Topic: Using LYTRO Camera for 3D Brickfilms? [UPDATE After 8 years]

Hello Everyone,

It's been almost 8 years since I posted the original topic about this subject, and it didn't receive any attention even back then, but I have a significant update and didn't want to bump the old thread: Original Thread From 2012

I know its a little weird to give an update for such an old, lonely thread but I wanted to also give an update on my life and see if any old-timers are still around on this site who remember me or my previous work.

It's been a while since I've posted anything on this website. Since releasing my last Lego film in 2012, I've graduated from both high-school and film school, and now I'm living the dream in the Los Angeles area working as a render technician on the Avatar sequels, which were sadly delayed yet again due to COVID. Some of my lego animation was also briefly featured in Phillip Heinrich's (SmeagolStudios) 2016 documentary "Bricks in Motion." Growing up is awesome, but I'm sad I've largely been out of touch with this community. I've been yearning to do another LEGO short film, I've had several false starts over the years. Perhaps it will still happen someday.  I just need to get off my butt and write a good script first that isn't too serious and works well in lego format, but also has a meaningful message.

I met so many incredible people at USC film school , some of my best friends are sound designers, composers, and cinematographers now. I focused mainly on visual effects supervising for live action student films, and I'm hoping to eventually collaborate on a new lego short that is more ambitious and VFX-heavy than any animation I've done in the past.

Anyhow, I'm updating this 8-year old thread because I actually bought an old LYTRO Illum Light Field camera last year and was able to try out this parallax stereoscopic idea. It worked exactly like I thought it would, but unfortunately I do not see much future in this camera for making stereoscopic films. Perhaps if the technology were more developed, but currently the image quality (particularly the depth) isn't good enough to seriously consider for a project. I wrote more about it in my amazon review for the LYTRO Illum. I will try and remember to link to it later but I copied my review into this post as well.

Still 3D images from the LYTRO actually look ok. Cross your eyes to see the 3D:
https://i.imgur.com/TrFe47u.png

But upon closer examination of the depth map being used to motivate the parallax, it is not very good and differs slightly from frame to frame, resulting in a constant chatter along the edges of objects. You can see an example of how crappy the depth map actually is:
https://i.imgur.com/37IPGFA.png

If my next film is going to be in 3D, I think the best way forward is to build a lego rig for the camera that can shift back and forth by 1/2 brick distance (Roughly the distance between a minifig's eyes. I filmed a test using this method and also played around with integrating CGI objects into the scene using Adobe After Effects and Blender. This is a test using a special rig that shifted the camera (in this case the Logitech 9000) back and forth for each frame to get a genuine 3d image. Cross your eyes to see the 3D effect for this still:
https://i.imgur.com/NlqG8IA.png

The stereoscopic pipeline is pretty tedious, but still workable, and definitely gives a better result than anything I was able to achieve with the LYTRO camera. Up until recently I was using a Logitech 9000 for my films, but if I make a new film I'll probably be trying to use my new Canon 80D because the image quality is far superior. This will be difficult though because I love doing complex dolly and jib shots, and the DSLR is very heavy, so I'll need to find a solution for that.

I wrote a review for the LYTRO Illum on Amazon. Here's what I wrote in case anyone else in interested in the idea of a stereoscopic lego movie:

"Ever since this camera was announced I was really curious about the light field technology and I wanted to play around with it. Unfortunately the list price was well over my budget. Last year I found it for around $500 and decided to give it a try.

It does work as advertised, and this camera has the highest quality images of any LYTRO light field camera ever released, maxing out at a resolution of 2450x1634. You can snap pictures and refocus them after the fact which is really cool, and honestly I'm glad I bought it because it has been fun to play around with and show off to my co-workers. I took the camera to New Zealand and used it alongside my Canon 80D to take some pictures of hobbit holes at the famous Hobbiton movie set in Matamata. Obviously the Canon 80D had far superior image quality.

