Stereo 3D

Warning: DOMDocument::loadHTML(): Empty string supplied as input in /var/www/ on line 290
11 years ago
2 years ago
Super Exciting! 3D and VideoCopilot? Awesome.

I can understand all the back-and-forth regarding stereo as gimmickry, but just as color and sound expanded the horizon of filmaking, so will 3D.

It's all about the artists use of the new medium, not just the technology.
2 years ago
Awesome post guys, as a user of After effects this really takes the trophy! G'day from Sydney, Australia.
6 years ago
Wow Excellent post.. can't wait go for Stereo 3D
This was a great post, I've a video editor from Phoenix and I'm a big fan of After Effects. Can you make a post about how to do a 3D time freeze? That would be helpful. Thanks!
9 years ago
Hi sir,

I am jose here from india, i am working for a film post production , i am not much expert in any VFX softwares , i need some help to clarify and learn about the works in film projects , looking forward to ur positive responce,

Sir i have some clarification in some of the topics i am clearly mentioned below , please sugest me the tutorial link or send me a notes

1.3d conversion:
sir i have left and right footage , i need convert this as 3D (for films)
How do i take the output, which format, and instruction(anagyph, left/right)
(tell me the whole work flow and process )

2. Rotoscopic:
i have the footage to remove Wire and touch up how do i do that ( which software is better ) ( tell me the advance options)

Sir please help me to clarify this
9 years ago
hi ,plz can you make your net project on who to create and export
Stereo 3D video !!!!!!!!
10 years ago
hello everyone,
When working with cyan/red glasses, can I use red colors in my comps? Is it possible ?
10 years ago
What is the final file format? And what encodes to it?
10 years ago
Any timeframe on the tutorial Andrew.
I am about to embark on a 3d stereoscopic project and need to do some research. Lucky loads of of post are here. I normally like a visualy stick better then just reading...
10 years ago
Wow andrew , u r the best !!! long time fan of u, u get it first , great going dude. keep us more updated :)
Michael Goldberg
11 years ago
Great topic. We've done some work testing out the stereographic workflow, and our biggest issue right now is how do I ouput from AE to an active or passive 3D Monitor? We want to use a consumer HD 3D Monitor (these are active polarization) to view the graphics as we build them in 3D. I know the 3D glasses effect in AE can output LR, TB, and interlaced, but we've been using anaglyph to view which isn't great. Any suggestions on workflow as far as viewing on a 3D monitor as we build in AE? That's key.
11 years ago
hi there.
I'm very interested in an answer of the sayantan's question cause i'll be in the same trouble soon. My boss want me to make a short on his new 3D screen who's using the active shutter system (double frame rate).... if you have any idea about how it work i'll take your answers thanks.

note that a french company is creation a 3d screen without glasses: alioscopy.
11 years ago
I am in the process of making a stereoscopic 3d movie of an architectural project. I have used 3ds max to generate the 2 sets of image sequences. I have checked the movie after compilation using anaglyph glasses and they look good. But the client may need to see the same thing with active shutter glasses to be seen with the new series of 3dTV the likes of sony and samsung.
I need to know how difficult is the compositing for the same using softwares like AE or Primiere, considering that i have the sequences rendered and ready.
11 years ago
Love this site, Andrew. I've been a fan for a long time.

When do you think you'll get a tutorial out on S3D? I'm much more interested in the polarized / shutter glasses version rather than the 'painful' anaglyph stuff... eg compositing side by side normal footage in the right format for modern s3d tvs...
11 years ago
So when will this be released? I see this conversation started about 2 months ago? I can't wait to see this... I'm just starting to dabble in stereoscopic 3d myself.
11 years ago
I did a 3d compositing/vfx job with 2d greenscreen layers in after effects using some of the tutorials and added the optical flares plug-in. A great tool to add a little extra 'real' to the scene.
11 years ago
Hey Andrew :]
Ive been doing some research in anaglyphic footage (i thought you'd forgot about this post) and was wondering if you were still in the process of completing a tutorial? I'm actually more interested in this than the payment plan and particle shadows, however awesome those techniques are. You really are a gift in the field :]

Mark Battistella
11 years ago
If you want to know more about stereo art, specifically 3D conversion, check out Legend 3D Films.
jin choung
11 years ago
say does anyone have an "in" with adobe? can we get them to modify the perspective>3dglasses filter so that instead of taking two footage or comp items, it can actually take two CAMERAS that exist in the same comp?

this would make stereo workflow so much easier.

oh, and the ability to spit out MVC bluray stereo codec would be hot too for testing....
Tony Reidsma
11 years ago

I'm looking forward to seeing what you can do with 3D. Are you shooting stereoscopic?

I'm shooting stereoscopic with a pair of 7D's and I love it.


Side note: I ran across this bit from 2005. Boy has your on air voice and personality changed! LOL
Graeme Evans
11 years ago
Someone asked about 3d time freeze footage.

It's actualy quite easy depending on the setup of the multiple cameras.

I did a test a while ago with some footage from "glamcam 360" such as:

Using the crosseyed method you can have two copies of one of these videos running next to each other one frame (one camera position) appart and it gives a decent 3d effect.

So long as there is no adjustment of the vertical position of the cameras then this method will work. But for a freeze effect where the camera rises as well as rotates there will need to be two cameras for every height position.
Leslie D Cook
11 years ago
I am currently making a cartoon animation using Carrara 7 and AE, and with the trend towards 3D I would like to render my work in both 2D and 3D. What formats should I use to get my work onto DVD (or Blueray) for submission to competitions/festivals? Should it also be in HD?

