Comparison of "2D to 3D" conversion vs True 3D from 3D disc - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Forum Jump: 
 18Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 53 Old 04-11-2015, 07:58 PM - Thread Starter
Advanced Member
 
kwok lau's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: new jersey, usa
Posts: 959
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 257 Post(s)
Liked: 77
Comparison of "2D to 3D" conversion vs True 3D from 3D disc

Any one had made comparison of Avatar's 3D picture from "2D to 3D" conversion from a 2D blue ray disc vs a real 3Disc?
I had tried the "2D to 3D" conversion of that movie, using the Epson 5030UBe projector. The 3D picture on screen showed the depth of the scene but nothing pulp out except the subtitle or the disc menu. I wonder if the 3D picture projected on screen from a 3D disc is much better than the "2D to 3D" conversion by the projector.
kwok lau is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 53 Old 04-12-2015, 06:27 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
old corps's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Mid-Michigan
Posts: 1,676
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 159 Post(s)
Liked: 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by kwok lau View Post
Any one had made comparison of Avatar's 3D picture from "2D to 3D" conversion from a 2D blue ray disc vs a real 3Disc?
I had tried the "2D to 3D" conversion of that movie, using the Epson 5030UBe projector. The 3D picture on screen showed the depth of the scene but nothing pulp out except the subtitle or the disc menu. I wonder if the 3D picture projected on screen from a 3D disc is much better than the "2D to 3D" conversion by the projector.

There is NO comparison. Do yourself a huge favor and get the bluray! I also have a 5030 & fooled around with the conversion. IMO it's a waste of time and looks terrible as have other conversions I tried with players. Avatar absolutely needs to be seen in REAL 3D!


Yer welcome!


Ed
old corps is offline  
post #3 of 53 Old 04-12-2015, 07:20 PM - Thread Starter
Advanced Member
 
kwok lau's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: new jersey, usa
Posts: 959
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 257 Post(s)
Liked: 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by old corps View Post
There is NO comparison. Do yourself a huge favor and get the bluray! I also have a 5030 & fooled around with the conversion. IMO it's a waste of time and looks terrible as have other conversions I tried with players. Avatar absolutely needs to be seen in REAL 3D!


Yer welcome!


Ed
Hi Ed, many thanks for your response. Any real 3D blue ray disc you would recommend me? Had you compared the real 3D disc of Avatar, by a 3D player vs 2D to 3D conversion by the Epson projector ? Was it really "day and night" difference?
Thank you.
Kwok
kwok lau is offline  
 
post #4 of 53 Old 04-13-2015, 08:18 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
old corps's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Mid-Michigan
Posts: 1,676
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 159 Post(s)
Liked: 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by kwok lau View Post
Hi Ed, many thanks for your response. Any real 3D blue ray disc you would recommend me? Had you compared the real 3D disc of Avatar, by a 3D player vs 2D to 3D conversion by the Epson projector ? Was it really "day and night" difference?
Thank you.
Kwok

No, I didn't try Avatar but I tried several others. Even animated movies just look weird to me. Here's a couple fairly recent ones that I thought were great:
Live and Let Die
Dawn of the Planet of the Apes
And a couple more I just thought of:
Gatsby
Guardians of the Galaxy
Here's one that I thought was a great family 3D movie:
Journey 2 The Mysterious Island--No Oscar winner here but an entertaining story for kids & adults with outstanding 3D. It was shot in 3D as well.
Most all of the IMAX ones are great. If you have any interest in nature movies you should get Richard Attenborough's 3D Collection from Amazon UK. Hours of outstanding photography/3D. http://www.amazon.co.uk/David-Attenb...+3D+Collection
It's listed as region B/2 but it's actually region free as I suspect his other 3D documentaries are.


Note that none of these are animated although I enjoy those as well. Hope this is helpful!
EDIT!
"Live & Let Die" is actually Edge of Tomorrow--sorry 'bout that!


Ed

Last edited by old corps; 04-13-2015 at 11:36 AM.
old corps is offline  
post #5 of 53 Old 04-13-2015, 12:09 PM - Thread Starter
Advanced Member
 
kwok lau's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: new jersey, usa
Posts: 959
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 257 Post(s)
Liked: 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by old corps View Post
No, I didn't try Avatar but I tried several others. Even animated movies just look weird to me. Here's a couple fairly recent ones that I thought were great:
Live and Let Die
Dawn of the Planet of the Apes
And a couple more I just thought of:
Gatsby
Guardians of the Galaxy
Here's one that I thought was a great family 3D movie:
Journey 2 The Mysterious Island--No Oscar winner here but an entertaining story for kids & adults with outstanding 3D. It was shot in 3D as well.
Most all of the IMAX ones are great. If you have any interest in nature movies you should get Richard Attenborough's 3D Collection from Amazon UK. Hours of outstanding photography/3D. http://www.amazon.co.uk/David-Attenb...+3D+Collection
It's listed as region B/2 but it's actually region free as I suspect his other 3D documentaries are.


