Should Studios Do 2D to 3D Conversions, Or Are On-Board 2D to 3D Converters Sufficient? - Page 5 - 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 #121 of 157 Old 07-13-2014, 02:30 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 Deja Vu View Post
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.
You said this too:

"However, I will say this -- from a natural 3D perspective the 3D produced by the Teranex is more realistic than any 3D in any 3D movie I've seen to date -- in other words it is closer to the day-to-day 3D world I see in real life. I'm now used to 3D as produced by the Teranex."

Whether you meant to or not, you're sending a mixed signal.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Deja Vu View Post
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 tired. For this I have been attacked and my intentions for posting challenged.
Your intentions seem to be to inform people of the positives, but never the negatives in detail. From reading your impressions, the Teranex is a miraculous device. Seeing the demo on Youtube though, the Teranex should only cost about $30, because bending the stereo window is nothing impressive. The demo backs my skepticism, and I was able to elaborate on the problems a few posts up. I wish a Teranex owner with more time with the device could touch on those criteria, because that would be truly informative, moreso than just talking 100% praise.

I'm not trying to make you feel bad. I understand you might not have a critical enough eye for this stuff. A lot of people who enjoy realtime conversions don't critique 3D in depth. That's why they can tolerate it without noticing the flaws. But for the OTHER people on this board, like myself, who can't help but notice what makes human binocular vision so wonderful, we find there to be an enormous gulf between realtime conversion and native 3D-- even the Teranex, based on that demo.

We'd like to participate in discussions like this one, where realtime conversion is presented as a possible solution for our old 2D films. My say on that matter is that realtime conversions are nowhere near good enough. Postconversion is the only possible solution, but only a select number of movies will benefit enough from it to justify the extra cost, and there are a limited number of consumers out there asking for it, so I just don't ever see it being a reality.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

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


Last edited by cakefoo; 07-13-2014 at 02:46 PM.
cakefoo is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #122 of 157 Old 07-13-2014, 03:28 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 fxrh View Post
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..
Post #10 is long-winded but it's simplistic in that it says nothing about how the Teranex shapes the image to produce a 3D effect.

"very, very close in 3D quality to studio 3D (native or converted)."
"accurate, natural looking, clean and deep"
"compares very favourably to the actual 3D image"


If I was giving impressions on what I saw of the Youtube demo, I would say that it produces an overall sinking into the screen effect but it feels like a flat image back there, with no foreground or background separation, and no roundness of the subjects on screen. The only thing 3D about it is the fact that the screen is pushed back so as to make my eyes focus on a plane other than the screen surface. That in itself is not enough to convince me I'm watching a stereoscopic 3D video.

Quote:
Originally Posted by fxrh View Post
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?
It's not an attitude though. It's just a common belief many people hold because we see in stereo all the time and have seen plenty of native 3D content, and realtime conversion looks nothing like that, it's a ripoff to us.

Quote:
Originally Posted by fxrh View Post
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?
Postconversion is technically pretty close to native now. But lighting, composition, camera movement, actor movement, set design etc are all things that can collectively tip the aesthetic scale, regardless if it's native or a postconversion. Postconversion is not an automatically bad thing like it once was, but that's because of better HUMAN decision making.

Quote:
Originally Posted by fxrh View Post
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.
If it walks like a duck... prove me wrong that it's not a duck! Tell me in what way the Teranex bends and molds the image realistically. If you can't elaborate, then I suspect something is wrong with your eyes or with your knowledge of 3D, and therefore you are not reliable.

Quote:
Originally Posted by fxrh View Post
I would be interested to hear your firsthand impressions of the latest version of the product. Anything else is less than credible.
Since I don't foresee that happening any time soon, I would be interested in hearing impressions from Teranex owners of the Youtube demo Teranex themselves posted. Is it inferior? In what ways would the current Teranex render the scene differently?

All you have to do is tell me what it looks like. Is that so hard?

Quote:
Originally Posted by fxrh View Post
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
I evaluated the video from the Teranex Youtube channel. Other than that, I'm not attempting to pass off my posts as evaluations of the product, but rather evaluations of the people who own it and yet seemingly can't describe what they're seeing. To me, if a Teranex owner can't put their finger on what they've been seeing stereoscopically over a long period with dozens of movies, but I can describe what I'm seeing from a Youtube demo, then clearly the former person is an unreliable source and requires education and/or training to better understand basic stereoscopic depth cues.

The main thing that gets me is the comparisons to native 3D. Once native 3D is brought up, it becomes a competition between realtime conversion and native, and how much you understand about native 3D depth cues will determine how big a gulf of difference you perceive there to be between the two. If someone can't describe in depth what the differences are, then they aren't reliable.

OWNING a device that upconverts material does NOT make someone an authority on the format it's being upconverted TO!


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

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


Last edited by cakefoo; 07-13-2014 at 03:39 PM.
cakefoo is offline  
post #123 of 157 Old 07-13-2014, 05:12 PM
Member
 
CARTmen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 174
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 26 Post(s)
Liked: 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jedi2016 View Post
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?
This are fair questions.
Could some of you guys who own a Teranex just tell us if the Teraxe's conversion looks like the one in the video?
CARTmen is offline  
post #124 of 157 Old 07-13-2014, 06:05 PM
Senior Member
 
Marc Wielage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Northridge, CA
Posts: 452
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 228 Post(s)
Liked: 118
Real 3D conversion done by VFX houses typically costs on the order of $100,000 per minute. Michael Bay commented that they had gotten estimates as low as $20,000/minute on Transformers 3, but he wryly observed there were three levels of conversion <paraphrasing>: horrible, bad, and barely acceptable. Even when you spend the $100,000/minute for top quality, you wind up having to send lots of it back to get redone. An average 120-minute film costs at least $10 million to convert to 3D, if you do it extremely well. And even then, it only works if the camera movement, editing, and production design are all specifically done with 3D in mind.