Thanks, Leslie
11 years ago
I just found some script to make anaglyph 3d in after effects. now to view the final result I had to buy a red/cyan glasses. I did :D. but now I can see the final output which is quite impressive but cud still see some color coming out from the obejct from the red channel. In a way things were not sharp. How can I crack it. I guess there is some mismatch in the color of my glasses screen and the red channel left view which I am making. Would appreciate if someone can find a solution.
does any one know how can we make a 3d projection without glasses.I heard of some LCD tv but its 2 expensive. Any other wat of doin it.
@ Andrew : Awesome is too small word for you. :P
11 years ago
Excellent post.!!I am so excited to see the tutorial,I am sure its really nice and fun..!Good job and thanks for sharing..
11 years ago
Hi. I think 2D to 3D wrong way. You will not get real3D effect. This is the same as stereo music done from mono... Just a trick. But it is bad for you and for your customers. The next very important point: if you get some anaglyph video you have to now what the type of anaglyph glasses you need. it can be red/blu or red/green and so on... You can not use anaglyph glasses for the video as "side by side" or another 3d formats. The next. If you want produce your own stereo video you have to know that 65mm distance between lenses good only if you subject for the shooting at least 3 meter from the camera. And in this case some subjects on the background should be approx, 4 meters.... (you need special 3d calculator for its) You have count your sensor size (in the camera), lenses focus, distance from the camera to subject, distance "0", distance for the background.... If you want shoot close up subjects (like a portrait) or even insects :-) in this case you have to get distance between lenses from 5 to 20 mm... It is not possible if you have not STEREO RIG... It is to big, and expensive ... We you 2 cameras sony HXR-MC1P. It is smallest HD sony cameras, and we got 37mm base (distance between lenses). And this is not enough for close up shooting. Many videos in internet very bad. Because it is shoot without any "stere" rules. And big (not correct) parallax brooking your eyes.
11 years ago
James Cameron talks about the 3D remake of Titanic!

Published on 6/3/2010
11 years ago
Hi, I once participated in a S3d contest organized by IZ3d at CGarena. I read many articles, physics patents , derivations to try to understand the science behind S3d. Finally i calculated right focal length , kept correct camera distance, everything was theoretically correct, But the image wasn't looking much 3d , but when I increased separation between L & R , the image started popping better and depth was also good.Never understood why doing wrong was making it right.
And anaglyph glasses really are painful.
Great to know that you are gonna make it easy to understand.I am so excited about this.I hope it has combination of cg elements with real shoot.
Ravi yadav
Peter Young
11 years ago
Just interested to know if anyone has got a workflow/gear list for monitoring out of AE stereoscopically using shutter glasses (nvidia or otherwise or external 3D monitor etc)?

Just did a whole project with anaglyph and found it challenging to maintain focus for longer periods of time.

Dustin James
11 years ago
@joel figueroa

If you want a live action movie/video.. then you need to cameras.

If you do everything cgi.. you do not need a camera and you can play with the rigging and workflow all you want in AE and have stereo 3D movies/videos.
Joel Figueroa
11 years ago
Are two cameras required, if so do they have to be the same? Is there an alternative for people with one cam, like using sure target to control the camera and give two perspectives
11 years ago
11 years ago
A free pair of Red Cyan Anaglyph glasses can be obtained for a SSAE or the cost of postage & packing from

11 years ago
Hi Andrew,
how fun this will be.
I am student of filmproduction on a german based filmschool in Babelsberg and we have just finished our own stereo-3D shortmovie with 23 minutes.
We have developed an interesting stereo-3D 90 seconds intro animation with After Effects, that will probably blow you away.

Unfortunately, the movie and its website is in german, but we will release a english subtitled version of the movie soon. So maybe we get the chance of showing you something in a couple of weeks.
If you are interested.

Let me know.
Best from Germany,
11 years ago
I found a link which explains how to do active shutter 3d in different apps.
Btw have patience with the guy who explains the AE workflow.
11 years ago
I think Avatar was in 4D... I was so immersed in it, time was relative
Dustin James
11 years ago
I learned a ton about anaglyphic stereo 3D from digital tutors about a year ago. It was a great tutorial and a great workflow that they used. They explained the math and science in detail. I still have a template project in AE that I use once in a while for youth group videos where we give out anaglyph glasses... it's also a great project to just export out still images for t-shirts and graphics. The project uses some really great expressions..

I'm excited to see what you come up with Andrew.
11 years ago
Hey guys. First for all of you that don't like 3D? 3d processing is usually done after the product is finished. So there will always be a Non-3D version. Whether it is released is another question. So keep saying you hate and maybe we can start getting one more additional version release. Personally I think that would be awesome!

Making a 3D from a raw A.E. composition is really going to be interesting, I can't wait to see the tutorials!
11 years ago
I filmed in 3D please check my example 3D video on my Andrew.
11 years ago
Just curious as to what the options were for those who have already shot footage and want to convert it into 3D? Are there any consumer plugins/packages that are on the horizon? Or should consumers start thinking about having to purchase more expensive equipment to facilitate shooting 3D in the future?
Kevin Silverstein
11 years ago
Hey Andrew, do you have the names of the people who you collaborated with? I am doing a research project on 3D and visual fatigue an dI would like to ask them some questions.
11 years ago
I just want to point out that I asked for this tutorial in the forums, LONG ago, and you've kept me waiting ever since... Now that you're going to actually do it, I WANT MY COOKIE!
11 years ago
hey Andrew, happy that you are sharing your knowledge about CG world :), talking about stereo 3D, well i have been researching the whole past year about that amazing illusion, i just decided to shoot me graduation project in 3D, i have designed my own DV-400 camera rig it costed me about 170$, i want to share one shot i did of my new epic documentary, its the first 3D video production in Egypt, here is a link you can have an eye on it and comment if you like. thanks for sharing.

here is the stereo verison :

(if you are in full screen plz keep away at least 1 meter away from youe monitor)

And here is the normal one :
The Great Zimm
11 years ago
I've been playing with this idea alot recently.
I look forward to see your touch to it. My glasses are ready.

Here is a tutorial I posted today on 3d camera rigging
11 years ago
Buenos días les escribo en español ya que mi ingles es bastante regular y es por eso que les queria pedir que por favor traduzcan parte de su genial pagina al español ya que tienen bastantes seguidores en este idioma y seria exelente si pudieramos seguir algunas partes de su sitio en español. obvio no los tutoriales ya que es bastante complicado creo, pero si algunas cosas y por que no algun día uno que otro tuto con subtutilos.

ATT juan palacios.
11 years ago
I'm so exited, I can't wait until we try it..
11 years ago
I would like to know in post.

Can you handle them like one feed, and if the camera areslightly off in color or exposure can that be automatically matched.

