieve  on  their  own  productions  and  in   telling  their  own  stories  in  3D.  

Specialized  3D  training  is  recommended  for  key   members  of  any  crew  making  the  transition  to   • 3D.  Directors,  for  example,  would  benefit  from   • learning  basic  stereography  concepts  like  depth   budgeting   and  depth  scripting  as  they  relate  to   • managing  depth  in  their  given  stories.   Stereography  is  a  visual  storytelling  tool  that   tends  to  fall  in  the  director  and  cinematographer’s  domains.  Each  should   therefore  learn  how  to  use  depth  creatively  for  their  given  purposes  as  well  as   what  to  do  to  avoid  common  3D  errors.       •


Introduction  and  Review  of   Goals   Mechanical  Challenges  in   3D  Cinematography   3D  Analysis  Tools   The  3D  Crew   Considerations   3D  Resources  

Crew  Training  

Depth  Budgeting   Proper  management  of  depth  is  crucial  in  all  3D  productions.  The  depth  budget  is   a  measure  of  the  overall  limits  of  the  3D  effect,  how  far  objects  appear  in  front   of  or  behind  the  screen  over  the  course  of  the  production  as  a  whole.  The  depth   script  is  a  detailed  description  of  how  3D  will  be  applied  to  individual  scenes  and   shots.     ©2012  Sony  Pictures  Technologies.  All  Rights  Reserved  


Planning  for  depth  is  in  part  a  technical  function  and  in  part  a  creative  task.  It  is   important,  for  example,  to  avoid  depth  errors  that  might  cause  audience   discomfort,  but  it  is  also  important  to  use  3D  to  tell  your  story.  The  use  of  depth   has  a  powerful  effect  on  the  quality  and  impact  of  3D  and  can  be  used  to  affect   the  mood  and  tone  of  the  story  in  both  subtle  as  well  as  overt  ways.  A   stereographer  manipulates  depth  by  controlling  interaxial  and  convergence  in   much  the  way  a  cinematographer  works  with  framing,  focus,  light  and  color  as   storytelling  tools.   Creating  a  depth  budget  and  a  depth  script  prior  to  production  is  essential  in   order  to  take  full  advantage  of  the  possibilities  of  3D  and  avoid  errors  that  can   be  hard  to  overcome  in  later  stages  of  production  and  post-­‐production.  It  is   advantageous  to  consult  the  stereographer  during  pre-­‐production  in  order  to   capitalize  on  how  best  to  utilize  3D.  A  good  stereographer  is  a  skilled   craftsperson  that  understands  how  to  use  depth  to  shape  atmosphere  and  mood   as  well  as  how  to  set  a  rhythm  with  3D-­‐  much  like  a  musical  score  with  rises  and   falls-­‐  set  at  a  pace  that  accentuates  the  narrative.    A  stereographer  can  identify   points  in  a  script  when  it  is  more  effective  to  be  conservative  with  depth,  and   when  a  greater  impact  can  be  made  by  being  more  aggressive.  

Rig  Evaluation   A  major  cause  of  production  delays  and  post-­‐production  problems  in  live  action   3D  shows  is  dealing  with  rig  misalignment.  If  the  two  cameras  on  the  3D  rig  are   even  slightly  out  of  alignment  the  resulting  3D  can  cause  viewer  discomfort,   require  expensive  post-­‐production  fixes,  or  worse  still,  can  be  ultimately   unusable.    An  example  of  a  3D  problem  that  cannot  be  fixed  in  post  is  focus   mismatch.  When  the  3D  images  are  unusable,  the  only  solution  may  be  to  use  3D   conversion.    The  conversion  process  from  2D  to  3D  is  a  complicated  and  costly   solution  in  which  one  “eye”  (or  camera  source)  is  discarded  and  the  other  is  used   as  a  source  to  recreate  the  second  “eye”.     The  time  taken  with  rig  realignment  is  a  much  larger  concern  when  shooting   episodic  television  than  it  is  when  shooting  a  major  motion  picture  because   episodic  television  shows  shoot  more  camera  set-­‐ups  per  day  and  move  the   cameras  more  between  each  set  up.  The  fast  pace  of  production  in  television,   and  the  multiple  camera  moves  greatly  increase  the  opportunity  for  the  rigs  to   become  misaligned,  while  also  lessening  the  time  available  for  the  crew  to   attend  to  rig  realignment  when  it  occurs.  Television  productions  typically  also   have  less  time  and  smaller  budgets  for  post-­‐production  processes,  so  having  to   fix  bad  stereo  images  shot  with  misaligned  cameras  is  not  a  real  option.   Minimizing  the  time  spent  having  to  properly  align  and  realign  the  rigs  is  of   paramount  importance  as  it  directly  impacts  the  pace  of  production  and   therefore  the  budget.    The  time  it  takes  to  align  and  realign  a  3D  rig  should  be  

©2012  Sony  Pictures  Technologies.  All  Rights  Reserved  


considered  a  primary  factor  in  the  choice  of  3D  equipment  used.    The  3D  has  to   be  good  on  the  set.   With  this  in  mind  the  first  step  for  Sony  Pictures  Technologies  was  to  consider   the  many  choices  among  3D  rigs  in  the  market.    Through  their  prior  experience   with  3D  rigs  from  several  manufacturers,  and  the  issues  inherent  with  the  given   technologies,  they  were  able  to  pare  down  the  list  of  prospective  candidates  to  a   select  few  beam-­‐splitter  configuration  rigs.    The  rig  assessment  tests  looked  at   factors  that  would  be  key  to  the  success  of  the  3D  production,  these  included:   A  Beam-­‐Splitter  3D  rig  is  configured   with  two  cameras  mounted  at  a  90-­‐ degree  angle  from  one  another.     One  camera  is  either  pointing   straight  up  or  straight  down  and   shooting  into  a  mirror  set  at  a  45-­‐ degree  angle,  and  the  other  camera   is  mounted  parallel  to  the  horizon   shooting  through  the  half-­‐silvered   mirror.    Beam-­‐splitters  are  used  to   allow  interaxial  distances  to  be   smaller  than  what  would  be   possible  if  the  cameras  were   mounted  side-­‐by-­‐side.  

• •

• • • •

Initial  “out  of  the  box”  set  up  time.   Alignment  accuracy  when  the  rig   technician  declares  the  rig  to  be  in   alignment.   Stability  of  alignment  during  camera   moves  that  replicated  real  life  operation.   Realignment  time.   Time  to  change  lenses  and   realign/recalibrate.   Image  artifacts  under  different  lighting   conditions.  

The  rigs  tested  included  several  manually-­‐aligned  rigs  and  an  auto-­‐aligned  3ality   TS-­‐35  rig.  All  of  the  rigs  tested  were  designed  for  mid-­‐sized  digital  cameras   mounted  in  a  beam-­‐splitter  configuration.    The  TS-­‐35  rig  is  a  3ality  TS-­‐5  rig   modified  to  accommodate  the  slightly  wider  body  of  the  Sony  PMW-­‐F3  camera.                       3ality  TS-­‐35  beam-­‐splitter  3D  rig  with  Sony  PMW-­‐F3  cameras  

©2012  Sony  Pictures  Technologies.  All  Rights  Reserved  


Each  of  the  rigs  was  also  connected  to  an  image  processing  system  to  analyze   3D.    The  manually-­‐aligned  rigs  were  connected  to  a  Sony  MPE-­‐200  multi-­‐image   processor,  and  the  3ality  TS-­‐35  was  connected  to  a  3ality  stereo  image  processor   (SIP).                   3D  Analysis  monitors  connected  to  image  processors  

There  were  several  significant  differences  between   the  rigs  and  image  processing  systems  involved  in   the  testing.  The  3ality  TS-­‐35  rig  features  a  feedback   mechanism  between  the  rig  motors  and  their   Stereo  Image  Processor  (SIP)  for  auto-­‐alignment.  A   SIP:    A  Stereo  Image  Processor   “Z-­‐LUT”  (zoom  look  up  table),  is  created  using  the   created  by  3ality  that  performs   SIP  for  the  pair  of  lenses  during  initial  rig  set  up,   real-­‐time  image  analysis  for  video   based  Stereoscopic  3D  signals.   and  is  used  during  shooting  to  compensate  for   alignment  changes  as  the  rig  operates.    The  Z-­‐LUT   MPE  200:  An  image  processor   also  maps  the  differences  in  the  two  lenses  at  their   created  by  Sony  Electronics  that   various  focal  lengths  and  compensates  for  these   performs  image  analysis  for  video   differences  throughout  the  entire  zoom  range.    As   based  signals.   stereo  image  issues  can  also  arise  from  lenses  when   Differential  Focus:    A  situation  in   there  are  inconsistencies  in  the  way  a  pair  of  zooms   which  one  lens  is  not  in  focus  at  the   lenses  move  throughout  their  focal  lengths  relative   same  distance  as  its  paired  lens.   to  one  another,  this  is  a  key  feature  with  major   time  and  budget  saving  advantages.    This  feature  of   Disparity:    The  distance  between   3D  images  that  combine  to  create   using  Z-­‐LUT’s  to  compensate  for  potential  3D  lens   depth  perception.   errors  makes  the  3ality  rig  virtually  “auto-­‐aligned”   and  “auto  lens-­‐mapped”.    Similarly,  the  3ality  SIP   also  supplies  a  warning  for  differential  focus  errors  and  other  issues  such  as   disparity  warnings  and  warnings  for  geometric  misalignments  caused  by  camera   offsets.    By  comparison,  the  simpler  manually-­‐aligned  rigs  lack  a  compensating   feedback  system  and  relied  instead  on  a  rig  technician’s  skill  for  alignment  by   hand  and  are  therefore  considered  a  “manually-­‐aligned”  and  “manually  lens-­‐ mapped”  rig.   Z-­‐LUT:    A  file  created  by  a  SIP  using   image  processing  to  measure  and   compare  differences  in  lens   elements  at  multiple  focal  lengths.  