I'm not convinced that a $4000 box is going to do anything except provide a "3D effect" for images, not real 3D. To me, the effect is too slipshod and unpredictable to be anything more than a gimmick. I think you can make comparisons to those "stereoizing circuits" that claim to take mono and convert it to pseudostereo sound: It's different from mono, but not necessarily better. I think I'd rather just have the unadultered original and live with it, rather than try to screw around with it.
Marc Wielage is offline  
post #125 of 157 Old 07-13-2014, 07:20 PM
Member
 
fxrh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 183
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 15 Post(s)
Liked: 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by cakefoo View Post
Tell me in what way the Teranex bends and molds the image realistically. If you can't elaborate, then I suspect something is wrong with your eyes or with your knowledge of 3D, and therefore you are not reliable.
Tell me in what way your "scientific analysis" of a side-by-side format Youtube video posted two years ago trumps the comparison done between native 3D and converted 3D by Deja Vu using frame packing on a new device. If you can't elaborate, then I suspect something is wrong with your eyes or with your knowledge of 3D, and therefore you are not reliable.

Somewhere, if I recall correctly, you mentioned that you were pleased with the conversion of PACIFIC RIM. (So was I.) Did you have to read Cinefex magazine and learn all the technical details of how the conversion was done in order to come to that judgment? Or did you just like what you saw when you saw it? Or something in-between?

Test drive the car and then give us your impressions. Please.
kimg1453 likes this.

Last edited by fxrh; 07-14-2014 at 01:32 AM.
fxrh is offline  
post #126 of 157 Old 07-13-2014, 08:19 PM
Member
 
MLXXX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 179
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 22 Post(s)
Liked: 27
The ball is in the manufacturer/distributor's court if interested in sales. If it is the intention to market a 2D to 3D converter to consumers, consumers can reasonably expect sample videos to be readily accessible on the net.

The sample we have seen so far is a few years old and provides very little differentiation between different parts of the image. Examining individual frames, I can see that at the start of the video the boulders in the riverbed in the extreme foreground have less horizontal displacement [and curiously some vertical displacement], as between left and right, but almost the whole of each frame has been given a small, fixed, horizontal displacement. To my mind, this very conservative stereoscopic treatment does little to kindle enthusiasm. If the product has been improved since that video appeared, let the manufacturer/distributor provide updated demonstration video(s).
MLXXX is offline  
post #127 of 157 Old 07-13-2014, 08:27 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Jedi2016's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,439
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 17 Post(s)
Liked: 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by fxrh View Post
Tell me in what way your "scientific analysis" of a a side-by-side format Youtube video posted two years ago trumps the comparison done between native 3D and converted 3D by Deja Vu using frame packing on a new device.
I'm sure we'd all be happy to do so. If someone would just be kind enough to provide us with a video sourced from the Teranex. Format optional.

Welcome to Rivendell, Mister Anderson.
Jedi2016 is offline  
post #128 of 157 Old 07-13-2014, 09:03 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 fxrh View Post
Tell me in what way your "scientific analysis" of a a side-by-side format Youtube video posted two years ago trumps the comparison done between native 3D and converted 3D by Deja Vu using frame packing on a new device. If you can't elaborate, then I suspect something is wrong with your eyes or with your knowledge of 3D, and therefore you are not reliable.
My summary of my observations and findings from the $90K model Youtube demo was much much more detailed. The purpose was to show an example of the criteria I would like to hear a $4K Teranex model owner evaluate and share with us. I expect to hear someone talk a bit about the tricks it employs, and I doubt Deja Vu is that person.

By the way, the Youtube demo is from the exact same device Cineramax claimed in 2011 that if you watched LOTR on the Teranax "you could swear it was native 3d." So now I'm to believe that it IS as good as native 3D now?

Quote:
Originally Posted by fxrh View Post
Somewhere, if I recall correctly, you mentioned that you were pleased with the conversion of PACIFIC RIM. (So was I.) Did you have to read Cinefex magazine and learn all the technical details of how the conversion was done in order to come to that judgment? Or did you just like what you saw when you saw it? Or something in-between?
For instance, if I saw a shot of a leg getting strapped into the armor suits, I expect the leg to be on one plane, and the background to be on a deeper plane. And if we're close-up enough, I expect to be able to see not just layers, but also roundness/shape/dimensionality of that object itself- so if there's a car with headlights facing the camera, I expect the front of the car to be at one distance, and as we move to the back of the car it smoothly becomes deeper into the screen. If there's a bush, I expect to be able to focus on each individual leaf and be able to tell which ones are in front, in the center, and the back of the bush, as well as every layer in between. Pacific Rim did all that stuff. The problem with earlier conversions was that when they create the second I view, every object from the back shifts out from behind foreground objects, and the artists had to go in and paint in that imagery. Early conversions rushed this process a little, so there were often a bunch of little artifacts that looked out of place. Other than that, early conversions, as long as they took their time, were pretty convincing-- but they just didn't have very good compositions that made the elements on the screen worth oggling over. Pacific Rim was one movie where the imagery they captured on set was really cool and the compositions were 3D friendly, even though they didn't intentionally shoot it for 3D. Some cinematographers just have that 3D-friendly eye for composition by default. Guillermo Navarro is no exception.