Basically is there a way to edit it just like if it was 2D
11 years ago
Thx for that Andrew =)
whats the best (and cheapest) way to get some red/(cyan glasses?
11 years ago
Oh I have my 3d comic glasses ready ! but beyond interest in learning new technology, I am not really a fan of 3d films.
11 years ago
This is actually quite interesting. I'm eager to see some real-world examples of this. I've been dabbling in 3D anaglyph for about 2 years now, here and there. I mainly do it using video game footage, shooting a scene from one position, then moving the camera slightly to the right and shooting the same exact scene again. Luckily, in video games, things can be replicated perfectly, so I don't need a dual camera or mirror set up. Its a lot of fun to play with and, if done right, can really be quite a cool experience.
11 years ago
We are getting ready to do a big corporate gig in 3d, this is great! I always wondered if VCP would get into S3D.... can't wait.
11 years ago
Hey Andrew,

"This 3D film has been modified from its original version. It has been formatted to fit your screen and save your bowels."

It'd be interesting to know what studios are doing about 3D distribution for more than one format. It's important to keep your presentation format in mind when shooting stereo for a 60ft movie screen or even IMAX but... what's the transfer process to different sizes especially when released on BluRay? Thanks!
11 years ago
I've heard everyone talking about 3D with the stereo glasses, but hasn't anybody heard of autostereoscopic, lenticular-based screens? Here,
11 years ago

From what I learned, converging the cameras is the second best option. Shooting with a parallel setup and an interaxial distance of just above 1 inch will give you the most flexibility in most cases.

If you do shoot converging cameras, do not adjust the convergence during the shot - what you do with that is shifting the zero-parallax point (i.e. the virtual screen plane). It will result in the impression that the whole room starts moving towards you while the actor is staying at the same distance from you although getting smaller and smaller... Not quite realistic. :)

You'll have to pull the focus, though.
Well, I loved the Panasonic HVX200 for some time, then switched to the better quality Canon 7D...
But Panasonic seems to come with one of the first affordable (?) 3D production integrated systems.

Have a look:

So far, I still don't know how to deal with this footage when it comes to do 3d compositing in AE.
11 years ago
Here the scenario: The actor is moving away from the camera.

Question: In order to keep the actor properly in 3D, do the cameras need to pivot on some axis and adjusting the focus as long as the actor is moving further away? Or, they can be fix on a frame and only the focus is going to be adjust?

Sorry for my poor English(I'm a French Canadian)

Bradley Bell
11 years ago
Awesome, can't wait. 3D.
Daniel García
11 years ago
Measurement units. That's my main question. If real world stereo rigs are measured in mm and angles and 3D software ones have also specific measurements, how does this translate to the interaxial setup of two AE cameras that are measured in pixels?
Maybe it's not a mathematic process, maybe it's visual, but how do you marry the stereo settings among those different programs/real world cameras?
A simple example integrating a 3D text AE layer on a real or virtual stereo shot would be great.
jin choung
11 years ago
@Ben - all the consumer tvs at CES 2010 were active shutter glasses and do indeed have an onboard battery that you have to recharge... imo, that, plus the fact that the glasses are so expensive, and the fact that it still doesn't look as good as circularly polarized realD glasses we use to preview stuff at work (on a "professional" hyundai l/r interlace monitor) makes this the least attractive way to go... i mean forget about getting a bunch of glasses for friends for a superbowl party! it'll be strictly BYOGoggles and that's exacerbated by the fact that the tvs and glasses don't have consistency such that if it's not working properly on someone else's set, you probably have to wear your glasses upside down.

nvidia's 3d vision computer kit is the same thing - active shutter.

not the best way to go but i can see why the tv companies are doing it - the technology is not exotic and they don't need to radically retrofit their mass-manufacturing processes in order to add the extra D. as long as a tv can do 120hz refresh or better, it's already stereo capable - all they need to do is sync in an ir emitter, add a surtax of shutter glasses and it's done. if they're smart, they'll start releasing nvidia like "kits" to adapt monitors that are 120hz but non stereo now to view 3d content... always best not to p1ss off your big spenders (120hz+ monitors tend to be on high end).

toshiba had circularly polarized realD compatible monitors at CES but they were "professional" monitors that cost $5k - $10k. hyundai and i think samsung and lg have polarized monitors too but i think they also carry a price premium.

11 years ago
Andrew! Thank you soooooo much for this!!! I posted in the forum a topic about this! Trust me, I have searched in the net and haven't found anything of use!!! It's like TOP SECRET info!!! Again THANK YOU!
11 years ago
The shots I enjoy the most are the ones that you see through an object in the foreground, like a glass window with dust on it, right through to the subject that is further back in 3D space.
11 years ago
I met Corey Turner from Imageworks at the FMX recently. He tutored a workshop on stereo-3D and although I didn't go there unprepared, it was quite insightful.

May I ask - have you already shot some stereo footage? If so, what cameras and what kind of rig did you use? I thought about shooting a stereo short for some time, but seeing that there is no way to synchronize any of the cameras I have access to, I guess I'll postpone that - or buy me a beam splitter sometimes. :-)

The industry is pushing hard to make stereo-3D the new standard and chances are, they will manage it this time. I only hope that it won't fall prey to horror movies like Step Up :) and Piranha again. The technology has finally cought up with the original intention. Let's use it, yay. :)
11 years ago
Hi! I cant wait for the tutorial and the details of this technique. I have made a simple vide before with AE and 3DSMAX. It's just a low quality, fast test render because my computer is not the best. (of course it's based on your organic mesh tutoruial :D)
11 years ago
Cool. I will get my red and cyan lighting gels out and cut me some. Then I'll put them in an old pair of glasses...and I'm set. I'm looking forward to seeing what amazing things you can do in 3D. I am sure it will be awesome.
11 years ago
Sam actually had a speaking role. That's a first....
11 years ago
You could postt the 3d works also in crossview for those that haven't the glasses and thosoe who want to see the colors( like me). That's also cheaper!
11 years ago
And Optical Flairs in 3D...? Lens flairs are artifacts from the camera lens. 3D is like being there. So would it make sense? I don't remember if Avatar had flairs.
11 years ago
I just don't understand how polarized 3d works. What does the light have to do to only to through one lens and not the other?
11 years ago
I see New Matrix Movie :)

it's Awesome

Andrew ....