©2012  Sony  Pictures  Technologies.  All  Rights  Reserved  


The  manually  aligned  rigs  were  paired  with  a  Sony  MPE-­‐200  running  the  MPES-­‐ 3001  software  that  is  capable  of  alignment  on  several  axes  for  fixing  minor  errors   and  address  adverse  parallax  settings.    The  planned  workflow  used  the  MPE-­‐200   to  produce  an  on-­‐set  reference  of  properly  aligned  3D  images,  and  the   correction  metadata  created  from  the  MPE-­‐200’s  adjustments  would  be  used  to   drive  post-­‐production  realignment  of  the  images  captured.    Another  use  for  the   MPE-­‐200,  which  was  not  employed  in  this  test,  is  more  of  a  broadcast   application  where  the  corrected  output  of  the  MPE-­‐200  is  sent  direct  to  air.    The   reason  that  this  second  method  was  not  used  was  partly  because  the  MPE-­‐200   operates  on  a  422  video  signal  whereas  the  production  tests  were  all  444,  and   partly  because  better  image  processing  can  be  achieved  when  there  is  no   requirement  for  real-­‐time  processing.   Each  3D  rig  was  tested  while  equipped  with  two  Sony  PMW-­‐F3  cameras   retrofitted  with  top  and  side  mounting  plates  in  order  to  mount  in  the  rigs  in  a   proper  configuration.    A  Codex  Onboard  recorder  recorded  picture.     Matched  pairs  of  30-­‐80mm  and  16-­‐42mm  Angenieux  Rouge  lenses  were  used  for   optics.  The  Angenieux  Rouge  lenses  can  be  and  were  matched  in  stereo  pairs  for   3D  use  before  they  were  released  from  the  factory.    This  lens  pairing  is  far  more   critical  to  manually-­‐aligned  rigs  than  it  is  to  the  auto-­‐aligned  3ality  TS-­‐35  rig   because  matching  lens  pairs  even  with  the  internal  adjustment  in  the  Angenieux   Rouge  lenses,  accurately  throughout  their  entire  zoom  range  on  “manually-­‐ aligned”  rigs,  can  prove  to  be  a  daunting  task  and  in  practice  was  only  possible   for  part  of  a  lens  pairs  zoom  range  over  all.   Rig  technicians  for  the  tests  were  provided  by  each  of  the  rig  manufacturers  and   were  skilled  in  the  operation  of  their  respective  rigs.     Movement  of  the  rigs  was  handled  in  a  manner  consistent  with  normal  practices   in  an  episodic  television  or  feature  film  production  in  which  the  gear  was  loaded   and  unloaded  onto  trucks  that  traveled  over  various  surface  conditions  in  transit   to  and  from  locations.    These  tests  were  carefully  scripted  and  scrupulously   observed  by  the  Sony  Pictures  Technologies  team  in  order  to  ensure  that  the   shooting  conditions  were  repeated  precisely  for  each  rig  evaluation.       For  alignment  evaluation,  targets  with  horizontal  and  vertical  guides  were  set  in   three  rows  of  three  targets  at  measured  distances  from  the  cameras  on  a  sound   stage.    The  front  row  was  close  to  the  cameras;  the  back  row  was  at  the  back  of   the  sound  stage.   After  recording  initial  alignment  for  each  test,  the  rigs  were  then  moved   between  tests  on  a  dolly  in  the  street,  then  over  cobblestone,  and  finally  in  the   back  of  a  truck  over  speed  bumps.  They  were  re-­‐tested  for  alignment  after  each   successive  move.    After  all  tests  were  completed  the  resulting  images  were   projected  in  3D  on  a  14ft  screen  to  measure  any  alignment  offsets  and  diagnose   any  and  all  potential  3D  issues  introduced.   ©2012  Sony  Pictures  Technologies.  All  Rights  Reserved  


Evaluation  Results     The  3ality  TS-­‐35  rig  showed  clear  advantages  over  the  manually-­‐ aligned/manually  lens-­‐mapped  rigs.  The  TS-­‐35  had  the  shortest  alignment  time   and  the  best  alignment  reliability,  the  two  critical  factors  that  directly  impact  a   productions  budget.  Although  the  auto-­‐aligned  3ality  TS-­‐35  rig  is  more  expensive   than  most  of  the  manually-­‐aligned  rigs,  and  requires  a  laptop  computer  and   monitor  to  operate  the  SIP,  the  TS-­‐35  was  faster  to  set  up,  faster  to  change   lenses  and  maintained  alignment  from  one  camera  set  up  to  another.  Each  of   these  advantages  would  result  in  the  fewest  production  delays  possible.  Some  of   the  additional  problems  found  in  other  rigs  were  as  problematic  as  differential   focus  and  could  not  be  fixed  in  post.      

Recommendations   As  stated  earlier,  one  of  the  keys  to  producing  3D  cost  effectively  is  to  ensure   that  the  3D  looks  good  while  still  on  the  set.  Relying  on  post-­‐production  to  fix   problems  related  to  rig  alignment  is  ill  advised  as  it  is  both  expensive  and  also   may  lead  to  serious  budget  impacts  with  potential  3D  problems  that  are  difficult   if  not  impossible  to  be  fixed.    Rushing  a  technician  who  is  attempting  to  align  or   change  a  lens  on  a  manually-­‐aligned  rig  in  the  interest  of  keeping  a  production   on  schedule  is  also  potentially  disastrous.    For  the  types  of  productions  that  are   the  subject  of  this  document,  the  investment  in  the  rental  or  purchase  of  self-­‐ aligning  3D  rigs  such  as  the  3ality  TS-­‐35  ultimately  saves  costs  in  both  production   and  post-­‐production  when  compared  to  manually-­‐aligned  rigs.    Other   considerations  may  apply  for  other  types  of  productions  not  addressed  in  this   document  such  as  live  events  and  documentaries.   There  is  an  argument  to  be  made  for  shooting  3D  using  zoom  lenses  when   possible.  Firstly,  prime  lenses  typically  do  not  come  in  matched  pairs  and   therefore  the  actual  field  of  view  of  two  prime  lenses  with  the  same  focal  length   will  not  be  exactly  the  same.    Further,  zoom  lenses  can  be  used  like  primes  in  the   sense  of  changing  focal  lengths  between  shots  but  not  within,  thus  resulting  in   fewer  lens  changes  and  even  lesser  downtime.  The  Z-­‐LUT  on  the  3ality  rig  keeps   two  zoom  lenses  at  the  same  actual  focal  length  and  field  of  view  throughout  the   lenses  entire  zoom  range.  

The  Production  Package   Equipment   The  production  case  studies  described  in  this  white  paper  were  carried  out  using   three  3ality  TS-­‐35  rigs  each  outfitted  with  a  pair  of  Sony  PMW-­‐F3  cameras  using   Angenieux  Rouge  zoom  lenses  and  recording  to  one  Codex  Onboard  recording   device  for  each  rig.  

©2012  Sony  Pictures  Technologies.  All  Rights  Reserved  


3ality  TS-­‐35  rig:   A  fully  motorized  beam-­‐splitter  3D  rig  that  is  small  and  light  enough  to  be   used  in  a  handheld  or  “Steadicam”  situation  as  well  as  other  standard   production  shooting  scenarios.   Sony  PMW-­‐F3  camera:   A  lightweight,  PL  mount,  Super  35mm  size  Single  Chip  CMOS  Sensor   camera,  with  built-­‐in  ND  optical  filters  and  the  capability  of  recording  up   to  60fps  at  1080p  via  3G  output.   Angenieux  Optimo  DP  (Digital  Production)  Rouge  T2.8  zoom  lenses:   These  lenses  come  in  focal  length  ranges  of  16-­‐42mm  and  30-­‐80mm,   available  in  PL  mount,  and  are  designed  for  use  with  Super  35mm  size   sensors.    (The  short  focal  lengths  also  allowed  for  the  use  of  the  smaller   mirror  box  available  on  the  3ality  TS-­‐35  rig  rather  than  the  larger.)   CODEX  Onboard:   A  recorder  that  is  able  to  record  two  cameras  on  a  single  unit  at  up  to   60fps  using  2x  4:4:4  inputs.    The  unit  provides  for  compression  choices   and  records  onto  data  packs  that  (at  the  time  of  these  tests)  are  available   in  sizes  of  256  and  512gb.   3D  Monitoring  Station:   3D  production  requires  a  3D  monitoring  station  (sometimes  called  a  “3D   video  village”).    Here  the  dual  video  streams  from  each  of  the  three  rigs   are  fed  into  a  disparity  monitor  and  a  3D  monitor.    Disparity  monitors  use   a  difference  mode  which  yields  a  combination  of  each  camera’s  image   overlaid  over  one  another  where  one  is  black  and  white  and  the  other  is   white  and  black.    The  Disparity  monitors  allow  the  trained  stereographer   to  see  the  differences  between  the  eyes  and  make  critical  decisions.   Sony  TD-­‐300:    

A  lightweight  professional  3D  shoulder  camcorder  with  a  dual  lens  system   in  a  single  camera  body.  

The  3D  Crew   Three  crew  members  were  added  to  the  regular  crew.   Stereographer:   The  stereographer  is  responsible  for  producing  good  quality  3D  that  is   not  uncomfortable  to  viewers.  The  stereographer’s  duties  begin  in  pre-­‐ production  consultations  with  the  director  and  cinematographer  where   ©2012  Sony  Pictures  Technologies.  All  Rights  Reserved  


together  they  create  a  depth  script.  On-­‐set  the  stereographer  is   responsible  for  convergence  and  interaxial  adjustments.    In  post-­‐ production  the  stereographer  makes  final  creative  convergence   adjustments  and  transitions  between  shots  and  scenes.   SIP  Operator:   Together  with  the  rig  technician  the  SIP  operator  is  responsible  for  the   calibration  of  the  rig  and  monitoring  for  3D  errors  while  in  production.   The  SIP  operator’s  main  tool  is  the  analysis  monitor  connected  to  the  SIP.   Rig  Technician:   The  rig  technician  is  responsible  for  the  operation  of  the  rig.  Duties   include  calibration  of  the  rig,  moving  the  rig  with  the  help  of  the  grip   department,  lens  calibration  with  the  SIP  operator,  lens  changes   coordinated  with  the  camera  department,  and  overall  rig  maintenance.                                 ST

1  AD  Marc  Little  never  had  to  wait  for  3D  on  the  set  of  Battle  of  the  Year  


©2012  Sony  Pictures  Technologies.  All  Rights  Reserved  


The  Productions   Days  of  Our  Lives     Producing  a  daytime  drama  in  3D  on  their  normal  production   schedule     The  NBC  daytime  drama  Days  of  Our  Lives  may  seem  an  unlikely  candidate  for   production  in  stereoscopic  3D  because  we’ve  seen  mostly  animation  and  actions   genres  using  this  relatively  new  medium  of  depth.    On  the  other  hand,  Days  of   Our  Lives,  which  airs  on  NBC  five  days  a  week,  is  a  character  driven  drama  with  a   set  consisting  primarily  of  interiors  that  would  appear  to  limit  visual  possibilities,   but  the  test  shoot  described  herein  proved  otherwise.    It  is  shown  on  NBC  five   days  a  week.   Producing  a  multi-­‐camera  daytime  drama  in  3D  is  challenging.  The  production   moves  at  a  fast  pace  and  this  made  Days  of  Our  Lives  an  especially  good  test   case.  If  an  episode  of  such  a  show  could  be  produced  in  3D  while  closely   adhering  to  its  regular  schedule  and  budget,  then  the  same  approach  might  be   successfully  employed  on  other  similar  television  shows.    Days  of  Our  Lives   shoots  on  a  pair  of  adjoining  stages  at  NBC’s  Burbank  facility  and  generally   produces  two  episodes  concurrently  over  one  or  two  production  days.  When   working  at  its  fastest  pace,  Crew  A  shoots  scenes  for  one  episode  on  one  stage  in   the  morning  and  moves  to  the  second  stage  in  the  afternoon,  while  Crew  B   shoots  scenes  for  a  second  episode  on  the  opposite  schedule.  The  following  day,   the  routine  is  repeated.  When  producing  two  episodes,  both  crews  together  may   shoot  60  or  more  pages  of  script  per  day  with  as  many  as  70  set-­‐ups.   Production  of  the  3D  episode  of  Days  of  Our  Lives  would  precisely  follow  this   schedule  and  the  2D  episode  created  for  broadcast  from  the  feed  of  one  camera   on  each  3D  rig.    Shooting  separate  episodes  with  separate  crews  sharing  stages   would  increase  the  pressure  on  the  3D  team  to  maintain  the  show’s  regular   production  schedule.  If  3D  caused  its  episode  to  lag,  the  impact  would  be  felt  in   the  other  2D  episode  as  well.   In  preparation  for  this  project,  Sony  Pictures  Technologies  studied  the  current   workflow  and  production  practices  of  Days  of  Our  Lives  thoroughly,  and  after   conducting  the  previously  described  rig  tests,  came  up  with  a  game  plan  to   accomplish  both  their  own  goals  and  also  meet  the  needs  of  the  production.  