Realtime converter evaluation is a bit different. They can't get that stuff right, and I don't have to see it to know that. It's just plain dumb logic anyone with a brain can know. What I DON'T know, is to what extent the Teranex trickery goes. But based on the Youtube demo, they just morph the shape of the screen into a dome shape, nothing more. Don't fault me, I'm just observing the data Teranex themselves found to be a positive representation of their $90,000 product. I'm not pretending like that's representative of their $4,000 one- I'm actually encouraging anyone with the newer model to PLEASE talk about the trickery in-depth. Unfortunately, nobody wants to, or can't.

And again, I don't know how much time you're willing to waste with me man, but please stop telling me that I need to see the Teranex in action myself. The kind of discussion I'm trying to have does not require me to experience it first-hand. I think you just take things too personally.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

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


Last edited by cakefoo; 07-13-2014 at 09:15 PM.
cakefoo is offline  
post #129 of 157 Old 07-14-2014, 01:58 AM
Member
 
fxrh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 183
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 15 Post(s)
Liked: 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by cakefoo View Post
Guillermo Navarro is no exception.
Guillermo del Toro. Don't take this correction personally, man.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cakefoo View Post
And again, I don't know how much time you're willing to waste with me man, but please stop telling me that I need to see the Teranex in action myself. The kind of discussion I'm trying to have does not require me to experience it first-hand. I think you just take things too personally.
And I in turn think you've made many negative remarks about people instead of products. If you think the Teranex is good, bad, or ugly, I think we can all live with that. But you cross a line when you start lecturing contributors that they must not be seeing things correctly (as you do), or that they can't express themselves well enough for their judgments to be credible (as you do), or that they lack sufficient knowledge of the "how it was done" aspects (as you do) to be happy with what they are seeing firsthand. That's personal.

And it's especially galling when coupled with your continual insistence that you don't need to see what the Teranex does firsthand. (Didn't you need to see PACIFIC RIM firsthand in order to write that detailed paragraph?)

How would you like it if you recommended a product and somebody used your positive impressions of it as a reason to cast aspersions on your credibility or knowledge or expertise? How would you like it if someone wrote off your positive impression of, say, PACIFIC RIM, as "emotional"? Is it really that difficult to see that you've been, shall I say, somewhat insensitive to those who don't share your dislike (to put it mildly) of real-time 2D-to-3D conversion? Is this subject really worth calling into question the competence of others?

If I'm taking it personally, it's because you made it personal.

PS -- In fairness, I grant that in your direct responses to me, you have been (for the most part) polite. I'm not convinced by many of your responses to my earlier posts, but I noticed that you have largely refrained from the more personal criticisms that you've directed to others. I'm much more annoyed by what you've said about them than what you've said to me.

PPS -- To shift gears, I'm a bit surprised that none of the comments about expensive studio 2D-to-3D conversions have referred to a rather obvious difference relative to automated real-time conversions, namely, the sheer size of the image. I would think that audiences who paid good money to see a 3D movie would be less forgiving of 3D artifacts on a big screen than those watching on a television set or even a projected image. My home theater projector throws an image that's about the size of the exit door at my preferred movie theater. Also, is there really that huge a difference of opinion here? I don't see anybody saying that the Teranex renders a perfect 3D image; its inability to render negative parallax has been mentioned more than once. Cakefoo objects because it's not good enough for him; Deja Vu and others say it's good enough for them, describing it as somewhat less than perfect. Well, okay then. It's not perfect, but it's not lousy. Subtracting all the snide stuff, that's what I get from the discussion thus far.
kimg1453 likes this.

Last edited by fxrh; 07-14-2014 at 03:35 AM.
fxrh is offline  
post #130 of 157 Old 07-14-2014, 04:40 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Deja Vu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: great white north
Posts: 4,436
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 119 Post(s)
Liked: 141
"However, I will say this -- from a natural 3D perspective the 3D produced by the Teranex is more realistic than any 3D in any 3D movie I've seen to date -- in other words it is closer to the day-to-day 3D world I see in real life. I'm now used to 3D as produced by the Teranex."

Whether you meant to or not, you're sending a mixed signal."

Yes I did say that and I believed I had put those comments into context when I said the following in post #37:

"Here's where I'm coming from with my statement about how natural the 3D looks when 2D is converted by the Teranex. When I see closeups of an actor's face in high definition I see more detail than I ever see when standing relatively close to someone I know during a conversation. The film is shot with proper lighting, and so on. I get to see every pock mark and every blemish -- often more than I want to see! The same applies to 3D -- when 3D is taken into account by the director then he/she often makes artistic decisions using the tools at his/her disposal. I have seen scenes in 3D movies that simply aren't possible visually in real life (well, I've never seen 3D in this way). If you have ever seen a 3D movie called Static there is an opening scene with the protagonist walking in the woods -- it is very artistic; however, I have walked in woods and never seen large trees in that particular spatial context and with that much separation and depth. Also there is a scene with a shot taken low and from the end of a table with two people sitting at the table in conversation. Again, its an artistic shot using 3D and the camera's ability to enhance the sense of depth and distance. I ran this scene in 2D through the Teranex and had it do the 3D and it looks less artistic and much more realistic. The same for the woods scene. This is the reason I believe the Teranex's conversions are often more natural than what you find in a 3D movie -- you basically see the the raw footage without the artistic enhancements. I love the "art" part, it's part of the magic of storytelling, but that's not what I see in my day-to-day life."

