Should Studios Do 2D to 3D Conversions, Or Are On-Board 2D to 3D Converters Sufficient? - Page 4 - AVS Forum
View Poll Results: Should Studios Do 2D to 3D Conversions?
Yes, bring us more converted titles please! 23 76.67%
No, my built In 2D to 3D converter works great! 3 10.00%
Not sure, release it and I'll decide later. 4 13.33%
Voters: 30. You may not vote on this poll

Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #91 of 157 Old 07-10-2014, 11:34 PM
Member
 
fxrh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 185
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 15 Post(s)
Liked: 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by cakefoo View Post
Deja Vu is one of the few qualified to know and qualified to answer specific questions. But instead of sharing his knowledge, he decides to share his emotional reactions and third party testimonials from people I've never heard of.
Your negative feedback on the JVC converter was a third party testimonial from people I've never heard of. Oops, let me amend that. Maybe I have heard of them but don't realize it because you didn't identify any of them. By the way, I'm still scratching my bald head about the point of those comments since nobody here is taking up for the JVC converter. How was that relevant?

I am interested in 2D to 3D converters, have evaluated several, and Deja Vu has been nothing but helpful to me on this board, other boards, and in private correspondence.

With respect to your frustration in hearing no negatives, in post #50 of this thread Deja Vu lists both Pros and Cons of the Teranex.

Best 2d to 3d converter boxes

By the way, if you read that entire thread, you'll see that -- horrors! -- there are other people who are impressed with the Teranex.

Anyone who has experimented with multiple converters knows that they aren't all created equal. I see no reason for thinking that the Teranex can't be a superior converter. I don't know that it is (I don't have one) but I appreciate hearing from those who do. You are under no obligation to agree with their assessments, but you would have a stronger case if you could relate your own negative experiences with the product instead of rejecting the positive impressions of those who have the sheer gall to base their judgments on their use of the product.

You say you are simply asking questions. You said in post #73 that there's no way the Teranex can live up to your quality standards. That's not a question. That's your answer.

I can't afford this product, but I have been given no reason whatsoever to think that those who can, and who are reporting their findings and reactions, are acting in an elitist fashion. The fact that the product costs $4K isn't their fault.

I am generally accustomed to civility on this board. Unfortunately, this particular thread seems to have headed south.
Deja Vu and kimg1453 like this.
fxrh is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #92 of 157 Old 07-11-2014, 03:07 AM
AVS Special Member
 
cakefoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Phoenix
Posts: 1,837
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 34 Post(s)
Liked: 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by fxrh View Post
Your negative feedback on the JVC converter was a third party testimonial from people I've never heard of. Oops, let me amend that. Maybe I have heard of them but don't realize it because you didn't identify any of them.
The reviews came from High Def Digest and Blu-ray.com.

Quote:
Originally Posted by fxrh View Post
By the way, I'm still scratching my bald head about the point of those comments since nobody here is taking up for the JVC converter. How was that relevant?
The Teranex is marketed at the same people as the JVC-- a middleman tool for content production companies to process the early conversion before sculpting the rest by hand.

Quote:
Originally Posted by fxrh View Post
With respect to your frustration in hearing no negatives, in post #50 of this thread Deja Vu lists both Pros and Cons of the Teranex.

Best 2d to 3d converter boxes
He doesn't really say anything negative about the 3D other than that it stays inside the screen.

Quote:
Originally Posted by fxrh View Post
you would have a stronger case if you could relate your own negative experiences with the product instead of rejecting the positive impressions of those who have the sheer gall to base their judgments on their use of the product.
The problem is that these positive impressions lack any detail whatsoever. If I had the only copy of Avatar in existence and said, "It's the best movie I've ever seen," that sounds a bit vague, no? How and why is it the best movie ever? I refuse to answer that. But next time you're in the area, feel free to come see it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by fxrh View Post
You say you are simply asking questions. You said in post #73 that there's no way the Teranex can live up to your quality standards. That's not a question. That's your answer.
I asked about the Lion King screenshot, how accurate the Teranex would get each layer, and someone who has never seen the Teranex defended it and told me that I was ridiculous for expecting that kind of accuracy from even a human postconversion.

And yet, here is a diagram from the behind-the-scenes of that movie's postconversion, showing the same shot being analyzed by the 3D artists:





So obviously there are some kneejerk reactions in defense of the Teranex to resist my attempts at a scientific critique, and instead of the people who own Teranexes responding, they let someone who has never seen one field my question, like it's ok to blindly defend the Teranex, but not ok to question it. Hmm, sounds pretty bad.

As humans we can intelligently decipher every layer in that image, but a computer cannot. The other thing a computer can't do is see background elements slightly to the left and right sides of foreground objects. This is one of the strongest depth cues I rely on when watching 3D, and it's one of the hardest things 3D postconversion artists had to learn to do after the big post-Avatar gold rush in mid-2011.

Last edited by cakefoo; 07-11-2014 at 03:11 AM.
cakefoo is offline  
post #93 of 157 Old 07-11-2014, 07:07 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Deja Vu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: great white north
Posts: 4,530
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 186 Post(s)
Liked: 172
Quote:
Originally Posted by cakefoo View Post
Here's an offscreen pic of the Teranex in action, vertical misalignment everywhere. And you can't say it's because it's a moving shot- the abc logo is misaligned too.