Camera  Considerations   Days  of  Our  Lives  normally  shoots  with  HD  broadcast  cameras  mounted  on   pedestals  and  outfitted  with  broadcast-­‐style  lenses.       ©2012  Sony  Pictures  Technologies.  All  Rights  Reserved  


                      The  3D  rig  on  a  pedestal  with  an  8”  riser  on  the  set  of  Days  of  Our  Lives  

A  pedestal  is  essentially  a  telescoping  camera  mount  on  a  base  with  multi-­‐ directional  wheels.    Broadcast  style  lenses  tend  to  have  longer  focal  lengths,   inferior  optics  and  less  focus  control  than  cinema-­‐style  lenses,  but  most   importantly  they  tend  to  have  a  wide  depth  of  field,  meaning  that  everything  in   the  frame  is  essentially  in  focus.    The  3ality  TS-­‐35  rigs  were  fitted  with  Sony   PMW-­‐F3  cameras  that  have  a  Super  35mm-­‐size  CMOS  sensor.    These  cameras   were  chosen  because  they  were  a  good  choice  for  the  entire  three-­‐production   project  however  they  were  not  the  optimal  choice  to  create  the  “look”  of  Days  of   Our  Lives.    The  cinema-­‐style  lenses  used  on  cameras  like  the  F3  tend  to  have  a   shallow  depth  of  field,  allowing  objects  in  close  up  shots  particularly  to  fall  out  of   focus  with  distance  into  what  is  called  a  “Bokeh”,  meaning  the  area  of  an  image   that  is  out  of  focus.    The  cameras  and  lenses  normally  used  by  Days  of  Our  Lives   have  a  greater  depth  of  field.   The  differences  between  the  F3  camera  equipped  with  the  Angenieux  lenses   from  that  of  the  camera  and  lens  combination  regularly  used  on  Days  of  Our   Lives  had  an  impact  on  the  normal  camera  positions  chosen  by  the  show   operators  for  framing.    Where  they  may  have  been  able  to  zoom  in  to  a  close-­‐up   before,  they  would  now  have  to  move  the  camera  itself  to  frame  closer.    Yet  by   the  same  token,  moving  the  camera  in  closer  also  had  a  benefit  for  3D  because  it   allowed  the  lens  to  be  set  at  a  shorter  focal  length  which  naturally  enhances  the   space  between  foreground  and  background  objects  more  than  longer  focal   length  lenses  do.  

©2012  Sony  Pictures  Technologies.  All  Rights  Reserved  


In  a  real-­‐world  scenario  rather  than  a  test,  other  cameras  such  as  the  Sony  HDC-­‐ P1  HD  are  an  excellent  choice  for  Days  of  Our  Lives,  as  they  would  have  not  only   fit  the  3ality  TS-­‐5  rig,  but  also  could  have  been  used  with  the  show’s  regular   broadcast-­‐style  lenses.   Being  able  to  use  their  regular  broadcast-­‐style  lenses  would  have  enabled  the   Days  of  Our  Lives  crew  to  zoom  to  the  same  focal  lengths  and  framing  in  3D  that   they  were  accustomed  to  in  2D.    This  was  not  the  case  however  in  the  test,  and   therefore  a  few  obstacles  were  encountered  that  were  a  result  of  introducing   cinema  cameras  and  lenses  into  a  multi-­‐camera  television  environment,  which   were  not  directly  related  to  3D  production  itself.   Another  issue  related  to  lensing,  is  the  fact  that  Days  of  Our  Lives  uses  filtering  at   the  camera  to  establish  the  chosen  aesthetic  look  of  the  show.    As  the  test  would   be  shot  with  different  cameras,  the  unfiltered  look  of  the  native  footage  would   be  quite  different.    Since  the  2D  version  of  the  show  was  going  to  air  as  a  regular   episode,  it  was  important  that  its  look  match  that  of  all  other  episodes  of  Days  of   Our  Lives  shot  with  the  standard  cameras  and  lenses  used  on  that  show.    For  this   test  episode  and  its  2D  deliverable,  rather  than  place  filters  on  the  lens  of  the   camera,  which  would  have  made  it  more  difficult  to  match  the  standard  look  of   the  show  due  to  using  different  cameras,  the  team  decided  to  handle  filtering  in   post-­‐production  during  color  correction.   Ultimately,  a  production  that  planned  to  switch  from  shooting  2D  to  3D  with  a   change  in  cameras  would  want  to  consider  the  properties  of  cameras  which   were  suited  for  their  specific  production  in  regards  to  lenses,  sensors  and  overall   “look”  i.e.:  filtered  or  unfiltered  in  camera.    Since  this  was  a  one-­‐off  test,  the   Days  of  Our  Lives  crew  would  work  around  the  new  choices  of  focal  lengths  and   framing,  while  post-­‐production  at  Sony  Pictures’  ColorWorks  facility  would   match  the  look  of  the  show  downstream.       An  important  note  to  consider  is  that  none  of  the  factors  described  here  were   directly  related  to  3D,  nor  were  they  functional  drawbacks  or  problems  with  the   F3  camera.    The  F3  camera  yields  a  superior  image  quality  and  dynamic  range.     However,  the  test  also  served  as  a  good  example  of  what  any  show  should   consider  when  switching  cameras.   Another  concern  arose  from  the  fact  that  the  3ality  TS-­‐35  rig  is  a  beam-­‐splitter   rig  where  the  cameras  are  set  at  a  90-­‐degree  angle  from  one  another.  One   camera  shoots  horizontally  through  the  mirror  and  the  other  camera  shoots   vertically  into  the  mirror  either  up  or  down.    This  means  that  one  camera  is   either  protruding  upwards  above  the  centerline  of  the  rig  by  the  length  of  the   camera  and  lens,  or  below  it  by  the  same  amount.  

©2012  Sony  Pictures  Technologies.  All  Rights  Reserved  


                3D  rigs  mounted  “underslung”  on  pedestals  with  risers  for  the  Days  of  Our  Lives  test  

This  geometry  of  the  cameras  in  the  rigs  presented  practical  issues  on  set  of   Days  of  Our  Lives.    If  the  rig  was  configured  so  that  the  vertical  camera  is   mounted  above  the  centerline  of  the  rig  shooting  downward  into  the  mirror  in   the  “overslung”  position,  it  may  cause  conflicts  with  stage  lighting,  as  lighting  on   the  stages  used  by  Days  of  Our  Lives  is  very  close  to  the  subjects—approximately   eight  feet  off  the  ground.  Additionally,  having  one  camera  pointing  down  would   increase  the  chances  of  flares  on  the  mirror  from  stage  lighting  because  the   reflective  side  of  the  mirror  in  the  rig  would  be  facing  upward  toward  the  lights.       Because  of  these  factors,  it  was  decided  that  the  second  camera  would  be   mounted  vertically  below  the  centerline  of  the  rig  shooting  upward  into  the   mirror  in  the  “underslung”  position.    Yet  here,  the  axis  of  the  first  camera  is  at   the  center  of  the  pedestal  everything  is  mounted  on,  so,  if  the  second  camera  is   hanging  two  and  a  half  feet  below  it  and  the  camera  operator  attempts  to  tilt   down,  the  lower  camera  would  hit  the  base  of  the  pedestal  preventing  the  tilt.       This  issue  was  easily  overcome  by  adding  an  8”  riser  to  extend  the  height  of  the   pedestal  so  that  the  downward  tilt  range  of  the  camera  was  increased  to  a   degree  sufficient  for  allowing  the  operators  normal  range  of  motion  employed  in   production.  

Adapting  to  the  Days  Workflow   Introducing  the  3ality  3D  rigs  and  F3  cameras  into  the  current  Days  of  Our  Lives   production  environment  as  a  test  was  not  as  simple  as  exchanging  them  for  the   equipment  normally  used  by  the  show.  A  feed  from  one  camera  on  each  rig  was   sent  to  the  show’s  existing  control  room  so  that  it  could  be  recorded  for  the  2D   version  of  the  show  that  would  go  to  broadcast.  Feeds  from  both  cameras  on  the   three  rigs  were  also  sent  to  a  3D  monitoring  station  for  dual-­‐stream  recording   and  stereoscopic  management.   ©2012  Sony  Pictures  Technologies.  All  Rights  Reserved  


In  the  show’s  normal  workflow,  the  three  cameras  are  linked  to  a  control  room   switcher  used  by  a  video  technician  to  remotely  control  camera  irises,  apply   color  correction  and  create  a  line  cut.  The  color  correction  and  line  cut  produced   on  the  set  becomes  the  basis  for  the  final  post-­‐production  edit.    This  control   room  functionality  was  not  directly  replicated  for  the  3D,  to  do  so  would  have   required  additional  infrastructure  that  would  have  replaced  the  existing  2D   equipment.  Since  this  was  a  one-­‐episode  test  fully  replicating  the  2D   infrastructure  was  not  imperative  to  the  overall  outcome  of  the  3D  experiment.       Otherwise,  3D  capability  would  be  integrated  into  the  current  2D  infrastructure   functionality  including  the  ability  for  a  line  cut  and  color  correction  normally   available  in  the  control  room.    For  this  test  only  iris  control  was  routed  into  the   control  room.  That  allowed  the  technician  to  adjust  camera  irises  using  a  remote   control  panel.    The  line  cut  was  edited  in  2D  from  a  feed  out  of  the  control  room,   and  all  color  correction  was  handled  in  post-­‐production.                   Control  Room  connection  for  video  feed  

Sony  Pictures  Technologies  worked  with  engineers  from  rig  maker  3ality  and  NBC   to  adapt  the  3D  rigs  to  recreate  remote  control  functionality  in  a  manner  similar   to  the  show’s  existing  workflow.  To  avoid  having  to  run  multiple  cables  back  to   the  control  room  the  3D  rigs  were  equipped  with  Telecast  Copperhead  3400   fiber  optic  transceivers.    These  transceivers  allowed  two  cameras  to  be   connected  to  a  single  camera  panel  with  all  of  the  signals  (audio,  video,   timecode,  genlock  and  tally)  output  through  a  single,  glass  (Telecast  TAC-­‐series)   fiber  cable  in  spools  of  500-­‐feet,  which  allows  for  a  smaller  cable  from  the   camera,  and  avoids  potential  problems  when  cables  are  moved  or  run  over  by   other  equipment  on  set.  

