Jess sorry to hear that... You are not serious are you?

The new NEO SCENE update has 3D capability. At least the menu says it does.
JJK

Sorry Sonisfear. I forget that could bother some folks. It was/is a birth defect. Does not bother me at all.

It does hamper being able to enjoy anything 3D, right now anyway.

wow, some people can't even render sd with vegas at the moment and you want 3d!?

if you though editing avchd was bad i would think 3d is going to be a big, big bag of hurt....

and out of curiosity, what would you be able to charge, relatively to what you are now, for a 3d wedding? plus 20%, 50%, 100%?

i mean, and don't get me wrong - i admire wedding videographers no end - but the amount of equipment the average one uses seems quite amazing; 2 cameras, radio mic's, etc., i would think 3d is going to add hugely to those costs....

leslie

I've edited 3D way back with V6.
Load each camera into two tracks, group, edit.
Mute one track render, mute other track, render.

No creative control or monitoring however. In the 3D cinema it looked pretty weak, mostly because the 3D rig used to shoot the material was as basic as it gets. The tools for creative control and monitoring are complex but a heck of a lot of fun to play with. I tried my hand at a couple of them at NAB last year, yikes. Need to be careful or you can virually poke your eye out when a branch flies out of the monitor :)

I really think we are going to see a plethora of absolutely horrid 3D contronting us. It is a very complex medium to work in creatively, it's much easier to create a visual conundrum than something pleasing to the eye and brain.

Bob.

Hmmm... Regarding how much more I would charge is depenant on how more work it adds to the flow. probably about 20% more.

I haven't thought of it. It would also dependon what type of excitement it draws.

It looks like NEO3D is the tool for this but Holy crapola $3000.00 for a plugin that is a bit much folks.

The pics from the Sony Stand at the recent NAMM 2010 include several showing a "Vegas Pro 3D demonstration"

The audience were wearing Red/Green glasses, which I understand is not how new movies like Avatar work.

"The audience were wearing Red/Green glasses, which I understand is not how new movies like Avatar work. "

This is true however I think using anaglyph is a cheap way to get 3D monitoring and I think Cineform can build an anaglyph preview in realtime. Internally the two vision streams are still separate and can be encoded to whatever format for delivery.

Bob.

Doing 3D can be done in Vegas as all effects added should be added to both video streams equally, but imagine wanting to be a bit more adventurous, and want to use track motion, masking and more than simple compositing, then you'll have twice the work, on top of having to handle 2 output streams.
Something as simple as text becomes an issue as you do not want the text to intersect for instance a face on the screen, it needs to be visually in front of the action, or behind, but then you need to mask it.
For instance the Danish subtitles on Avatar were moving about on the screen, and in the depth to avoid this. Normally subs are just centred.

PeterWright:

Avatar works with polarized light, with the glasses are polarized horizontally and vertically. The news there is the screen, where the coating is now able to reflect the image at the correct polarization.

Actually Avatar and other 3D movies can be shown using any 3D projection system.

Real D uses passive polarisation and requires a special screen. Problems with this system are titling your head alters the polarisation and the polarised glasses reduces brightness and saturation. The glasses are cheap.

The other common system is Dolby 3D. It requires no special screen and there's less light loss. This works on using specific wavelengths of red, green and blue for each eye, the glasses filter and correct the colors for each eye. The glasses are expensive.

There's another system that uses LCD shutter glasses. An IR signal in the cinema provides sync for the shutters. The glasses are expensive, use batteries and can fail.

The old anaglyph system as far as I know is dead for cinema projection. It's attraction was no special screen, projector or gear to buy and the glasses are really cheap. No doubt it'll continue to be used though in places like YouTube as it requires nothing apart from the viewer to have a pair of cheap glasses. It's also used for monitoring with 3D cameras.

I kept mentioning the cost of the glasses as this was a sticking point between the cinemas and the distributors.

Bob.

I have been an vegas user for about 10 years now as an audio producer for a well known radio station in my area. I remember when video was just a bonus feature to Vegas 3.0.

Vegas strength has always been an powerful easy to use audio program and this the reason why I loved it so much.

I hope that VegasProX treats 3D just like a stereo audio track where you can apply o link effects to a stereoscopic pair.

It would be nice if someone invented stereoscopic reference video glasses which two independant lcd displays for each eye to properly master to avoid discrepencies with various emerging technologies.

Just a thought ... I wonder what 3D technology would do for the porn industry?

> I wonder what 3D technology would do for the porn industry?

The movies would only need to be two minutes long ;)

Ah hahahaha....

"I hope that VegasProX treats 3D just like a stereo audio track where you can apply o link effects to a stereoscopic pair."

Neo3D seems to be the answer to your prayers. At $3K it's a bargain. A friend of mine has so far invested 10 times that amount into developing a low cost 3D system with little joy. We'll be taking Neo3D for spin shortly I suspect.

Bob.

How about:

Introducing the all new "Vegas Pro 3D" featuring the newly updated Credit Roll Generator. "You've asked and we listened." The Vegas 2.0 Credit Roll Generator has finally been updated".

What an advertisement ! ! !

John

http://www.syndicate.se/Default.aspx?Id=294

scroll down and look at the duo7d3d. Then look at the sample video need the red and blue glasses. I think their might be a few people shooting 3D at the price of this gear. Not to mention this year CES was all about 3D telebisions.

Soon 2D video will be as common as a mono audio track.

Get "Foundations of the Stereoscopic Cinema" from here:

http://3d.curtin.edu.au/library/foundation.cfm

The copyright owners have effectively placed it in the public domain. It is quite old but nothing has changed regarding how 3D works and how to shoot it.
Some of the early attempts are pretty amazing, especially what was being tried in the USSR.

Bob.

I read on YouTube that two Flips mounted side by side on a stick produces Stereoscope.

This is exactly what my friend has been trialling. You can certainly get some good shots using cheap cameras mounted side by side. In fact he has built a basic mirror rig which gives control of interaxial and toe in. The latter very crudely though.

This simple and cheap approach has several issues:

1) The shutters are not in sync. Not an immediately obvious problem but from what I read it adds dramatically to eye strain for the viewer.

2) The two lenses do not track. This is a real show stopper. Even zoomed right in or out two cheap lenses are not exactly the same and good luck getting them aligned at anything in between.
Even a randomly selected pair of cine primes are not likely to be identical, expect to pay a lot more for matched pairs of prime lenses.

For anyone trying to come to grips with 3D the free book I provided a link to above is pretty much vital reading.

Bob.

I don't do weddings but I do do history and heritage work for msuems and such and I'm thinking that with the newer technology being rolled out, including Panasonic's new camera coming out, this is a good time to move to 3D. I'm hopeful for an easier, better way to work with the content as well. One of things that I think will limit this from being more than a movie theatre or museum type gimick for a while, just know folks are going to disagree with this one, is the glassess needed. What, $100 - $150 a pop for extra pairs? And, everybody needs 'em to see the picture? Is this the year of 3D or are these early days of the second coming of a fad?

"What, $100 - $150 a pop for extra pairs?"

The cost of the glasses depends of the projection system in use.
We bought our own pairs of glasses to see Avatar, they cost $2 each.
Some cinemas were showing the same movie using other projection systems and indeed the glasses would have cost significantly more.

Bob.