I've shot and edited and aligned my own 3D for a couple years. That amount of vertical misalignment would ruin the clarity of the 3D and give me a headache.
These circular debates that go back and forth are pointless and take us nowhere. All I can say is that the Teranex actually works -- for what it's worth it is head and shoulders better than any of the other converters I have tried. It provides extremely convincing and very detailed 3D from 2D sources. It does allow for adjustment of intensity (alignment) and depth to allow one to customize the 3D image to his or her liking. With the settings maxed out I did find some eye strain; however, judiciously employed these setting are very helpful and very effective.

I enjoy this hobby but not the ensuing arguments over whether or not a product does what is claimed. What I may like someone else may not and I don't have a problem with that. It's a shame this particular product is relatively expensive. I would like to see the conversion part incorporated into a much cheaper product so that more of you could evaluate it and potentially enjoy what it has to offer. Hopefully in the not to distant future this becomes a reality.

My original intention was to point out to those interested in 2D to 3D conversion that this product is available and my thoughts about it. I don't make a living promoting Black Magic and or other products and I don't have the technical savvy to properly defend this product, nor do I believe it's my place to do so. The best I can offer is to suggest that those interested negotiate an arrangement with a seller for a trial period to evaluate it, as I did. There's nothing like hands on -- seeing is believing.

Just as a note -- I didn't start this thread. I may have somewhat hijacked it and my apologizes to the OP.

P.S. If you watch the video I posted earlier on this thread you'll note that Cineramax in his comments refers to the JVC converter and he notes what he saw as the main difference between it and the Teranex.

Last edited by Deja Vu; 07-11-2014 at 07:22 AM.
Deja Vu is offline  
post #94 of 157 Old 07-11-2014, 10:21 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Planet Boston, source of the spice, Melange.
Posts: 20,285
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 455 Post(s)
Liked: 408
Quote:
Originally Posted by cakefoo View Post
Here's an offscreen pic of the Teranex in action, vertical misalignment everywhere. And you can't say it's because it's a moving shot- the abc logo is misaligned too.



I've shot and edited and aligned my own 3D for a couple years. That amount of vertical misalignment would ruin the clarity of the 3D and give me a headache.
Cakefoo, it's time to give it a rest.

You're relying on a cell phone pic pointed in the general direction of a TV (slightly off-axis) to judge the device's vertical alignment?

C'mon, that's just dumb. There's really no other word for it. Your argument in this post is dumb. You've got to recognize that.

Then you're asking someone to take photos through the individual left and right lenses of a pair of 3D glasses. How the hell do you intend to get them 100% perfectly aligned as they would really appear when wearing the glasses yourself? You're requiring someone to position the camera at the exact correct position for each lens, to the millimeter, of the distance between your human eyes. If you believe that's feasible, the only person you're fooling is yourself.

I am not trying to promote the Teranex. I have not used the Teranex. I have no opinion about the Teranex. I am interested in trying one for myself, but (like you) do not intend to spend $4,000 to do that.

You demand "proof" of the Teranex's 3D conversion quality. If you're that adamant, then find a way to test-drive one yourself. Find someone in your vicinity who has one and will let you come to their house and view it.

In the meantime, what we have are testimonials from owners. You've heard Deja Vu's testimonial. I'm not saying that you need to take one man's word as gospel, but you've decided to completely discredit his opinion for reasons that seem arbitrary to the rest of us.

You're clearly fishing for someone to voice a negative opinion about the product to contradict Deja Vu's. Why are you so desperate to prove that this product can't possibly be any good?

As you well know, opinions about 3D quality (whether native or conversion) are subjective. What Deja Vu considers great 3D you may consider crap, or vice versa. I know a lot of people who swear that Tron Legacy was the greatest use of 3D they've ever seen, and I thought the 3D in that movie was f'ing useless, in the rare few instances where the image exhibited any 3D depth at all (which is hardly ever).

You will not be satisfied listening to what anyone says about this product, unless they tell you what you want to hear. So what's the use of pissing all over another member's honestly voiced opinion? If you don't trust him, find a way to sample the product yourself, or just move on with your life and ignore all this talk about the Teranex.
Deja Vu, kimg1453 and CARTmen like this.

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 #95 of 157 Old 07-11-2014, 12:06 PM
AVS Special Member
 
cakefoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Phoenix
Posts: 1,837
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 34 Post(s)
Liked: 32
It's been a long time since I last searched, but here's a Teranex demo, so clearly there is the capability to share the feed online without the need to track down the device in person as if we're in the 1800's.


From this particular demo, it looks very conservative: no roundness, no layers, it just re-projects the whole image onto one plane in the distance.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post
Cakefoo, it's time to give it a rest.

You're relying on a cell phone pic pointed in the general direction of a TV (slightly off-axis) to judge the device's vertical alignment?

C'mon, that's just dumb. There's really no other word for it. Your argument in this post is dumb. You've got to recognize that.
You're setting a very bad tone with this choice of wording. I've shot and edited and manually aligned video for multiple years, so I'm familiar with what misaligned 3D looks like, with and without glasses, from all angles of the room. All you need to do is look at how the letters a, b and c align, to get an proper vertical trend to compare the second abc's true vertical disparity.