Note that none of these are animated although I enjoy those as well. Hope this is helpful!
EDIT!
"Live & Let Die" is actually Edge of Tomorrow--sorry 'bout that!


Ed
Ed, I thank you for your time to reply me. Will consider to buy your suggested 3D discs. I have a sunny and warm day today. Do wish your have a great sunny and warm day as well. Best regards.
Kwok
old corps likes this.
kwok lau is offline  
post #6 of 53 Old 04-13-2015, 02:40 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
old corps's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Mid-Michigan
Posts: 1,676
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 159 Post(s)
Liked: 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by kwok lau View Post
Ed, I thank you for your time to reply me. Will consider to buy your suggested 3D discs. I have a sunny and warm day today. Do wish your have a great sunny and warm day as well. Best regards.
Kwok

You're welcome Kwok. Actually, the sun just came out here. It's been cloudy and sprinkling all day but FINALLY is beginning to look like Spring!
Happy viewing!


Ed
old corps is offline  
post #7 of 53 Old 04-14-2015, 08:19 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Joseph Dubin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Bronx, New York
Posts: 3,083
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 62 Post(s)
Liked: 44
Hi All,

Recently purchased the Sony KDL 50W800B and thus far using just the simulated 3D.

Last night watched an underwater nature show on National Geographic Wild and compared the simulated 3D to standard definition with my DVR. Both pictures were beautiful, however, I was floored by the depth and natural realism that the simulated 2D effect created. Same with sports, especially golf. Also very happy with the DVDs that I own though have seen in store demonstration of true 3D so understand the difference along with the missing element of human creativity and imagination of the director that a computer chip can never replace.

But cost is a factor and replacing so many DVDs for their 3D counterparts is expensive and the one thing I do miss with the simulated 3D is with objects jumping at the viewer in lieu of being behind the set. Not so much with the nature shows and sports but the action movies. I see where some blu ray players have simulated 3D built into them. Since this means an actual 3D then being fed to the Sony, would the result be objects actually popping out at the viewer (though still simulated) instead of like looking through a window? Or will it still be the same? This way it won't be so expensive adding a bit to the effect and the future discs can be 3D

Thanks as always for the advice.

Joe

Last edited by Joseph Dubin; 04-14-2015 at 08:22 AM.
Joseph Dubin is offline  
post #8 of 53 Old 04-20-2015, 10:16 PM
Senior Member
 
fxrh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 241
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 45 Post(s)
Liked: 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joseph Dubin View Post
I see where some blu ray players have simulated 3D built into them. Since this means an actual 3D then being fed to the Sony, would the result be objects actually popping out at the viewer (though still simulated) instead of like looking through a window?
Unfortunately, no 2D-to-3D converter, not even the celebrated Teranex, does negative parallax (which makes for popouts). And "double dipping" the conversion process using two different devices won't work either. I can't imagine what you'd get, but it definitely wouldn't be decent 3D.
fxrh is offline  
post #9 of 53 Old 04-22-2015, 12:05 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
cakefoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Phoenix
Posts: 2,037
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 183 Post(s)
Liked: 74
This is native 3D.


Notice how the croc, the leaves and the bamboo fence are shifting independently.


This is a conversion by the Teranex, regarded by some on this forum to be the best converter. One user even claims it looks more realistic than native 3D.


Notice how it looks like a flat image that's simply turning. Other than that, the Teranex pushes the entire image back so it looks like it's floating further behind the TV screen. You can accomplish the latter effect by toying with your TV's 3D window setting, free of charge.

If I had $3K+ to throw at 3D content, I'd buy a couple hundred 3D Blu-rays instead.
kwok lau and old corps like this.
cakefoo is offline  
post #10 of 53 Old 04-23-2015, 09:38 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Joseph Dubin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Bronx, New York
Posts: 3,083
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 62 Post(s)
Liked: 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by fxrh View Post
Unfortunately, no 2D-to-3D converter, not even the celebrated Teranex, does negative parallax (which makes for popouts). And "double dipping" the conversion process using two different devices won't work either. I can't imagine what you'd get, but it definitely wouldn't be decent 3D.
Hi fxrh,

Spoke to Crutchfield today and was told the same thing. The TV would be receiving a simulated picture and would display the information as it was being received.

My thought was that it would be output side by side or some other method but was told even though that would be the case, the information it was getting would be with the dimension going backwards away from the viewer (non technical my own translation ).

