Advice Please: Creating And Displaying a 135 Degree Scene

[Searcher7]

Can anyone tell me if it is possible to create and display a panoramic
video that encompasses a 135 degree view across three monitors?

As for creating it, if there exists any kind of wide angle lense for
something like this, I would assume that it would cause noticeable
distortion in the image.

So I'm guessing that it is more plausible to just pull back and video
the part of the scene that would have corresponded to 135 degrees, and
then crop the video by zooming in to what would correspond to 1/3rd(45
degrees-horizontal) of the scene.

This brings me to the display part.

The idea is to be able to run said video on three monitors, meaning
each monitor together would display the entire scene.

Can this be done with video,(or static images for that matter)?

Thanks a lot.

Darren Harris
Staten Island, New York.

 

[Richard Crowley]

Searcher7 wrote ...

Can anyone tell me if it is possible to create and display a panoramic
video that encompasses a 135 degree view across three monitors?

It was done in your (grand)parent's era on 35mm. Look up "Cinerama"

 

[Searcher7]

Searcher7 wrote ...

It was done in your (grand)parent's era on 35mm. Look up "Cinerama"

Are you saying that the video I want can't be created with modern
equipment?

Thanks.

Darren Harris
Staten Island, New York.

 

[Larry J.]

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

Are you saying that the video I want can't be created with
modern equipment?

Just mount three cameras on a plate. Cross-shoot numbers one and
three. It's been done many times, no real big deal. Fix the focal
length, and no zooming. It will require a hefty pan and tilt head,
unless your cameras are very small and light.

I did this kind of video setup for the US Army around 1982 for tank
simulators, and others had done it before me.

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

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

 

[William Davis]

Are you saying that the video I want can't be created with modern
equipment?

Thanks.

Darren Harris
Staten Island, New York.

Heavens.

Of course it can.

Take 3 standard camcorders. Put them on tripods. Point and/or zoom them
to fit your 135 degree requirement. Play the resulting tapes on 3
monitors placed side by side.

Voila.

Precisely the same technique used in Cinerama which had 3
cameras/projectors sync'd to create the ultra-wide screen effect.

Not particularly cheap, but it sounds like precisely what you're trying
to accomplish.

What's the problem?

 

[Digital Video Solutions]

Scala software will do just that

 

[Richard Crowley]

Searcher7 wrote ...

Are you saying that the video I want can't be created with modern
equipment?

What I am saying is that it was done 53 years ago and is pretty
well documented. Easy for anyone with sufficient curiosity to
gather the learnings and BKMs (best known methods) and do it
again (or better) with modern equipment. Sounds like a neat
idea, actually. Or even in the round with 9 cameras like the
Disney people do.

 

[Richard Crowley]

"Digital Video Solutions" wrote ...

Scala software will do just that

Presumably you mean editing three timelines in sync?

 

[Searcher7]

I had already thought about the three camera idea, but since the three
videos have to be seemless as a single video, attempting to get a
perfect set-up is not within my ability.

I'd like to mention that when I run it as a single video(on a single
monitor), the intent is to use the horizontal scroll to see either the
left, right, or center.

So basically, I'd have to be able to store a panoramic video, and have
the bandwidth to display it all. Bandwidth that is at least three times
the normal bandwidth needed for displaying a regular full screen video.

Thanks.

Darren Harris
Staten Island, New York.

 

[Richard Crowley]

Searcher7 wrote ...

I had already thought about the three camera idea, but since the three
videos have to be seemless as a single video, attempting to get a
perfect set-up is not within my ability.

Not clear why you were asking, then?

I'd like to mention that when I run it as a single video(on a single
monitor), the intent is to use the horizontal scroll to see either the
left, right, or center.

You could just shoot "extreme letterbox" depending on how much
resolution you need at the end of the process.

 

[Bob Niland]

I'd like to mention that when I run it as a single video

You could just shoot "extreme letterbox" depending on how
much resolution you need at the end of the process.

Or mount a 2:1 anamorphic fisheye lens on the HD cam.

My reference books are in storage, but my recollection
is that 3-strip Cinerama (35mm 6-perf x 3) was far from
a routine process, with severe limitations on original
photography (e.g. focal length), expense in post (e.g.
color matching panels), and complications in exhibition
(extracting 35mm 4-perf and 70mm 5-perf prints for
standard theatres). Many of those issues would have
congruents in a 3-cam SDTV setup.