Left: Teranex. Right: Photoshop



I could do the same with other elements, but I think I've made my point.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post
Then you're asking someone to take photos through the individual left and right lenses of a pair of 3D glasses. How the hell do you intend to get them 100% perfectly aligned as they would really appear when wearing the glasses yourself? You're requiring someone to position the camera at the exact correct position for each lens, to the millimeter, of the distance between your human eyes. If you believe that's feasible, the only person you're fooling is yourself.
Actually, to film offscreen, you just need to set a camera on a tripod, pause the content and take a picture with the left eyeglass in front of the camera, then the right. You can then use StereoPhoto Maker to ensure proper geometric alignment and to create an MPO. I'd be willing to assume that responsibility since there's a small learning curve. I just need the separate left and right images.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post
In the meantime, what we have are testimonials from owners. You've heard Deja Vu's testimonial. I'm not saying that you need to take one man's word as gospel, but you've decided to completely discredit his opinion for reasons that seem arbitrary to the rest of us.
How is the Lion King screenshot "arbitrary?" Everyone understands the concept of multiple layers of depth there. The fact it was brushed off so cocky is telling: Teranex is nowhere close to a match for native stereoscopic 3D content.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post
You're clearly fishing for someone to voice a negative opinion about the product to contradict Deja Vu's. Why are you so desperate to prove that this product can't possibly be any good?
I let people enjoy whatever they want to. But we are in a SCIENTIFIC DISCUSSION BOARD, so both sides of each coin need to be examined. We are not a single harmonious hivemind.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post
As you well know, opinions about 3D quality (whether native or conversion) are subjective. What Deja Vu considers great 3D you may consider crap, or vice versa. I know a lot of people who swear that Tron Legacy was the greatest use of 3D they've ever seen, and I thought the 3D in that movie was f'ing useless, in the rare few instances where the image exhibited any 3D depth at all (which is hardly ever).
Yes, and some people like their TV's autoconversion, whereas I completely detest it as I favor seeing 3D that actually somewhat properly conveys proper stereopsis, convergence, occlusion, parallax and other natural depth cues that don't conflict. So you at least acknowledge that it's possible that I will hate the Teranex when I finally see a thorough demonstration, and it's possible that my low expectations are correctly set. Now it's just a matter of asking questions, and seeing if someone is qualified to answer them (apparently not) or upload samples (apparently not) or be in the Phoenix area (apparently not).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post
You will not be satisfied listening to what anyone says about this product, unless they tell you what you want to hear.
What I want to hear is objective analysis of the technical accuracies and inaccuracies. Despite what some of you may think, having a fat enough wallet to burn $4K on a processor does not qualify one as an expert on the matter. It merely means they can afford to observe, but observing in-depth is something that requires further knowledge on 3D as a whole.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post
So what's the use of pissing all over another member's honestly voiced opinion? If you don't trust him, find a way to sample the product yourself, or just move on with your life and ignore all this talk about the Teranex.
He's free to voice his opinion, just as I'm free to interview him to seek technical answers for the benefit of everyone else. It's all about having a balanced perspective. Skepticism is a GOOD thing. It's science. And I find it crazy talk to suggest that that doesn't belong on this board.
MLXXX likes this.

Last edited by cakefoo; 07-11-2014 at 12:11 PM.
cakefoo is offline  
post #96 of 157 Old 07-11-2014, 01:30 PM
Member
 
kimg1453's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 124
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 20 Post(s)
Liked: 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by cakefoo View Post
It's been a long time since I last searched, but here's a Teranex demo, so clearly there is the capability to share the feed online without the need to track down the device in person as if we're in the 1800's.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPpw-oIqS1c

From this particular demo, it looks very conservative: no roundness, no layers, it just re-projects the whole image onto one plane in the distance.

You're setting a very bad tone with this choice of wording. I've shot and edited and manually aligned video for multiple years, so I'm familiar with what misaligned 3D looks like, with and without glasses, from all angles of the room. All you need to do is look at how the letters a, b and c align, to get an proper vertical trend to compare the second abc's true vertical disparity.

Left: Teranex. Right: Photoshop



I could do the same with other elements, but I think I've made my point.

Actually, to film offscreen, you just need to set a camera on a tripod, pause the content and take a picture with the left eyeglass in front of the camera, then the right. You can then use StereoPhoto Maker to ensure proper geometric alignment and to create an MPO. I'd be willing to assume that responsibility since there's a small learning curve. I just need the separate left and right images.

How is the Lion King screenshot "arbitrary?" Everyone understands the concept of multiple layers of depth there. The fact it was brushed off so cocky is telling: Teranex is nowhere close to a match for native stereoscopic 3D content.

I let people enjoy whatever they want to. But we are in a SCIENTIFIC DISCUSSION BOARD, so both sides of each coin need to be examined. We are not a single harmonious hivemind.

Yes, and some people like their TV's autoconversion, whereas I completely detest it as I favor seeing 3D that actually somewhat properly conveys proper stereopsis, convergence, occlusion, parallax and other natural depth cues that don't conflict. So you at least acknowledge that it's possible that I will hate the Teranex when I finally see a thorough demonstration, and it's possible that my low expectations are correctly set. Now it's just a matter of asking questions, and seeing if someone is qualified to answer them (apparently not) or upload samples (apparently not) or be in the Phoenix area (apparently not).

What I want to hear is objective analysis of the technical accuracies and inaccuracies. Despite what some of you may think, having a fat enough wallet to burn $4K on a processor does not qualify one as an expert on the matter. It merely means they can afford to observe, but observing in-depth is something that requires further knowledge on 3D as a whole.

He's free to voice his opinion, just as I'm free to interview him to seek technical answers for the benefit of everyone else. It's all about having a balanced perspective. Skepticism is a GOOD thing. It's science. And I find it crazy talk to suggest that that doesn't belong on this board.
Cakefoo,

I'm not qualified to discuss the scientific merits of the Teranex, other than to say it just plan works. No, it's not producing a picture as good as Avatar or Gravity in they're studio produced 3D and I wouldn't have expected it to do that. What it does do is produce a great simulated 3D of my 2D material that I am extremely pleased with.