Would be too expensive not so much for the blu ray play but to start replacing the DVDs I own for the 3D versions. Know even with the backwards effect it is just simulated and not eye popping as intended on movies but it is very natural looking overall, especially with nature shows. Movies in general have a very natural depth to it which in many ways simulates how we really see things. But I won't compare it to the true 3D experience which I've seen demonstrated in stores. But this is a nice compromise, much more than I expected.

Can always do a pay per view.

Thanks again.

Joe
Joseph Dubin is offline  
post #11 of 53 Old 04-23-2015, 10:04 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Joseph Dubin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Bronx, New York
Posts: 3,083
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 62 Post(s)
Liked: 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by cakefoo View Post
This is native 3D.


Notice how the croc, the leaves and the bamboo fence are shifting independently.


This is a conversion by the Teranex, regarded by some on this forum to be the best converter. One user even claims it looks more realistic than native 3D.


Notice how it looks like a flat image that's simply turning. Other than that, the Teranex pushes the entire image back so it looks like it's floating further behind the TV screen. You can accomplish the latter effect by toying with your TV's 3D window setting, free of charge.

If I had $3K+ to throw at 3D content, I'd buy a couple hundred 3D Blu-rays instead.
Hi Cake,

So in general terms the simulation effect is accomplished by the set determining how far back to push everything found in the picture.

Know that with shots of oceans, deserts, mountain areas, landscapes, etc. the depth seems very deeply spread back with buildings, people interspersed in between. Sometimes not as pronounced as others but overall most satisfying.

In 1994 was sent a VHS camcorder recording from one we met on a trip out west back and just recently dubbed it onto DVD and watching it back in 3D there was more limited "natural" dimension.

So it seems to recreate the natural sense of dimension we experience but not the "eye popping" experience one can make with true special effects obviously. Am I right with my observation in general?
Joseph Dubin is offline  
post #12 of 53 Old 04-23-2015, 11:02 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
cakefoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Phoenix
Posts: 2,037
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 183 Post(s)
Liked: 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joseph Dubin View Post
Hi Cake,

So in general terms the simulation effect is accomplished by the set determining how far back to push everything found in the picture.

Know that with shots of oceans, deserts, mountain areas, landscapes, etc. the depth seems very deeply spread back with buildings, people interspersed in between. Sometimes not as pronounced as others but overall most satisfying.

In 1994 was sent a VHS camcorder recording from one we met on a trip out west back and just recently dubbed it onto DVD and watching it back in 3D there was more limited "natural" dimension.

So it seems to recreate the natural sense of dimension we experience but not the "eye popping" experience one can make with true special effects obviously. Am I right with my observation in general?
I wouldn't say it "recreates a natural sense of dimension," or "determines how far back to push everything." It just takes a video and pushes it back. It doesn't know that the crocodile is in the middle and that there's water behind and in front. It keeps it all on one plane. The reason it gets landscape shots right is the same reason a stopped clock gets the time right twice a day.
old corps likes this.
cakefoo is offline  
post #13 of 53 Old 04-24-2015, 12:28 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Joseph Dubin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Bronx, New York
Posts: 3,083
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 62 Post(s)
Liked: 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by cakefoo View Post
I wouldn't say it "recreates a natural sense of dimension," or "determines how far back to push everything." It just takes a video and pushes it back. It doesn't know that the crocodile is in the middle and that there's water behind and in front. It keeps it all on one plane. The reason it gets landscape shots right is the same reason a stopped clock gets the time right twice a day.
Hi Cake,

Just lucky I guess.

But by "natural" I meant as far as what our vision is used to seeing in everyday depth without the extra added effects which of course makes one's jaw drop but can be exaggerated. Please know I am no expert on this but from what I have read and can understand from my own experience, when we focus on a certain area, it is really just that field of vision where the depth is pronounced. With true 3D, just about every object has it's own individual plane, as with the crocodile demonstration. That's where I was coming from with my thoughts. Could the limitations of simulated 3D, though just pushing things back and by keeping it on that one plane, actually have stumbled onto something? Not the 3D experience one wants to be immersed in, of course, but more of the realism one is used to?

Just thoughts, not a commentary.
Joseph Dubin is offline  
post #14 of 53 Old 04-24-2015, 11:27 PM
Senior Member
 
fxrh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 241
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 45 Post(s)
Liked: 52
This particular horse was beaten to death in an earlier thread:

Should Studios Do 2D to 3D Conversions, Or Are On-Board 2D to 3D Converters Sufficient?
fxrh is offline  
post #15 of 53 Old 04-25-2015, 09:39 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Joseph Dubin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Bronx, New York
Posts: 3,083
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 62 Post(s)
Liked: 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by fxrh View Post
This particular horse was beaten to death in an earlier thread:

Should Studios Do 2D to 3D Conversions, Or Are On-Board 2D to 3D Converters Sufficient?
Hi fx,

Thanks for passing that along.