To further elaborate: I personally believe video to be more realistic looking than film; however, I prefer film to video for storytelling. Film has a unique look to it. We can take film and add interpolated frames and make it look more like video and to some extent more like reality, but for me at least, this distracts from the storytelling. I don't want film to look too real. So for 2D I prefer the film look.

As I've previously stated I prefer the studios' 3D look to what the Teranex does. Studio 3D (whether native or post-converted) has a different and often unique look to it. This may partially be due to, or due to a combination of a number factors including: 1) the 3D camera used or post-conversion tools; 2) the use of negative parallax, which the Teranex cannot replicate; and 3) the artistic intent of the director (the film being shot with 3D taken into consideration). IMO this gives native 3D and many conversions a unique 3D look, which includes an exaggerated sense of depth. The Teranex IMO produces a different 3D look that to my eyes looks more natural -- in other words it looks more like what I see on a day-to-day basis. As I've said before, that for storytelling I prefer film to video and I prefer studio 3D to real time converted 3D. With that being said the Teranex comes the closest of all the 3D real time converters I've seen (and I've seen my fair share) to reproducing a convincing 3D image and I believe this to be a substantial feat. This opens the door to enjoying a wide variety of 2D material by converting it to 3D, which the studios will probably never do.

There are obviously members of this forum that are interested in real time converters. Many members here have tried some of these converters and by and large find most of them to be unsatisfactory, as I do. They keep looking in the hope that there is something out there that will meet their needs -- thus threads like this one. In post #10 of this thread I provided a short review of the different real time converters I have seen in action and my impressions. This was my attempt to offer my humble opinion as to how certain real time converters compared to one another. My credibility, to some extent, hinges on whatever experience these members have with real time conversion and how their experiences compare to my own. So far you have never stated your own experiences with real time conversion and just how extensive that experience actually is. Rather than pointing out the shortfalls of the converters you have actually tried, you have aimed all your energy at discrediting the Teranex and by implication (whether intended or not) at impugning my credibility by challenging my intentions for posting here (moral character) and visual ability to properly discern depth. And yes, I do take umbrage with respect to those tacit allegations.

You've said the following: "We'd like to participate in discussions like this one, where realtime conversion is presented as a possible solution for our old 2D films. My say on that matter is that realtime conversions are nowhere near good enough. Postconversion is the only possible solution, but only a select number of movies will benefit enough from it to justify the extra cost, and there are a limited number of consumers out there asking for it, so I just don't ever see it being a reality." You've come to the table with a preconceived opinion. You are biased to begin with. I came to the real time conversion table with what I'd call a healthy skepticism -- I'm willing to actually investigate real time converters in the hope of finding something that actually works. I believe I have and that's all I'm saying. My posts aren't contaminated by rigid thinking -- in other words I believe there are solutions that exist. You've never qualified your statements and you present your opinion as more or less fact. You've said you don't believe there are solutions. Until you have seen all the real time converters on the market in action for yourself I believe it is unfair and unreasonable to definitely claim that excellent real time conversion is not possible today or doesn't already exist.
kimg1453 and fxrh like this.

Last edited by Deja Vu; 07-14-2014 at 06:18 AM.
Deja Vu is online now  
post #131 of 157 Old 07-14-2014, 05:17 AM
Member
 
kimg1453's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 119
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 17 Post(s)
Liked: 61
Well stated Deja Vu.

I watched Raiders of the Lost Ark last night and enjoyed the Hell out of the Teranex converting it to 3D. I've also watched Star Wars: Revenge of the Sith and the space battle scenes in the beginning did look as good as post conversion to my eyes.

Nothing more can really be said in this thread by me. Maybe others will try it and maybe not. Once things reach too much of a debate/argument about this vs that, etc. it's time to move on.

Maybe Marc Wielage, who's a writer for well known Audio/Video publications, who has appeared skeptical of it's performance ability without seeing it, (see post further up) can arrange with BlackMagic to see a live demo for himself since he's out there in Calif where they're located. Maybe he's the one to give a critical analysis and post a review of same here.
fxrh likes this.
kimg1453 is online now  
post #132 of 157 Old 07-14-2014, 06:44 AM
Member
 
fxrh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 183
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 15 Post(s)
Liked: 28
Maybe if we changed the subject temporarily, we'd all cool off a bit.

Is 3D really dead?
fxrh is offline  
post #133 of 157 Old 07-14-2014, 08:17 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Deja Vu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: great white north
Posts: 4,436
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 119 Post(s)
Liked: 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by CARTmen View Post
This are fair questions.
Could some of you guys who own a Teranex just tell us if the Teraxe's conversion looks like the one in the video?
I will but I'll have to hook my projector to the internet to have a second look. The other problem I have is that my "high-speed" internet doesn't stream very well. I did do this some time ago prior to ordering the Teranex and looked at the Youtube footage and wasn't very impressed. However, I didn't write the Teranex off because of a Youtube video -- I wanted to give it a chance to prove itself and I wanted to test the credibility of those claiming it was extraordinary. I needed some protection from my obsessive compulsive nature and that's why I insisted on a return policy. I was going to purchase the Teranex more locally but the retailers involved had to special order the processor and would not negotiate any opportunity for me to return it if not satisfied.

