AVS Forum banner

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

30K views 126 replies 23 participants last post by  CINERAMAX 
#1 ·
For about 1.5 years now I have devoted 18 hours a day to the perfection of developing the ultimate 3-D systems possible. Reception to our modest 3-D display at CEDIA was acclaimed by several heavy weights including the fastidious
Amir (the developer of HD DVD) who despite a small litany of qualifications did acknowledge that for one brief moment we indeed had the absolute best 3-D at CEDIA with the big fish that hovered to above the 3rd row; also Wolfgang's endorsement (he is the most respected 3-D photographer in Germany with 30 years experience) of the repatriated 3-D system from CEDIA 2010 actually points to the fact that it will surpass movie theater quality in many ways.


What I am trying to get to is that you may want to consider taking into context what I am about to divulge as an earnest demonstrable discovery of GLOBAL PARADIGM SHIFT proportions. When I stated on camera for AV-SCIENCE, that we were planning on going full time 4k-3D for all content 3D and 2D dimensionalised, when I said that I knew (having seen the JVC 30K dealer cost processor) I knew that I would be able to pull it off Most of the time, but there would be a series of presets necessary to match creative intent with photorealism, in the end I was prepared to succeed 50% of the time, that would be an invaluable success ratio. STRIKE that!!!! I flew yesterday to the Tampa Bay Area on impromptu mission to see a super expensive 2- to 3-D processor, what I experienced was so earth shattering (really forget 4k which I love but it is nothing compared to this= after seeing what I saw- I swear had to leave a pair of lightly soiled bikini briefs in the hotel bathroom
), I experienced the absolute future of Home Theater, if the cedia booth was a 10 in the 3-D scale, this is not a 10, nor a 20, it is a 30 (handicapped by the 2-D nature of the source it most favorably compares to the best of the best native 3-D).


While having 30 + 3D Blu-rays this holiday season is an exciting prospect (because let's face it 3-d IS NOT A CHEAP IMITATION of reality but a groundswell renaissance of super-beneficial Brain Stimulation technology affecting areas of otherwise DEAD SPACE or underutilized sections of it; a treasure trove of unfathomable therapeutic dividends too numerous to begin absorbing). To those that are still fighting 3-D, you are choosing to become genetically disadvantaged from the group that will absorb 3-D, 3-D IS FOREVER and this is why.


Even though native 3-D is fantastic and special when shot (in my view ) opposite to Katzenberg's and Cameron's Old School German methods of populating the back lobe of the Percival zone of comfort, movies like Journey to the center of Earth, and Resident Evil Afterlife and Imax content actually populate the back lobe (behind the screen) and the front lobe (protruding out of the screen like the cedia grouper-or cod did).


So I saw a box that converts anything and everything you throw at it, and even though it just comes out on the market I saw 3-D completely indistinguishable from Avatar or monster versus aliens, perfect parallax continuity, no pincushion background distortion and most importantly complete absence of occlusion errors (more on that but that is the big tell tale of 2-D conversions- well that and the character profile beveling seen on Clash of the Titans and Piranha - Warner write a po for this processor you need it badly)
.


When in the beginning of the Blu-ray of disc one from LIFE (BBC) the helicopter is hovering over the river feeding the tallest waterfall in Venezuela, (also depicted in the movie Up) the rocky topography is clearly depicted with better 3-d THAN UP, then when the camera proceeds to continue off the cliff revealing the abyss, that is when I think I might have passed gas, I am a big sufferer of vertigo, and from that controlled demonstration ( I can cross reference images seen on Samsung LCD's to those projected on DCI Barcos mentally compensating for the huge display quality delta but still knowing how the image seen on one will look on the other). In my estimation the 2-D to 3-D conversion completely trumpeted my previous most vertiginous Native 3-D experience in the cinema and with the superkontrast in UP.


Trust me it wont take a Smpte paper to prove what I am telling you now, there are sufficient cues in 2-D content to properly replicate stereoscopic-photo-realistic renditions of high altitude gut dropping dimensionalized imaging. From many tests I requisitioned yesterday I can state that Natively shot 3-D, in NO way has any advantage over this Lockheed Martin Spy Satellite Dimensionalization technology. It appears when the chiefs of staffs where looking at the Kremlin before perestroika, they were doing so in glorious 3-D , they probably deemed it important enough for national security to have sunk billions into it, the end product decades of declassification later: the end product still looks and feels like a Billion bucks.


First let me clarify that Cameron and Katzembergs are my absolute heroes , with the exception of their aversion from risking the general imaging population of the frontal lobe of the percival zone of comfort- their work is the standard by which all 3-D needs to be gauged, well Pixar too.


I am not criticizing or undermining them in any way they are just small fish compared to the billions of dollars that Ronald Regan gave the pentagon in 1984 to develop spy satellite technology with state of the art stereoscopic, photo-realistic DIMENSIONALISATION and resolution enhancement capabilities.


A peace dividend from 1984 will literally dictate the entire 2-D sourced universe of home cinema for the next 30 or 50 years. I state my reputation on this.


Big projection company's I am going to try the honor system, you know I don't want you copying me, so I am going to let it rest for a while, but I will be watching.
 
See less See more
4
#4 ·
Is this military technology that is declassified and going to be sold to the public? If so who will make the consumer product that uses this technology?
 
#6 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by CINERAMAX
On the fly with two massive parallel processors.


I have pics...later.
So, you're saying that the legions of 10 year olds who are slaving away 24/7 with tedious Titanic frame conversions are out of work? That's just wrong!



