watching 2d bluray on 3d tv. same quality? - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 19 Old 07-27-2013, 10:13 PM - Thread Starter
Newbie
 
flyguy006's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 2
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I have a 2d/3d tv. if I watch a 2d bluray disc in my 3d bluray player on my tv while the tv in 3d mode. Would the 2d bluray be the same quality as if I watched the same movie on a 3d bluray disc?
flyguy006 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 19 Old 07-28-2013, 07:49 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Jedi2016's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,457
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 19 Post(s)
Liked: 49
Why on earth would you put the TV in 3D mode to watch a 2D movie? The TV will select its own mode automatically, just let it do its thing.

That being said, why haven't you just tried it? It would have been easy to just pop a disc in, and you would have had your answer in much less time than it took you to type that post.

Welcome to Rivendell, Mister Anderson.
Jedi2016 is offline  
post #3 of 19 Old 07-28-2013, 01:39 PM
 
threed123's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Troy, MI, USA
Posts: 2,486
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Liked: 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by flyguy006 View Post

I have a 2d/3d tv. if I watch a 2d bluray disc in my 3d bluray player on my tv while the tv in 3d mode. Would the 2d bluray be the same quality as if I watched the same movie on a 3d bluray disc?

Yes and no. The 3D added will probably be simple depth of the 3D window as if the scene is pushed back into the TV. On some moving scenes you might see some more depth, but unlikely because the 2D to 3D conversions are pretty lame at best. That said, there is another phenomenon that us projector guys have noticed with bluray 3D and that is that when each eye gets a separate 1080p image and converges them, the sharpness and detail appear to go up as if you are combing two 1080 images into one 2160 image. It's a brain quirk of sorts. Again that is assuming your bluray has an option will turn 2D into 3D--not all 3D players do that.
threed123 is offline  
post #4 of 19 Old 07-28-2013, 04:06 PM - Thread Starter
Newbie
 
flyguy006's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 2
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Jedi Thats the point of having a 2d/3d tv to convert 2d to 3d thats y on earth I would do it. I was asking bc the movie I was watching was shot in 3d I wanted to know if my tv would convert the 2d to 3d in the same quality as if I watched the same movie on a 3d bluray disc. I cant just pop it in and compare bc i dont have the 3d disc for that movie so typing this post was not a waste of my time, But reading your response was...
flyguy006 is offline  
post #5 of 19 Old 07-28-2013, 07:00 PM
Senior Member
 
jmcguire525's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 393
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
No, the conversion will not be close to the quality of an actual 3D BR.
jmcguire525 is offline  
post #6 of 19 Old 07-28-2013, 07:13 PM
Senior Member
 
johnny905's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 308
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 18
I'm sure some of the newer 3DTVs are better, but my Sony 3DTV has 2D-3D conversion and it is completely useless. I tried it a few times when I first got the TV and have never used it since.
johnny905 is offline  
post #7 of 19 Old 07-28-2013, 08:43 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Jedi2016's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,457
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 19 Post(s)
Liked: 49
Ah.. You didn't mention the conversion feature. Key word missing there. By "2D/3D", you simply implied that the TV could do both 2D and 3D, which all 3D TVs can do (the "/" means "either/or"). What you were looking for was the ">" sign... "2D>3D" implies conversion from one state to another.

I ignore that feature entirely, because it's crap. That's why it never occurred to me that's what you were talking about.

And, like the others have said, no... flipping a switch in your TV is not the same as what Hollywood spends millions of dollars, dozens of artists, and months or even years of effort to do.

Welcome to Rivendell, Mister Anderson.
Jedi2016 is offline  
post #8 of 19 Old 07-29-2013, 07:02 AM
Senior Member
 
fritzi93's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 424
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 39
2D -> 3D on-the-fly conversion will not come remotely close to looking as good as a real 3D BD. And sometimes there are weird effects when the TV gets it wrong and something which should be in the foreground gets pushed back, or vice-versa.

Nevertheless, I recall a recent post by TGM where he says a recent firmware update to his Sony greatly improved the conversion. If I may paraphrase, it went from "eh" to "huh"? Mind you, it works better on some content than others.

