The lack of negative critique is what irks me about the Teranex testimonials.
If anyone knows of a Teranex in a 50 mile radius of the Phoenix area that I could see, I would gladly go see it for myself.
The Teranex could surpass those expectations ever so slightly, but there's no way it could meet my quality standards.
A similar device was used for I, Robot's initial conversion before artists tweaked it by hand, and the results were not too impressive, according to reviewers:
"The problem is that the picture is not consistent and often feels flat, as if it has reverted back to a 2D format. There's a decent sense of layering throughout although it mostly seems artificial, but separation between the foreground and background is entirely unconvincing. "
"Generally, the transfer produces a wishy-washy sense of depth
. It's somewhat impressive here and not so impressive there, and the good comes and goes with what seems to be an arbitrary pattern. Some shots offer pronounced depth across a relatively short room, while other shots of sprawling lobbies or deep glimpses down the USR headquarters building look no more deep than they do in the 2D version. Some shots that cry out for stunning 3D don't get it, and other, random shots (sometimes, sort of) do
. An early text overlay introducing the city and date looks quite nice as it hovers off the screen and well above the image, and is probably the single showcase 3D shot in the entire movie. Even various scenes featuring floating bubbles lack visual pizzaz; the bubbles never appear very shapely and only rarely seem to float about with any real sense of space
. A shootout near the end of the film does fling some debris towards the audience for the most pronounced "wow" moment in the film. Otherwise, this one's disappointing. "
What I think the Teranex does based on an off-screen image Cineramax posted a long time ago, is create a sort of fisheye or vignetting effect that essentially curves the image in a spherical shape. Good for corridor shots and wide angle establishing shots, etc, but lacking when it comes to placing foreground, middleground and background objects on their respective depth planes. It probably can't paint over the background, so the layers that do pop probably look more like blurbs with rounded extrusions instead of looking like properly separated elements.
The only example I can find of a studio using the Teranex is in a $65,000 documentary, One Night In March.