©2012  Sony  Pictures  Technologies.  All  Rights  Reserved  


The  3D  Monitoring  Station   The  3D  monitoring  station  was  set  up  on  an  unused  portion  of  the  stage.  During   the  shoot,  the  stereographer  monitored  convergence  on  all  three-­‐camera  pairs   using  the  disparity  monitors  and  the  overall  3D  look  on  three  42-­‐inch  3D   monitors  that  were  needed  to  view  3D  imagery  in  a  perspective  similar  to  what   viewers  would  see  at  home.   A  multi-­‐camera  television  series  shooting  3D  on  a  regular  basis  would  not  require   a  separate  3D  monitoring  station.  3D  monitoring  functions  could  be  built  into  the   production  control  room  so  that  stereo  adjustments,  dual  stream  recording,  iris   adjustments  and  color  correction  could  all  be  done  in  a  single  location  and  could   be  operated  without  adding  additional  crew  or  a  larger  production  footprint.  The   current  control  room  technician  along  with  the  engineers  on  set  could  take  on   some  of  the  additional  tasks  of  3D  after  having  been  trained.  The  minimal  extra   burden  of  3D  placed  on  the  existing  crew  would  be  reduced  over  time  as  their   experience  grew,  and  improving  software  increasingly  allowed  stereoscopic   adjustments  to  be  further  automated.                    

Director  Albert  Alarr  making  depth  adjustments  at  the  3D  monitoring  station  

Crew  Training   To  prepare  for  the  3D  production,  key  members  of  the  regular  Days  of  Our  Lives   production  crew  went  through  a  training  course  at  the  Sony  3D  Technology   Center  in  Culver  City.  As  this  was  a  single-­‐show  test,  the  goal  was  not  to  turn  the   crew  into  fully  capable  3D  technicians,  but  rather  to  familiarize  them  with  3D   concepts,  production  practices,  applications  and  limitations  so  that  they  could   begin  to  see  how  3D  could  be  applied  to,  and  benefit  the  story  aspects  of  their   production.     ©2012  Sony  Pictures  Technologies.  All  Rights  Reserved  


For  a  daytime  drama  shooting  in  3D,  extensive  training  may  be  less  important  for   camera  operators  whose  primary  function  will  continue  to  be  focus,  iris  and   zoom.  Maintenance  technicians,  however,  should  be  trained  in  3D  rig  technology   so  that  they  know  how  to  set  up  and  maintain  the  3D  rigs.    Control  room   technicians,  such  as  the  video  operator  who  controls  camera  irises,  color  and  line   cut  on  Days  of  Our  Lives  should  also  be  trained  in  3D  in  order  to  learn  how  to   make  convergence  and/or  interaxial  adjustments  required  by  the  director  or   stereographer.    

Depth  Budgeting   Depth  management  for  Days  of  Our  Lives  was  relatively  uncomplicated  because   the  show  shoots  on  fixed  sets.  The  sets  are  of  established  sizes  and  allow  limited   distances  for  camera  movement.  Camera  operators  can  pull  back  only  so  many   feet  from  the  subject  before  reaching  the  edge  of  the  stage.    Space  is  a  known   value  as  all  of  the  scenes  are  interiors;  there  are  no  “infinite”  horizons  to   consider  such  as  when  shooting  on  location.   Still,  the  depth  budget  had  to  be  kept  within  prescribed  and  manageable  limits   to  ensure  viewer  comfort.  For  Days  of  Our  Lives,  variations  in  interaxial  and   convergence  settings  were  constrained  so  that  the  depth  budget  never  exceeded   one  percent  in  the  background  (positive  parallax)  or  two  percent  in  the   foreground  (negative  parallax).  The  limited  depth  budget  allowed  camera   operators  to  move  freely  without  creating  3D  errors  that  would  result  in  viewer   eyestrain.  A  three  percent  depth  budget,  with   Edge  Occlusion:  an  object  in   screen  action  kept  more  positive  than  negative,   negative  parallax  (forward  of   is  a  good  rule  of  thumb  for  multi-­‐camera   screen)  that  is  cut  off  by  either  the   television  productions.   left  or  right  edge  of  frame  whereby   you  see  m ore  information  in  one   eye  than  the  other  causing  a  retinal   rivalry  on  the  edge  of  the  frame   making  it  difficult  to  look  at.   Floating  Windows:  a  technique   used  to  mask  Edge  Occlusions.     Floating  Windows  are  masks   applied  to  either  side  of  the  frame   in  order  to  change  the  apparent   depth  position  of  the  screen  edge.     Essentially,  a  floating  window  crops   out  the  additional  information  seen   only  in  one  eye  in  an  edge  occlusion   giving  the  effect  in  3D  of  pulling  the   edge  of  the  frame  forward.  

Even  within  such  constraints,  the  3D  effect  can   make  a  big  impression  on  the  viewers.  Two   percent  negative  parallax  (coming  forward  off   the  screen),  on  a  48-­‐inch  screen  is  very   noticeable.  Effects  of  this  magnitude  should  be   reserved  for  the  show’s  most  dramatic  moments   and  used  sparingly.    In  an  emotionally  charged   scene,  for  example,  a  character  might  be   brought  forward  past  the  screen  plane  in  order   to  increase  emotional  connection  with  the   viewer.  For  most  scenes,  however,  the  action   would  be  kept  behind  the  screen  plane,  in   positive  parallax.  

©2012  Sony  Pictures  Technologies.  All  Rights  Reserved  


The  Director  and  3D   Talent  blocking,  shot  composition  and  other  directorial  choices  require  subtle   adjustment  for  3D  television.  Camera  positions  and  movement  also  need  to  be   considered  to  create  effective  3D  results,  and  avoid  possible  problems  later.    As   an  example,  for  a  2D  episode  of  Days  of  Our  Lives,  the  director  might  shoot  a   cross,  followed  by  a  tight  shot  on  “John,”  followed  by  a  tight  shot  on  “Mary.”  For   a  3D  production,  it  might  work  better  and  simplify  camera  movement  to  use   fewer  shots.  After  the  cross,  the  camera  might  continue  to  move  in  on  John,  and   then  turn  around  to  shoot  Mary.     In  2D,  it  would  be  common  to  shoot  the  shot  of  Mary  over  John’s  shoulder,  but   that  might  cause  an  unwanted  edge  occlusion  in  3D  if  the  over-­‐the-­‐shoulder  shot   pulls  John  forward  too  far  off  the  edge  of  the  screen.  In  that  case,  either  a   floating  window  could  be  used  in  post-­‐production,  or  in  production  Mary  could   be  shot  separately.        


    An  example  of  director  Albert  Alarr’s  depth  blocking  for  3D  

In  other  words,  in  3D  the  director  needs  to  constantly  be  aware  of  the  Z-­‐axis  as   much  as  they  are  aware  of  the  180-­‐degree  rule.  Typically,  directors  and   cinematographers  use  lighting  and  focal  length  to  suggest  depth  in  a  scene.  In   3D,  they  have  a  new  tool  to  grow  or  shrink  the  space  between  characters,  and   directors  can  use  this  to  help  tell  their  stories  effectively.   Television  shows  that  adopt  3D  production  will  need  to  deliver  both  3D  and  2D   versions  for  some  time  to  come.  Choices  that  the  director  makes  to  maximize   the  effectiveness  of  the  3D  do  not  need  to  compromise  the  quality  or   effectiveness  of  the  2D  version.    The  two  can  easily  be  produced  concurrently  by   extracting  one  of  the  two  cameras  in  a  stereo  pair.  3D  movies,  for  example,  are   typically  shot  that  way  now.  

©2012  Sony  Pictures  Technologies.  All  Rights  Reserved  


The  Shoot     As  mentioned  previously,  the  3D  episode  of  Days  of  Our  Lives  was  scheduled  to   be  shot  on  the  show’s  regular  production  schedule,  over  two  days  on  two  stages,   while  a  separate  yet  concurrent  2D  episode  was  also  being  produced.    After   shooting  portions  of  the  3D  episode  on  one  stage  in  the  morning,  the  3D  rigs,   cameras  and  the  3D  monitoring  station  would  have  to  be  relocated  and  the   show’s  regular  2D  HD  equipment  rolled  in  for  the  other  episode.  The  3D  gear   would  then  be  set  up  on  the  second  stage  for  the  following  day’s  shoot.    The  2D   broadcast  deliverable  of  the  3D  episode  was  extracted  by  using  one  of  the   cameras  in  each  stereo  pair  as  described  previously,  allowing  3D  and  2D  to  be   acquired  simultaneously.   Sony  Pictures  Technologies  spent  several  days  before  the  shoot  setting  up  and   running  tests  to  ensure  that  all  of  the  points  in  the  production  workflow  would   perform  reliably  as  planned.  The  team  determined  where  the  3D  monitoring   station  would  be  located  and  how  long  it  would  take  to  move  the  3D  gear.  The   entire  3D  infrastructure  would  be  removed  over  lunch  and  then  set  up  on  the   second  stage.  The  move  included  rolling  up  all  of  the  fiber  cable  laid  out  from  the   set  to  the  2D  control  room  and  moving  it  to  the  second  stage.  In  an  ongoing  3D   production,  fiber  would  be  pre-­‐laid  and  left  on  both  stages  so  that  3D  rigs  could   simply  be  unplugged  on  one  stage  and  reconnected  on  the  other.   The  crew  shooting  the  3D  episode  held  a  practice  session  to  see  how  fast  they   could  break  down  their  gear  on  one  stage  and  reassemble  it  on  another.  The  first   day,  the  task  took  two  hours,  but  the  crew  was  confident  they  could  do  it  more   quickly  despite  the  fact  that  two  hours  would  be  sufficient  as  long  as  the  crew   could  exit  the  first  stage  before  the  second  crew  required  silence.     The  planning  and  practice  sessions  paid  off  as  the  production  itself  proceeded  in   a  relatively  routine  manner.  The  camera  operators  were  able  to  shoot  the   episode  while  making  only  minor  concessions  to  the  3D  rigs  and  the  new   cameras  regarding  their  typical  range  of  movement  and  focal  length  framing.  The   control  room  technician  was  able  to  make  iris  adjustment  more  or  less  normally   and  the  technical  director  created  a  line  cut.     The  stereographer  pulled  convergence  on  all  three  cameras  at  the  3D  monitoring   station,  making  depth  adjustments  and  recording  the  dual  stream  media  for  both   the  3D  and  2D  version  of  the  show.  During  production,  the  stereographer   communicated  with  the  director  and  camera  operators  via  headsets  and  alerted   them  when  potential  3D  issues,  such  as  edge  violations  arose.  This  was  especially   important  as  the  camera  operators  being  new  to  3D,  were  not  always  cognizant   of  potential  problems.  Given  the  production’s  fast  pace,  the  stereographer’s  role   in  overseeing  convergence  pulling  along  with  camera  operators  proved   challenging,  but  allowed  the  crew  to  accomplish  its  tasks  without  slowing  down   production.    