In its latter days the Cinerama brand switched to single-strip
65/70mm anamorphic, largely, I'd guess, due to the challenges.

 

[Searcher7]

Searcher7 wrote ...

Not clear why you were asking, then?

Well, I guess this whole thing is about what hardware I'd need for the
project.

Three cameras cannot be in the same space at the same time, so that is
one reason a seemless video would be difficult to make. Another is
making sure the verticl is *perfect* between the three frames.
Horizontal can be overlapped and then edited when putting the three
frames together.

You could just shoot "extreme letterbox" depending on how much
resolution you need at the end of the process.

"Extreme Letterbox"? I assume this is an in-camera function. Does it
cover 135 degrees?

Thanks.

Darren Harris
Staten Island, New York.

 

[Bob Niland]

You could just shoot "extreme letterbox" depending on how
Or extreme anamorphic, assuming that 3:1 lenses even exist.

"Extreme Letterbox"? I assume this is an in-camera function.

No. It means throwing away vertical information in order to
obtain a wider aspect ratio (a/r). Irrespective of the angle
of coverage you're seeking, your desire to display it on three
standard 4:3 (1.33:1) displays computes to an overall image
a/r of 12:3 (4:1).

Matte off the top and bottom third of your single-lens SDTV
image, and voila, 12:3 image. Blow it up on a 3x3 video wall
that only has the middle three displays horizontally.
Resolution will be horrible.

The movie industry (esp. in Italy) did something similar in
the 1960s with Techniscope. Instead of shooting anamorphic
onto a 4-perf 35mm frame, they'd shoot spherical onto 2-perf.

Cut raw neg cost in half. Also cut the resolution delivered
to the eventual 4-perf anamorhpic theatrical prints. Film
had enough res to get away with this. SDTV doesn't, really.

Going anamorphic would at least not waste any of the basic
SDTV res. Anamorphic to HD (assuming 16:9 native) would
require less squeeze (an additional 2.25:1 vs. 3:1) and would
deliver more res into the post production workflow vs SDTV.

Does it cover 135 degrees?

Coverage angle for a single-lens capture is a function of
the lens focal length. On a 35mm film camera, that view
would be at the borderline of "fisheye" ultra wide angle
lenses, I'm guessing around 12mm, which are very expensive.

Caveat: the above is actually more than I know about the topic.

 

[Jan Panteltje]

Or extreme anamorphic, assuming that 3:1 lenses even exist.


No. It means throwing away vertical information in order to
obtain a wider aspect ratio (a/r). Irrespective of the angle
of coverage you're seeking, your desire to display it on three
standard 4:3 (1.33:1) displays computes to an overall image
a/r of 12:3 (4:1).

Matte off the top and bottom third of your single-lens SDTV
image, and voila, 12:3 image. Blow it up on a 3x3 video wall
that only has the middle three displays horizontally.
Resolution will be horrible.

The movie industry (esp. in Italy) did something similar in
the 1960s with Techniscope. Instead of shooting anamorphic
onto a 4-perf 35mm frame, they'd shoot spherical onto 2-perf.

Cut raw neg cost in half. Also cut the resolution delivered
to the eventual 4-perf anamorhpic theatrical prints. Film
had enough res to get away with this. SDTV doesn't, really.

Going anamorphic would at least not waste any of the basic
SDTV res. Anamorphic to HD (assuming 16:9 native) would
require less squeeze (an additional 2.25:1 vs. 3:1) and would
deliver more res into the post production workflow vs SDTV.


Coverage angle for a single-lens capture is a function of
the lens focal length. On a 35mm film camera, that view
would be at the borderline of "fisheye" ultra wide angle
lenses, I'm guessing around 12mm, which are very expensive.

Caveat: the above is actually more than I know about the topic.

Neither do I, but for the sake of technical / theoretical solutiuons
I can think of an other way to do it:
Scan a laser beam (use 3, R,G,B) and pick up the reflection with a
photocell.
The artists will have to perform in the dark....
But no problem with lenses, scan any area you like, even > 180 degrees.
Very early TV experiments used a scanning light spot.
Oldies will remember the 'flying spot scanner', same principle really.
No geaomtric distortions...
hey maybe we van have some weak lighting on the scene, and use high
power lasers, man in 'The Blues Brothers' they were also wearing sun
glasses.
Maybe I can get a grant from DOD to picture enemy sites.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
bingo
Thats it
I am RICH ;-)

 

[Searcher7]

Or extreme anamorphic, assuming that 3:1 lenses even exist.

