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

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 1 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 set of interaxial and convergence budget and script. To execute the plan requires the values that limit the effects of 3D to right 3D rig system and the ability to review 3D on 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 effects used throughout a production. production including their In order for a 3D production to work on a 2D frequency, duration and magnitude shooting schedule the production cannot be relative to the screen plane. delayed by rig set-up and rig calibration during Interaxial: the distance set camera moves and lens changes. Delays on set between the two camera lenses. such as leaving cast and crew “waiting on 3D” while a rig is realigned are not just costly but are Convergence: the point at which the two cameras or “eyes” meet also disruptive to the flow of the production. Yet and define what appears on the by the same token, acquiring good 3D on the set is screen plane, in front of it, or imperative in order to leave the 3D component of behind. 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 2 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 A “single-camera” style of shooting Lives, the plan was to integrate a 3D production 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 A “multi-camera” style is where continued to go to broadcast. With this in mind, 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 lighting situation and are typically crew. To complicate matters, Days of Our Lives recorded as a full uninterrupted typically shoots portions of more than one episode 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 3 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 Crew Training • History of 3D Proper production crew training is critical to a • 3D Terminology successful 3D shoot. Crew members from each • Divergence production attended 1-2 days of training at the • 2D vs. 3D Techniques Sony 3D Technology Center at the Sony Pictures • Orthostereoscopy lot in Culver City, California. The training offered • Types of 3D Cameras them the opportunity to learn the principles of • 3D Productions Types • Stereoscopic 3D stereography, to see firsthand what makes good Productions and bad 3D, and have hands-on shooting 3D on • Examples of S3D a sound stage. Day 2 – Stage/Production Most of the crew members who worked on • Artistic Choice in 3D these productions had never been involved in a • Terminology Review 3D production. In the training sessions they • Stereo Exercise learned 3D terminology and the basics of what, • Orthographic Stereoscopic from a creative point of view, makes “good 3D”, • Stereographic Scripting + as well as what can lead to “bad 3D” which can Budgeting • Review Day 2 Production make viewers uncomfortable. The crew ultimately learned a great deal about what they Day 3 – Production/Screening could achieve on their own productions and in • Introduction and Review of telling their own stories in 3D. Goals • Mechanical Challenges in Specialized 3D training is recommended for key 3D Cinematography members of any crew making the transition to • 3D Analysis Tools 3D. Directors, for example, would benefit from • The 3D Crew learning basic stereography concepts like depth Considerations • 3D Resources 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.

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 4 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 5 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 • Initial “out of the box” set up time. with two cameras mounted at a 90- • Alignment accuracy when the rig degree angle from one another. One camera is either pointing technician declares the rig to be in straight up or straight down and alignment. shooting into a mirror set at a 45- • Stability of alignment during camera degree angle, and the other camera is mounted parallel to the horizon moves that replicated real life operation. shooting through the half-silvered • Realignment time. mirror. Beam-splitters are used to allow interaxial distances to be • Time to change lenses and smaller than what would be realign/recalibrate. possible if the cameras were • Image artifacts under different lighting mounted side-by-side. 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 6 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

Z-LUT: A file created by a SIP using There were several significant differences between image processing to measure and the rigs and image processing systems involved in compare differences in lens the testing. The 3ality TS-35 rig features a feedback elements at multiple focal lengths. mechanism between the rig motors and their Stereo Image Processor (SIP) for auto-alignment. A SIP: A Stereo Image Processor created by 3ality that performs “Z-LUT” (zoom look up table), is created using the real-time image analysis for video SIP for the pair of lenses during initial rig set up, 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 performs image analysis for video various focal lengths and compensates for these based signals. differences throughout the entire zoom range. As 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 Disparity: The distance between time and budget saving advantages. This feature of 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.

©2012 Sony Pictures Technologies. All Rights Reserved 7 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 8 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 9 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 10 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.

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

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.

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 13 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.

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 15 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 16 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 17 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 screen) that is cut off by either the is a good rule of thumb for multi-camera left or right edge of frame whereby television productions. you see more information in one eye than the other causing a retinal Even within such constraints, the 3D effect can rivalry on the edge of the frame make a big impression on the viewers. Two making it difficult to look at. percent negative parallax (coming forward off Floating Windows: a technique the screen), on a 48-inch screen is very used to mask Edge Occlusions. noticeable. Effects of this magnitude should be Floating Windows are masks reserved for the show’s most dramatic moments applied to either side of the frame and used sparingly. In an emotionally charged in order to change the apparent scene, for example, a character might be depth position of the screen edge. Essentially, a floating window crops brought forward past the screen plane in order out the additional information seen to increase emotional connection with the only in one eye in an edge occlusion viewer. For most scenes, however, the action giving the effect in 3D of pulling the would be kept behind the screen plane, in edge of the frame forward. positive parallax.

©2012 Sony Pictures Technologies. All Rights Reserved 18 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 19 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 20 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 21 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 22 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 23 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 24 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 25 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 26 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 27 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 28 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 29 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 30 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.

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 32 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 33 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 34 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 35 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.