On one note: I will say your pictures are in conflict with what I see. In regards to the two pictures you are showing side by side, the one on the left you indicated came from the Teranex. The one on the right from Photoshop that you said is correct. The Photoshop picture is in fact what I see on my screen without the 3D glasses on. So whatever vertical alignment problems you say it produces just isn't panning out. Sorry.

Again, I'm just an end user and am not trying to stir the pot, nor am I an elitist, etc. It took me years to save up enough to have my dream and a few additional pieces such as this product. I'm just an average fellow who loves video/audio and my movies. I respect others opinions even though I might not always agree and thoroughly enjoy this Forum, scientific, layman, or otherwise.

I consider you and Deja Vu, as well as many others on this Forum, very knowledgeable people who have the right to express yourselves as I do. Maybe it just needs to be accepted that it hard to cover all the ground on the Teranex without a professional review from someone who could weigh in with more critical information, etc. I'm certainly not that person. Ha!

Best to all on their quests
kimg1453 is offline  
post #97 of 157 Old 07-11-2014, 01:40 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Planet Boston, source of the spice, Melange.
Posts: 20,285
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 455 Post(s)
Liked: 408
Cakefoo, give us all a break, OK? As much as you may talk about wanting scientific analysis of the Teranex, it's clear that what you really want is to hear someone trash-talk it, in order to validate your own preconceived expectations. Real science involves observation, and you've outright stated that you have no intention of observing the product.

Having people take snapshots of their TV screen through glasses lenses, which you will artificially manipulate to align after the fact, is not good science. It's a dubious kludge at best, and outright fraudulent at worst. (I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that your intention is the former.)

When has taking a digital pic of a TV screen, much less a digital pic of a TV screen seen through a pair of tinted glasses, ever been a valid scientific method of determining the quality of the image on the screen? Never. It has never been a valid method.

You're skeptical of the Teranex. You doubt that it will meet your standards for 3D. We get that. You are entitled to that skepticism. And after having seen the processor, you are entitled to dislike it as vehemently as you want. But in the meantime, all you're doing is berating someone for trying to give his own opinion of it, which is more informed with direct experience than yours.

Again, I have no agenda here to promote the Teranex. Maybe I'll think it's great and maybe I'll think it's garbage. I'm just tired of listening to you derail this thread with such nonsense as demanding that people take photos of their TV screens to accommodate your anti-Teranex crusade. It's not scientific. It doesn't contribute to useful discourse on this forum. It's just tiring.
kimg1453 likes this.

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 #98 of 157 Old 07-11-2014, 02:01 PM
AVS Special Member
 
cakefoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Phoenix
Posts: 1,837
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 34 Post(s)
Liked: 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by kimg1453 View Post
Cakefoo,

I'm not qualified to discuss the scientific merits of the Teranex, other than to say it just plan works. No, it's not producing a picture as good as Avatar or Gravity in they're studio produced 3D and I wouldn't have expected it to do that. What it does do is produce a great simulated 3D of my 2D material that I am extremely pleased with.
I want people to enjoy it and talk about it, but some people are not very careful with what they say. Some of the claims out there do sound a bit hard to believe, and do compare the Teranex to native. Cineramax has, and Deja Vu a little as well. The main thing that I look for is a proper separation of foreground, middleground and background objects, and the Lion King shot is a perfect example. In the native 3D version I can jump back and forth between all the layers with my eye muscles because as humans we have many depth cues and references that instinctively clue us in to how far away things are, even before we utilize our binocular vision. Cineramax has gone so far as to claim that the Teranex handles scenes with multiple layers with 100% accuracy, and that is extremely hard to believe because computers are not nearly as intelligent as we humans when dealing with abstract forms of visuals like 2D photography. While we see elephants and giraffes and can recall their scale based on previous memories, a computer converter doesn't even know what animal it is.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kimg1453 View Post
On one note: I will say your pictures are in conflict with what I see. In regards to the two pictures you are showing side by side, the one on the left you indicated came from the Teranex. The one on the right from Photoshop that you said is correct. The Photoshop picture is in fact what I see on my screen without the 3D glasses on. So whatever vertical alignment problems you say it produces just isn't panning out. Sorry.
Hmm, Cineramax posted that picture in the early days. There were probably a dozen or more photos he shared that all had the same spherical misalignments in the corners. Maybe it was on a more aggressive conversion mode, or maybe BlackMagic removed it altogether by now.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kimg1453 View Post
Again, I'm just an end user and am not trying to stir the pot, nor am I an elitist, etc. It took me years to save up enough to have my dream and a few additional pieces such as this product. I'm just an average fellow who loves video/audio and my movies. I respect others opinions even though I might not always agree and thoroughly enjoy this Forum, scientific, layman, or otherwise.
I also enjoy the forum as well as your participation kmg. Thankyou.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kimg1453 View Post
I consider you and Deja Vu, as well as many others on this Forum, very knowledgeable people who have the right to express yourselves as I do. Maybe it just needs to be accepted that it hard to cover all the ground on the Teranex without a professional review from someone who could weigh in with more critical information, etc. I'm certainly not that person. Ha!

