Should Studios Do 2D to 3D Conversions, Or Are On-Board 2D to 3D Converters Sufficient? - AVS Forum
View Poll Results: Should Studios Do 2D to 3D Conversions?
Yes, bring us more converted titles please! 22 75.86%
No, my built In 2D to 3D converter works great! 3 10.34%
Not sure, release it and I'll decide later. 4 13.79%
Voters: 29. You may not vote on this poll

Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 157 Old 06-08-2014, 08:41 AM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
tomtastic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Wichita, KS
Posts: 300
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 23 Post(s)
Liked: 23
There hasn't been many newly released 2D to 3D conversions lately, is this because converters work so well or do we need more 2D to 3D conversions released?

Edit: Old movies, like Titanic and Predator, just to be clear, not new releases. Those should be native 3D anyway.

This line intentionally left blank.
tomtastic is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 157 Old 06-08-2014, 09:41 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Jedi2016's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,421
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)
Liked: 47
A built-in converter can never be as good as an actual conversion. Anyone who thinks otherwise is fooling themselves. If you had any idea of how the process actually worked, you wouldn't even attempt to say such things.

The reason there haven't been as many conversions lately is because more filmmakers are shooting natively.

Welcome to Rivendell, Mister Anderson.
Jedi2016 is offline  
post #3 of 157 Old 06-08-2014, 10:54 AM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
tomtastic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Wichita, KS
Posts: 300
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 23 Post(s)
Liked: 23
Old movies, not new, like Titanic or Predator.

I don't think I stated anywhere that one was better than the other, it's a poll for if we should have old titles converted or not.

This line intentionally left blank.
tomtastic is offline  
post #4 of 157 Old 06-08-2014, 11:48 AM
AVS Special Member
 
TonyDP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,837
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 15 Post(s)
Liked: 46
I don't mind conversions of older catalog titles as long as they are done reasonably well and the subject matter lends itself to 3D. Some of Fox's titles were real headscratchers (Jumper?) but other titles like Jurassic Park show that a quality conversion can definitely add something to the viewing experience.

Also an actual conversion will always be better than what current on the fly converters can offer, especially when it comes to negative parallax and pop-outs.
TonyDP is offline  
post #5 of 157 Old 06-08-2014, 01:10 PM
Member
 
ekaaaans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 37
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 22
Quote:
A built-in converter can never be as good as an actual conversion. Anyone who thinks otherwise is fooling themselves.

I'm already wary of post converting shots that weren't originally set-up with 3D in mind, so the built-in conversion thing sounds even less appealing. Seems to me the process would logically need a human touch to get the best possible result. The exception being maybe live sports. I love the 3D...when it's done well. I'll take 2D over weak 3D any day.

ekaaaans is offline  
post #6 of 157 Old 06-09-2014, 12:45 AM
AVS Special Member
 
teckademic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: san jose, ca
Posts: 1,795
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked: 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomtastic View Post

There hasn't been many newly released 2D to 3D conversions lately, is this because converters work so well or do we need more 2D to 3D conversions released?

Edit: Old movies, like Titanic and Predator, just to be clear, not new releases. Those should be native 3D anyway.

there's no comparison IMO. Have someone do a blind test and play a regular blu ray and use your 2d-3d conversion and then have them put the 3d disc and see if you can tell which is which. I'm willing to bet you'd be able to tell right away
teckademic is online now  
post #7 of 157 Old 06-09-2014, 07:10 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Jedi2016's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,421
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)
Liked: 47
Personally, I don't think there's any point to re-releasing a film that wasn't made for 3D in the first place. The only time it's been even remotely okay is when the film is given the full treatment under the direct supervision of the film's original director. Which, I think, narrows the list down to Titanic and Jurassic Park. When a studio board decides to send it out for a conversion with zero input from anyone, just to milk a few more bucks? Those can go to hell. I would also rate one of those, Predator specifically, to be "unconvertable" due to the amount of foliage in practically every shot. Even a full conversion cycle could, at best, half-ass such a conversion. Something like that needs to be native 3D or not at all. And that's one of my favorite 80's films.