I have a background in stop-motion animation, and my intention was to try and use this camera to shoot an animated film with LEGO figures. The technology of the LYTRO camera allows you to add a slight parallax-shift effect to your light field images, and my goal was to use this parallax functionality to generate both a left and right shifted image, then combine those images for a stereoscopic 3D effect. While the effect worked on a baseline level, unfortunately this camera did not perform as well as I hoped. Here's why:

While the re-focusing and parallax effects are really cool, the depth map generation (essentially the way the camera determines which objects are close and which are far away), is not that reliable. The image quality itself is about the same as an average phone, though I give it extra points simply because the large sensor allows for shallow depth of field, which looks very pretty. However, if you tighten up the aperture in post and start examining the depth map that is generated, it really starts breaking down, especially in areas where there is very little detail. Overall the effect works but I often had cases where the camera thought a chunk of the background was attached to a very close foreground object, and it ruined the parallax and the re-focusing effects for that particular area.

Fortunately, the Lytro software does allow you to edit depth maps, either inside a built in editor, or external software, and if you are savy with Photoshop or GIMP, its possible to fix most of the artifacting manually and re-import your depth map into the Lytro software. However, this is an extremely painstaking process and not for the faint of heart. Considering my desire to use this camera for an experimental animation, the poor quality of the as-shot depth maps created too many jittery edges from frame to frame, and having to edit/recreate the depth maps for every frame of animation is simply not feasible.

Don't get me wrong, I am excited about what this camera can do and what the future may hold for this technology. This light field camera is very fun to play around with and show off to friends and colleagues, but it definitely is not for professionals. I'm sad that Lytro got bought out and is no longer developing newer products, I would have loved to see a version of this camera that has a higher resolution sensor, and can work in conjunction with a better AI algorithm for generating the depth maps.

I hope someone finds this helpful. I've attached two different example images with very different focal settings, and also the depth maps so you can see them for yourself. It really is a cool product, but it could be so much better."

~end of review~

Anyway I hope someone finds this experiment interesting. It's been 8 years in the making and I felt like it needed some closure.

Re: Using LYTRO Camera for 3D Brickfilms? [UPDATE After 8 years]

Interesting read mini/smile
I made some Brickfilm  tests a month ago on the Nintendo 3ds but the image resolution was so low that I gave up on making a proper film.
The Sid camera seems to be much higher resolution https://www.weeview.co/sid

Re: Using LYTRO Camera for 3D Brickfilms? [UPDATE After 8 years]

Robukka wrote:

Interesting read mini/smile
I made some Brickfilm  tests a month ago on the Nintendo 3ds but the image resolution was so low that I gave up on making a proper film.
The Sid camera seems to be much higher resolution https://www.weeview.co/sid

Yeah I think a practical solution is definitely the way to go, and a camera like the Sid could definitely work for wider shots. I think the hardest obstacle is getting the cameras/eyes close enough to each other so it doesn't feel like you are bending over and putting your head into a lego set. As far as I can tell, no such camera currently exists, and precisely shifting the camera side-side seems to be the only workable solution I have found. Another factor to take into account is the convergence point between the two eyes, but this can also be partially solved by zooming in on the footage and adding equal and opposite horizontal offsets

Based on my tests, the (interocular) distance between the eyes should be about 1/2 the width of a 1x1 brick. I think The Lego Movie and its sequels were rendered in 3D using a similar distance to make the scale feel less tiny and more immersive.

Re: Using LYTRO Camera for 3D Brickfilms? [UPDATE After 8 years]

Really cool read. I like your technique for getting stereoscopic images with the 9000, it works very well in that still image (although my eyes now feel like they're still crossed, lol). Have you tried animating with your rig/setup? My main concern is that it's prone to camera-shake problems, since you can't really use tape/blutak to secure the webcam.

Using a rig to shift the lens a little bit to the left and right for every frame does seem like the best way to do it, though. No way you're going to find a setup with 2 separate lenses that are only 5-10 mm apart, and I suspect that increasing the distance will give a very wonky and unconvincing 3D effect.