What is the Dragon Filter ...!?
I see it via Last tuts !

Can you till us a bout it ? :)
Austin Burke
11 years ago
Cool, just did a research paper on Stereo 3D for my english class. Some really interesting stuff out there about it, like how they tried it in hte 20th century compaired to todays stereo 3D
11 years ago
Image overload is where we're headed. First we had pictures, then moving pictures, film, broadcast images, large projection, computer generated, portable displays, 3D movies, holograms, multi-screen display, 360 screens, virtual reality, Reality, Brain Explosions, Darkness. I know these aren't in order of release or a definitive list, but it's really scary where all this is heading. ;) I just saw Transformers on TV last night and I was overwhelmed by all the imagery flying around and transforming before my eyes. Megan Fox wasn't too hard on the eyes though :)
11 years ago
I was just wondering how log will we have to wait to be able to watch 3D cinema without having to ware glasses!
I know it sounds kindda stupid, but with thw amazing things technology has achieved, I don't see it as hard as it seems.
11 years ago
I thought that the brain just melts the images together as one. cause you have 2 pictures sepparatly captured and with the special shutter goggles/ glasses the brain molds them as one. The glasses have a very fast shutter time. first the left glass then the right about a couple of hundred times a second.. the brain can't process the 2 images separaty or something and the brain creates 1 image of the 2 separat images.
11 years ago
I'm looking forward to seeing this tutorial for sure, Andrew always delivers some new techniques that astound me!

For those interested in 3d and sharing their experiments we've got a Stereoscopic 3D Channel on vimeo and an associated group.

Do please take a look and get involved.

Channel -
Group -

If anyone is interested you can see my 2010 InvaZion Award winning stereoscopic 3D short created entirely in Adobe After Effects on the channel too.
Onno van Helsdingen
11 years ago
I really liked the movie Avatar, but more from a technical perspective. It is only too bad the production companies are really forcing 3d into the cinema's. Even though the movie was not shot with a 3d camera, but done through the post production. The whole 3d populairity is pushed through, the production companies only see big bucks instead thinking. The technic isn't really flawless yet. Avatar was definitly a beginning for a new era of filming technic but to rush it?? For me going to the cinema to see a film i have been waiting for is becoming a real dissapointment when i hear: No sir sorry it's only in 3D.

I am a great movie lover want to become a director too. I have loved to go to the cinema's, but lately i just wait for the normal dvd or blu-ray releases. How is your opion about the way the companies handle 3d. I think it's a baby rushed to become an adult.

Greetz from holland keep up the good stuff LOVE IT!! :)

Cristiano Bacchi
11 years ago
Interesting matter.
Hum....human eyes have a 'special' computer in the back, I mean human of the most complicated machines. It's real a sci-fi challange! Great Andrew to begin this exploration it!
The_real smithy
11 years ago
i can't wait for tron
11 years ago
That Was Very Cool ANDREW I Like You Very Much And Thank You For This Good Short Film.
11 years ago
Found the below tutorial a while ago. It gives a look into the post-process of turning a classic film into a stereoscopic 3D film using Mocha and AE:

It looked really cool, but it's of the sort that requires the 3D glasses to really get the most out of the tut and workflow.
11 years ago
I've never been a fan of Anaglyph glasses as my eyes can't handle them... Circular Polarisers work fine for me, cheap as chips and very effective.

Even though I cannot fully enjoy the "Anaglyph 3D Experience" (my eyes have differing focal lengths, colour perception and convergence issues) I will be joining in over the weeks ahead as much as my streaming eyes will allow. Having seen the sheer volume of 3D kit at the recent BSC Openday at Elstree, I realise that 3D is going to be with us in one form or another for some time to come and I should learn all I can now before the real talent joins the party and blows my cover!

Thanks in advance for the forthcoming insights into 3D :-)
11 years ago
First of all sorry for the long post.


Did someone said Holograms

go to the holographic 3D section and watch the video there, what your looking for is musion eyeliner 3D, Also this is a great site.

@ANDREW, CHRIS and others.

We use stereo imagery at work. Like Chris said it's a very old technology it has been around since early 1900s, and died off and never caught on for everyday people later down the road until recently. The military still used it quite a bit. Especially for launching certain types of missiles. However, this isn't the military so as for video etc...

There are two types anaglyph and polarized. Anaglyph is your red and blue glasses and polarized is things like REAL 3D and others with the black glass etc... The reason why you can only do anaglyph stuff for tutorials and web, is because there are no polarized monitors that are cheap or readily available. There are screens that you can place over your monitor that can give you the polarized effect however. The reason you can see polarized video in the "3D televisions by Samsung" that were currently released is because they started building these polarization filters into the components of the televisions. If you wanted to produce videos for polarized systems (in my opinion better). Then you would need to use two cameras, like mentioned in other post set at a correct occular distance. Also, for most cases you would need to project this back using two projectors stacked side by side or on top of each other.

As for anaglyphic video and imagery, you dont need to use two cameras. You can use two, but dont need to. All this manipulation can be done in AE with the color channels and a few other depth adjustments etc... Personally anaglyphic imagery gives me a headache and I cant look at it two long but is still cool cause its dirt cheap to do. Also, they have been doing many studies on the long term eye effects from anaglyphic imagery and they say the result from eye strain isn't good. However, eating to much ice cream isn't good either so who knows.

The moral of this story is that

Anaglyphic = Web / non polorized devices... oh yea and print
Polarized = New TVs and Movie Theaters

Who is to say if this will stay or go, fad this... fad that... However I do know that Playboy just did there first anaglyphic centerfold hahha

good luck guys, Im sure Andrew will put out a smashing tut like always. If you guys have any questions post them here. or email me at jundaj at gmail dot com
11 years ago
This should be interesting. So how about a 3d time freeze?
Cris Daniels
11 years ago
This 3D mini-craze has weird timing based on this economy, and I am suspect that it is designed to keep theaters alive a little longer.