One not need to be astute to understand simulated has its tremendous limitations, especially because I consider an actual 2d to 3d conversion like Titanic like an audio remixing of older recordings meticulously done and not just a digital remaster.

Might not have mentioned that I did not purchase the set for the 3D as it was I have a large collection of DVD-Rs dubbed from TCM, HBO, etc and they looked very good on my older Sony KD34XBR960, the highly praised CRT that after ten years saw its better days. Also have a Panasonic recorder with flexible recording so am able to use the entire disc in proportion to the exact tme of the movie for the best picture quality, down converted to 480 via s video of course. Won't do this for Lawrence of Arabia but for 40 cents a film, makes me able to pursue the hobby. So the simulated 3D was an unexpected treat since was not expecting anything at all from what I read.

Hope that clarifies where I was coming from. Not in the market for 3D at all, this was a nice surprise, having seen actual store demonstrations with blue ray.
Joseph Dubin is offline  
post #16 of 53 Old 05-02-2015, 08:50 AM - Thread Starter
Advanced Member
 
kwok lau's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: new jersey, usa
Posts: 959
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 257 Post(s)
Liked: 77
Many thanks to all you folks throwing in your ideas since I started this topic.


An un-related message to share here. I purchased a factory refurbished Epson 5030UBe (wireless), but its wireless transmitter did not work with the projector. Epson had exchanged a new wireless transmitter and yet it didn't work. I eventually returned for refund 2 weeks ago. Now I am looking at the Sony 40es. Do wish it will be on discount soon. Today is the last day of Epson 5030UB (not wireless) at sale price $1999. If any one looking for a new projector, it should be considered. I prefer Sony's color accuracy, so I wait for it to cut down the price, hopefully this month or June. Who knows? Please keep sharing more ideas and experience. Best regards.
kwok lau is offline  
post #17 of 53 Old 05-03-2015, 10:12 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
IanD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Posts: 1,991
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 108 Post(s)
Liked: 59
A friend and I watched a couple of 3D Bluray on an LG 42" 3D TV more than a year ago whilst I was testing it out, followed by 2D->3D conversion by the set. Recently the friend watched 2D->3D conversion on a Panasonic 3D TV and said that it looked much better than the LG.

I'm wondering if this is simply due to improvements in 2D->3D conversion within the TV over the time period, or better processing by Panasonic.

Previously I had heard that Mitsubishi projectors had the best 2D->3D conversion (ignoring the Teranex or equivalent high-end gear).

Just wondering if anyone has done a comparison between the brands or whether they are all using the same chip (Panasonic was using LG panels, so there is a good chance they use the same chip too).

Would really like to see what Ultra-D can do with 2D->3D conversion since they use a number of cues within the images (including 3D parallax when a 3D source is available) and the result is basically a 2D->3D conversion for everything. Unfortunately the domestic release seems to have gone quiet.
IanD is offline  
post #18 of 53 Old 05-04-2015, 07:53 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Joseph Dubin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Bronx, New York
Posts: 3,083
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 62 Post(s)
Liked: 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by IanD View Post
A friend and I watched a couple of 3D Bluray on an LG 42" 3D TV more than a year ago whilst I was testing it out, followed by 2D->3D conversion by the set. Recently the friend watched 2D->3D conversion on a Panasonic 3D TV and said that it looked much better than the LG.

I'm wondering if this is simply due to improvements in 2D->3D conversion within the TV over the time period, or better processing by Panasonic.

Previously I had heard that Mitsubishi projectors had the best 2D->3D conversion (ignoring the Teranex or equivalent high-end gear).

Just wondering if anyone has done a comparison between the brands or whether they are all using the same chip (Panasonic was using LG panels, so there is a good chance they use the same chip too).

Would really like to see what Ultra-D can do with 2D->3D conversion since they use a number of cues within the images (including 3D parallax when a 3D source is available) and the result is basically a 2D->3D conversion for everything. Unfortunately the domestic release seems to have gone quiet.
Hi IanD,

Haven't made any comparisons but have found that subtle improvements in picture settings go hand in hand in making the simulaed 3D effect a bit stronger in depth beyond that created by the level effect adjustment itself. In addition to the incrimental adjustments for contrast, brightness, color, resolution, etc., I have found those for noise reduction, glasses brightness, etc., set to a specific level help create a stronger simulation instead of being set to "auto".