When I first received it I compared it to the converter in the Mits -- I watched and compared only a few clips and didn't see a substantial difference between the two (I hadn't set the 3D intensity and depth for the Teranex) and was actually contemplating returning it. I was very critical because of the cost of the Teranex and would have returned it if I didn't feel it was a substantial improvement over what I already had. Since I had a thirty day return window I decided to continue using it exclusively and the more I used it the more I came to appreciate just what it could do. I've now gone back to the converter in the Mits and compared it to the Teranex. I've been totally spoiled by the Teranex. For example it provides a more detailed image with more depth and none of the artifacts that the Mits will from time to time exhibit. I favoured the Mits over the other 8 real time converters I had previously seen (I don't count PowerDVD11 because IMO it's totally useless). Now that I'm used to the Teranex I can't go back to the Mits for real time conversion, as good as the Mits once seemed.

Here's what Projector Central had to say in its review of the Mits 8000 concerning its real time conversion:

"However, its one key advantage over the competition we've seen thus far is superior 2D to 3D conversion. Those with large 2D Blu-ray collections who want to see them in very satisfying 3D conversion would be well advised to take a close look at the HC8000D-BL."

http://www.projectorcentral.com/mits...ge=Performance

Here's what Dan Webster had to say in post #115 of this thread about the 2D to 3D conversion of the Mits:

"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."

After seeing the Mit's real time conversion I fully agreed with PC's evaluation; however, the Teranex's conversion is in a totally different league.

Last edited by Deja Vu; 07-14-2014 at 09:01 AM.
Deja Vu is online now  
post #134 of 157 Old 07-14-2014, 08:59 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Planet Boston, source of the spice, Melange.
Posts: 20,091
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 296 Post(s)
Liked: 358
Quote:
Originally Posted by MLXXX View Post
The ball is in the manufacturer/distributor's court if interested in sales. If it is the intention to market a 2D to 3D converter to consumers, consumers can reasonably expect sample videos to be readily accessible on the net.
The Teranex processor is not marketed toward consumer end-users. It's a broadcast product aimed at the professional market. Presumably, it's sold mostly based on live demos by sales reps who make personal visits to their clients.

It just so happens that the price of the product has come down enough that some end-users like Deja Vu have decided to try it out. Even so, the processor is not HDCP compliant and requires workarounds to function in a home theater.

You can complain all you want about the manufacturer not providing you with enough samples to judge their product, but they simply won't care because they're not trying to sell it to you.
MLXXX and kimg1453 like this.

Josh Z
Writer/Editor, High-Def Digest (
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
)
Curator,
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


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

Josh Z is online now  
post #135 of 157 Old 07-14-2014, 09:02 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Planet Boston, source of the spice, Melange.
Posts: 20,091
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 296 Post(s)
Liked: 358
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.
This is clearly a case of sour grapes. You can't have the product, so therefore it must suck and nobody else should be allowed to like it.
kimg1453 likes this.

Josh Z
Writer/Editor, High-Def Digest (
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
)
Curator,
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


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

Josh Z is online now  
post #136 of 157 Old 07-14-2014, 09:18 AM
Member
 
MLXXX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 179
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 22 Post(s)
Liked: 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post
This is clearly a case of sour grapes. You can't have the product, so therefore it must suck and nobody else should be allowed to like it.
I could suggest that on the surface the conclusion of "sour grapes" appears to be a knee-jerk reaction, but I don't know whether a representative sample of the numerous posts in this thread by cakefoo have been read.

From my reading of cakefoo's posts, it is not a case of sour grapes, but of considered and constructive remarks.
cakefoo likes this.
MLXXX is offline  
post #137 of 157 Old 07-14-2014, 11:47 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Planet Boston, source of the spice, Melange.
Posts: 20,091
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 296 Post(s)
Liked: 358
Quote:
Originally Posted by MLXXX View Post
I could suggest that on the surface the conclusion of "sour grapes" appears to be a knee-jerk reaction, but I don't know whether a representative sample of the numerous posts in this thread by cakefoo have been read.

From my reading of cakefoo's posts, it is not a case of sour grapes, but of considered and constructive remarks.
I've read all of cakefoo's posts about the Teranex in this thread. What I see is:

1) He has repeatedly lamented that the Teranex is too expensive for him to afford.
2) Without ever actually seeing or using it, he has already cast judgment that the processor could never possibly live up to his standards.
3) He has decided to wholesale disregard any positive comments about the Teranex from people who own it, and attempted to find excuses to discredit their opinions.
4) He has repeatedly fished for users to say negative things about the processor that will back up his assumptions that it must be crap.

So, please explain to me how this could possibly be anything other than sour grapes. I'm just not seeing the "considered and constructive remarks."

This is not to say that I think cakefoo is a bad person, but on this topic at least, he is being very close-minded. He has formed an opinion in advance and refuses to listen to anyone saying something he doesn't want to hear.

He has every right to be skeptical of the processor, but his combative attitude based on zero direct experience is simply not constructive to this conversation.
Deja Vu likes this.