I'd be thrilled if they Hollywood or anyone else concentrated on a decent 2D movie with a decent plot. I dont want to see more lousy movies, in 3D. If it weren't for Megan Fox I never would have taken my kid to Transformers 2 it was beyond horrible despite the amazing fx. Every DSLR short on Vimeo had some distressed woman walking on some city sidewalk shot at f1.4 with weepy music.

I'd rather sit home and watch something shot by Hitchcock or Welles a gazillions years ago.

I am also surprised that anyone thinks that 3D enabled LCD and plasma TV's are somehow going to "take off" given the horrendous economy. About .1% of this country is going to trade in their current 1080p plasma.

The industry is flooded with people looking for work, budgets are low, smaller production companies are trying to substitute DSLR's for RED where they can. Demand for 3d? I dont see any except in Hollywood. So while the technology is neat, I'd rather have a $10,000 video camera that can shoot 14 stops over a 3D rig any day.

I will admit though, even I would pay for Megan Fox in 3D,
11 years ago
This was my first attempt at stereo 3d. Its a 3d rig using 2 flip minos
Allen Zayden
11 years ago
This looks REALLY cool! I want to try this myself sometime if I can learn!! Thanks Andrew!
Sam R
11 years ago
Super Exciting! 3D and VideoCopilot? Awesome.

I can understand all the back-and-forth regarding stereo as gimmickry, but just as color and sound expanded the horizon of filmaking, so will 3D.

It's all about the artists use of the new medium, not just the technology.

I'm going to point to an article in Computer Graphics World that contains a sidepiece that seems to hit the nail on the head, when it comes to utilizing stereo techniques to enhance storytelling.

The portion of the article I'm referring to is about halfway down the page in a blue frame, entitled 'Authoring in Stereo' -

Hope you guys have a look.

Of course, as always, VideoCopilot rocks!
11 years ago

As always, you da man!
11 years ago
woops. its .htm not .html
11 years ago
@ Alvin

CHeck these out they should help you out
(scroll down to the stereoscopic tracking part)

Just remember, Its a long and complicated process for the result involved, but coming from someone who creates and authors Stereo DCP packages....its worth it :)
11 years ago
@Chris, This was actually my first question to the sterographer I've been collaborating with. I didn't quite understand why it was supposedly better now and the fact is the method is the same but the delivery methods have advanced.

I think there has been so many variations of stereo til now that the details ARE very confusing so hopefully we can sort them all out.

It will be great to explore this subject with the community but it's also been a blast for me too.
11 years ago
i had a couple anaglyph comics when i was a kid and really loved that effect, but when i bought some red/cyan glasses recently and tried using them on a monitor i couldn't get anything to work. including images found on net, the 3d mode in google street view or in videogames, the 3d thing in photoshop, nothing.

i don't know if it's just bad red/cyan glasses or because my sight has deteriorated in one eye more than the other as i've got older (31 now).
11 years ago
@Andrew (et al),

Anyone that knows me knows that I HATE being wrong, but I'll defer to the research you've done and wait for your tut. Admittedly, I've never myself worked on anything remotely professional in 3D in either format, but I've read a lot myself and (at least until today) it was my understanding that the processes differ based on whichever technique.

I also understand that to take a movie like 'Journey' or 'Coraline' from a polarized presentation to anaglyph for DVD consumers requires a process akin to making the film 2D, then re-outputting it with the color filters in place. Simple adding a red hue to the left channel and a cyan hue to the right just wont do it.

BUT, I could be wrong and don't mind being enlightened by those smarter and more talented than I.
11 years ago
There may be a chance that a lot of Avatars backgrounds were Matte paint like effects. The massive amount of data to render a 3D scene would have called for some elements to be pre-renderd and composted later, so what your seeing might have been a result of that.
11 years ago
I had issues with depth at long distances.. its not something you notice too much with your own eyes, but even you eyes don't see enough angle difference in something far away to translate into depth.

The further something is from the camera the flatter it will become, its one reason to make sure there are other depth elements in the shot to make this less evident.. even when trying to make a wide shot of some scenery or mountain in the distance, without foreground items the shot would be a waste.
11 years ago
Hey, didn't they shoot Avatar this way? Is this the groundbreaking 3D they were talking about?

Andrew, when you saw Avatar, didn't the background look flat? It almost looked like everything was separate images put together in 3D, for some reason it didn't fit together very well.
11 years ago
BTW the camera I used was completely different for anything ever made past and present, while it did have 2 lenses, those lenses had a fix focal point. if you needed to focus an image the camera actually moved the film inside the camera.

If you try to take any 3D shot using 2 camera and the focal setting are not exactly the same, and im mean perfectly spot on, it can ruin the the final shot...

I learned a trick about manipulating shots in post to adjust the depth and subject matter. off centering one of the images in post editing can alter the amount of depth in that shot and control how much of the image comes out of the screen. So look at is like moving the total shot on a z Axis just by sliding one of the images left or right very slightly.
11 years ago
@Chris, Again I think you are misunderstanding the idea here...

The film 'Journey to the Center of the earth' was presented in theaters with polarized projection but the DVD came with anaglyph glasses so people could see the 3D on regular TVs. The point is that the film get's made in full color with 2 separate streams and then gets converted for various delivery methods.

The reason they use Anaglph is so that it can be seen on current tvs and monitors but future TVs will be able to handle active shutter glasses or polarized filtering to present stereo films in full color.
11 years ago
I dabbled in 3D still photography a while back using a refurbished antique camera from the 1920's so I learned a lot about setting up a shot in 3D. Too many of the new 3D movies play off the 3D effect as a gimmick. there easy to spot because they will always have a some sort of liquid pouring toward you or some pointy object. James Cameron did a great job at Avatar and not try to exploit 3D for gimmick shots.

What I learned is when setting up a 3D shot still or other wise its best to have decent elements that give good dept queues and perspective. While most standard 2D shots really don't have anything between the camera and the subject, a 3D shot takes advantage of foreground and background items to pull off the effect. Just about any camera movement works great in 3D as long as there is foreground and background objects in the scene.

3D film is projected through polarized filters, and the glasses you wear have polarized filters that correspond to the projected image for each eye.