It is probably like comparing sets with the user adjustments in general not properly calibrated - one is not seeing a set's true capabilities.

I've had the Sony 50w800b for not quite a month and am more used to simulated 3D than when it was first a new toy. Have seen the effect dependent somewhat with the quality of the picture itself. Fortunately, the user settings for simulated 3D are separate from those for 2D so the proper adjustments can be made without compromising the integrity of the other. Did not know that at first.

That's my experience. Hope it helps you with your decision.
Joseph Dubin is offline  
post #19 of 53 Old 05-06-2015, 06:34 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Frank714's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Berlin
Posts: 1,065
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 693 Post(s)
Liked: 281
Quote:
Originally Posted by IanD View Post
Previously I had heard that Mitsubishi projectors had the best 2D->3D conversion (ignoring the Teranex or equivalent high-end gear).

Just wondering if anyone has done a comparison between the brands or whether they are all using the same chip (Panasonic was using LG panels, so there is a good chance they use the same chip too).
I had a chance to check out the Optoma HD 50 last year which is using a pixelworks chip / video processor for 2D > 3D conversion and was rather impressed (I had not thought it could be that good).

Of course, it's difficult to agree on a set of parameters to judge the performance without seeing it with one's own eyes, but I have a proposal: Over at my friend's house we watched the opening sequence of Star Wars and that told us a few things about operation:

Looking at the starfield was like looking into a box with walls to the left, to the right and further back. Apparently the processor creates a fixed stage (like a theater stage if you think about it) and then places objects onto this stage, guessing which ones go to the front and which ones go to the back (probably by measuring if something is in or out of focus).

During the actual film, the 3D performance was rather good than bad. I would say it was that good that I would love to watch every film at least once with this 2D > 3D conversion, but there was little doubt that a "real" 3D program would be much better and more reliable.

"It is only about things that do not interest one that one can give a really unbiased opinion, which is no doubt the reason why an unbiased opinion is always absolutely valueless." Oscar Wilde
Frank714 is offline  
post #20 of 53 Old 05-06-2015, 08:43 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
IanD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Posts: 1,991
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 108 Post(s)
Liked: 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank714 View Post
I had a chance to check out the Optoma HD 50 last year which is using a pixelworks chip / video processor for 2D > 3D conversion and was rather impressed (I had not thought it could be that good).
Most of the time the manufacturers aren't forthcoming about the processing chips they use for 2D->3D conversion, which makes comparison more difficult.

At it's simplest, I think you can divide the screen vertically and judge distance of an object by how close to the top it is, but proper 3D assessment obviously requires much more detailed processing of other cues.

My friend said the Panasonic 3D was like looking at a curved screen with objects extending towards the viewer: that sounds more like simply taking distance from centre to determine greater depth.

From what little I can glean, Ultra-D uses many cues to determine distance, including how much a moving object shifts between left and right views over time, plus shading and perspective angles. However this requires considerable processing that the usual 2 or 4-core chips can't handle. Therefore I think they might have the edge, but since the technology has not gone public it's difficult to tell, plus their focus has been on glassless 3D, which is a pity they didn't also work on a parallel 2D->3D system on a chip for standalone processing for all 3D viewing methods.
Frank714 likes this.
IanD is offline  
post #21 of 53 Old 05-11-2015, 09:23 AM
Senior Member
 
CARTmen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 265
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 84 Post(s)
Liked: 34
Have any of you tried the 2D to 3D converter of PowerDVD?
CARTmen is offline  
post #22 of 53 Old 05-16-2015, 10:35 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Deja Vu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: great white north
Posts: 5,446
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 944 Post(s)
Liked: 966
Quote:
Originally Posted by cakefoo View Post
This is native 3D.


Notice how the croc, the leaves and the bamboo fence are shifting independently.


This is a conversion by the Teranex, regarded by some on this forum to be the best converter. One user even claims it looks more realistic than native 3D.


Notice how it looks like a flat image that's simply turning. Other than that, the Teranex pushes the entire image back so it looks like it's floating further behind the TV screen. You can accomplish the latter effect by toying with your TV's 3D window setting, free of charge.