Welcome to Rivendell, Mister Anderson.
Jedi2016 is offline  
post #8 of 157 Old 06-09-2014, 10:47 AM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
tomtastic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Wichita, KS
Posts: 300
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 23 Post(s)
Liked: 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jedi2016 View Post

Personally, I don't think there's any point to re-releasing a film that wasn't made for 3D in the first place. The only time it's been even remotely okay is when the film is given the full treatment under the direct supervision of the film's original director. Which, I think, narrows the list down to Titanic and Jurassic Park. When a studio board decides to send it out for a conversion with zero input from anyone, just to milk a few more bucks? Those can go to hell. I would also rate one of those, Predator specifically, to be "unconvertable" due to the amount of foliage in practically every shot. Even a full conversion cycle could, at best, half-ass such a conversion. Something like that needs to be native 3D or not at all. And that's one of my favorite 80's films.

Well said.

I think there are a number of movies I'd like to see converted though, but will probably never see it done now. Alien, Blade Runner, Terminator to name a few.

This line intentionally left blank.
tomtastic is offline  
post #9 of 157 Old 06-15-2014, 11:08 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Deja Vu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: great white north
Posts: 4,298
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 38 Post(s)
Liked: 82
There are some 2D to 3D real time processors that are very good. I have Avatar in 2D and 3D and compared the 2D to 3D conversion of the Mits 8000 using the 2D version of the movie to the 3D version. I was shocked by how good the 2D to 3D conversion was. It's not a quite as good but IMO much better than the flat version. Most 2D to 3D converters aren't worth the trouble but there are a few out there that can do an admirable job. The Fifth Element, Blade Runner, Dune, Riddick and so on look great in 3D. I have a Teranex processor being delivered this week that supposedly is capable of 2D to 3D conversion that is second to none. I'm looking forward to trying it out.
Deja Vu is offline  
post #10 of 157 Old 06-29-2014, 07:45 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Deja Vu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: great white north
Posts: 4,298
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 38 Post(s)
Liked: 82
IMO, post conversions have one big advantage over on-board converters -- the ability to effectively use negative parallax. That aside the best converters are very, very close in 3D quality to studio 3D (native or converted). One big problem for converters is that they're used to convert 2D material into 3D, which was not shot with 3D in mind. It's pretty tough for any converter to compete against a native 3D movie shot with special attention paid to the 3D when you only have a 2D movie to work with. That being said there are many, many 2D films that IMO look great converted either by the studios or by the better 2D to 3D consumer processors.

O.K. -- I've now seen a few different 2D to 3D processors, some built-into T.V.s or projectors and some as separate units. Here's my take on what Ive seen and used. I should mention that some of these converters were in T.V.s from two or three years ago and the manufacturers may have made some notable improvements to the processors.

PowerDVD11 -- pretty much useless (rating 1/10)

PowerDVD13 & 14 -- much improved over PowerDVD11. Some material can look very, very good, while other material may show obvious errors. It seems to have problems with scenes of rolling terrain. (rating 6.5/10)

Panasonic (T.V.) -- little 3D effect (depth). (rating 2/10)

Sony (T.V.) -- some depth but still weak. (rating 3/10)

Samsung (T.V.) -- better than the other T.V.s I've seen but some obvious errors. (3.5/10)

Epson 6010 projector -- weak 3D effect. (rating 2.5/10)

Epson 6020 projector -- better than the 6010 but still obvious errors. (rating 3.5/10)

3D Bee -- can handle some material very well but has obvious trouble with other material or scenes. Good 3D effect in general but I noticed a lose in resolution (image quality) when using it (rating 6/10)

Mits projector -- I term the converter in this projector as the poor man's Teranex. Very impressive conversion. It does get tripped-up once in awhile but rarely. When set to its highest setting of 10 it shows minor distortion along the left and right borders of the image. This can be either be ignored or zoomed out. At $799 for a Mits 7900 projector the on-board conversion alone IMO is worth the price of admission. One big problem the Mits has is when there is a sign with wording on it in a scene. It wants to put the top line in one plane and the line below in a different plane. However, overall this is a great converter. (rating 8.25/10)

Teranex -- expensive and needs some care in setting it up. From what I've seen this processor is the cream of the crop. It produces accurate, natural looking, clean and deep real-time 2D to 3D conversion and for 3D lovers it is worth every penny. Material that gives the other converters headaches is a walk in the park for this converter. I've watched scenes from 3D movies in 2D converted to 3D by the Teranex and it's 3D image compares very favourably to the actual 3D image. The Mits does well on this test as well. The Teranex is the best 2D to 3D real-time converter I've seen to date and it's my go to converter. I'm watching one 2D movie after another converted to 3D by the Teranex and I am very much enjoying the experience. (rating 10/10)
kimg1453 and fxrh like this.