New TV 3D effect uses a pair of LCD shutter glasses, where the image on the TV swaps between the left and right eye image very rapidly, while the LCD glasses black out each eye at the same rate to control the correct image to each eye.

So depending on what your setting up for the 3D process for each delivery system is really created in the post stage, the actual filming is the same no mater which of the 2 delivered systems you use in the end.

Film projection would require you to create 2 separate movies for each Eye, While 3d for Television would interlace alternating images, but 3D tv is still going though its early stages and there is, like everything else a fight over standardization.
11 years ago
@Chris and Andrew. Also anaglyphic works better on the web, polarized requires specialized equipment to view. Anaglyphic is a faster, simpler delivery method for getting the point across. Which would be invaluable as Andrew is showing us how it works, so we can see it more easily and understand whats going on.
11 years ago
Video Copilot
IN 3D!
Hosted and directed by
Andrew Kramer
Coming to a computer near

But seriously,how do they do match move?
And do they literally make a movie twice?! (left,right)
11 years ago
@jin choung

that's not entirely accurate. For the most part, anaglyph filmmaking/photography separates the red and cyan channels, offsetting based on distance to the camera. This effectively reduces the color information from any given image/video. Only certain color mixtures can be accurately reproduced. Skin tones in particular get destroyed.

Polarized filmmaking has virtually no loss of color, because each polarized side contains the full spectrum. The downside to polarization is ultimately a loss of contrast and detail. Theaters were forced to upgrade their screens with higher contrast screen coatings in order to reflect back more light to help defeat that, but pass the expense onto their customers, averaging an extra 5 dollars a ticket for the same movie.
Freak 08
11 years ago
Now that is awesome !!
11 years ago
I don't think there should be stereo 3D tutorial!
That would exclude too many groups! Like this guy:

and what about Pirates?
11 years ago
Recent stereo 3d project I worked on. Did the intro in AE with Dashwood plugin and the rest in FCP also with Dashwood plugin. Here it is on youtube:
11 years ago
@Chris K, I think you misunderstand a few things. Anaglyph like Jin Choung stated is just a method of distribution, probably the worst but it allows the majority of people to understand and view the results of a stereo workflow.

There is no difference between a anaglyph and polarized workflow. The only difference is how you broadcast the resulting 2 video streams. Anaglyph uses a color process and polarizing blends the 2 streams.

When you watch stereo 3D on a polarized monitor in full color HD resolution, it is not painful or strange feeling, it's incredible. It's even better than a polarized projection like at the movies.

With a polarized monitor, the 2 streams (left and right)are interlaced together (odd and even lines) and the polarized glasses block out odd lines and even lines so each eye is only seeing one image. It's quite stunning and the price of these are getting cheaper along with the active ones which require the shutter glasses make a great full color 3D picture.

As far as using it in the real world, compositing jobs for many upcoming movies will require a deep understanding of a Stereo workflow so that's kind of the "real world".

This is actually another reasons I want to get into this is because I had many of your same thoughts and misconceptions so it was surprising to fully understand the concept and delivery of stereo.
11 years ago
3D is fun, but overall is not the main factor for me to go see a movie.

If 3D were presented in theaters without the use of glasses would be great, but I like using MY OWN EYES to watch a film and not wearing some clunky glasses for 2 hours.

For me 3D is neat, but at home even I'd rather watch on my big screen without 3D. I think 3D is getting way overused now and is purely pointless in many films out there. One example... Alice in Wonderland. DID NOT Enhance the movie experience at all. Avatar was great in 3D, but for longevity I prefer the good ol' 2D viewing experience. Get rid of the use of glasses and that could change.
jin choung
11 years ago
anaglyphic is the same principle... just more problematic. on black and white footage from fairly color consistent (compared to old school ntsc tvs) computer monitors, it works really really well. and if you don't like anaglyphic, you can buy nvidia's shutter glasses with a 120hz monitor and take the left and right images you were using for anaglyphic and generate those if you like. the principle and the effect and the left and right images can be repurposed for anaglyphic, shutter glasses, theater circularly polarized realD glasses, whatever. it's valuable because the principles remain the same regardless of exhibition conditions or technology.
11 years ago
This will be interesting to see... I'm glad to hear Tron 2.0 will be going in this direction- I think it will help with the 'virtual surrounding' feeling (though it can't compare with the original which is classic 80s). If only the 3d-tvs were cheap (and not strictly above 40") and the 120fps glasses didn't cost some 150-200 dollars then yet- still too early I believe for personal use. Can't wait to see where the process will go from here...
11 years ago
Sounds good to me!! have quite a few projects for Polirised 3D coming up and have been doing alot of R&D for Cinema 4D and Max RE: Rig setups... Would love to be able to jump into AE instead :)...

Looking forward to it!
Daniel Harrison
11 years ago
3D stuff is amazing..
also its interesting that you can see 3D pictures without glasses or so.
It's called "Stereo Cross-Eyed Viewing"
Here a technique to cross your eyes:

and here some pictures:
11 years ago
Avatar was the first 3D film I saw, and like wiseguy0 i wanted to focus on objects that weren't in focus, and it got frustrating quickly... But, I've heard that the 3D televisions that come with their own glasses with shutters have everything in focus!
How is this done?
11 years ago
I hafta agree with some of the others who agreed with Ebert. 3D might have its place in Hollywood for the moment, but it should be reserved for those areas of best effectiveness, like immersive theme park attractions. When movies that will likely struggle to sell a normal ticket, like Step Up 3, are filmed in 3D, it's time to move on.

Andrew, I have a deep respect for your work and what you and your team have accomplished with this website. However, I have to ask, why invest any amount of time in creating a tutorial on a grossly outdated technology? My feelings on current 3D tech and its use in film aside, your tutorial can only be applied to creating anaglyph imagery. Inexpensive or not, it doesn't apply to any real world filmmaking.

It would be like doing a tutorial on how to record music onto a cassette tape from the radio. Sure, people have the equipment and you can easily demonstrate how to do it, but virtually no one is going to be able to use it in the real world effectively.