About the LYTRO camera: does it capture genuine 3D images? The still image you posted looks good cross-eyed, but I can't tell if it's a post-capture process or what.

Re: Using LYTRO Camera for 3D Brickfilms? [UPDATE After 8 years]

BertL wrote:

Really cool read. I like your technique for getting stereoscopic images with the 9000, it works very well in that still image (although my eyes now feel like they're still crossed, lol). Have you tried animating with your rig/setup? My main concern is that it's prone to camera-shake problems, since you can't really use tape/blutak to secure the webcam.

Using a rig to shift the lens a little bit to the left and right for every frame does seem like the best way to do it, though. No way you're going to find a setup with 2 separate lenses that are only 5-10 mm apart, and I suspect that increasing the distance will give a very wonky and unconvincing 3D effect.

About the LYTRO camera: does it capture genuine 3D images? The still image you posted looks good cross-eyed, but I can't tell if it's a post-capture process or what.

Hey BertL!

My 3D rig setup did need to be very carefully designed in order to avoid shake, it was a small cradle that had just enough room to slide back and forth at the right distance without moving or rotating in any other direction. I also had to check the current capture against the one before the previous image (same eye) to make sure there were no bumps. I uploaded  the full test video here if you want to see the result. It also has some test CG compositing in the background and a transition from a real minifig to a CG minifig at the end which is something I wanted to test. I never planned to put this online so its not as polished as it could be, but I think its an interesting experiment and could potentially inspire someone.

That test was made years ago using the 9000, but I'm buying some new equipment and trying to get back into stop motion. I just bought the Mindstorms EV3 kit over the weekend and ideally I want to design a rig that can toggle between the two eyes automatically, in addition to performing pre-programmed dolly and pan moves. We'll see how that goes I guess. I have my Canon 80D now and its much heavier than the 9000, so the rig will need to be a lot bigger. I think even with a good rig I will need to utilize the tracker in After Effects to remove small bumps and improve the overall smoothness.

As far as the Lytro image format, no it is not a true 3D image because the camera only has one lens, but its not just a 2D to 3D conversion either, rather somewhat in-between, or at least a very informed conversion. I bet if you wanted to download the Lytro Desktop software you could probably find a few test images online (.lfr format) and play around with them to see what the technology can do, its really pretty cool. Rather than just using a normal image sensor, the Lytro uses an array of micro lenses in front of the sensor, and the result is a lenticular print that looks like this:

http://lightfield-forum.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/lytro-raw-crop-colour.jpg

The Lytro software then processes this image and generates a depth map, which allows you to manipulate the focus, aperture and other qualities including a slight perspective shift, in a way you could not do with a normal photo.

The nature of this experiment was to find out if the perspective shift effect was good enough to make a stereoscopic Lego film, and I would say based on the poor quality of the depth map and the image overall, it would be too much work to justify. I'll be sticking with a side-side rig if I decide to go 3D on a future film.

Re: Using LYTRO Camera for 3D Brickfilms? [UPDATE After 8 years]

The Lytro software then processes this image and generates a depth map, which allows you to manipulate the focus, aperture and other qualities including a slight perspective shift, in a way you could not do with a normal photo.

The nature of this experiment was to find out if the perspective shift effect was good enough to make a stereoscopic Lego film, and I would say based on the poor quality of the depth map and the image overall, it would be too much work to justify. I'll be sticking with a side-side rig if I decide to go 3D on a future film.

Ahh, yes, I've heard about that! Now I see why you wanted to test out the Lytro camera for 3D brickfilming. I'm guessing that the perspective shift is not very effective/workable because of the small scale of LEGO.