Last edited by Deja Vu; 06-29-2014 at 07:55 AM.
Deja Vu is offline  
post #11 of 157 Old 06-29-2014, 08:43 AM
Toe
AVS Addicted Member
 
Toe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 12,964
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 42 Post(s)
Liked: 409
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jedi2016 View Post
Personally, I don't think there's any point to re-releasing a film that wasn't made for 3D in the first place. The only time it's been even remotely okay is when the film is given the full treatment under the direct supervision of the film's original director. Which, I think, narrows the list down to Titanic and Jurassic Park. When a studio board decides to send it out for a conversion with zero input from anyone, just to milk a few more bucks? Those can go to hell. I would also rate one of those, Predator specifically, to be "unconvertable" due to the amount of foliage in practically every shot. Even a full conversion cycle could, at best, half-ass such a conversion. Something like that needs to be native 3D or not at all. And that's one of my favorite 80's films.
I agree. I personally have no interest in seeing a 2d movie converted into 3d (with the exception being animated films) that was not originally shot with 3d in mind. I don't want or need something in 3d if it was never meant to be seen that way.

JVC 3D: Been there, done that, bought a DLP
Toe is offline  
post #12 of 157 Old 06-29-2014, 10:37 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Deja Vu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: great white north
Posts: 4,298
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 38 Post(s)
Liked: 82
Smile

Quote:
Originally Posted by Toe View Post
I agree. I personally have no interest in seeing a 2d movie converted into 3d (with the exception being animated films) that was not originally shot with 3d in mind. I don't want or need something in 3d if it was never meant to be seen that way.
Some here have no interest in seeing movies intended to be seen in 3D in actual 3D. If they see them at all they see them in 2D and probably feel the same way towards 3D in general as you do about conversions. To each his own. Pacific Rim was a 2D movie that was converted by the studio and then released to the public. The director has no interest in 3D and did not shot it with 3D in mind; however, I thought the conversion was very good and I enjoyed the 3D. I believe the 3D enhanced the story. For me, 3D adds to the "looking through a window into a world of fantasy and aids the escapism by helping me to suspend my disbelief a little easier. I have now watched many 2D movies converted into 3D and I find that at least for me it enhances the experience (similar to Pacific Rim, being a 2D movie converted to 3D and then released).

I had a videophile buddy help me set up the Teranex. To try it out I put on some scenes from an episode of Game of Thrones in 2D and when I hit the conversion button all he said was, "That actually looks better." Interesting comment from a person who has no interest in 3D.

I am no longer paranoid about whether or not movies will be released in 3D. I'll get to see them in 3D, if that's what I want. I now control the 3D agenda to a large extent. I'd rather see a film shot in native 3D but I no longer can be held hostage by a studio's or director's whims.
fxrh likes this.

Last edited by Deja Vu; 06-29-2014 at 03:07 PM.
Deja Vu is offline  
post #13 of 157 Old 06-29-2014, 10:50 AM
Toe
AVS Addicted Member
 
Toe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 12,964
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 42 Post(s)
Liked: 409
Good point about Pacific Rim Deja Vu since that is one of my favorites in 3d!

I certainly respect your perspective, I just personally enjoy 3d as a dessert in general with 2d as the main course still. To each their own though as you say.

JVC 3D: Been there, done that, bought a DLP
Toe is offline  
post #14 of 157 Old 06-29-2014, 02:25 PM
Member
 
kimg1453's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 114
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13 Post(s)
Liked: 56
Well said Deja Vu and my sediments exactly about the Teranex 3D processor. It's worth every penny and I too am enjoying the hell out of it for watching my favorite 2D movies in 3D as you well know. It's another reason I'm happy to have my Physical Media collection to watch everything how I want.
kimg1453 is offline  
post #15 of 157 Old 06-29-2014, 07:18 PM
AVS Special Member
 
TonyDP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,837
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 15 Post(s)
Liked: 46
I just watched Ender's Game and the one thought that kept going thru my head was how the zero gravity room scenes and final battles at the end would have been enhanced by 3D. For a film that had not been shot in 3D or with 3D in mind, the added depth would have enhanced the visual experience greatly. When I see a movie like that, a lost opportunity for a good 3D experience, then yes, I would welcome a good conversion.