You would be better off demonstrating techniques that apply to creating videos with polarized filming in mind. Viewers would likely not be able to see the final result, but at least they could be exposed to how things work and take that with them, even if it does fade into oblivion a few years from now (fingers crossed).
11 years ago
I'd like to ask, what the professionals said about the new 3d tv-s. Will they make two different angle polarized pictures, like in the IMAX, or you will have to wear a special glasses, synchronig with the tv wich fleshes the left picture, and blank your right eye, the flashes right picture while blank the left eye.
I didn't get information how they solved this, cause I didn't see glasses with batteries or any electric things, that's why I think the polarized thing will it be.

Did they say to you this, and whats their point?
11 years ago
Anaglyph is old and painful to the eyes...
I prefer iMAX
jin choung
11 years ago
hey andrew! love your site and i looooove the fact you're gonna tackle this for AE! awesome!

i work in the industry as a stereographer and one thing i'd love to see in AE is the same kind of camera rig we're using for our shows:

- variable interocular distance to determine how strong the depth effects will be in general. but this is optionally slaved and driven by:

- 3 different planes that the user can set:

zero point plane (screen plane)
near point plane
far point plane

the zpp is always at zero parallax and registers as being on the screen. this is user positionable and determines the horizontal offset (in maya). unfortunately, there is no equivalent setting in ae i don't think and so it would just be up to cropping the sides after the fact.

the npp is set at the object that is closest to the audience and is usually exhibiting negative parallax though can be at zero or behind. the important thing is that this plane is user positionable (along z-axis) and the user can assign it a value in terms of PIXELS OF PARALLAX (i.e. for a point at that plane, how many pixels discrepancy is there between left eye image and right eye image. this is the measurement we use to determine how far something is popping out into our face or receding. it's the best and most useful measure of the stereo effect imo and far better than generalized rules like the interocular being 1/30th or 1/20th the distance to the nearest object.

the fpp is the plane in the scene that determines the farthest relevant objects in scene and like npp is user positionable and again, the user can determine the pixels of parallax that is desired at this distance.


using the above, it's pretty trivial to do tests for a given viewing situation (computer, pc, standard tv, etc - unfortunately, size of screen and distance from it affect the stereo effect and so what works well in a theater would be somewhat flat if watched at home on a tv or computer monitor) and determine the maximum positive parallax (objects behind the screen plane) and maximum negative parallax (objects coming at us out of screen plane) and then use those rules of thumbs to do your shots.

there's a script out for AE now that does a very good job in setting up a stereoscopic project and gives you good control and viewing options. but the fact that it lacks numerical controls and forces you to eyeball things instead of having concrete pixels of parallax as a metric makes it less than ideal when you want to do multishot sequences where depth continuity is important (although it works great for single shots where you don't have to worry about such things).

anyhoo, good luck! rock on! let me know if you need any relevant math formulas cuz i got a notebook full of em! totally looking forward to what you'll cook up! if it's anything like your other stuff, it can't fail but to be awesome.

11 years ago
My dream come true! I am a longtime fan and follower of VideoCopilot -AND- of stereoscopy. We just built a mirror rig, and are finishing our first short. So I can't wait to see your take on no-budget stereo 3D production.

Suggested topics:
-Pre-planning (depth script)
-When to use large IO settings
-Converged lenses vs parallel
-Matching AE camera settings to real world footage
-Output formats (over-under, side-by-side, etc)

I can't wait!
11 years ago
I have a couple questions...

1- How is the post-production works? Do they do the compositing and redering twice, one for each eye?

2-Does the final resolt screw the VFXs, by blurring it?
11 years ago
I don't think 3d is there yet, but it's nice to know
we have Andrew and other pro's trying to make it better,
If we didn't...well it would surly die and never get to an advanced and immersive technology that is pleasing enough
to enjoy daily.
11 years ago
While watching Avatar, I noticed a lot of times things in the background were out of focus. But, sometimes I wanted to see those things. I guess this is the DOF issue. Has anybody tried just having everything in focus (since Avatar was mostly CGI, I don't see why this isn't possible)? The eye focuses pretty quick so it wouldn't seem too unnatural to have what you look at be in focus already.
11 years ago
Recently I converted a spot I did some time ago into 3d stereo, with the help of this script:

The result is fairly good, but the problem is that it took me hours to do it, because I had to set the camera convergence every 10 frames, and the particles just killed the render.

Of course this is a special case, because it is continuously moving (the particles and the camera), but it took me hours to make a 30s spot and I can't imagine doing something with a bigger time.

You can see it here:
Jens Christian
11 years ago
That sounds interesting :)

I would like to know something about the conversion of 2D to 3D, when the movie release on DVD. I can't figure out how they "melt" 2 camera angles down to 1. Are they only using 1 of the cameras when you see it in 2D?
11 years ago
I want to know how to make something popup of the screen....
11 years ago
Cool Andrew , I'm waiting this tuto Long time ago
11 years ago
Pretty nice Andrew, Can't wait for the new tutorial :)
David Brown
11 years ago
I don't have a problem with 3D movies as long as they continue to have a traditional film release. I'm not blind in either eye, but I had surgery at a young age with left me unable to process anaglyph images.
11 years ago
My only question is, would the glasses I got from a showing of Alice In Wonderland work? or do they have to be the red/blue ones?

I kind of agree with Alex, 3D does seem to be a fad, and I can't stand it. But that being said regardless how much we hate something, Hollywood will continue utilizing it as long as it turns a profit, and from the looks of things, like Andrew says, we have at least a few years of 3D ahead of us, regardless of how much we hate it. So I would love to learn it, just another tool to add to the belt, lets do it Andrew, I'm ready! :)
Mister T.
11 years ago
Damn, I only got one working eye... No 3D for me unfortunately :(
R.A. Elliott
11 years ago
I honestly believe conversions aren't a TOTAL waste of time. But nobody seems to really have the knack for it. Most people roto and that's the end of it. How about taking some extra time and doing some 3D camera projections to get that second camera look? Those come out impressive. I myself am in the midst of doing a conversion for anaglyph currently, so I can't wait to see what your take on it is!
Stuff SHOT in 3D is always great, no complaint there. Tron is going to be awesome.
Caleb Ward
11 years ago
Hey Andrew I think it's awesome that you are persuing 3D right now. Even if it's a fad it's still the industry standard right now so more power to you man.

