Return-Path: Received: from omr12.networksolutionsemail.com ([205.178.146.62] verified) by media-motion.tv (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.2.10) with ESMTP-TLS id 4589105 for AE-List@media-motion.tv; Mon, 16 Jan 2012 04:52:55 +0100 Received: from cm-omr9 (mail.networksolutionsemail.com [205.178.146.50]) by omr12.networksolutionsemail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q0G3xtDq008008 for ; Sun, 15 Jan 2012 22:59:55 -0500 X-Authenticated-IP: 205.178.146.50 Received: from [205.178.146.50] ([205.178.146.50:47080] helo=webmail104) by cm-omr9 (envelope-from ) (ecelerity 2.2.2.41 r(31179/31189)) with ESMTP id 6F/A5-12338-BB0A31F4; Sun, 15 Jan 2012 22:59:55 -0500 Received: from 59.167.240.84 (chris@chriszwar.com [59.167.240.84]) by webmail104 (Netsol 11.2.30) with WEBMAIL id 27591; Mon, 16 Jan 2012 03:59:55 +0000 From: "Chris Zwar" To: "After Effects Mail List" Importance: Normal Sensitivity: Normal Message-ID: X-Mailer: Network Solutions Webmail, Build 11.2.30 X-Originating-IP: [59.167.240.84] X-Forwarded-For: [(null)] Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2012 03:59:55 +0000 Subject: Re: [AE] Stereo 3D cameras MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Thanks for your input, it's very valuable. It sounds like they'll shoot = using a parallel rig, but as we're shooting a presenter on greenscreen it= probably won't make too much difference anyway. I'd be interested to hear any comments or feedback from others who have c= omped stereo 3D live-action in After Effects, and how the new camera rigs= in AE 5.5 compare to using Chris Keller's stereo 3D scripts, which is ho= w I've worked in the past. I'll add that anyone who has ever complained about Adobe's pricing or lic= ensing model should try quoting on a Nuke render farm with their stereo 3= D 'ocula' plug in! -Chris -----Original Message----- From: Tsassoon [mailto:tsassoon@aol.com] Sent: Monday, January 16, 2012 11:03 AM To: 'After Effects Mail List' Subject: Re: [AE] Stereo 3D cameras Parallel sets up a space valid from the camera to infinity, though the cl= oser to camera the subject is, the harder it is to watch. Think of it as = the "Thousand-yard stare". Converging is useful because it allows us to comfortably look at near obj= ects, just as we do in real life. The downside is that subjects far back = in the frame may become unwatchable, so one ordinarily will need to limit= the distant space with a wall or similar. In other words, parallel creates a large neutral space most comfortable a= t infinity, whereas converging creates a space tailored to the subject on= ly. Tim Sassoon SFD Santa Monica, CA Sent from my iPhone On Jan 15, 2012, at 3:14 PM, "Chris Zwar" wrote: > is there any reason or benefit to using converging cameras? Or ar e we= wasting our time even considering the option? +---End of message---+ To unsubscribe send any message to