Anyway, 2D -> 3D is no great shakes on my LG 65LW6500. I played with it some when I first got the TV, but haven't touched it in over a year.
fritzi93 is online now  
post #9 of 19 Old 08-03-2013, 11:45 AM
AVS Special Member
 
WirelessGuru's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Seattle
Posts: 3,128
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
I have to disagree with many of the posters here. Maybe they haven't had the opportunity to view some of the 2d-3d conversion technology done right. Personally I give the LG passive 3D and Mitsibishi 2D+Depth are quality conversions. Sure, not the quality or geometry will be as good as a true 3D shot film but realize that many 3D Blu-Ray's are conversions themselves, even if they were shot in 3D there may be scenes that were rendered or converted and not true 3d.

There's nothing wrong with watching a good 2D Blu-Ray that isn't available in 3D through a quality 2d-3d conversion. Watching Star Wars for example yields pretty good results until a studio conversion comes along.

Last Watched 3D: Oz the Great and Powerful

It should be called Violet-Ray

WirelessGuru is offline  
post #10 of 19 Old 08-03-2013, 05:28 PM
AVS Special Member
 
cakefoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Phoenix
Posts: 1,831
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 29 Post(s)
Liked: 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by WirelessGuru View Post

I have to disagree with many of the posters here. Maybe they haven't had the opportunity to view some of the 2d-3d conversion technology done right. Personally I give the LG passive 3D and Mitsibishi 2D+Depth are quality conversions.
I have a Passive LG, and the conversion mode is garbage.
Quote:
realize that many 3D Blu-Ray's are conversions themselves
You can't compare what your set does, to $10M+ conversions involving months of labor from expert computer modelers and artists.
Quote:
There's nothing wrong with watching a good 2D Blu-Ray that isn't available in 3D through a quality 2d-3d conversion. Watching Star Wars for example yields pretty good results until a studio conversion comes along.
Our brains are better at understanding a 2D film's dimensionality than a TV converter module is. They claim to use sophisticated algorithms, but that's BS.
Don Landis likes this.

My Videos

A movie with good 3D does not necessarily equal a good 3D movie!

cakefoo is offline  
post #11 of 19 Old 08-03-2013, 05:45 PM
AVS Special Member
 
TonyDP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,890
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 45 Post(s)
Liked: 58
I have a passive LG as well (2012 LM7600 model) and while I wouldn't call the 2D>3D garbage, there is no way it will ever be mistaken for native 3D or even a solid post-conversion. While it cannot reproduce pop out of the screen it does a decent job of simulating depth, especially on slow moving video. I often use it for some of the travel and historic shows on PBS as I find the photography of those types of programs (lots of static camera angles and very slow pans) works best with 2D>3D. Even then, certain colors always trip it up. Blacks tend to get pushed back and reds push forward.

Bottom line: its very easy to see the difference between watching an actual 3D movie (Avatar for example) and the same movie played back via 2D>3D conversion; and one is not a viable substitute for the other.
TonyDP is offline  
post #12 of 19 Old 08-05-2013, 01:43 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Devedander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,149
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 34
To answer OP you will not get the same quality doing a 2D->3D conversion as watching the original 3D BR.

The original 3D BR has 2 full frames of resolution for each shot and thus has actual image data for things occluded from each eye respectively in the other.

With a 2D->3D convrersion even if the converter didn't mess up it's depth guesses sometimes, you can never see what's behind an object with one eye that you can't in the other. So right there, less image info in a 2D->3D conversion.

That said I like my LG conversion and think it's quite good on some scenes (sports wide angle shots are noteably quite nice) and of course simple things like nature panoramas and citiscapes.

It's about on par with some of the worst studio 2D-3D conversions out there when it's good.

When it's bad it's kind of jarring and distracting which is unfortunate, but I have watched plenty of 2D movies with it on and usually enjoyed the experience.

It's a fun gimmick that if you tweak the settings right can be good, but can also be pretty bad.

Monster Gold Plated Optical Cables: http://monstercable.com/productPage.asp?pin=1263

Awesome user review: "Unreal quality. Sounded like I upgraded my speakers." :D
Devedander is offline  
post #13 of 19 Old 08-05-2013, 07:09 PM
Senior Member
 
fritzi93's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 424
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 39
Funny that Star Wars was mentioned. I recall that I played a couple episodes with the 2D -> 3D conversion on and they actually weren't too bad.

OTOH, the LOTR movies didn't convert well at all. In Aragorn's coronation scene in ROTK, the red velvet (?) around his neck got pushed back, making it seem like his head was floating above his shoulders. That's just one example where *my* LG TV got the depth wrong. Yes, it can be very jarring.