SuburbAnimationStudios wrote:

My 3D rig setup did need to be very carefully designed in order to avoid shake, it was a small cradle that had just enough room to slide back and forth at the right distance without moving or rotating in any other direction. I also had to check the current capture against the one before the previous image (same eye) to make sure there were no bumps. I uploaded  the full test video here if you want to see the result. It also has some test CG compositing in the background and a transition from a real minifig to a CG minifig at the end which is something I wanted to test. I never planned to put this online so its not as polished as it could be, but I think its an interesting experiment and could potentially inspire someone.

That test was made years ago using the 9000, but I'm buying some new equipment and trying to get back into stop motion. I just bought the Mindstorms EV3 kit over the weekend and ideally I want to design a rig that can toggle between the two eyes automatically, in addition to performing pre-programmed dolly and pan moves. We'll see how that goes I guess. I have my Canon 80D now and its much heavier than the 9000, so the rig will need to be a lot bigger. I think even with a good rig I will need to utilize the tracker in After Effects to remove small bumps and improve the overall smoothness.

That looked awesome. It worked so much better than I imagined - did you do any post-production smoothing in After Effects for that clip as well? The CGI and physical elements blended together well, and the camera movement was a lot more smooth than I expected.

One thing I was thinking about: your Canon is a lot more bulky, but I'm guessing you'll be setting it up at a farther distance from the set than you would with the QC9k. Does that mean that you'd have to increase the left/right eye distance as well?

Re: Using LYTRO Camera for 3D Brickfilms? [UPDATE After 8 years]

BertL wrote:

Ahh, yes, I've heard about that! Now I see why you wanted to test out the Lytro camera for 3D brickfilming. I'm guessing that the perspective shift is not very effective/workable because of the small scale of LEGO.

I think the depth is just choppy in general, even for larger scale images. It generally looks ok on stills but it can change so much from frame to frame because of the post-processing, and for stop motion that's a huge problem.

BertL wrote:

That looked awesome. It worked so much better than I imagined - did you do any post-production smoothing in After Effects for that clip as well? The CGI and physical elements blended together well, and the camera movement was a lot more smooth than I expected.

Yeah the rig helped keep it smooth overall, but there were a couple frames that did have tiny bumps, so I ran both eyes through the feature tracker in After Effects to help smooth everything out. I would anticipate this problem being slightly worse on the Canon, especially on longer lenses, but I'm hoping that automating the eye switch using EV3 motors will help minimize the amount of contact I have with the camera.

BertL wrote:

One thing I was thinking about: your Canon is a lot more bulky, but I'm guessing you'll be setting it up at a farther distance from the set than you would with the QC9k. Does that mean that you'd have to increase the left/right eye distance as well?

That's a good question. I haven't done a 3D test yet with the Canon, but I can totally see myself needing to slightly increase the interocular distance for longer lenses. So far I only have the 18-135mm Canon kit lens, but I will probably invest in a Nikon adapter, some extension tubes, and some older Nikkor lenses, as per SlothPalidin's stickied lens thread. It will definitely be worth doing a test on each lens and seeing what works.

Re: Using LYTRO Camera for 3D Brickfilms? [UPDATE After 8 years]

Whoa!
Welcome back!

It's great to see you around again, and greater to hear that life seems to be going well for you.

High quality 3D brickfilms seem to be an elusive commodity, but if anybody can find a way to pull one off really well, it seems you're the guy. I can tell you've put a lot of time and money into this, and the results, even just what you posted here, are quite interesting.

Thanks for checking in and sharing your findings.

Re: Using LYTRO Camera for 3D Brickfilms? [UPDATE After 8 years]

Pritchard Studios wrote:

Whoa!
Welcome back!

It's great to see you around again, and greater to hear that life seems to be going well for you.

High quality 3D brickfilms seem to be an elusive commodity, but if anybody can find a way to pull one off really well, it seems you're the guy. I can tell you've put a lot of time and money into this, and the results, even just what you posted here, are quite interesting.

Thanks for checking in and sharing your findings.

Hey Pritchard! Glad to see you are still around. An admin too, no less! Congrats. Hope all is well with you.