I've never viewed most movies as "art" or gotten hung up on maintaining the integrity of a "director's vision". There are exceptions of course but most movies are made with one goal: to make money and I doubt very much the filmmakers would really be bothered all that much by a 3D conversion. Besides, its not like the original 2D version will just disappear.

So many 3D movies today are made without enthusiasm or effort on the part of the people making them anyway (just read the comments from Godzilla's cinematographer for one example). If those types of blockbusters were not intended by their makers to be in 3D in the first place, then getting a quality conversion of a catalog movie is no worse to my eyes.
TonyDP is offline  
post #16 of 157 Old 06-29-2014, 08:24 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Deja Vu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: great white north
Posts: 4,298
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 38 Post(s)
Liked: 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by TonyDP View Post
I just watched Ender's Game and the one thought that kept going thru my head was how the zero gravity room scenes and final battles at the end would have been enhanced by 3D. For a film that had not been shot in 3D or with 3D in mind, the added depth would have enhanced the visual experience greatly. When I see a movie like that, a lost opportunity for a good 3D experience, then yes, I would welcome a good conversion.
I have watched Ender's Game converted to 3D and you're right that the action in the zero gravity room is enhanced by the 3D. The great thing about having a top notch 3D processor is that you can actually enjoy watching those movies in 3D instead of just wondering about how they would look in 3D. Convincing real time 2D to 3D conversion sounds like science fiction but is now reality.
fxrh likes this.
Deja Vu is offline  
post #17 of 157 Old 06-29-2014, 09:11 PM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
tomtastic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Wichita, KS
Posts: 300
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 23 Post(s)
Liked: 23
The problem is that most of the convincing 2D to 3D processors are prohibitively expensive. Better to just wait for built in support from displays or actual converted content. End of the day I'd just rather have native 3D. Content that was prepared for 2D, looks great in 2D, no need to change it. For a few old titles now and then I do like to see it just to see if it improves and looks good in 3D or attempted 3D. So far Titanic looks the best but even then it's not great. I think it's mostly the added depth on close up scenes between characters. But maybe they'll get better with time, and I still wouldn't mind seeing more every now and then on some favorite films.
tomtastic is offline  
post #18 of 157 Old 06-30-2014, 12:49 AM
AVS Club Gold
 
Don Landis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 10,767
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 39 Post(s)
Liked: 106
Anyone who claims they know the limits of what future technology can do is claiming to be God. If 2D to 3D conversion looks good, then I don't care how they got there. Cameras, computer virtual cameras, sfx, or a single super duper 3D conversion chip in a pair of glasses. If it looks good I'm all for it. Even natively shot 3D can look worse than a conversion if not done right. I know, I've shot my share of bad 3D that ended up in the can. Stereoscopic 3D is just a presentation illusion anyway so why should anyone care how it is done as long as it looks good and we are entertained by it?
Don Landis is offline  
post #19 of 157 Old 06-30-2014, 07:50 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Deja Vu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: great white north
Posts: 4,298
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 38 Post(s)
Liked: 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomtastic View Post
The problem is that most of the convincing 2D to 3D processors are prohibitively expensive. Better to just wait for built in support from displays or actual converted content.
I think most would agree that $90,000 is prohibitively expensive, even $20,000. Under $4,000 gets us a lot closer -- still expensive but not prohibitively expensive for most of us. Affording it depends on one's priorities. I can assure you that there are lots of 2D films that look great in 3D. I have no idea when my landed immigrant status on planet earth will be revoked, probably sooner rather than later, so I'm not going to wait for perhaps years for my favourite movies to be converted (if they're ever converted) -- I'll watch them in 3D now. As they say, "There's no time like the present."
Don Landis and fxrh like this.
Deja Vu is offline  
post #20 of 157 Old 06-30-2014, 08:34 AM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
tomtastic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Wichita, KS
Posts: 300
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 23 Post(s)
Liked: 23
Personally, I see $4k for something that just does 2D to 3D as prohibitive, mainly because it doesn't do much more than what's built into most displays already, that being real-time hardware based converters that rely on comparatively simply algorithms for objects and their perspective depth placement vs the more hands on and labor intensive conversions that are done which require frame by frame wire frame mapping and painting in missing information. Granted, the more costly convertors are better than what's in most displays, still it's relatively simple to what is required for good 3D.