Josh Z
Writer/Editor, High-Def Digest (
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
)
Curator,
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


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


Last edited by Josh Z; 07-14-2014 at 11:53 AM.
Josh Z is online now  
post #138 of 157 Old 07-14-2014, 12:43 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Deja Vu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: great white north
Posts: 4,436
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 119 Post(s)
Liked: 141
For those interested here is a review of the Teranex by someone who would use its 3D capabilities, I believe, for editing purposes.

http://3dguy.tv/3dguys-tek-toyz-excl...nex-3d-review/

and:

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x12...ve-review_tech

The Teranex's 2D to 3D conversion is being used in the industry:

http://www.stereoscopynews.com/hotne...onversion.html

http://www.digitalproductionme.com/a...-tennis-in-3d/

http://livedesignonline.com/blog/mtv...ive-2d-3d-vmas

What does this mean? Not a lot to me. I've taken the ultimate test and now have had some extensive hands on experience with this processor. Is it the last 2D to 3D real time processor I'll ever own? Probably not. Things change and what wasn't possible today will be tomorrow. If something comes along that I think is better will I say so? Maybe, but not on this section of the forum. Why? Because here you have to somehow definitely prove it's better before anyone will make the effort to even audition it. Most real time 2D to 3D conversion is pretty abysmal and even the mention of it has people rolling their eyes. My posts here were intended to catch the eye of those interested and to encourage them to have a look -- that's all.

Last edited by Deja Vu; 07-14-2014 at 01:37 PM.
Deja Vu is online now  
post #139 of 157 Old 07-14-2014, 12:53 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 fxrh View Post
Guillermo del Toro. Don't take this correction personally, man.
.... Like I said, Guillermo NAVARRO, who SHOT Pacific Rim.

Quote:
Originally Posted by fxrh View Post
And I in turn think you've made many negative remarks about people instead of products. If you think the Teranex is good, bad, or ugly, I think we can all live with that. But you cross a line when you start lecturing contributors that they must not be seeing things correctly (as you do), or that they can't express themselves well enough for their judgments to be credible (as you do), or that they lack sufficient knowledge of the "how it was done" aspects (as you do) to be happy with what they are seeing firsthand. That's personal.
I wouldn't be able to get my point across (about the lack of in-depth critical analysis of the Teranex) without saying it out loud.

Quote:
Originally Posted by fxrh View Post
And it's especially galling when coupled with your continual insistence that you don't need to see what the Teranex does firsthand. (Didn't you need to see PACIFIC RIM firsthand in order to write that detailed paragraph?)
I needed to see Pacific Rim to PROVIDE a detailed description.
I needed to see a Youtube demo to PROVIDE a detailed description of the VC100.
I don't need to see the Teranex to REQUEST a detailed description.
I have not attempted to pass off my VC100 demo impressions as being impressions of the newest stripped down model.

Quote:
Originally Posted by fxrh View Post
How would you like it if you recommended a product and somebody used your positive impressions of it as a reason to cast aspersions on your credibility or knowledge or expertise? How would you like it if someone wrote off your positive impression of, say, PACIFIC RIM, as "emotional"? Is it really that difficult to see that you've been, shall I say, somewhat insensitive to those who don't share your dislike (to put it mildly) of real-time 2D-to-3D conversion? Is this subject really worth calling into question the competence of others?
Look, I'm not going to waste another post on you if you're going to continue to ignore everything I've ever said. For the very last time, I will respond to your baseless accusations. I mean no ill will when I tell Deja Vu that he needs to be more technically specific in the way he relays his impressions if he wants to convince me the Teranex is something worth looking into. I lead by example and gave thorough impressions of what I saw of the Youtube demo, the Michael Jackson video, and Pacific Rim. Deja Vu conveys the extent of his excitement differently. It's not bad, it's just that it can't paint an accurate picture of what the Teranex is outputting, so the only thing we know is that it supposedly looks almost as good as native to him, but so said Cineramax 4 years ago about the device that I saw the demo of on Youtube.

Quote:
Originally Posted by fxrh View Post
PS -- In fairness, I grant that in your direct responses to me, you have been (for the most part) polite. I'm not convinced by many of your responses to my earlier posts, but I noticed that you have largely refrained from the more personal criticisms that you've directed to others. I'm much more annoyed by what you've said about them than what you've said to me.
Well you focus on Deja Vu, the Teranex and other 3D content. Please realize I'm not attacking Deja Vu, and that my displeasure in his lack of ability to elongate his impressions of the Teranex stem from the same origin as my frustrations in not being able to find a local Teranex demo to see in person, and that ultimately my desire is to be able to figure out what this Teranex convert people have been swooning over for 4 years is actually doing that warrants a $4,000 or even $90,000 purchase.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

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

cakefoo is offline  
post #140 of 157 Old 07-14-2014, 01:01 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 Deja Vu View Post
For those interested here is a review of the Teranex by someone who would use its 3D capabilities, I believe, for editing purposes.

http://3dguy.tv/3dguys-tek-toyz-excl...nex-3d-review/
Again, the problem with the impressions is that he just grades it with a compliment. He doesn't paint a picture of what it does.

"in my opinion it does a pretty good job"
"a very useable 3D shot"

Like I said in my VC100 Youtube demo impressions, the VC100 was applying a sort of bowing shape to the overall picture, because I noticed the center of the image was deeper than the edges in every single frame. Beyond that, no other shapes were being processed in reaction to the content on the screen. I believe that the Teranex can do more than that, because even 2011 TV auto converters were analysing contrast and applying some kind of formation to elements that they thought should have shapes.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

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

cakefoo is offline  
post #141 of 157 Old 07-14-2014, 01:13 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 Deja Vu View Post
Until you have seen all the real time converters on the market in action for yourself I believe it is unfair and unreasonable to definitely claim that excellent real time conversion is not possible today or doesn't already exist.
Realtime conversion is possible in the sense that it converts in realtime a stereoscopic effect. But the believability of that effect is not possible if I expect to see every leaf in a bush modeled with accuracy like I'd find in native 3D.