Best to all on their quests
Thanks, and best wishes to you.
cakefoo is offline  
post #99 of 157 Old 07-11-2014, 02:15 PM
AVS Special Member
 
cakefoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Phoenix
Posts: 1,837
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 34 Post(s)
Liked: 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post
Having people take snapshots of their TV screen through glasses lenses, which you will artificially manipulate to align after the fact, is not good science. It's a dubious kludge at best, and outright fraudulent at worst. (I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that your intention is the former.)

When has taking a digital pic of a TV screen, much less a digital pic of a TV screen seen through a pair of tinted glasses, ever been a valid scientific method of determining the quality of the image on the screen? Never. It has never been a valid method.
I've done it with video! Stills are even more foolproof to align properly.

Don Landis likes this.
cakefoo is offline  
post #100 of 157 Old 07-11-2014, 02:24 PM
Advanced Member
 
CinemaAndy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Texas
Posts: 551
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 333 Post(s)
Liked: 77
I'm not much on the post conversion for 2D to 3D. It never looks right to me. I prefer content filmed in 3D(Avatar, Hobbit, etc), as that always looks right.
CinemaAndy is offline  
post #101 of 157 Old 07-11-2014, 08:56 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Jedi2016's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,461
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 19 Post(s)
Liked: 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by cakefoo View Post
Well, I go with what I see with my own eyes. If this is your idea of amazing 3D, you've got really low standards, because that is ****. And that's a sample video posted by Teranex themselves.

What I see is a system that does a fair job at filling in the gaps created by shifting the 3D plane, which is really nothing to shout about these days. I also see a system that doesn't know it's ass from a hole in the ground as far as determining what's supposed to be in front versus what's supposed to be behind. No computer can know that, no matter how many fancy algorithms you throw at it. There's a reason these things are done by hand in Hollywood, and why they'll never automate it.

Welcome to Rivendell, Mister Anderson.
Jedi2016 is offline  
post #102 of 157 Old 07-12-2014, 06:24 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Deja Vu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: great white north
Posts: 4,530
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 186 Post(s)
Liked: 172
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jedi2016 View Post
Well, I go with what I see with my own eyes. If this is your idea of amazing 3D, you've got really low standards, because that is ****. And that's a sample video posted by Teranex themselves.

What I see is a system that does a fair job at filling in the gaps created by shifting the 3D plane, which is really nothing to shout about these days. I also see a system that doesn't know it's ass from a hole in the ground as far as determining what's supposed to be in front versus what's supposed to be behind. No computer can know that, no matter how many fancy algorithms you throw at it. There's a reason these things are done by hand in Hollywood, and why they'll never automate it.
You guys are right. I haven't got a clue what I'm talking about and my standards are low to the extreme. My credibility is zero and it's time to move on to something else. Have a nice day. I'm so frigging dumb that I'm ordering another Teranex for my main screening room. Duh! How dumb can one person be? More money than brains is the only rational explanation.
Deja Vu is offline  
post #103 of 157 Old 07-12-2014, 09:34 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Jedi2016's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,461
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 19 Post(s)
Liked: 49
You want to spend your money, knock yourself out. But don't get bent out of shape when we don't all line up behind you (which is what you've been doing, if you weren't aware of it).

Welcome to Rivendell, Mister Anderson.
Jedi2016 is offline  
post #104 of 157 Old 07-12-2014, 10:53 PM
Member
 
fxrh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 185
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 15 Post(s)
Liked: 28
I've read the views of those who have used the Teranex and liked it. I've read the views of those who haven't used the Teranex and don't like it. But...

Is there anybody out there who has used this product and not liked it?

"These are lost, drunken men who don't know where they find themselves and don't care. And these are lost, drunken men who don't know where they find themselves but do care. And these are lost men who aren't drunk but don't care."

PS -- It's so refreshing to escape the avalanche of postings elsewhere that describe 3D as a stupid gimmick and a waste of money. It's so much more enjoyable reading the postings of those who love 3D describing 2D-to-3D real-time conversion as a stupid gimmick and a waste of money.
fxrh is offline  
post #105 of 157 Old 07-13-2014, 01:18 AM
AVS Special Member
 
cakefoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Phoenix
Posts: 1,837
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 34 Post(s)
Liked: 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by fxrh View Post
I've read the views of those who have used the Teranex and liked it. I've read the views of those who haven't used the Teranex and don't like it. But...

Is there anybody out there who has used this product and not liked it?
First of all, I can't find impressions outside of AVS. Amazon reviews? None. BHPhoto reviews? None. Articles on Google? None. All the reviews come from a few AVS members who may be home theater aficionados, but are not known for their 3D expertise. And really, the latter is who you really need to endorse a product in order to seem credible.
cakefoo is offline  
post #106 of 157 Old 07-13-2014, 03:07 AM
Member
 
fxrh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 185
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 15 Post(s)
Liked: 28
This "scientific" discussion reminds me of Chico Marx's famous (and ungrammatical) line in DUCK SOUP: "Well, who you gonna believe, me or your own eyes?"

I don't know who around here is known for 3D expertise and who isn't, but at this point I have a firm grasp of who has used the product and who hasn't. In order to seem credible in my book, as I said earlier, you have to use the product. No test drive, no car.

Last edited by fxrh; 07-13-2014 at 03:11 AM.
fxrh is offline  
post #107 of 157 Old 07-13-2014, 03:17 AM
Member
 
fxrh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 185
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 15 Post(s)
Liked: 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jedi2016 View Post
You want to spend your money, knock yourself out. But don't get bent out of shape when we don't all line up behind you (which is what you've been doing, if you weren't aware of it).
Maybe, just maybe, Deja Vu, who has put the Teranex through its paces, is tired of being told that he has made a foolish investment by people who haven't even seen the thing in action. I'm still trying to figure out the science part of this discussion. Maybe we can get Stephen Hawking's opinion.

