or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Ultra Hi-End HT Gear ($20,000+) › D-cinema Equipment and Theaters › Katzenberg and Cameron in a box-The future of 2-D to 3d conversion,and of HT itself .
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Katzenberg and Cameron in a box-The future of 2-D to 3d conversion,and of HT itself . - Page 5

post #121 of 127
I'd love to see your system, but it's unlikely I'll make it down to Florida any time soon. When you started this thread, I thought you were kidding (sorry), but after seeing what even my Samsung plasma can do with some scenes, I'm dying to check out the Terry. For a few seconds, here and there, and not very often, I can almost believe the Samsung's conversion looks close to real 3D. Of course, three seconds later the illusion is busted wide open. I'm ready to be blown away by the Terry.
post #122 of 127
Great! I know where Im going for my weekend off lol. Im worried if I watch your demo Ill never be able to go back to "normal" 3d in the cinemas lol
post #123 of 127
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gae View Post

At the risk of being accused of hijacking the thread, while we are on the subject of 2D to 3D conversions, I thought I'd just mention that I've got my own little 2D to 3D conversion project on the go too. I'm using the old method of frame by frame conversion and I have to admit, it is excruciatingly slow at times, but the results often make it all worthwhile and you have reasonable control over the 3D effect.

http://house-on-haunted-hill-3d.blog...ryboard-3.html

The problem with 3D and 2D to 3D conversions is that there isn't one standard for it. Some of it looks good but some of it looks awful. Personally speaking, I can't see the point of 3D if it doesn't give you that depth and wow factor. I have seen so many supposed 3D conversions with little or no depth that I think what is the point? Maybe all the 3D detractors have experienced only poor 3D or poor conversions? For my conversion I'm using House of Wax 3D as a blueprint as I really want the depth to look good and give that wow factor.

Back on topic. Cineramax, you're project looks and sounds fantastic but is there any chance of showing us a screen with a side by side image on it so we can grab it and view it in our stereoscopic viewers? People will always remain skeptical until they can see the effect themselves. I'm looking at your screengrabs and struggling to see a difference in the angles of the faces etc. On my conversions the angles between objects is noticeably different to the point where sometimes anomalies are created due to the separation differences.

Here is an anaglyph screengrab


House on Haunted Hill 3D anaglyph by CarnivalofSouls3D, on Flickr


In the side by side version, you can see the differences of angles between the objects (e.g. the man in the distance (Dr. David Trent) behind the foreground wall and also the door angle behind Lance Shroeder)

There are fuzzy anomalies too either due to a misalignment of the depth maps or just the software limitations...although in my defence, this is just one frame taken from hundreds of thousands that are being converted .

OK..back on topic again.



Gae

Awesome! The HoHH and CoS pictures on your flickr were enjoyable. What are you getting out of doing this aside from technical experience and personal enjoyment?

Cineramax, there's just no way we can get an accurate idea of what the converter output looks like by examining the doubling of the image in your offscreen glasses-less photos.

You should take offscreen photos through each individual lens to give us the two unique perspectives required to perceive stereoscopic depth. Then we can have an idea of how the device performs.
post #124 of 127
Thread Starter 
haha. I will hAVE TO DISSASSEMBLE THE RACK TO DO A SIDE BY SIDE PRESENTATION.

Maybe after I finish my current workload...
post #125 of 127
That does sound like a lot of effort. I was thinking more simply, take a photo thru the left lens and one through the right. Then use stereophoto maker to join them into an MPO file.

Glassesless offscreen photos just show that the image is either deep or popping out pretty far, but doesn't prove that individual layers are properly spaced apart from each other.

I'm really curious to know where other AVS'ers stand in trrms of what is acceptable 3D quality for a converter. Some of us will no doubt be very impressed but others I imagine will stuck to waiting for native or Hollywood postconverted 3D content. Seeing as I was not impressed by Hollywoods conversions up til the Titanic trailer, I will probably be in the latter group.

I see this as one big ongoing sales pitch. Creating hype on internet forums. Keeping the device away from people who might criticize it. The thing is your speeches are painting this device as equal if not superior to native, and it's really time you let us decide for ourselves.
post #126 of 127
Does the new $4000 terranex from BMD compare to the VC-110 setup?
post #127 of 127
Thread Starter 
It would be quite a value as to accomplish what the new unit does the vc100 would need a doremi ghx 10 hdmi to sdi converter at the front end and a dimension 3d at the back end close to 30K at current retail.

Unfortunately this 3d unit is not coming out anytime soon, it is delayed for too long.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: D-cinema Equipment and Theaters
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Ultra Hi-End HT Gear ($20,000+) › D-cinema Equipment and Theaters › Katzenberg and Cameron in a box-The future of 2-D to 3d conversion,and of HT itself .