If I had $3K+ to throw at 3D content, I'd buy a couple hundred 3D Blu-rays instead.
I've owned Teranex for a year now and I've tried many other 2D to 3D converters - The 3D Bee, PowerDVD and so on. The converter in the Mits 7900 and 8000 is quite good considering its built-in and these projectors are not that expensive -- it's all relative. The Teranex is in a completely different league -- its does absolutely amazing separation between objects -- great depth and great separation. It's not the easiest to setup -- needs a splitter that stripes HDCP and then it needs to "talk" to your monitor or projector. Best IMO to turn on the monitor last after the Teranex has gone completely through its boot up -- if you don't get it to "talk" to your monitor properly you will only get that push back looking 3D without the separation between objects -- I almost sent mine back until figured out the problem. The Teranex produces the closest thing to Hollywood 3D I've seen -- it actually creates space around objects so they are defined within their own place and it puts each object in its proper place -- it layers so you can distinctly see one object then the next and so on if there is a row of objects and you're looking down the line -- very, very impressive and really no errors that I've seen. PowerDVD 2D to 3D conversion the others are literally unwatchable after you've seen what a properly set up Teranex will do.
kimg1453 likes this.
Deja Vu is offline  
post #23 of 53 Old 05-16-2015, 01:30 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
cakefoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Phoenix
Posts: 2,037
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 183 Post(s)
Liked: 74
"No errors that I've seen."

*cough cough* BS *cough*

Either your stereo vision is inferior and you can't perceive the mistakes, or the Teranex truly is a miraculous device. If the latter, native 3D production would be obsolete by now. But it's not...

So put up! Capture some Teranex footage. If you don't have a direct capture device, at least set a manual stills camera on a tripod and pause some footage and take a picture while covering the camera with the left lens and then the right, and either stitch the photos together or upload them individually and someone here will stitch them. Until then, the more positive things you say and the more negative critiques you omit, the more skeptical I will be that you're some paid employee.
cakefoo is offline  
post #24 of 53 Old 05-16-2015, 11:05 PM
Senior Member
 
fxrh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 241
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 45 Post(s)
Liked: 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by cakefoo View Post
Either your stereo vision is inferior and you can't perceive the mistakes, or the Teranex truly is a miraculous device.
*cough cough* exaggerated and unnecessarily personal false alternative *cough*

Quote:
Originally Posted by cakefoo View Post
So put up! Capture some Teranex footage. If you don't have a direct capture device, at least set a manual stills camera on a tripod and pause some footage and take a picture while covering the camera with the left lens and then the right, and either stitch the photos together or upload them individually and someone here will stitch them. Until then, the more positive things you say and the more negative critiques you omit, the more skeptical I will be that you're some paid employee.
I was wondering how long it was going to take for this thread to head south like the previous one. Well, we're here. Please stop trying to put those who post here on the defensive. Nobody on this board is obliged to provide you with the slightest information to sway your opinion regarding the Teranex or any other 2D-to-3D converter.

You are on the record for saying that no real-time converter will live up to your standards. FINE. Just stop your continual personal attacks ad nauseam. I'm sick and tired of reading about "visual acuity" and other impairments suffered by those who disagree with you. And what's your latest accusation? Only that those who think highly of one particular product might be shills for the manufacturer. Give me a break!

You are at liberty to dislike what you want, and others are free to like what they want, including what you dislike. They don't have to win you over (and vice versa). Aren't we adults here?

You've made your case numerous times on an earlier thread. Before derailing yet another thread that started out cheerfully, please: GIVE IT A REST!!!
kimg1453 and CARTmen like this.

Last edited by fxrh; 05-17-2015 at 01:26 AM.
fxrh is offline  
post #25 of 53 Old 05-17-2015, 01:12 AM
Senior Member
 
fxrh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 241
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 45 Post(s)
Liked: 52
I have not had personal experience with the Teranex. I've had personal experience with the following 2D-to-3D converters, all of which have (IMHO) problems with proper conversion:

Panasonic 3D Blu-ray players from several years ago (DMP-BDT100 et al.)
Samsung BD-D6700 3D Blu-ray player
Cyberlink PowerDVD Ultra (from version 10 to the current version 15)
Tridef 3D (PC software)
KanexPro CubeUp
OPPO BDP-103D
LG 3D HDTVs (from 2011 forward)

With the exception of the Panasonic players, all of these converters use some type of object detection / depth map generation.

I cannot bring myself to believe that if these low-to-medium-priced converters do object detection (even if they don't do it well), an expensive ($3K-$4K and in its previous iterations MUCH more costly) converter like the Teranex does not.