©2012  Sony  Pictures  Technologies.  All  Rights  Reserved  


Evaluating  Success   As  planned,  the  3D  episode  of  Days  of  Our  Lives  was  completed  on  schedule   along  with  its  2D  broadcast  deliverable.    The  test  episode  was  produced  with  the   creative  and  technical  compromises  described  previously,  and  suffered  only   minor  delays  due  to  their  relative  impact  on  the  show’s  standard  production   schedule.  The  only  slowdowns,  which  totaled  less  than  30  minutes  of  additional   production  time  in  a  day,  were  related  to  the  crew’s  need  to  reposition  the   cameras  more  often  due  to  shorter  focal  length  lenses  on  the  cameras  used  for   the  test.  It  seems  fair  to  conclude  that  a  normal  2D  schedule  could  be   maintained  in  an  actual  production.   The  test  was  also  a  success  from  a  creative  point  of  view.  The  quality  of  the  3D   and  how  it  enhanced  the  drama  impressed  the  show’s  cast  and  crew.  Albert   Alarr,  a  long-­‐time  director  of  Days  of  Our  Lives,  was  convinced  that  3D  is  a   powerful  tool  that  could  be  used  to  engage  audiences  in  new  ways.  Alarr  said,   “When  I  analyze  a  scene,  I  see  that  it’s  about  love  or  sex  or  violence,  and  I   wonder,  ‘What  elements  can  I  add  that  will  make  it  more  interesting?’”    “I  can   put  the  camera  over  there,  I  can  ask  the  DP  to  not  use  so  much  light,  make  it   starker,  or  I  can  shoot  it  through  a  window.  3D  is  another  tool.  It  can’t  do   everything  but  it  does  add  something  especially  to  the  big  moments…the  first   kiss,  the  big  fight  scene,  the  reveal  of  some  personal  secret.”      Alarr  added  “Or  it   can  affect  the  mood.  A  woman  looks  out  a  window  thinking  about  her  husband   whom  she  hasn’t  seen  in  months,  as  the  snow  falls,  she  is  feeling  lost  and   distant.  That’s  a  nice  3D  moment.    

                Cast  members  from  Days  of  Our  Lives  


©2012  Sony  Pictures  Technologies.  All  Rights  Reserved  


Battle  of  the  Year   Producing  a  limited  budget  3D  feature  without  limiting  its  value   Production  gear  like  the  cameras,  rigs  and  lenses  employed  for  the  3D  test   episode  of  Days  of  Our  Lives  can  also  be  used  to  produce  motion  pictures   natively  in  3D,  including  those  with  limited  budgets  and  short  production   schedules.  The  Screen  Gems  production  Battle  of  the  Year  is  a  dance-­‐themed   drama  about  an  acrobatic  form  of  break-­‐dancing—“b-­‐boying”—that  is   enormously  popular  among  young  people  worldwide.  Directed  by  Benson  Lee   the  movie  centers  on  an  American  b-­‐boy  crew  training  to  take  part  in  the  Battle   of  the  Year,  which  is  a  global  championship  held  annually  in  Montpellier,  France.   Blending  fiction  with  reality,  Battle  of  the  Year’s  producers  arranged  to  have  the   movie’s  fictional  dance  crew  perform  in  the  actual  2011  Battle  of  the  Year   competition  in  Montpellier  before  a  live  audience  of  12,000  people.   Screen  Gems  determined  that  3D  could  be  a  very  effective  tool  for  this  particular   production  as  it  could  be  used  to  enhance  the  immediacy  and  emotional   intensity  of  the  film’s  narrative  scenes,  while  at  the  same  time  boosts  the   spectacle  of  the  film’s  high-­‐energy  dance  sequences.  The  added  dimension  of  3D   would  allow  the  audience  to  share  the  same  space  of  the  characters  and  to   experience  the  performances  in  an  immersive  and  visceral  manner.  For  fans  of   the  dance  form,  Battle  of  the  Year:    The  Dream  Team,  viewed  in  3D,  would  be   the  next  best  thing  to  actually  being  at  the  Battle  of  the  Year  in  the  South  of   France.   For  Sony  Pictures  Technologies,  Battle  of  the  Year  offered  a  far  different  set  of   circumstances  from  Days  of  Our  Lives.  As  a  feature-­‐length  motion  picture,  Battle   of  the  Year  employed  a  completely  different  shooting  style  and  production   schedule.  The  feature  was  entirely  on  location  in  Montpellier,  France  and  Los   Angeles.  The  feature  would  also  ultimately  be  released,  both  in  3D  and  2D  in   cinemas  worldwide.  Unlike  Days  of  Our  Lives,  Battle  of  the  Year  would  not  be  a   proof-­‐of-­‐concept  test.   Battle  of  the  Year  also  differs  in  many  ways  from  most  previous  live  action  films   produced  natively  in  3D,  as  it  is  not  a  special  effects  driven  tent-­‐pole  production   with  a  “blockbuster”  budget  and  lengthy  production  schedule.  Nor  is  it  a  simple   concert  film  lacking  primarily  narrative  content.  Battle  of  the  Year  is  a  film  with   an  emotionally  character-­‐driven  story,  with  thrilling  dance  sequences  that  had  to   be  produced  within  the  constraints  of  a  conventional  2D  budget  and  an   accelerated  production  schedule  of  just  35  days  principle  photography.  

The  Cameras   As  is  the  case  with  all  3D  productions,  choosing  the  right  cameras,  lenses  and  3D   rigs  was  vital  to  the  efficient  production  of  this  live  action  film  in  3D.    As  with   Days  of  Our  Lives,  Battle  of  the  Year  was  principally  shot  with  three  pairs  of  Sony  

©2012  Sony  Pictures  Technologies.  All  Rights  Reserved  


PMW-­‐F3  cameras  mounted  in  the  3ality  beam-­‐splitter  TS-­‐35  camera  rigs.  The   production  used  Angenieux  Rouge  zoom  lenses  in  focal  lengths  of  16-­‐42  and  30-­‐ 80mm.   Two  rigs  were  provided  for  principle  photography  along  with  a  spare  for  backup.   In  practice,  however,  the  production  chose  to  maximize  coverage  by  employing   all  three  rigs  for  principal  photography  in  virtually  every  set-­‐up.     During  prep,  each  of  the  F3  cameras  was  placed  in  front  of  a  3200k  light  box  to   calibrate  their  base  sensitivity  in  pairs  that  matched  as  closely  to  one  another  as   possible.    The  best  matching  pairs  were  then  marked  for  use  together  in  each  of   the  3  rigs.   Additionally,  production  was  provided  with  two  Sony  PMW-­‐TD300  3D  shoulder-­‐ mounted,  uni-­‐body  camcorders  that  were  used  for  recording  second  unit   material.    The  TD-­‐300  offers  flexibility  and  mobility  in  situations  where  a  full  rig   might  have  been  too  big  or  cumbersome.  A  professional-­‐grade  camera,  the   TD300  features  dual  1/2"  CMOS  sensors  with  a  fixed  interaxial  of  45mm.    This   fixed  interaxial  limits  how  close  the  camera  can  be  to  subjects,  approximately   10ft,  and  still  converge  comfortably.  Convergence  in  the  camera  is  operator-­‐ adjustable  to  allow  control  over  the  Z-­‐axis  3D  volume  within  the  screen.                         Sony  PMW-­‐TD300  3D  Camcorder  

Both  the  F3  cameras  and  the  TD300  cameras  were  recorded  using  Codex   Onboard  recorders  connected  via  HD-­‐SDI.  One  recorder  was  used  for  each  rig,   recording  two  cameras  onto  a  single  Codex,  and  one  recorder  was  used  for  each   TD300.   Finally,  production  was  provided  with  the  Sony  HXR-­‐NX3D1,  which  is  a  compact   3D  camcorder  that  was  not  used  for  principal  photography,  but  rather   exclusively  for  EPK  and  other  marketing  media.     ©2012  Sony  Pictures  Technologies.  All  Rights  Reserved  


The  Workflow   A  well-­‐designed,  efficient  process  for  production  is  important  for  all  digital   motion  pictures,  but  it  is  particularly  important  for  3D  productions  as  they  entail   a  greater  number  of  cameras,  additional  technology,  and  more  captured  data.     The  production  workflow  needs  to  provide  for  the  efficient  capture  of  camera   media,  a  means  for  reliably  backing  up  that  media,  and  a  rock  solid  means  for   distributing  media  to  those  who  need  it  for  on-­‐set  monitoring,  review,  and  for   post-­‐production  processes.    A  poorly  designed  production  workflow  can  lead  to   delays  and  potentially  critical  failures.     For  Battle  of  the  Year,  Telecast  Copperhead  3400  transceivers  were  mounted  to   the  3ality  TS-­‐35  rigs  and  used  to  channel  1920  X  1080  (RGB  4:4:4  baseband   output  with  S-­‐LOG  gamma)  left-­‐eye,  right-­‐eye  camera  outputs  via  fiber  optic   cable,  to  Codex  recorders  located  on  the  on-­‐set  digital  imaging  technician  (DIT)   cart.  Camera  metadata  (like  Timecode)  also  traveled  through  these  fiber   connections  married  to  the  individual  clips  recorded  at  the  DIT  cart.   When  the  production  was  in  California,  the  native  files  were  verified  for  data   integrity  and  backed  up  at  the  DIT  cart.  (A  common  practice  rule  of  thumb  in  the   digital  world  is:  “you  don’t  have  data  until  you  have  two  copies”).    Copies  of  the   raw  files  were  also  made  for  delivery  to  ColorWorks,  a  digital  intermediate   facility  located  on  the  Sony  Pictures  lot  in  Culver  City,  which  handled  dailies   processing  for  the  feature.  The  video  outputs  of  one  camera  from  each  rig  were   routed  from  the  DIT  cart  in  4:2:2  format  to  a  QTake  digital  video  assist  station   which  was  used  for  on-­‐set  2D  monitoring,  and  to  a  3D  monitoring  station  where   the  stereographer  monitored  depth  and  pulled  convergence.     Camera  data  from  the  two  TD300  cameras  was  recorded  to  data  packs  in  the   Codex  recorders  mounted  in  backpacks  worn  by  the  camera  operators.  The  data   packs  were  changed  twice  a  day,  or  when  full,  and  the  data  was  offloaded  at  the   DIT  cart  for  downstream  distribution.     In  France,  production  set  up  a  small  digital  laboratory  in  a  hotel  room  located   near  the  shooting  locations.  Codex  digital  laboratory  technology  was  used  to   verify  data  files,  produce  back-­‐up  media,  and  prepare  2D  review  media  for  the   director  and  other  members  of  the  production  team.  Copies  of  the  native  files   were  shipped  to  ColorWorks  for  processing  of  post-­‐production  deliverables.   A  QTake  video  assist  cart  was  also  used  in  France  for  on-­‐set  2D  monitoring  that   could  be  viewed  live  or  in  playback  mode  at  full  HD  resolution.  Although  the   QTake  system  featured  a  number  of  tools  to  facilitate  3D,  including  real-­‐time   convergence  adjustment,  the  ability  to  record  and  “burn  in”  interaxial  and   convergence  data  from  the  SIP,  as  well  as  data  from  the  camera,  these  were  not   used  as  part  of  the  workflow  for  this  production.  