The only realy question I have is, in the future how are we on the internet supposed to use stereo 3D glasses to view it?

My understanding of 3D is limited but I thought that the only way to view stereo was to use a fancy 3D television or a special projector. How do we edit 3D video in premiere?(I've seen something about Avatar being edited in Primiere) do you have to composite it in a special way? or do you edit the video like normal than export it using a 3D setting?

I really am facinated with the whole idea of 3D, I just have no idea how to do anything with it. If you could clarify how the whole process works that would be great because in my research on 3D i'm running into words like binocular disparity and it gets kinda intemidating sometimes. Any response would be great and I absolutely love what you do. You have inspired me to pursue a career in Video and Motion Graphics and I can't thank you enough.
11 years ago
I know the technique of creating red-cyan 3d, but can you go more in-depth in the tutorial showing how to simulate z-space with the red-cyan images? I think RealD has to use some speacial Red camera but if it can be done in AAE or any other program can you explain that please? I think Stereo 3D is going to be the future of the movies especially realD. Red cyan pretty much died out.
11 years ago
I've messed about a bit with 3D Stereo, mainly using the AE anaglyph plugin; it's an interesting method of output but still isn't really widespread enough to be worth online delivery as far as I'm concerned; I've been a big fan of this 3D stuff for a while now and the new editing gear on the way that I spied earlier in the year at a trade show is very neat but I do wonder when a more prosumer/hobbyist level solution will be available
11 years ago
I know that this isn't a question on 3-d, and maybe a forum topic, but I have seen a couple of 3-d films, in Imax and a regular theatre, and though at first I was thrilled, the feeling dissapated when I noticed that a lot of sharpness, a lot of the crispness was gone. It seems a shame to me that we waited so long for the peak of HD, and we seem to be shooting off in another direction, just as we all caught up and were impressed.

Sorry Andrew not really a question that...
11 years ago
I just posted a 30 minute talk I gave on Frantic Films' work on Journey to the Center of the Earth 3D. I cover lots of ins and outs of creating stereo visual effects.

Take a look:
11 years ago
In the villains clip, i love how there's a sandbag bunker, and a guy with a rocket launcher in the whitehouse! Awesome!!!
Kevin C
11 years ago
As someone who is blind in 1 eye and cannot properly watch 3D movies, I wish the fad would end. Roger Ebert said it all (as quoted above)

On the other hand, I am interested in how 3D conversion is done. For example, Clash of the Titans, which was shot in 2D and then converted to 3D.
11 years ago
In the january issue of 3D World Magazine there was a good tutorial on how to make a 3D video in After Effects using no real footage. It was a scene that looked a lot like the medical zoom tutorial without the zoom effect, just the inside of the body :)
11 years ago
I'm really interested in Stereo-3D

When I didn't have glasses yet, I learned myself to view cross-eyed 3D, in which you basically cross your eyes at two images, creating a 3rd, 3-Dimensional image. It's not as easy as it seems, it's very hard to focus when you're trying it the first time.

Then I bought a DVD that came with 4 pairs of red-cyan glasses, but I noticed that I couldn't see things coming out of the screen! I know how to create this illusion, but instead of seeing something coming out of the screen, I see the red and cyan channel crossing each-other..

anyways, I made some 3D stuff with my camera and Maya, I even made a short 3D stop motion, and I'm rendering something 'big' in Maya.

I'm very interested in this stuff, and it's a pity I can't see thing coming out of the screen.. The main purpose is adding depth anyway.
11 years ago
Great!Awesome!Can't wait to see 3D stereo.
11 years ago
wait for see the tourial.
11 years ago
@ Jesse Blanchard
I've read that a deeper DoF is actually better for 3D. According to what I've read from various production bloggers, Shallow DoF makes things look more like a popup book than an immersive 3D world. It could have a lot to do with Post-3D instead of Production-3D, though.

Anyways... I've got a couple of matching cameras, and I would love to have a basic "this is how you shoot, edit, post" a 3D production. Mostly just for fun; I have a friend who recently suggested we do something in 3D, but I didn't really know where to start... I definitely don't have any clients clamoring for 3D, but it would be a fun exercise...
11 years ago
From what I understand, there are subtle issues with working with two video streams such as key-stoning, specular mismatch etc. It also seems like the 2D-3D conversion is a route that a lot of money is being thrown at right now. I've read that a few companies are working towards on-the-fly conversion of video. How similar are the post processing techniques working with "native" 3D footage vs. 2D/3D converted footage? And ultimately, how do we best work with this stuff in After Effects?
11 years ago
you can wath my After Effects CS4 Stereocam Setup Guide on vimeo.
11 years ago
I concur with Roger Ebert:

It's a fad, and it needs to die. It does not add to the film experience, in fact the depth diminishes the longer you view the film.

A true 3D experience would be holographic.
11 years ago
looks brill cant wait to see the tutorial :)
11 years ago
When can we see a tutorial on creating the stereo 3d effect?

"Optical Flares in 3d!"

That would be epic.

-Brent Pierce
11 years ago
Great news about 3D stereo.
How about how to composite effects INTO Stereo plates!?
11 years ago
I'd like to know about the importance of Depth of Field in 3D. I'm working on my own 3D rig right now and most prosumer cameras have a huge DOF. Will this be a big problem? Is limiting DOF more important for a comfortable 3D experience, less, or a matter of taste?
    10 years ago
    it's a bit late to answer, but maybe others are interested, too:
    as the 3D image allows your view to wander through the 3D space, from front to back, as in nature, generally everything should be focussed, so a huge DOF actually is a must. only if you want to work very artistically, or if you want to draw the attention of the viewer to some special object in focus, you might think of having other areas out of focus to prevent the viewer from looking there, but that is something that never would happen in natural viewing, and you should find other means to draw the viewers attention to where you want him to look at.
    unfortunately, of course, DOF (resulting from aperture) in creative and artistic photography is one of the three and only parameters (aperture, exposure and focal length) there are in 2D photography, doing without one of them seems tough, but 3D requires a completely different approach to creative photography that up to now has not really been explored.
11 years ago
Awesome! Looking forward to it :)