With algorithmic processors, they may produce convincing depth at times but not at thorough consistent levels for good 3D. 2D to 3D in production, again just what I've read, should only be done in moderation and when it's not feasible to use native 3D, such as when the 3D content isn't usable or repairable or if stock 2D footage is used.
tomtastic is offline  
post #21 of 157 Old 06-30-2014, 09:40 AM
Toe
AVS Addicted Member
 
Toe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 12,964
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 42 Post(s)
Liked: 409
$4, 000 !!!! DejaVu, you must really LOVE 3D!!

JVC 3D: Been there, done that, bought a DLP
Toe is offline  
post #22 of 157 Old 06-30-2014, 10:44 AM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
tomtastic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Wichita, KS
Posts: 300
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 23 Post(s)
Liked: 23
Well, I don't know if that's the real cost, I think the retail is 4k on that one, actual cost might be less. I would find it difficult to invest in a converter because it's hard to know where the tech will be in a year. They might have built in converters that have equal real time processing capabilities in a year in a display that costs 2k or less.

Back when I bought my 3D display a few years ago they were talking about glasses free 3D which I just laughed. I thought it'd never happen, at least to where it's convincing, but then here we are. Ultra D in theory sounds promising. If I was going to invest $4k in 3D, I'm not sure it would be on a converter alone when that tech could be integrated into a display down the road.
tomtastic is offline  
post #23 of 157 Old 06-30-2014, 04:44 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Deja Vu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: great white north
Posts: 4,298
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 38 Post(s)
Liked: 82
I don't doubt that there will be some great converters built into T.V.s, projectors (Mits already has one) and stand alone boxes. I certainly understand someone's willingness to wait a few years as it unfolds to obtain a low cost solution. It really comes down to your priorities and your expendable income. If it's important to you and you have the financial means then what's the point in waiting until you're on your death bed? A little late I'd say. Life is all about compromises but hopefully if you invest intelligently and remain disciplined over time it will pay off and you won't have to compromise as much. I don't have to compromise so much anymore so I'm going for it while I can.

And yes Toe, I do love 3D. Have I ever told you differently?
Toe likes this.
Deja Vu is offline  
post #24 of 157 Old 07-01-2014, 09:22 AM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
tomtastic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Wichita, KS
Posts: 300
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 23 Post(s)
Liked: 23
For the Teranex unit, I would be interested in it for its 3D production capabilities and not just its 2D-3D real time converter for viewing content. It can be used with dual camera setups and help align a rig along the x, y and z axis which would be very handy.

For 2D to 3D it would be interesting to see the conversion output for 3D acquisition in settings that aren't good for large rigs where you can convert 2D content for 3D, such as macro work which is really hard to do with SbS rigs. Ordinarily a beam splitter rig would be the best choice to get the lenses closer, but that rig is large and not easy to setup, especially with a one person crew.

This is why Teranex unit is priced at 4k, not just as a converter, in defense of its price point. It can be used as just a real time converter for viewing content, but it's range is much more that that. As I said, as a converter alone I couldn't justify using it solely for viewing 2D to 3D conversions in real time. It's hard to know what the future will bring with display's built in features. But with the range of uses for 3D production, it's not badly priced.
tomtastic is offline  
post #25 of 157 Old 07-01-2014, 11:15 PM
AVS Special Member
 
cakefoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Phoenix
Posts: 1,811
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 15 Post(s)
Liked: 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Landis View Post
Stereoscopic 3D is just a presentation illusion anyway so why should anyone care how it is done as long as it looks good and we are entertained by it?
But how the 3D is achieved directly affects how good it looks. So I care.

My Videos

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

cakefoo is offline  
post #26 of 157 Old 07-02-2014, 01:16 AM
AVS Club Gold
 
Don Landis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 10,767
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 39 Post(s)
Liked: 106
Tom- I would not automatically buy the Teranex converter for any purpose unless I could see the results and if it demonstrated it can do the job I expect. I don't automatically accept OR reject a technology on specs. I respect Deja Vu's opinion and may try to look for a demo at some time. Black Magic usually has a large booth at NAB, might try to attend next year to look at one. At the present, I haven't seen any 2D to 3D hardware real time conversion systems that impress me. But that doesn't mean there might be something out there that will work.