Last edited by fxrh; 05-17-2015 at 01:24 AM.
fxrh is offline  
post #26 of 53 Old 05-17-2015, 06:16 AM
Advanced Member
 
MLXXX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 506
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 195 Post(s)
Liked: 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by fxrh View Post
*cough cough* exaggerated and unnecessarily personal false alternative *cough*
...
You've made your case numerous times on an earlier thread. Before derailing yet another thread that started out cheerfully, please: GIVE IT A REST!!!
Fxrh,
in my view the problem is that although cakefoo may largely be reiterating previous comments suggesting caution and requesting proof, so is Deja Vu still posting very positive material. In particular, the following, however sincerely intended it may be, sounds to me like a manufacturer's advertising spiel:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deja Vu View Post
... The Teranex produces the closest thing to Hollywood 3D I've seen -- it actually creates space around objects so they are defined within their own place and it puts each object in its proper place -- it layers so you can distinctly see one object then the next and so on if there is a row of objects and you're looking down the line -- very, very impressive and really no errors that I've seen. PowerDVD 2D to 3D conversion the others are literally unwatchable after you've seen what a properly set up Teranex will do.
In the past I examined some uploaded video material of a 3D simulation by a Teranex device, that did not impress me all that much. If Deja Vu or anyone else believes a Teranex unit can deliver a better standard currently than the previously uploaded material suggested, why not put such a unit in a mode that will generate side by side 3D, and capture some frames with a still camera, and post them to this thread? [Or use some other capture method.]

That should lead to some progress, rather than a rehashing of previous claims and counter claims.
fxrh likes this.

Last edited by MLXXX; 05-17-2015 at 07:30 AM.
MLXXX is offline  
post #27 of 53 Old 05-17-2015, 10:51 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Joseph Dubin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Bronx, New York
Posts: 3,083
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 62 Post(s)
Liked: 44
Hi all,

Know this forum is for the more technically inclined but from the typical enthusiast,
considering this gives an option where there is no other choice, this might be more to do with HD sets since television content is virtually nonexistent and many of us are not in the position to replace our collections of non 3D versions or purchase these expensive devices.

As mentioned earlier, I'm very happy with the Sony 50w800b even though have been unable to compare it to other sets. As far as simulated 3D for 2D only material, what is the consensus on the sets available, are there some that are superior or poor or is it mostly on an even keel throughout? Does active give an advantage over passive in this type of use or vice versa? Are there some tweaks within the simulated 3D menu that enhance the effect that one should be aware of?
Joseph Dubin is offline  
post #28 of 53 Old 05-17-2015, 01:22 PM
Senior Member
 
fxrh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 241
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 45 Post(s)
Liked: 52
First off, I want to thank you for posting a polite and civil response to my post.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MLXXX View Post
Fxrh, in my view the problem is that although cakefoo may largely be reiterating previous comments suggesting caution and requesting proof, so is Deja Vu still posting very positive material.
I have no problem with cakefoo and Deja Vu holding strongly opposed views about the Teranex and providing their reasons and evidence for holding them, even if to some degree they are repetitious. There's nothing wrong (or surprising) about widely divergent opinions about a product. And others may not have read the previous thread in which this subject was flogged into extinction.

My problem is that cakefoo goes too far when he makes personal criticisms, as he has done previously, questioning "visual acuity" or suggesting a lamentable inability to articulate exactly HOW the Teranex achieves its results. (I would think that such information would be proprietary.) The tone is "if you can't provide convincing evidence of what the Teranex does to achieve its 3D effects, then I'm entitled to question your judgment." This is just as heavy-handed and one-sided as if DV said "if you can't provide convincing evidence that the Teranex cannot do object detection despite your assertions to that effect, then I'm entitled to question your judgment and persist in my positive opinion."

And with this latest snarky remark, we've moved from "you may have problems with your eyes and your ability to express yourself" to the none-too-subtle intimation that "you might be dishonestly representing the features of this product... are you now, or have you ever been, a salesperson for BlackMagic Design?" This is getting WAY too personal.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MLXXX View Post
That should lead to some progress, rather than a rehashing of previous claims and counter claims.
If Deja Vu (or others) want to continue this discussion by providing videos or whatever, that's certainly their prerogative. But I object to the idea that if they choose NOT to do so then they have somehow failed to defend their position adequately and their own evaluation of the product is therefore suspect. "More evidence, please, or I'll continue to doubt the truth of what you say" can be asserted by both sides (and accomplishes nothing). Both sides of this debate have strong opinions, and I don't see why either side is OBLIGED to keep coming up with more (and more and more) to dissuade the other.

I hate it when I see what should be a reasonable discussion and a civil disagreement shift into "if you don't convince me, YOU LOSE." That's where this debate is heading -- if it isn't already there.

I'm struck by the fact that Deja Vu, who of course owns a Teranex, has said that he had the same experience that cakefoo reported at his demo, and that some adjusting got the unit to "kick in" and improve markedly. Should we infer from this that Deja Vu is just "making excuses" to rationalize the sub-par performance of his expensive investment?

Argue the virtues and defects of the product all you want. But enough of the snide remarks. PLEASE.