Different people have different levels of satisfaction, as proven by the fact that some people are satisfied enough watching autoconverted content on their set top or built-into their projector or TV.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

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

cakefoo is offline  
post #142 of 157 Old 07-14-2014, 01:15 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 kimg1453 View Post
Well stated Deja Vu.

I watched Raiders of the Lost Ark last night and enjoyed the Hell out of the Teranex converting it to 3D. I've also watched Star Wars: Revenge of the Sith and the space battle scenes in the beginning did look as good as post conversion to my eyes.

Nothing more can really be said in this thread by me. Maybe others will try it and maybe not. Once things reach too much of a debate/argument about this vs that, etc. it's time to move on.
There really isn't a debate though. The only thing I want is to hear details about what kind of shapes you're seeing the Teranex render at different times. Just complimenting it doesn't actually teach me anything, and my only alternative is to schedule a demo in person, but I've tried that and hit a brick wall in Phoenix.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

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

cakefoo is offline  
post #143 of 157 Old 07-14-2014, 01:28 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Deja Vu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: great white north
Posts: 4,436
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 119 Post(s)
Liked: 141
The best I can do is provide evidence that the Teranex's simulated 2D to 3D conversion has credibility in the broadcast industry. If you review the links I posted in post #138 here I do provide this evidence. Should this material convince anyone? No! It didn't convince me and that's why I insisted on a 30 day return policy.
Deja Vu is online now  
post #144 of 157 Old 07-14-2014, 01:32 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 Josh Z View Post
This is clearly a case of sour grapes. You can't have the product, so therefore it must suck and nobody else should be allowed to like it.
Even if you handed me a VC100 free of charge, I'd probably turn around and sell it on ebay after a couple days of experimenting.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

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

cakefoo is offline  
post #145 of 157 Old 07-14-2014, 02:07 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 Josh Z View Post
I've read all of cakefoo's posts about the Teranex in this thread. What I see is:
1) He has repeatedly lamented that the Teranex is too expensive for him to afford. Yes I don't want to sacrifice that much money just to test it, and I'd feel bad returning an expensive piece of equipment knowing that someone down the line has to pay for it.
2) Without ever actually seeing or using it, he has already cast judgment that the processor could never possibly live up to his standards. I regret paying even a few dollars more to see properly post-converted or even NATIVE 3D films that weren't shot in a way that satisfactorily showcases the 3D, much less pay $4,000 to watch pseudo 3D in movies that weren't shot for 3D.
3) He has decided to wholesale disregard any positive comments about the Teranex from people who own it, and attempted to find excuses to discredit their opinions. I am NOT WHOLLY discrediting their opinons- merely stating the fact that their opinions lack objectively detailed descriptions of what the Teranex does to shape the image, and therefore leave something to be desired by those who are curious. I lead by example and described in detail what shapes I saw in the VC100 demo and contrasted that with my descriptions of what I saw in content that DOES meet my standards, including the Michael Jackson video and Pacific Rim.
4) He has repeatedly fished for users to say negative things about the processor that will back up his assumptions that it must be crap. Again, I have only asked for detailed visual descriptions of how the Teranex shapes the images on screen. Inevitably, some of those shapes are going to be incorrect, and maybe that expectation is what leads you to suspect that I only want to hear the negatives.

So, please explain to me how this could possibly be anything other than sour grapes. I'm just not seeing the "considered and constructive remarks." Well, maybe you're too busy to read the thread, because I thought I laid it out pretty clearly. The statements I made above reference my previous posts, if you want to go back and re-read them.

This is not to say that I think cakefoo is a bad person, but on this topic at least, he is being very close-minded. He has formed an opinion in advance and refuses to listen to anyone saying something he doesn't want to hear. I have made repeated attempts to establish that what I want to hear from Teranex owners is objective, detailed visual descriptions of what the more recent model Teranex does to shape the picture to convince people they're watching something that resembles 3D. I have made repeat attempts to communicate that what DOESN'T convince me of the Teranex's quality, is statements that just say it looks good, because that's subjective, and lacks any frame of reference as to what else that person considers good.

I'm not closed-minded to the concept of other people enjoying the Teranex more than me-- but I HAVE already established my 3D standards and I am NOT the one who will benefit from the Teranex, but I think if I could get some detailed descriptions of what the Teranex does, it would be informative for other prospective buyers. Remember, I don't even like some NATIVE films because they weren't shot in a way that showcases the 3D well enough to warrant the added cost. How could I possibly enjoy 2D-shot films converted into pseudo-3D? I am only satisfied with the best of the best native 3D and high-end post-conversions.


He has every right to be skeptical of the processor, but his combative attitude based on zero direct experience is simply not constructive to this conversation. You know, this thread is about converting movies to a satisfactory quality. Instead of talking about ME, you could be inquiring about the real topic.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

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

cakefoo is offline  
post #146 of 157 Old 07-14-2014, 04:09 PM
Member
 
MLXXX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 179
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 22 Post(s)
Liked: 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post
I've read all of cakefoo's posts about the Teranex in this thread. What I see is:

1) He has repeatedly lamented that the Teranex is too expensive for him to afford.
2) Without ever actually seeing or using it, he has already cast judgment that the processor could never possibly live up to his standards.
3) He has decided to wholesale disregard any positive comments about the Teranex from people who own it, and attempted to find excuses to discredit their opinions.
4) He has repeatedly fished for users to say negative things about the processor that will back up his assumptions that it must be crap.