Using a beam splitter is indeed huge, especially when equipped with Red or larger film cameras. But, as the camera makers develop 4K 3D camcorders with smaller imagers and lenses, the packages can become very small. I.A. close for close up 3D and not needing a beam splitter. Imagine a camcorder the size of a Sony TD20 but with 4:4:4 video and 4K resolution with variable frame rate. Heck, even a two piece system with 4K 3D camera head and separate cable fed video processing and storage would work.

IMO, achieving acceptable good stereo conversion is still limited to a manual laborious and expensive post process. But, I'm open to any and all new developments.
Don Landis is offline  
post #27 of 157 Old 07-02-2014, 06:31 AM
Member
 
kimg1453's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 114
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13 Post(s)
Liked: 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Landis View Post
Tom- I would not automatically buy the Teranex converter for any purpose unless I could see the results and if it demonstrated it can do the job I expect. I don't automatically accept OR reject a technology on specs. I respect Deja Vu's opinion and may try to look for a demo at some time. Black Magic usually has a large booth at NAB, might try to attend next year to look at one. At the present, I haven't seen any 2D to 3D hardware real time conversion systems that impress me. But that doesn't mean there might be something out there that will work.

Using a beam splitter is indeed huge, especially when equipped with Red or larger film cameras. But, as the camera makers develop 4K 3D camcorders with smaller imagers and lenses, the packages can become very small. I.A. close for close up 3D and not needing a beam splitter. Imagine a camcorder the size of a Sony TD20 but with 4:4:4 video and 4K resolution with variable frame rate. Heck, even a two piece system with 4K 3D camera head and separate cable fed video processing and storage would work.

IMO, achieving acceptable good stereo conversion is still limited to a manual laborious and expensive post process. But, I'm open to any and all new developments.
Don,

I can assure you the Teranex does just as Deja Vu and myself have indicated. It's the best 2D to 3D converter out there and the results are incredible. Even Jeff Meier, who saw my unit after he performed the calibration on my Sim2 projector, was quite impressed and indicated so on his blog. I think Cineramax would also concur.
fxrh likes this.
kimg1453 is offline  
post #28 of 157 Old 07-02-2014, 09:31 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Deja Vu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: great white north
Posts: 4,298
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 38 Post(s)
Liked: 82
I certainly don't blame anyone here for being sceptical about the quality of 2D to 3D real time conversion. In fact I think you should be! Based on the ability of most of the 2D to 3D converters I have seen I too was unconvinced. I'd remained intrigued and hopeful that this technology would be refined until some day soon it would be a worthwhile addition to a 3D lovers home theatre. When I saw what the Mits home theatre projector's converter could do I was pleasantly surprised -- yes, it was still a little rough around the edges but it was the first conversion I could actually watch without it constantly distracting me or making my eyes feel uncomfortable -- no mean feat.

Purchasing the Teranex for its real time conversion was a rather large leap of faith for me considering its cost. I'd bought the 3D Bee without worrying too much about just how good it would be due to the much lower price of admission. I made sure that the Teranex could be returned if it didn't meet my needs -- a bit of an insurance policy.

My next step was tho determine just how good it actually was. It's hard not to become contaminated and therefore biased by others' comments. I'd heard both positive and negative things about the Teranex's conversion but the people who had actually seen it in action only had positive things to say about it. Those who were saying negative things about it hadn't actually had any hands on experience with it and seemed to have an anti-3D studio or real-time conversion agenda. In other words any type of 3D conversion, whether a studio conversion or a real time conversion was heresy. I knew I needed to see the Teranex in action for myself and so I ordered one.

The Teranex isn't plug and play. There are HDCP issues and firmware issues. Both Kim and Peter were kind enough to help in these areas and Kim, I think, was anxious to have someone confirm what he was seeing. Once it was up and running I ran the 3D signal from the Teranex into one HDMI input of the Mits and another HDMI output from my Oppo (two HDMI outs both with video) to the other HDMI input on the Mits. Now I could put the Mit's converter up against the Teranex's head to head with the same 2D material. My conclusion was that the Teranex's conversion was simply another nice step up from the Mit's converter, which I consider to be a good converter. The Teranex is simply more refined with few, if any errors.