Obviously there would be too much distortion invlolved, so a single
lense is not an option. :-(

No. It means throwing away vertical information in order to
obtain a wider aspect ratio (a/r). Irrespective of the angle
of coverage you're seeking, your desire to display it on three
standard 4:3 (1.33:1) displays computes to an overall image
a/r of 12:3 (4:1).

Matte off the top and bottom third of your single-lens SDTV
image, and voila, 12:3 image. Blow it up on a 3x3 video wall
that only has the middle three displays horizontally.
Resolution will be horrible.

Yes I already mentioned the possibilty oif soing this. But if the
resolution is poor, this wouldn't be an option either.

The movie industry (esp. in Italy) did something similar in
the 1960s with Techniscope. Instead of shooting anamorphic
onto a 4-perf 35mm frame, they'd shoot spherical onto 2-perf.

Cut raw neg cost in half. Also cut the resolution delivered
to the eventual 4-perf anamorhpic theatrical prints. Film
had enough res to get away with this. SDTV doesn't, really.

Going anamorphic would at least not waste any of the basic
SDTV res. Anamorphic to HD (assuming 16:9 native) would
require less squeeze (an additional 2.25:1 vs. 3:1) and would
deliver more res into the post production workflow vs SDTV.

Non-linear editing on undistorted source material(which at least *good*
resolution) is my goal. So this is a brick wall.

Coverage angle for a single-lens capture is a function of
the lens focal length. On a 35mm film camera, that view
would be at the borderline of "fisheye" ultra wide angle
lenses, I'm guessing around 12mm, which are very expensive.

Caveat: the above is actually more than I know about the topic.

Okay, so here are my conclusions...

1) I'll have to find a single lens(with the least distortion). Since my
hobby is 35mm(film) photography, I wouldn't know what the optimal
lens(focal length) for a video camera would be.

2) The video camera would have to be set up to pivot perfectly at the
CCD plane.

This would probably require an extremely(custom) tripod head and a lot
of trial and error.

Now if I'm successful, all that would be left is merging the three or
more video together to get the three "horizontal-view" "screen-lengths"
I need.

In the mean time, what about bandwisdth considerations? And idea what
kind of card would handle a full screen video(X 3)?

I assume that the display buffer would be important, and a large amount
of ram on the video card.(But correct me if I'm wrong).

Thanks a lot.

Darren Harris
Staten Island, New York.

 

[Digital Video Solutions]

Scala software can, from a single source computer, display three different
scenes to three different monitors simultaneously. http://www.scala.com/ I
used their software to display 24 different works of art to 24 different
screens in random to each screen in time and art piece displayed. It works
with video sources as well.

 

[Searcher7]

Scala software can, from a single source computer, display three different
scenes to three different monitors simultaneously.

http://www.scala.com/ I

used their software to display 24 different works of art to 24 different
screens in random to each screen in time and art piece displayed. It works
with video sources as well.

Third party software is not an option, since it will have to be written
from the ground up.

But any advice on what kind of video card I'd need would be
appreciated.

Thanks a lot.

Darren Harris
Staten Island, New York.

 

[Digital Video Solutions]

Write what from the ground up. Scala can do it, and yet you say the thing
has to be written from the ground up. It's like trying to teach a pig to
sing with some people.

 

[Searcher7]

Write what from the ground up. Scala can do it, and yet you say the thing
has to be written from the ground up. It's like trying to teach a pig to
sing with some people.

I have no idea what you are talking about.

But this project involves having not only the ability to create
seemless, unseen, and and immediate changes at the press of a button
with nothing else but the video on the screen, it also involves some
on-the-fly editing changes that won't be doable in existing software.
And it will have to be run out of ram disks(with no visible GUI).

So this really comes down to hardware(Speed and bandwidth) that will
allow me to do what I want.

Darren Harris
Staten Island, New York.

 

[Richard Crowley]

I have no idea what you are talking about.

But this project involves having not only the ability to create
seemless, unseen, and and immediate changes at the press of a button
with nothing else but the video on the screen, it also involves some
on-the-fly editing changes that won't be doable in existing software.
And it will have to be run out of ram disks(with no visible GUI).

So this really comes down to hardware(Speed and bandwidth) that will
allow me to do what I want.

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