Last edited by fxrh; 07-13-2014 at 03:44 AM.
fxrh is offline  
post #108 of 157 Old 07-13-2014, 03:40 AM
Member
 
fxrh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 185
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 15 Post(s)
Liked: 28
I suspect that many of us like some of our toys regardless of what other people think. I like my PowerDVD Ultra 13 converter despite the fact that Deja Vu has pointed out its weaknesses elsewhere. Despite his criticisms, I respect the fact that they are based on -- get this -- his actually using the product. His negatives, as well as his positives, may not be "science," and I might disagree with them, but they are informed opinions.

I know for a fact that Deja Vu doesn't have the KanexPro CubeUp converter, which I have and like, because he mentioned it to me in a private message a while back. Who is in a better position to have an informed opinion on the CubeUp? Deja Vu or me?

What 3D credentials does one need in order to be respected around these here parts?

Last edited by fxrh; 07-13-2014 at 03:47 AM.
fxrh is offline  
post #109 of 157 Old 07-13-2014, 03:56 AM
Senior Member
 
Marc Wielage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Hollywood, USA
Posts: 458
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 234 Post(s)
Liked: 125
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomtastic View Post
What they need to do is make an all in one, portable beam splitter rig camera. I can visualize this in my head. Shorter, adjustable lenses for a more compact unit, one vertical from the bottom and one horizontal faces forward like a normal camera. A 3"x4" 45 deg. mirror is placed in a plastic housing at the front. The main lens would have horizontal adjustment and depending on the size of the mirror, maybe 3 inches of I.A. adjustment and motorized with x,y,z adjustments for toe in and convergence settings. It wouldn't have to be 4k right now, just HD to keep the cost down plus more compact using smaller sensor lenses. A portable beam splitter camera would be what I would buy as my next 3D rig. Too bad it doesn't exist.
Here you go:



But not cheap. And dual Imax 4K sensors mean a ton of data, depending on format. Not practical for most people. The integrated lens assembly they went to is an interesting idea; lens changes on the Pace 3D system take like 15 minutes, which is an eternity on a set. If you can do it in 3-4 minutes and have zero parallex alignment problems, it saves a bunch of time.
Marc Wielage is offline  
post #110 of 157 Old 07-13-2014, 07:52 AM
AVS Club Gold
 
Don Landis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 11,164
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 278 Post(s)
Liked: 156
"Actually, to film offscreen, you just need to set a camera on a tripod, pause the content and take a picture with the left eyeglass in front of the camera, then the right. You can then use StereoPhoto Maker to ensure proper geometric alignment and to create an MPO. I'd be willing to assume that responsibility since there's a small learning curve. I just need the separate left and right images."

Cakefoo- It's actually much easier than that. I've been doing it for some time now but it takes a special polarized filter on the camera to shoot the 3D TV and preserve the 3D image exactly as it is viewed. This works for Passive 3D TV's



If you want specific instructions on how to do this, I'd be happy to supply the details. It's easy.

This method also works for active TV's but the cost and difficulty is on a higher level. Here you have to fabricate a special lens pair that uses active glass on both left and right cameras. Much more difficult but I've done it and it works!


"I've done it with video! Stills are even more foolproof to align properly."

Just caught your test success. Looks very good. Not sure if you used your original method but that did seem complicated to execute in a public environment like a store or trade show. My approach can be set up in seconds and hand held. Anyway, Nice job, James.

Last edited by Don Landis; 07-13-2014 at 08:28 AM.
Don Landis is offline  
post #111 of 157 Old 07-13-2014, 10:48 AM
AVS Special Member
 
cakefoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Phoenix
Posts: 1,837
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 34 Post(s)
Liked: 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by fxrh View Post
I don't know who around here is known for 3D expertise and who isn't, but at this point I have a firm grasp of who has used the product and who hasn't. In order to seem credible in my book, as I said earlier, you have to use the product. No test drive, no car.
It's a well known fact that some people are born with different grades of depth perception than others. Some can't see 3DTV stereoscopy (3D on TV, theater, etc), and some can't see 3D even in the real world. The fact that fans of realtime 3D converters exist outside the Teranex is evidence that there are fans of things that I consider to be a complete scam. I wouldn't consider fans of those devices to be credible on 3D topics. It's like Justin Bieber fans being credible on the topic of artistic integrity in music, or fans of the movie Transformers being credible on the topic of film. Now that's not to say that liking those things completely destroys one's credibility, but if it's the only thing I've known them to like, then I'm going to need more convincing.

The Teranex might be better than previous autoconverters, but based on Teranex's own Youtube demo, the only thing it does convincingly is simulate a curved 2D IMAX screen.
cakefoo is offline  
post #112 of 157 Old 07-13-2014, 10:55 AM
AVS Special Member
 
cakefoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Phoenix
Posts: 1,837
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 34 Post(s)
Liked: 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by fxrh View Post
Maybe, just maybe, Deja Vu, who has put the Teranex through its paces, is tired of being told that he has made a foolish investment by people who haven't even seen the thing in action. I'm still trying to figure out the science part of this discussion. Maybe we can get Stephen Hawking's opinion.
Maybe some of us who can't afford or can't find a Teranex are tired of hearing, "It looks impressive!!!! WOW! Amazing!" and would prefer to hear specific details on how it works and how it looks, rather than simplified emotional reactions that sound like iPhone app reviews.
cakefoo is offline  
post #113 of 157 Old 07-13-2014, 11:11 AM
AVS Special Member
 
cakefoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Phoenix
Posts: 1,837
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 34 Post(s)
Liked: 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by fxrh View Post
I know for a fact that Deja Vu doesn't have the KanexPro CubeUp converter, which I have and like, because he mentioned it to me in a private message a while back. Who is in a better position to have an informed opinion on the CubeUp? Deja Vu or me?