Next I watched scenes from 3D movies in 3D and then in 2D converted by the Teranex to 3D. I had previously done this test with the Mits and was surprised at how close most of the scenes were. The Teranex passed this test with flying colours. What it can't do is recreate scenes with negative parallax in the same way as the studios can and so it loses out here. Those scenes do not have the same impact as they do with studio native or converted 3D. 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. I can watch 2D but there's something missing -- it would be akin to watching a movie that was filmed in colour in black and white. Certainly watchable, but hey there's something missing.

In a perfect world I would be able to watch all movies filmed with 3D in mind and in native 3D. Since this isn't a realistic possibility (at least in my life time) then watching most material either in 2D or converted to 3D are my only other options. I've made my choice.
kimg1453 and fxrh like this.

Last edited by Deja Vu; 07-02-2014 at 09:45 AM.
Deja Vu is offline  
post #29 of 157 Old 07-02-2014, 10:53 AM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
tomtastic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Wichita, KS
Posts: 300
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 23 Post(s)
Liked: 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Landis View Post
Tom- I would not automatically buy the Teranex converter for any purpose unless I could see the results and if it demonstrated it can do the job I expect. I don't automatically accept OR reject a technology on specs. I respect Deja Vu's opinion and may try to look for a demo at some time. Black Magic usually has a large booth at NAB, might try to attend next year to look at one. At the present, I haven't seen any 2D to 3D hardware real time conversion systems that impress me. But that doesn't mean there might be something out there that will work.

Using a beam splitter is indeed huge, especially when equipped with Red or larger film cameras. But, as the camera makers develop 4K 3D camcorders with smaller imagers and lenses, the packages can become very small. I.A. close for close up 3D and not needing a beam splitter. Imagine a camcorder the size of a Sony TD20 but with 4:4:4 video and 4K resolution with variable frame rate. Heck, even a two piece system with 4K 3D camera head and separate cable fed video processing and storage would work.

IMO, achieving acceptable good stereo conversion is still limited to a manual laborious and expensive post process. But, I'm open to any and all new developments.
As I don't have any funds for new equipment right now I won't be purchasing anything right now. I think if I was going to invest $4k in 3D right now I'd move to a beam splitter setup as that would fix the range problem with SbS rigs. But I'm just not sure because as we've said, they are larger, more complex to setup and operate, and cost more. SbS rigs are nice because they are more easily transported and setup is relatively easy, they do have range limits at closeup and distance but even the 3DA1, which is pretty large is easier to move around than two cameras and the beam splitter rig plus a display monitor. So I might just have to live with what I have right now.

For the $4k cost justification of the Teranex unit, I just wanted to point out that it does more than convert 2D to 3D, which I originally stated that paying that much for a converter alone would be prohibitive, which I still agree with that statement on a personal level if I were to just use it as a converter, however to be fair it does do more than just convert, with a range of functions which is likely why it's priced at that amount. I didn't want anyone to think that it costs $4k and all it did was convert 2D to 3D. Based on it's range of functions it's actually priced pretty good, compared to some stereo processors.
tomtastic is offline  
post #30 of 157 Old 07-02-2014, 11:13 AM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
tomtastic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Wichita, KS
Posts: 300
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 23 Post(s)
Liked: 23
I see 4K as too expensive right now and that probably won't change for at least 3 to five years. One big problem is storage because of the much larger throughput required. The handycam Sony Z100 is over $5k, but limited to using XQD cards with 10 min storage. The Sony FS700 uses a separate storage box which costs as much as the camera, so all in around $16k. Black Magic has two UHD class cameras with no lenses, both over $5k, and of course you need two so you have to double that price.

4K 3D won't be a prosumer market for some time. Unless they have one in an all in one rig, but I don't see that either. Have there been any new all in one 3D cameras from anyone lately? I'm wondering if the market is over for these, mostly because they haven't overcome the limits these cameras have with range, closeup and distance. Distance, I could see overcoming to a certain extent with adjustable I.A. lenses which could be done fairly easy, but up close will still be a problem.

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.
tomtastic is offline  
Reply 3D Content
Gear in this thread

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


Forum Jump: 

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

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