©2012  Sony  Pictures  Technologies.  All  Rights  Reserved  


The  3D  Monitoring  Station   In  both  France  and  California,  the  stereographer/convergence  puller  resided  in  a   tent  on  set  at  a  3D  monitoring  station  that  was  equipped  with  two  42”  3D   monitors  and  one  22”  3D  monitor  (this  monitor  is  rather  small  for  this  purpose   and  was  initially  meant  as  a  spare),  for  viewing  the  output  of  the  three  camera   pairs,  remote  controls  for  adjusting  interaxial  and  convergence  on  the  three   3ality  rigs,  and  three  22”  Disparity  monitors  to  monitor  the  output  of  the  SIP   (Stereo  Image  Processor).    The  overall  footprint  of  the  3D  monitoring  station  was   approximately  8  feet  long.   The  size  of  the  3D  monitoring  station  and  the  difficulty  of  moving  it  between   locations  proved  problematic.    The  issue  was  mostly  due  to  the  cases  that  the   equipment  came  in  which  were  used  to  support  the  42”  monitors,  and  the  fact   that  the  initial  setup  was  designed  for  2  instead  of  3  rigs.    For  future  productions,   this  issue  could  be  resolved  by  employing  a  better,  purpose-­‐built  cart  system,  to   store  and  transport  the  3D  monitoring  equipment,  perhaps  using  fewer  42”   monitors  and  switching  between  inputs,  and  by  multiplexing  the  3D  analysis   displays  onto  a  single  monitor.  

The  SIP   The  three  3ality  rigs  were  also  connected  from  the  DIT  cart  to  the  on-­‐set  stereo   image  processor  (SIP)  used  by  the  3D  technical  supervisor  to  monitor,  analyze   and  adjust  rig  alignment.  Again,  because  the  SIP  analyzes  the  rig  for  automatic   alignment,  it  assumes  many  of  the  tasks  that  would  otherwise  have  to  be   performed  by  rig  technicians  in  3D  productions  that  used  manually  aligning  rigs.     Thus  the  SIP  saves  money  in  regards  to  personnel  requirements,  as  well  as  time.     Battle  of  the  Year  also  employed  a  single  3D  rig  tech  that  worked  with  the  SIP   operator  to  oversee  the  physical  set  up,  maintenance,  pairing  of  lenses,  and   operation  of  the  rigs.   The  use  of  the  3ality  rig  and  the  SIP  proved  their  worth:  had  Battle  of  the  Year   employed  manually-­‐aligned  rigs,  camera  alignment  would  certainly  have  become   a  serious  drag  on  the  production.  As  it  was,  the  SIP  Operator  was  able  to  use  the   SIP  to  monitor  and  electronically  align  the  camera  pairs  and  typically  in  virtually   no  time  at  all.    At  the  start  of  each  setup  and  after  any  lens  change,  the  SIP   Operator  and  the  Rig  Tech  would  check  alignment  of  all  three  rigs  while  the  rest   of  the  production  crew  went  through  their  normal  processes  of  shot   preparation.    The  3ality  3D  rigs  were  therefore  ready  to  go  whenever  the  rest  of   the  crew  was,  and  the  production  never  had  to  wait  for  the  3D  team  and   technology.    

©2012  Sony  Pictures  Technologies.  All  Rights  Reserved  


Comparison  to  a  2D  Workflow   Not  all  of  the  equipment  described  here  for  use  on  Battle  of  the  Year,  is   particular  to  3D  production.  Most  of  the  same  gear  is  also  used  for  2D   production.    The  DIT  cart  for  a  2D  production  might  be  configured  in  much  the   same  way  as  it  is  for  3D.    From  the  point  of  view  of  the  supervising  engineer   operating  the  DIT  cart  recording  camera  data  for  Battle  of  the  Year  was   essentially  no  different  from  recording  data  for  a  2D  production.  Recording  three   camera  pairs  requires  the  same  technology  and  processes  as  recording  three   individual  cameras  despite  the  fact  that  there  is  twice  as  much  data.  The  three   Codex  recorders  each  recorded  a  pair  of  cameras  so  there  was  no  additional   gear.    Similarly,  a  2D  production  would  require  essentially  the  same  QTake  video   assist  system  used  for  playback  on  set,  again,  3D  adding  no  additional  gear.   The  3D  monitoring  station  and  the  SIP  were  all  the  equipment  that  was  specific   to  3D,  its  use  and  support  accounted  for  the  additional  crew  requirements  and   the  additional  space  (or  footprint),  required  in  production.                   DIT  cart  used  for  Battle  of  the  Year  

Depth  Budgeting   Depth  budgeting  is  different  for  a  feature  like  Battle  of  the  Year  than  for  a   television  series  like  Days  of  Our  Lives  because  the  screen  size,  resolution  and   distance  from  the  audience  are  quite  different.    Generally,  the  larger  the  screen   is,  the  greater  the  effects  of  relative  3D  adjustments  are  due  to  the   multiplication  of  parallax  offsets.  Because  of  this,  features  that  will  be  screened   in  theaters  typically  employ  smaller  depth  budgets  than  television  programs   because  the  screen  size  is  larger.    On  the  other  hand,  the  director  and   stereographer  often  have  an  opportunity  to  exert  greater  latitude  in  the  creative   and  practical  use  of  depth  when  budgeting  for  the  big  screen  because  they  tend   to  have  more  time  for  preparation.  

©2012  Sony  Pictures  Technologies.  All  Rights  Reserved  


Prior  to  leaving  for  France,  stereographer  Grant  Anderson,  director  Benson  Lee   and  cinematographer  Michael  Barrett  (who  had  previously  shot  the  3D  movie  A   Very  Harold  &  Kumar  3D  Christmas),  discussed  how  to  employ  depth  creatively   in  the  motion  picture.  In  general,  they  elected  to  use  depth  relatively   conservatively  in  narrative  scenes,  providing  naturalistic  depth,  and  more   dramatically  during  dance  sequences.  The  contrast  between  the  two  types  of   performances  would  enhance  the  intimacy  of  narrative  moments,  and  heighten   the  energy  for  dance  segments.    In  effect,  by  limiting  the  use  of  overt   stereoscopic  effects  during  narrative  scenes,  even  subtle  changes  during  dance   scenes  would  increase  the  effect  on  the  audience  and  make  them  “pop.”   The  Battle  of  the  Year  crew  set  out  to  prove  that  even  when  used  conservatively,   3D  depth  could  be  a  powerful  narrative  tool.  For  most  non-­‐dance  scenes  in   Battle  of  the  Year,  the  stereographer  converged  on  the  scene’s  central  actor  or   actors  and  kept  the  action  in  positive  parallax,  that  is,  behind  the  screen  plane,   much  like  a  stage  play  under  a  proscenium  arch.  For  over  the  shoulder  shots,  the   actor  in  the  foreground  might  be  brought  slightly  negative  parallax  in  order  to   give  the  audience  the  sense  of  looking  past  him.  For  close-­‐ups,  the  screen  plane   might  be  set  just  behind  the  actor’s  ears  to  give  her  face  a  natural  roundness.   But  in  most  instances,  the  actors  were  kept  behind  the  screen  plane,  so  that  they   didn’t  appear  to  be  sharing  or  intruding  in  the  audience’s  space.   The  depth  script  varied  from  this  approach  only  for  a  few,  especially  dramatic   moments.  One  such  instance  involved  a  character  that  breaks  down  while   looking  at  a  photograph.  Up  to  that  point,  this  character  was  portrayed   negatively  (he  has  personal  problems),  but  in  this  scene  the  audience  is  given  a   reason  to  empathize,  and  that  feeling  is  accentuated  with  a  3D  effect  as  the   character  is  brought  forward  into  the  audience  allowing  them  to  feel  more   connected  to  the  character  and  the  moment.  

Dance  Sequences   Dance  scenes  were  captured  quite  differently  than  narrative  scenes.  For  dance   sequences,  the  interaxial  distance  of  the  camera  pairs  was  typically  widened  a   small  amount  in  order  to  create  more  depth.  Convergence,  meanwhile,  was   typically  set  to  the  center  of  a  group  of  dancers  which  would  cause  some  of   them  to  extend  into  the  audience  while  performing  dazzling  spins,  flips  and   twists.    This  3D  choice  allowed  for  instances  when  the  dancers  come  into  the   audiences  space  and  sometimes  seem  to  land  in  audience  members’  laps.  This   3D  effect  was  chosen  to  give  audience  members  a  sensation  similar  to  when   watching  a  live  street  performance.  

On  Location  in  Montpellier,  France   The  three  weeks  production  spent  shooting  in  France  were  challenging  because   many  of  the  shooting  locations  were  narrow,  public  streets  in  Montpellier,  and   there  were  numerous  company  moves.  In  many  cases,  the  3D  rigs  as  well  as  all   ©2012  Sony  Pictures  Technologies.  All  Rights  Reserved  


of  the  other  production  gear,  had  to  be  packed  up  and  stored  each  night  and   reassembled  at  a  new  location  the  following  morning.  The  3D  monitoring  station   with  its  three  large  monitors  and  three  small  monitors  was  cumbersome  to  set   up,  take  down  and  store,  but  was  accomplished  each  day  without  slowing   production.  In  fact,  the  production  averaged  an  impressive  35  camera  set  ups   per  day,  with  a  high  of  75.  Cinematographer  Michael  Barrett  said  that  the  speed   with  which  they  were  able  to  shoot  felt  like  “a  TV  pace.”   The  French  shooting  locations  made  it  difficult  to  prepare  precise  depth  scripts   for  every  setup  because  prior  access  to  the  locations  was  limited.  The   stereographer  often  did  not  have  an  opportunity  to  see  a  location  site  until  the   shoot  day.  Reference  photos  provided  by  location  scouts  were  helpful  to  some   degree,  but  of  limited  use  in  planning  for  depth  as,  obviously,  they  were  shot  in   2D.  In  all  possible  cases,  the  stereographer  and  Barrett  reviewed  the  location   before  shooting  began  and  discussed  camera  placement,  talent  positions,   framing  and  so  forth.  When  shooting  conditions  were  variable,  the   stereographer  included  a  buffer  in  his  convergence  calculations  to  allow  for   different  choices  for  convergence  to  be  made  in  post-­‐production.   Depth  management  was  particularly  challenging  in  dance  scenes.  Break-­‐dancing   is  by  its  nature  spontaneous  and  improvisatory.  Even  when  explicitly   choreographed,  a  dancer’s  movements  and  landing  points  can  vary  considerably,   up  to  several  feet,  which  made  it  difficult  to  lock  in  convergence  points  in   production.  Dance  routines  were  typically  rehearsed  before  they  were  recorded   providing  an  opportunity  to  adjust  rig  settings,  but  even  so,  it  was  often   necessary  to  allow  some  leeway  for  deviations  in  the  performance  and  thus   choices  in  post.      