So, please explain to me how this could possibly be anything other than sour grapes. I'm just not seeing the "considered and constructive remarks."

This is not to say that I think cakefoo is a bad person, but on this topic at least, he is being very close-minded. He has formed an opinion in advance and refuses to listen to anyone saying something he doesn't want to hear.

He has every right to be skeptical of the processor, but his combative attitude based on zero direct experience is simply not constructive to this conversation.
I was about to prepare a response but I see cakefoo has already responded in detail at post #145 .
MLXXX is offline  
post #147 of 157 Old 07-14-2014, 04:45 PM
Member
 
fxrh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 183
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 15 Post(s)
Liked: 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by cakefoo View Post
Look, I'm not going to waste another post on you if you're going to continue to ignore everything I've ever said. For the very last time, I will respond to your baseless accusations.
Well, I'll waste one more on you. You think you're being scientific. Instead, you're just plain rude and condescending. Since you don't have a product to criticize, you criticize people instead. You have even admitted as much in your earlier posts. I take back the compliment I gave you on your (relative) politeness to me. You apparently can't refrain from making harsh personal remarks, so SHAME ON YOU.

PS -- I stand corrected on Guillermo Navarro and am looking forward to your willingness to stand corrected on anything whatsoever.

Last edited by fxrh; 07-14-2014 at 06:47 PM.
fxrh is offline  
post #148 of 157 Old 07-14-2014, 07:06 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 fxrh View Post
Well, I'll waste one more on you. You think you're being scientific. Instead, you're just plain rude. Since you don't have a product to criticize, you criticize people instead. You even admitted as much in your earlier posts. I take back the compliment I gave you on your (relative) politeness to me. You apparently can't refrain from making harsh personal remarks, so SHAME ON YOU.
All I want is to hear someone tell me WHAT they're seeing. There are plenty of other kinds of impressions from Teranex users expressing a general satisfaction with the product, but I have yet to hear anyone describe and critique what it's doing in a particular shot.

I don't mean to be harsh- I am just hypothesizing that the reason some people can't go into detail about the Teranex's output is because they don't have the knowledge and understanding to realize what they're seeing. What else could possibly be stopping them?

Maybe they don't want to find out what's behind the illusion...

At any rate, we need to hear from someone else who will spill the beans... for science.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

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

cakefoo is offline  
post #149 of 157 Old 07-14-2014, 07:35 PM
Member
 
fxrh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 183
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 15 Post(s)
Liked: 28
I think that I shall never see
Converters that do great 3D.

Even those that are the best
Flunk the negative parallax test.

Try as they might, they cannot slay
All artifacts that come their way.

Occlusion causes them to err
When they derive the left-right pair.

They just can't handle smoke or rain
And billboard words are such a pain.

The ones that might work cost 4G;
Two dimensions, please, not three.

(apologies to Joyce Kilmer)

Last edited by fxrh; 07-15-2014 at 03:36 AM.
fxrh is offline  
post #150 of 157 Old 07-15-2014, 05:59 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Deja Vu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: great white north
Posts: 4,436
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 119 Post(s)
Liked: 141
Here's what the Teranex can handle and I've been specifically examining its abilities while watching 2D movies converted to 3D by it.

1) Smoke
2) Snowfall
3) rain
4) billboards
5) T.V. images in the scene
6) reflections in mirrors and car windows
7) layering row after row of objects in scenes involving great depth (a shot down a street with people, vehicles and buildings)
8) putting all objects in a room in their proper place
9) overhead shots looking down at two people talking from bunk beds with both persons sticking out their heads from the side of the bed so the other can hear what's said (Snowpiercer). Also, the overhead scene in the Matrix where Neo is sleeping just before his alarm clock wakes him.
10) The train car aquarium scene in Snowpiercer (the sides and roof of the train car are rounded glass and contain water and sea creatures).
11) A view from high up on a mountain looking down through clouds at the terrain below

The image at the side is not bowed or distorted and the depth in the image isn't distorted by favouring the middle or sides of the image.

Cakefoo -- please give us your impressions of the real time converters you have experimented with. In that way, if I have experience with that particular converter, I can tell you what the Teranex does differently. As you are aware the other converters are not particularly expensive and since you express opinions on real time converters you must have seen some in action (hopefully not just the one that came with your 3D T.V.). The 3D Bee for example is in the $250 to $500 range and does an O.K. job with some material. PowerDVD13/14 is around $50 or $60 and again its software conversion can look quite impressive with certain material. You can find a Mits 7900 projector for around $700 and not only is it a great 3D projector but it has a good 2D to 3D converter built in. Please let us know just what you are basing your opinions on so we can turn this thread around and have a basis for a meaningful discussion concerning real time converters, rather than one that focuses on whether or not they work.

I think that most people here that have some experience with real time converters know that some of them do work for certain scenes and are disappointed when they can't handle other scenes. I'll bet they often say, "If it could also handle a few more tough scenes without getting tripped up I could live with it." The problem I'm having with the Teranex, if it can be described as that, is that this particular processor is so good I'm having trouble finding fault with it. This statement will only have meaning to those that have seen and examined the other converters since we share similar experiences and disappointments.
kimg1453, fxrh and CARTmen like this.

Last edited by Deja Vu; 07-15-2014 at 06:14 AM.
Deja Vu is online now  
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