So my conclusion is that the specific content will affect how good the conversion is. That and the specific TV model, of course.

At its best, it's still nowhere near as good as a 3D Blu-Ray.
fritzi93 is online now  
post #14 of 19 Old 08-06-2013, 12:47 PM
AVS Special Member
 
cakefoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Phoenix
Posts: 1,831
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 29 Post(s)
Liked: 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by Devedander View Post

That said I like my LG conversion and think it's quite good on some scenes (sports wide angle shots are noteably quite nice) and of course simple things like nature panoramas and citiscapes.

It's about on par with some of the worst studio 2D-3D conversions out there when it's good.
99% of the time it looks worse, and downright inside-out or scarily contorted and unnatural. It's so broken and trash.

My Videos

A movie with good 3D does not necessarily equal a good 3D movie!

cakefoo is offline  
post #15 of 19 Old 08-09-2013, 12:54 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Planet Boston, source of the spice, Melange.
Posts: 20,226
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 416 Post(s)
Liked: 397
Consider an analogy. Let's say that you found a black & white print of The Wizard of Oz and wanted to colorize it back to some semblance of its original colors (the scenes in Oz, obviously). No matter what you do, you'll never get it to look exactly like the original color photography. Professional studio color artists might be able to make something pretty watchable out of it, if they carefully paint it shot-by-shot using their knowledge of what the movie is supposed to look like. (For example, when characters talk about walking on the Yellow Brick Road, it stands to reason that the road should be yellow.)

But now let's assume that your TV has an automated colorizing chip built-in, that will convert the black & white copy of the movie to color in real time based on algorithms that make assumptions about what colors certain shades of gray should map to. Maybe it's a really sophisticated chip that can detect the shape of human facial features and automatically apply a "flesh tone" color to them. In a best case scenario, you might get some scenes that look pretty good, maybe even a few shots that are close to indistinguishable from the original color photography. However, the chip assumes that the Yellow Brick Road should be gray, the ruby slippers should be green, and the Tin Man should have a nicely suntanned complexion.

That's what 2D-to-3D conversion of a movie that was originally 3D is like.

Josh Z
Writer/Editor, High-Def Digest (Blog updated daily!)
Curator, Laserdisc Forever

My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily reflect those of my employers.

Josh Z is offline  
post #16 of 19 Old 08-16-2013, 05:29 PM
AVS Special Member
 
WirelessGuru's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Seattle
Posts: 3,128
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post

Consider an analogy. Let's say that you found a black & white print of The Wizard of Oz and wanted to colorize it back to some semblance of its original colors (the scenes in Oz, obviously). No matter what you do, you'll never get it to look exactly like the original color photography. Professional studio color artists might be able to make something pretty watchable out of it, if they carefully paint it shot-by-shot using their knowledge of what the movie is supposed to look like. (For example, when characters talk about walking on the Yellow Brick Road, it stands to reason that the road should be yellow.)

But now let's assume that your TV has an automated colorizing chip built-in, that will convert the black & white copy of the movie to color in real time based on algorithms that make assumptions about what colors certain shades of gray should map to. Maybe it's a really sophisticated chip that can detect the shape of human facial features and automatically apply a "flesh tone" color to them. In a best case scenario, you might get some scenes that look pretty good, maybe even a few shots that are close to indistinguishable from the original color photography. However, the chip assumes that the Yellow Brick Road should be gray, the ruby slippers should be green, and the Tin Man should have a nicely suntanned complexion.

That's what 2D-to-3D conversion of a movie that was originally 3D is like.

I agree Josh... my issue is there are quite a few people here who just want to take a dump all over local 2d-3d conversion just because it isn't geometrically correct. Personally I think it serves a purpose. To add something that isn't there otherwise. To enhance the experience. Sometimes the results are more favorable than other times. I think there is a place for it, and I don't think people should get discouraged by "elite purists" that think anything other than 100% bit for bit master transfer with correct lighting, geometry, color saturation, etc, etc, etc is complete crap like a few of the posters in this thread.