Cinematographer  Michael  Barrett  on  the  set  of  Battle  of  the  Year  

©2012  Sony  Pictures  Technologies.  All  Rights  Reserved  


Technical  Issues   Overall  the  production  experienced  few  technical  issues.  In  one  instance,  one  of   the  3ality  rigs  (it  was  a  very  early  model)  did  fail  due  to  a  mechanical  problem   that  was  quickly  fixed  over  a  weekend  when  the  production  was  not  shooting.   The  rig  failure  slowed  production  only  briefly.  With  that  one  exception,  the  rigs   and  cameras  performed  as  expected.  

Shooting  at  the  Battle  of  the  Year  Competition     The  culmination  of  the  production  in  France,  and  for  the  movie  as  a  whole,  was   the  Battle  of  the  Year  competition  held  at  Montpellier's  Park  and  Suites  Arena,   an  indoor  stadium  with  a  12,000-­‐person  seating  capacity.  For  the  event,  the   production  planned  to  record  performances  from  actual  b-­‐boy  crews  taking  part   in  the  competition,  as  well  as  a  performance  of  the  movie’s  own  dance  team  on   the  stage  during  a  15  minute  break.     As  the  competition  was  a  live,  public  event,  the  Battle  of  the  Year  production   crew  was  limited  in  how  it  was  able  to  operate.  The  camera  crew  could  not  set   up  in  positions  obstructing  audience  sight  lines  when  any  of  the  competitive   teams  were  performing,  but  could  move  into  close-­‐up  positions  to  shoot  the   movie  team’s  performance  when  they  hit  the  stage.    The  events  own  broadcast   camera  crews  were  also  shooting  the  competition  from  key  camera  angles  and   had  to  be  considered  when  framing  shots  for  the  feature  film.   The  feature  film  production  crew  spent  several  days  prior  to  the  event  setting   up,  running  tests  and  rehearsing.  The  plan  was  to  shoot  the  event  with  all  three   of  the  3ality  rigs  as  well  as  the  two  TD300  cameras.  Fiber  cables  were  pre-­‐run  to   each  of  the  3  camera  positions  picked  for  the  3ality  rigs,  so  that  on  the  day  of  the   shoot,  the  camera  operators  would  be  able  to  move  quickly  from  initially  farther   positions,  into  secondary  close-­‐up  positions  at  the  front  of  the  stage.     The  Battle  of  the  Year  competition,  with  the  cast  dream  team  on  the  stage,  was  a   make  or  break  moment  for  the  feature  film  production.  The  organizers  of  the   event  permitted  the  production  team  to  have  access  to  the  stage  for  a  window   of  just  15  minutes  during  the  competition.  The  feature  film  crew  therefore  had   to  be  ready  to  go  and  capture  all  the  necessary  shots  within  that  short  time   frame  without  fail.   Ultimately  the  feature  film  crew  succeeded  in  recording  the  event  in  3D  as   planned,  capturing  several  hours  of  material  of  the  competing  international   teams  and  then  moved  into  their  positions  to  shoot  the  movie’s  dance  crew   without  any  major  incidents.  The  dance  performers  in  the  film  hit  their  marks,   the  camera  operators  got  their  shots,  and  the  audience  enjoyed  the  show.   From  a  purely  3D  point  of  view,  the  competition  was  one  of  the  easier  dance   sequences  to  shoot  as  each  of  the  five  cameras  was  in  a  fixed  position  and   limited  in  its  movement.    Convergence  and  interaxial  settings  had  been  set   ©2012  Sony  Pictures  Technologies.  All  Rights  Reserved  


during  the  rehearsal  days  and  merely  executed  on  the  day  of  the  event  save  for   some  aggressive  dance  moves  coming  too  close  to  camera.  For  the  camera   operators,  except  for  modest  differences  in  camera  angles,  shot  lengths  and   focal  distances  (due  to  avoiding  the  2D  broadcast  crew);  they  went  about  their   work  much  as  they  would  have  had  they  been  shooting  2D.  Having  rehearsed  the   shoot  the  night  before,  the  operators  felt  comfortable  in  their  environment  and   the  shoot  was  essentially  routine.  

Post-­‐production   At  the  time  of  this  writing  Battle  of  the  Year  is  in  post-­‐production  being  edited  on   the  Sony  Pictures  lot  in  Culver  City.  After  editorial,  the  film  will  go  through  digital   intermediate  color  grading  and  conforming  at  ColorWorks  and  is  expected  to  be   released  internationally  in  early  2013.     Post-­‐production  costs  and  schedule  should  vary  only  marginally  from  what   would  be  expected  for  a  similar  2D  film.  Careful  planning  for  3D  and  the  use  of   electronically  controlled  3ality  rigs  has  eliminated  the  type  of  stereoscopic   adjustments  and  fixes  that  have  proven  costly  and  time-­‐consuming  with  other   3D  production  equipment  choices.      Added  to  the  post-­‐production  schedule  and   budget  will  be  the  final  3D  convergence  pass,  meant  primarily  to  smooth   transitions  between  shots,  which  will  occur  prior  to,  or  concurrently  with  the   final  picture  grading.    As  noted,  this  will  be  especially  important  for  the  dance   sequences  due  to  their  improvisational  nature.  

Evaluating  Success   Sony  Pictures  Technologies  personnel  accompanied  the  production  on  location   providing  technical  expertise,  but  as  the  crew  gained  experience  with  the  camera   systems,  the  Sony  Pictures  Technologies’  support  role  diminished.  By  the  third   day  of  production,  the  film’s  regular  production  crew  was  working   autonomously.    Battle  of  the  Year  serves  as  a  model  for  other  films  seeking  to   produce  natively  in  3D  in  the  sense  that  because  of  its  preparation  and  choice  in   equipment,  the  production  finished  on  schedule  and  on  budget.   Additional  production  crew  was  limited  to  a  stereographer/convergence  puller,  a   3D  SIP  operator,  and  a  3D  rig  technician.  The  production  incurred  additional   costs  related  to  these  three  extra  crew  members,  as  well  as  the  3D  equipment   including:  three  3ality  TS-­‐35  rigs  and  SIPs,  and  the  3D  monitoring  station.  In  post-­‐ production  they  saved  countless  dollars  in  not  having  to  fix  3D  shots  that  didn’t   work,  and  not  having  to  re-­‐shoot  any  shots.    They  will  spend  a  minor  amount   extra  for  conforming  and  final  convergence  of  the  3D  feature  after  editorial  is   completed.   Battle  of  the  Year  executive  producer  Glenn  Gainor  explains,  “There  were  more   bodies  and  more  production  technology.  But  those  people,  independently,   moved  as  quickly  as  everyone  else  on  the  crew.  When  we  had  to  move  to  a  new   ©2012  Sony  Pictures  Technologies.  All  Rights  Reserved  


location,  everyone  was  responsible  for  his  own  area  and  we  moved  as  a  group.   We  moved  as  quickly  we  could  have  in  2D.  We  did  not  wait  on  3D.  It  is  no  longer   a  question  of  speed.”   Moreover,  the  additional  costs  of  3D  have  to  be  weighed  against  the  added   production  value  and  audience  appeal  that  3D  lends  to  the  movie.  “There  is  a   certain  realism  that  3D  offered  for  this  dance  film—a  way  to  make  the  audience   feel  as  if  they  are  there,”  says  Gainor.  “Only  12,000  people  would  be  at  the   competition,  but  millions  more  would  like  to  be  there.  3D  allows  them  to  have   that  experience.  It’s  the  next  best  thing  to  being  in  the  South  of  France.”                     On  location  for  Battle  of  the  Year  

Happy  Endings   Producing  a  Single-­‐Camera  Television  Show  in  3D  along  with  2D   deliverables   Following  the  success  of  Days  of  Our  Lives  and  Battle  of  the  Year,  Sony  Pictures   Technologies  conducted  a  third  test  of  cost-­‐effective  3D  production  with  another   television  project.     For  their  next  test  case,  the  team  arranged  to  create  a  3D  episode  of  Happy   Endings,  a  half-­‐hour  sit-­‐com  produced  by  Sony  Pictures  Television  for  ABC.  This   project  included  elements  similar  to  both  Days  of  Our  Lives  and  Battle  of  the   Year.  As  with  the  daytime  drama,  the  3D  episode  of  Happy  Endings  would  be   produced  as  an  adjunct  to  a  regular  2D  episode  of  the  show  and  would  not  be   intended  for  broadcast.  Production  methods  and  workflow,  on  the  other  hand,   would  be  more  like  those  used  in  Battle  of  the  Year.    

©2012  Sony  Pictures  Technologies.  All  Rights  Reserved  



  Cast  members  of  Happy  Endings  

Adapting  to  the  Happy  Endings  Workflow   Happy  Endings  is  shot  single  camera  style  on  stages  at  Paramount  Pictures  in   Hollywood  and  on  location.  The  show  typically  shoots  with  up  to  three  cameras,   most  often  mounted  on  dollies.  Camera  media  is  recorded  at  a  DIT  cart  where  a   color  LUT  is  applied,  files  are  backed  up,  and  post-­‐production  deliverables  are   created.   For  the  3D  test  episode,  of  Happy  Endings,  the  normal  camera  heads  were   replaced  with  the  same  3ality  TS-­‐35  3D  rigs  used  for  Days  of  Our  Lives  and  Battle   of  the  Year.  A  SIP  and  a  3D  monitoring  station  (in  configurations  similar  to  the   previous  two  productions)  were  introduced  into  the  workflow  to  record  3D   media  and  remotely  control  the  rigs.  In  order  to  create  the  2D  deliverable  for  the   show  that  would  ultimately  go  to  air,  right  eye  camera  streams  were  fed  from   the  3D  monitoring  station  to  a  DIT  cart  where  they  were  recorded.   Modifying  the  existing  2D  workflow  to  accommodate  3D  was  much  easier  on   Happy  Endings  than  it  was  on  Days  of  Our  Lives  because  of  the  differences  in   their  typical  production  equipment  used.  For  instance,  the  switch  from  Happy   Endings’  normal  cameras  to  Sony  F3s  did  not  create  the  optical  issues  that  arose   when  F3s  were  used  in  place  of  Days  of  Our  Lives’  normal  broadcast  cameras.   Further,  Happy  Endings’  regular  cameras  and  the  Sony  F3  cameras  produce   similar  overall  looks  in  their  images.     As  the  show  was  shot  single-­‐camera  style,  the  production  of  the  2D/3D  episode   proceeded  on  a  schedule  and  in  a  manner  similar  to  Battle  of  the  Year.  The   episode  was  shot  over  the  course  of  a  5-­‐day  week  on  two  set  stages  on  the   Paramount  lot,  two  external  locations,  and  approximately  8  locations  around  a   hotel.  The  pace  of  this  single-­‐camera  production  allowed  the  stereographer  to   work  without  assistance  in  designing  the  3D  effects  and  alone  in  making   convergence  and  interocular  adjustments.    