What 3D credentials does one need in order to be respected around these here parts?
Teranex owners like Deja Vu and Cineramax claim that it actually looks better than some native 3D. Someone even said that it looks better than 70% of 3D Blu-rays.

So when they say something like that, I expect them to have a lot of knowledge on native 3D, since that's what they're comparing the Teranex to.
cakefoo is offline  
post #114 of 157 Old 07-13-2014, 11:43 AM
AVS Special Member
 
cakefoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Phoenix
Posts: 1,837
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 34 Post(s)
Liked: 32
People accuse me of wanting to hear that the Teranex sucks. This is wrong.

I just want to hear detailed impressions on specific stereoscopic depth cues that the Teranex renders.

Let me lead by example and describe my impressions of the Teranex demo in detail.


In this demo, the Teranex is applying a basic stereo window effect to the entire image, with the center of the image appearing deeper than the corners and sides. Foreground and backgrounds lack proper layer separation, and individual objects lack any shape whatsoever.

And now I'll move on to another 3D video, from a Michael Jackson show.


Now THAT is convincing 3D. I can see accurate depth and accurate layers, and individual objects have a distinct and realistic shape to them. It's hard to find anything wrong with this video at all, because it was either shot in 3D or postconverted with great attention to detail.
cakefoo is offline  
post #115 of 157 Old 07-13-2014, 12:12 PM
Advanced Member
 
dan webster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: western mass.
Posts: 842
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 50 Post(s)
Liked: 30
I am a big 3d fan and can appreciate the difference between great 3d and all other 3d. I have owned 6 3d projectors and the 2d to 3d conversion feature was just about useless in all but one. When Deja Vu says the Mitsubishi 8000 projector he has has really good conversion but the Teranex is even better You should believe him. I briefly owned a Mitsubishi 7900 and loved the 3d image. I never even tried the built in conversion because as we all know they all suck. When i installled the 7900 in my sons new theater i decided to try the conversion just for laughs ( i never even tried in during the month is was using it ) We had been watching Pacific Rim in 3d and decided to put the 2d version in and use the converter. Needless to say we were both suprised how good it was. No,it was not as good as the real 3d but it was the first time i have seen a 2d to 3d converter that i would actually use to watch a whole movie. It was very impressive at any price but considering i paid $695 for the projector i felt like i hit the jackpot. If the Teranex is even better than the mitsubishi ( if Deja Vu says it i am sure it is true) Than it must be a great converter. With that being said it is out of my price range but i can appreciate the fact that someone who loves 3d and has the extra cash may want to buy one. My newest projector is a JVC 4910 and it does really good 3d, not quite as clean as the mitsubishi but i am happy with it. The 2d to 3d converter in the JVC is just like all the others i have seen except the mitsubishi. IT sucks.
Deja Vu likes this.

Dan Webster
Never stop upgrading!

Updated Theater Pictures

dan webster is offline  
post #116 of 157 Old 07-13-2014, 12:16 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Jedi2016's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,461
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 19 Post(s)
Liked: 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by cakefoo View Post
I just want to hear detailed impressions on specific stereoscopic depth cues that the Teranex renders.

Let me lead by example and describe my impressions of the Teranex demo in detail.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPpw-oIqS1c

In this demo, the Teranex is applying a basic stereo window effect to the entire image, with the center of the image appearing deeper than the corners and sides. Foreground and backgrounds lack proper layer separation, and individual objects lack any shape whatsoever.
This.

All I asked is to see what the output looked like, and everyone jumped down my throat like I was some sort of hater. I'm not dropping that kind of cheddar without seeing exactly what the thing is capable of. Yes, we all buy hardware based mostly on reviews. But I researched my new 5.1 receiver for over a week before spending the money, and that was less than $200. That does not equate to spending $4,000 on something based solely on reviews. When I bought my TV, I researched back and forth for months before making a decision, including several visits to the store to check out the tech first-hand and some pretty ridiculous amount of in-depth research in regards to exactly how the technology worked, way beyond what 99% of buyers would even consider, much less actually pursue.

And yet I come to this thread, ask a simple question, and immediately get torn into for questioning the worth of apparently the greatest 3D rendering technology known to mankind. Seriously... what the f**k? All I asked was to see first hand what it's capable of. And what I've seen is not that impressive to me. Am I wrong? On a board that agrees pretty much unanimously that 3D is a highly subjective experience that we all have different preferences for?

If you want to say that something is amazing, you've got to back it up with more than just words. SHOW ME. Granted, something like an audio receiver or a set of headphones can be nigh impossible to demonstrate online, but 3D video isn't. Not only can I view it natively on my computer monitor and my television, I can also take it into an editor and rip it apart to see what's happening.

So, based on what I see with my own eyes, let me ask these two questions of you, Deja Vu. Plain English, and they only require a yes or no answer:

1) Do you consider that video that Cakefoo posted, which is an official video from Teranex themselves, to be a high-quality conversion of 2D>3D content?