Last Watched 3D: Oz the Great and Powerful

It should be called Violet-Ray

WirelessGuru is offline  
post #17 of 19 Old 08-16-2013, 06:27 PM
AVS Special Member
 
cakefoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Phoenix
Posts: 1,831
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 29 Post(s)
Liked: 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by WirelessGuru View Post

I agree Josh... my issue is there are quite a few people here who just want to take a dump all over local 2d-3d conversion just because it isn't geometrically correct. Personally I think it serves a purpose. To add something that isn't there otherwise. To enhance the experience. Sometimes the results are more favorable than other times. I think there is a place for it, and I don't think people should get discouraged by "elite purists" that think anything other than 100% bit for bit master transfer with correct lighting, geometry, color saturation, etc, etc, etc is complete crap like a few of the posters in this thread.
Purists dislike ANY artistic tampering whatsoever. I typically only disapprove of modification when it's not up to a certain quality standard. I'm a fan of good 3D. Autoconversion ranks somewhere between Clash of the Titans and a pile of waste. Clash at least gets the order of foreground/background planes right. If people can consider Clash to have terrible 3D, then autoconversion is safe to call worse. Just because autoconversion didn't cost millions to do, doesn't excuse it for looking far inferior. It's still all about the quality of the experience versus whatever other choices of activities you could be doing at that time. I prefer not to indulge in realtime converted content on my TV.

My Videos

A movie with good 3D does not necessarily equal a good 3D movie!

cakefoo is offline  
post #18 of 19 Old 08-18-2013, 10:15 AM
AVS Club Gold
 
Don Landis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 11,084
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 227 Post(s)
Liked: 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by cakefoo View Post

Purists dislike ANY artistic tampering whatsoever. I typically only disapprove of modification when it's not up to a certain quality standard. I'm a fan of good 3D. Autoconversion ranks somewhere between Clash of the Titans and a pile of waste. Clash at least gets the order of foreground/background planes right. If people can consider Clash to have terrible 3D, then autoconversion is safe to call worse. Just because autoconversion didn't cost millions to do, doesn't excuse it for looking far inferior. It's still all about the quality of the experience versus whatever other choices of activities you could be doing at that time. I prefer not to indulge in realtime converted content on my TV.

I would only add that it is OK to take some time to check out different auto conversion systems. So far I have not seen any that come close to post conversions we have seen recently. I have this feature and never use it.

When I want to fake 3D from a 2D clip in a 3D edited project, I will just push the 2D image a bit back behind the screen plane and this is good enough for me not to make it look too unnatural. The cheap 2D-3D conversion software I have really sucks and makes my 2D stuff just look extruded, not natural at all. I never use it.
Don Landis is offline  
post #19 of 19 Old 08-19-2013, 01:02 AM
AVS Special Member
 
cakefoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Phoenix
Posts: 1,831
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 29 Post(s)
Liked: 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Landis View Post

I would only add that it is OK to take some time to check out different auto conversion systems. So far I have not seen any that come close to post conversions we have seen recently. I have this feature and never use it.

When I want to fake 3D from a 2D clip in a 3D edited project, I will just push the 2D image a bit back behind the screen plane and this is good enough for me not to make it look too unnatural. The cheap 2D-3D conversion software I have really sucks and makes my 2D stuff just look extruded, not natural at all. I never use it.
I'm curious what is possible but I don't have access to other converters aside from my LG set. I've seen a couple demos on Youtube of some of the affordable set top boxes and it puzzles me why anyone would wear glasses to watch their randomly warped images.

There are people out there who find it passable, but there are also people who thumb-up Youtube 3D content that's simply 2D footage moved 1 frame out of sync, as well as people who cross their eyes with parallel 3D e.g. Oculus Rift videos. Maybe these are the same people who can't see 3D properly. To them native 3D is probably a bit confusing, so it's hard for them to differentiate between native, autoconverted, inverted, and frame-delayed.

I'm really ok with people enjoying it, but there's too much wrong with claiming it's anywhere near the quality of postconversion. That one guy who was selling a $20K converter, he posted some images offscreen with the glasses off, and while he was saying that it was better than some of the early postconverted films, I could see a lot of vertical misalignments, which to any 3D content producer is a big no-no. For a device to intentionally produce those errors in an effort to give the illusion of depth is just head-smack-worthy.

My Videos

A movie with good 3D does not necessarily equal a good 3D movie!

cakefoo is offline  
Reply 3D Content

Tags
Lg Cinema Screen 47lm7600 47 Inch Cinema 3d Led Lcd Hdtv
Gear in this thread

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