©2012  Sony  Pictures  Technologies.  All  Rights  Reserved  


Depth  Budget   Since  the  3D  portion  of  the  production  was  merely  a  test,  and  the  2D  portion  of   the  production  would  air,  the  depth  budget  was  kept  within  conservative  limits   for  a  television  sized  screen  with  relatively  few  overt  3D  effects  applied.    The   stereographer  deferred  to  the  cinematographer  and  director  on  decisions   regarding  shot  selection,  composition  and  camera  movement.  Their  aesthetic   choices,  naturally,  were  oriented  toward  the  2D  version.  However,  soon  after  the   cinematographer  got  used  to  the  3D  process,  he  found  a  rhythm  that  allowed   him  to  change  some  of  his  shots  on  the  fly  to  better  accommodate  3D.  If  the   show  were  being  produced  to  air  in  3D,  more  developed  and  creative  depth   budgeting  and  depth  scripting  would  have  been  applied.  

The  Shoot   The  show’s  regular  crew  went  through  a  3D  training  regimen  at  the  Sony  3D   Technology  Center  similar  to  what  the  Days  of  Our  Lives  crew  had  experienced   and  thus  gained  a  degree  of  familiarity  with  3D  concepts  and  production   techniques.  On  the  actual  shoot  days,  responsibilities  for  individual   crewmembers  differed  little  from  a  normal  2D  shoot.  Crew  performance  was   slightly  impacted  by  the  fact  that  they  were  working  with  unfamiliar  cameras  and   rigs  that  were  larger  than  the  normal  cameras  they  were  used  to.  This  impact   would  obviously  disappear  over  time  if  3D  were  standard  to  the  production.   As  with  the  other  two  productions  described  in  this  document,  three  additional   crewmembers  were  present  for  the  3D  production  of  Happy  Endings  including  a   stereographer,  a  rig  technician,  and  a  SIP  operator.  In  the  case  of  this  production   however,  a  utility  crew  person  was  also  employed  to  set  up  and  move  the  3D   monitoring  station.  In  a  regular  3D  production  for  a  show  of  similar  nature,  all  of   these  extra  positions,  with  the  exception  of  the  stereographer,  might  be   eliminated:  the  SIP  operation  could  fall  to  the  DIT,  or  another  existing  crew   member,  the  utility  is  a  grip,  and  the  rig  tech  could  be  an  AC.    With  appropriate   training,  3D  technical  support  could  be  handled  by  the  show’s  regular  engineers.   Expected  added  costs  for  producing  a  single-­‐camera  television  show  in  3D  are   the  same  as  producing  any  of  the  other  productions  described  here,  and  are   fairly  modest.    The  costs  principally  include  the  additional  crew  and  the   additional  rental  of  cameras  and  3D  rigs.  Some  additional  costs  can  also  be   expected  in  post-­‐production  for  media  ingest  and  stereo  conforming.    Changes   to  production  schedule  would  be  negligible.    

Technical  Issues   The  overarching  consideration  in  shooting  the  test  of  Happy  Endings  was  that   shooting  in  3D  must  not  affect  the  on  time  delivery  of  the  2D  episode.  The   show’s  practice  is  to  record  to  XDCam  recorders  and  the  post-­‐production   workflow  is  set  to  handle  that  medium.  To  accommodate  this  workflow  the  2D   ©2012  Sony  Pictures  Technologies.  All  Rights  Reserved  


version  of  the  show  was  recorded  from  one  camera  on  each  rig  on  XDCam   recorders,  and  the  3D  version  from  both  cameras  on  each  rig  was  recorded  in   parallel  on  Codex  recorders.     This  situation  resulted  in  extra  work  in  post-­‐production  when  it  came  to   conforming  the  3D  version  to  the  EDL  from  the  2D  cut.  The  2D  EDL  referenced   the  XDCam  files  and  its  timecode  was  off  slightly  which  forced  the  files  to  be   checked  manually  when  linked  to  the  Codex  files  for  the  3D  conform.     In  this  case  the  parallel  recording  paths  of  XDCam  and  Codex  were  due  to  it   being  a  test.  However,  the  lesson  to  be  learned  here  is  that  the  2D  and  3D   versions  should  be  recorded  to  the  same  media.    

Evaluating  Success   The  test  3D  episode  of  Happy  Endings  along  with  the  3D  productions  of  Days  of   Our  Lives  and  Battle  of  the  Year,  clearly  demonstrated  that  3D  television  shows   and  motion  pictures  could  be  produced  cost  effectively  on  a  2D  budget  and  on  a   2D  schedule.  In  the  instance  of  each  of  these  productions,  the  integration  of  3D   systems  into  the  existing  production  workflow  had  minimal  impact  on  the   production  schedule  overall.  Increased  production  costs,  in  the  form  of   additional  crew,  additional  cameras  and  other  technology,  were  relatively   modest,  particularly  when  weighed  against  the  added  production  value  and   savings  in  post-­‐production  by  not  having  to  fix  bad  3D.     The  keys  to  achieving  these  results  are  clear.  Productions  need  to  plan  for  3D.   Directors,  cinematographers  and  other  crew  should  be  properly  trained  in  the   aesthetic,  technical  and  practical  aspects  of  3D.  Productions  need  the  right  3D   systems,  particularly  camera  rigs  and  3D  monitoring  on  the  set.    Employing  these   measures  can  avoid  problems  both  in  production  and  in  post-­‐production,  which   all  ultimately  lead  to  delays  and  added  costs.     Properly  conceived  and  executed,  a  3D  production  can  operate  in  a  manner   barely  distinguishable  from  a  2D  production  while  delivering  a  more  exciting  and   rewarding  viewing  experience  for  the  audience.              

3ality  TS-­‐35  rig  with  Sony  F3  cameras  on  the  set  of  Happy  Endings   ©2012  Sony  Pictures  Technologies.  All  Rights  Reserved  


Lessons  Learned   Television  productions  shooting  in  3D  on  a  regular  basis  would  operate  slightly   differently  from  the  3D  test  episode  of  Days  of  Our  Lives  and  Happy  Endings   because  3D  would  be  fully  integrated  into  the  workflow.  By  comparison  Battle  of   the  Year  was  a  fully  integrated  production  since  no  accommodation  needed  to   be  made  for  an  existing  workflow  that  could  not  be  altered.   For  multi-­‐camera  shows  like  Days  of  Our  Lives  for  example,  the  production  would   select  cameras  and  lenses  that  would  both  fit  the  3D  rigs  and  conform  to  the   multi-­‐camera  television  environment.    Remote  interaxial  and  convergence   controls  along  with  SIP  alignment  could  be  routed  to  the  existing  control  room   infrastructure  where  3D  monitors  would  replace  the  current  2D  monitors  and   eliminate  the  need  for  separate  2D  and  3D  monitoring  facilities.   Battle  of  the  Year  recorded  to  a  single  set  of  media  so  that  conforming  the  3D   after  the  2D  version  had  been  edited  was  trivial.  Separate  recording  paths  were   used  in  Days  of  Our  Lives  and  Happy  Endings  simply  because  the  2D  workflow   could  not  be  changed  just  for  a  test.  Recording  2D  and  3D  to  different  recording   systems  caused  some  nominal  issues  in  post  regarding  the  conform  between   formats,  and  would  not  typically  be  done  in  a  production  where  3D  was  fully   integrated  into  the  workflow.   Overall  some  extra  costs  are  unavoidable.    A  three-­‐camera  show  would  require   three  rigs  and  the  additional  cameras,  allowing  for  two  cameras  per  rig.  In  post-­‐ production,  a  show  would  have  twice  as  much  data  to  manage  even  though   editing  could  continue  to  follow  a  standard  2D  schedule.      When  editing  a  3D   show,  it  is  typical  to  cut  in  what  appears  to  be  2D  on  the  computer  screen   (usually  a  side  by  side  muxed  file  of  both  eyes),  while  monitoring  3D  output  on   an  external  monitor  for  screening.    If  the  production  chooses  to  edit  entirely  in   2D,  there  will  be  an  extra  step  added  to  conform  the  2nd  eye.    In  any  case,  a  final   convergence  pass  will  be  required  to  fine  tune  the  stereo  effect  across  multiple   scenes,  sequences,  and  acts,  according  to  the  final  depth  script  desired.       For  the  productions  described  herein,  the  stereo  images  that  were  shot  using  the   3ality  rigs  required  virtually  no  geometric  correction  and  only  creative   adjustments  in  convergence  for  overall  creative  depth  choices.    For  the  3D  test   episode  of  Days  of  Our  Lives,  the  stereographer  spent  a  total  of  3  hours  in  post-­‐ production  completing  the  final  depth  pass  for  convergence  continuity.   With  proper  training,  the  existing  crew  can  take  on  some,  if  not  all,  of  the  duties   of  the  3D  crew.  The  SIP  operator  and  rig  technician  are  the  easier  functions  to   roll  up  into  existing  duties,  the  stereographer  function  will  likely  be  more   difficult.    In  addition,  advances  in  rig  automation  could  mean  that  in  a  production   like  Days  of  Our  Lives  shooting  on  a  set  with  known  parameters  could  see   convergence  completely  or  partially  automated  in  the  future.  

©2012  Sony  Pictures  Technologies.  All  Rights  Reserved  


Productions  can  avoid  most  other  added  costs  and  experience  minimal  or  even   no  impact  on  their  schedule  by  following  a  few  simple  guidelines:   •

Plan  thoughtfully  for  3D,  (Depth  Script,  Blocking)  

Use  3D  rigs  that  minimize  alignment  time  and  do  not  result  in   misalignment  errors  that  impact  post-­‐production.  

Provide  training  for  crew  in  proper  3D  production  techniques  in  advance   of  actual  production.  

Choose  cameras  and  lenses  suitable  for  the  production  and  the  3D  rigs.  

©2012  Sony  Pictures  Technologies.  All  Rights  Reserved