2) Is that video, which can be easily duplicated if you have Planet Earth, to be representative of the overall quality of the Teranex system?

Welcome to Rivendell, Mister Anderson.
Jedi2016 is offline  
post #117 of 157 Old 07-13-2014, 01:36 PM
AVS Club Gold
 
Don Landis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 11,164
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 278 Post(s)
Liked: 156
To my eyes, the Teranex demo about from the Crocodiles to the end is flat as a pancake. The opening shot is interesting as I did see some solid rendering of the boulders in the riverbed but as we went over the edge the extreme depth looked just like Cakefoo described as the center was pushed back and the edges were near center of the screen plane. And as Deja Vu told me the Teranex fails on all 3D that should be between me and the screen plane. It appears that much of the 2D - 3D rendering in the sample video flattens out, especially the wide shots.

I don't understand why anyone needs to be upset one way or another. If you like the look of the Teranex then have fun with it. Don't be offended if others want more for their money. From what I saw in the Teranex video, the best of it's 3D effects, like that opening shot of the riverbed, is what I see now on my Sony 90ES projector. I don't bother to use that either because it also fails in half the 3D content in front of the screen plane.
Don Landis is offline  
post #118 of 157 Old 07-13-2014, 02:30 PM
AVS Special Member
 
cakefoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Phoenix
Posts: 1,837
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 34 Post(s)
Liked: 32
Yeah, I'm not trying to piss in anyone's Cheerios here. It's just that the glowingly positive impressions make me want to inquire what people are seeing. I feel that if someone can't express what they're seeing, they should tone down their feedback so as not to create an empty sense of hype.

The Youtube sample is completely muted- I thought the Teranex was supposed to model things accurately. Cineramax has specifically said that ALL objects onscreen that occlude other objects were rendered properly in his experience, but in this demo it doesn't even try to do layers.
cakefoo is offline  
post #119 of 157 Old 07-13-2014, 02:53 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Deja Vu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: great white north
Posts: 4,530
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 186 Post(s)
Liked: 172
Cakefoo said in post #113 : "Teranex owners like Deja Vu and Cineramax claim that it actually looks better than some native 3D. Someone even said that it looks better than 70% of 3D Blu-rays."

Here's what I actually said in post #66 : "I still prefer native 3D (by a surprisingly slim margin) to the Teranex's conversion. With that being said the Teranex does an outstanding job converting the 2D version of a 3D movie to 3D."

I'll let the members of this forum be the judge of my credibility.

My intention when posting about the Teranex was to inform members here that I felt that there was a viable option available to them for real time 2D to 3D conversion that was a substantial improvement over some other products I had actually bought and tried. For this I have been attacked and my intentions for posting challenged. It was not my intention to convince anyone here to purchase the Teranex sight unseen and I have stated that many times throughout this thread. I believe the Teranex to be an exceptional 2D to 3D real time processor that will extend one's library of 2D material to encompass the 3D world. Why this should meet with the kind of hostility and mean-spiritness under the guise of scientific investigation as displayed here is beyond me. I have been a member of this forum for fifteen years and have never before been misquoted and held in such contempt for advancing what is just my honest opinion. I cannot prove how good this processor is without demonstrating it -- so anyone who actually wants to see this processor in action can send me a PM and if you live in the area or want to make the trip you're welcome to see it for yourself. That's the best I can do.

Last edited by Deja Vu; 07-13-2014 at 03:31 PM.
Deja Vu is offline  
post #120 of 157 Old 07-13-2014, 03:07 PM
Member
 
fxrh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 185
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 15 Post(s)
Liked: 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by cakefoo View Post
Maybe some of us who can't afford or can't find a Teranex are tired of hearing, "It looks impressive!!!! WOW! Amazing!" and would prefer to hear specific details on how it works and how it looks, rather than simplified emotional reactions that sound like iPhone app reviews.
You've now completely discredited your powers of objective evaluation and fair judgment in my book.

I haven't seen ANY review on this thread that says anything remotely as simplistic as your quotation above. For example, if you read through Deja Vu's posts, they aren't gushing fanboy remarks like the one you've invented here. Just take post #10 as an example.

You've made it very clear in your earlier posts that you DESPISE the 2D-to-3D converters you are familiar with (which ones?). Given that attitude, why should your opinion be trusted more than the informed opinions of those who have seen the current version of this product in actual use with their own eyes?

Again, all this talk of "science" strikes me as a bit much. I have 100 3D Blu-rays. Many are native 3D; many are conversions. In terms of 3D quality, I think they are all over the map. I've seen some conversions that struck me as being more impressive than some native 3D movies. I would be surprised if there's anybody out there who would automatically say that EVERY native 3D movie has better 3D than EVERY converted movie. But "science" tells me that native 3D can capture more planes of depth than most conversions. Well, I guess that settles it, right?

Passing judgment on the quality of a 2D-to-3D conversion that you haven't seen strikes me as being as scientific and as objective as passing judgment on the quality of a native 3D movie on the basis of watching it in 2D only.

I would be interested to hear your firsthand impressions of the latest version of the product. Anything else is less than credible.

PS -- If you don't want to spend $4K on this product, I understand. I'm in the same boat. I just know that this means I'm not in a position to evaluate the product fairly. I wish others would reach the same rather blindingly obvious conclusion.
Josh Z and kimg1453 like this.
fxrh is offline  
Reply 3D Content
Gear in this thread - Z100 by PriceGrabber.com

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