I come to this board seeking the honest reactions of people to A/V products -- not comments questioning the abilities or honesty of those who disagree. If I want that, I'll go to any number of other boards -- or, for that matter, good old dependable Facebook.
MLXXX and kimg1453 like this.
fxrh is offline  
post #29 of 53 Old 05-17-2015, 06:04 PM
Advanced Member
 
MLXXX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 506
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 195 Post(s)
Liked: 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by fxrh View Post
Argue the virtues and defects of the product all you want. But enough of the snide remarks. PLEASE.
Indeed.
MLXXX is offline  
post #30 of 53 Old 05-21-2015, 09:33 PM
Advanced Member
 
MLXXX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 506
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 195 Post(s)
Liked: 94
I have tried out two 3D simulators, the one in PowerDVD 14, and the one in my Sony 2013 year TV, but I don't use them for normal viewing. For my vision they create too many artefacts, though they add a bit of interest to the viewing experience.


Quote:
Originally Posted by CARTmen View Post
Have any of you tried the 2D to 3D converter of PowerDVD?
I've tried PowerDVD 14. It analyses layers in considerable detail and spaces them at different 3D depths. However it seems unable to estimate the depth change between layers accurately.

For example, there's a scene about 9 minutes into the Doctor Who episode Inthe Forest of the Night where Mr Pink accepts Bradley's offer to be the navigator for the class. They are all in a forest and there is a London Underground Railway sign amongst the vegetation. Here is an example of what such a sign looks like in 2D:





In that Dr Who scene, PowerDVD 14 placed the word UNDERGROUND on a separate layer, well in front of the red circle, making the word UNDERGROUND look like a separate physical structure to the rest of the sign.* In the same scene it placed Bradley's head, partly covered by vegetation, well behind the rest of his body. The software is fairly good at detecting the order of layers but fairly poor at allocating appropriate strengths for the depth values. To get around that problem, I set the PowerDVD depth control at about 25% of full. This still leaves an obvious 3D effect but softens the impact of the more obvious depth exaggerations.

In testing, I have found that the PowerDVD simulation copes well with sudden scene changes.


Quote:
Originally Posted by fxrh View Post
...
I cannot bring myself to believe that if these low-to-medium-priced converters do object detection (even if they don't do it well), an expensive ($3K-$4K and in its previous iterations MUCH more costly) converter like the Teranex does not.
I would agree.

Of course the scene must have enough layer cues in it for a 3D simulator to use. I find with my 2013 year Sony TV, that it attempts little 3D depth simulation with certain (ambiguous?) scenes but on others it will "go to town" in identifying layers and allocating different depth values.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Joseph Dubin View Post
Hi all,
As mentioned earlier, I'm very happy with the Sony 50w800b even though have been unable to compare it to other sets. As far as simulated 3D for 2D only material, what is the consensus on the sets available, are there some that are superior or poor or is it mostly on an even keel throughout? Does active give an advantage over passive in this type of use or vice versa? Are there some tweaks within the simulated 3D menu that enhance the effect that one should be aware of?
Good questions! I can only offer a few comments.

Passive vs active should make no difference. These are different technologies for displaying the left and right images. Simulation is about creating the left and right images. [Simulation software can use the 2D source as one view, and synthesize a second view. Both of these views are then sent to the display.]


2013 year Sony 4k TV

I have a Sony 2013 year 65" 4k passive 3D set released in Australia (model KD65X9004A). For my eyes it performs badly on off-air (50Hz) material when there is a change of scene. There's often a momentary discontinuity in the 3D effect. This doesn't happen so much with a signal from a pc, or from a Blu-ray movie. In fact the simulation quality is not too bad with a Blu-ray movie. The highest setting for the 3D effect would suit people who like a strong effect, but it will occasionally create odd exaggerations, e.g. a newsreader's head may seem to protrude forward excessively compared with the rest of their body. I would use the medium setting. For those very averse to seeing artefacts, the low setting would be the safest to use.

The effect seems quite arbitrary at times, e.g. a pc screen of application icons will be processed so as to place some individual icons forwards and some backwards and will layer parts of some icons. This might be experienced as "interesting" and adding "spice" but there is no reality to adding 3D to a pc desktop of icons!

With real life content, the algorithms seem to get the order of the layering correct most of the time, but the extent of change in 3D depth from one layer to the next is at times exaggerated.

_______

Late edit (June 9th):
* On further examination of the 2D footage, I am of the opinion that the Underground sign was edited into the footage. The image used for that purpose appears to have been a simplified image relative to the real life image of an Underground sign I have linked to. So although the simulation exaggerated the 3D effect, it didn't radically alter the shape, the original shape being somewhat artificial.
fxrh and CARTmen like this.

Last edited by MLXXX; 06-09-2015 at 12:47 AM.
MLXXX is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply 3D Tech Talk

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off