Assuming this isn't some cruel joke, I'm really looking forward to reading more about it. I'd love to see good conversions of lots of films and television shows. Being able to do this real time could provide all the content needed to satisfy the hunger of the 3D-starved masses (me).


I didn't think 2D to 3D could ever come close to "real" 3D, but I have to admit that there are times when I've really enjoyed it on my Samsung plasma - at least for certain types of content. I'd never confuse it with the real thing for more than a few seconds, but it's staved off 3D starvation for me several times. Without it, I don't know why anyone would even care if they bought a 3D TV in the last few months.
 
#7 ·
Excellent post! Would of loved to seen that demo. Im a huge fan a believer in 3D. My local cinemaplex has a NEC RealD 3DXL shooting on a 35ft screen that I am absolutly addicted to! Its only 5 blocks from my home so Im there ALOT. I try to make it to a 3D showing at least 2 times a week, sometimes 3 or 4. Ive seen Megamind 3D, which I really enjoyed, 3 times this week. By next year I will for sure be buying a 3D projector.
 
#10 ·
Bring it on, I can put together a very decent 3-D image, I tested this device with a live camera in a room full of people, as i moved about the room around other subjects, at no point did the processor miss placed the front back image.


I argue that despite all of Camerons effort to have three companies evaluate what should be in the front of what, this technology was developed using tests of orginal vs visualized, it is very very good, i could not find fault with it.


regarding the other statement of the benefits of 3d, there are obvious to me. I will defend them till the day I die.


If you are talking about my opinion on the merits of seeing 3-D ALL THE TIME regardless of the source of the content, then I get even more passionate as I make up this little slogan:


2D Is for Wankers. I never ever want to watch it again.


How about that little pearl of wisdom with your morning coffee?


Is that the one you want to dissect?


Bring it on.
 
#11 ·
So, how much will this technology cost and what will it mean for J6P? Are we talking about technology that will start out in high end displays and filter down to Walmart $199 HDTVs over time, or is it something that can be included cost effectively in projectors and flat panels by all the major players? If it cost a billion dollars to create it and a truck to transport it in 1984, it should fit in your pocket and cost 35 cents today, right?



Seriously, it should be technology that's incorporated into displays, so that any content can be converted - not something that's so expensive that it's sold only to the studios for their conversions. (And if it's good enough, who would want to pay Lucas for his Star Wars conversions, or Cameron for his Titanic conversion?) If it's too expensive, people like me don't get to play. And what's the time frame for commercialization?


So many questions!
 
#12 ·
Cameron and Katzenberg are heroes of mine, too. They've accelerated 3D's adoption dramatically. The first thing I watched after 3D Monsters vs Aliens on my Samsung plasma was the 2D to 3D conversion of the 2D Blu-ray of Avatar (using the Samsung's built-in capability). There were moments when I felt like I was back in the theater again. That thrill was enough to give me hope that the future of conversion might be a lot brighter than I had originally thought.


As I experimented with other content (like episodes of Eureka from Syfy), I realized that it was possible to achieve a remarkable sense of depth. The Cafe Diem scenes were shockingly realistic. Where conversion really falls apart for me is with people. I call it "flat face," a flattening of facial features that pulls me right out of the illusion. Close ups and medium shots remind me very quickly of why conversion doesn't work. And there are constant other failures, too. I usually can't go for more than a few seconds before a failure intrudes itself, and there's usually something about just about any scene that's a "fail" for me. I'll have to see it to believe it, but the success of the inexpensive implementation in current displays is enough to give me hope. I'll be following this thread closely.
 
#13 ·
OK

To start with Cameron's AVATAR is the worst 3D movie ever made. It is 100% 3D gimmick and totally unrealistic geometrically distorted parallax limit driven total brain confusion. In addition is is totally striped of any stereoscopic specular effects. Everything is paper textured with color patterns just like in any 2D to 3D conversions.

Who wants to see an actor growing in size and getting flattened in just a second or two of action time.

Who wants to see nothing but gigantically scaled version of actors and robots that move as if they ware made of Styrofoam.


Next, the 'money printer' or '2D to 3D magic conversion box'

Many thought of it as ultimate money making machine

even giants like Phillips Electronics got hooked on it

and spent few hundred millions to produce a ready product. It is called WOWvx and the box is selling for US$ 35k. Well, the current status is R.I.P. and nobody is buying even despite the fact that the TV is glasses free.

Why?

Because everything is 2D to 3D conversion and there is no way to show a normal stereoscopic image or a movie.


Now if you want to convince anybody that 2D to 3D is worth spending money on then you should provide some realistic performance examples which are not based on sets captured with camera horizontal panning.


Also if your examples have no stereoscopic specular effects

then I personally would not want to buy or watch such content.


Hope this does not heart your filling or get you upset.


Talking advantage of millions of 3D newbies is a short live adventure as they will quickly learn what is realistic stereoscopic content all about.


Mathew Orman

http://www.*******************.com/


ps. problem with occlusion is non issue now since it is removed with one step by applying perspective distortion to the reconstructed 3D volume. The front foreground objects are scaled up totally covering the holes in background :)
 
#14 ·
Mathew I welcome your comments, see you are passionate and unusually well informed, but I also see you have an ethic about making 3-D inexpensibly available to the masses.


I am not seeing that far down the road, the technologies that succeed in the high end , will trickle to the masses, it is a top down effort.


Nobody is trying to take advantage of millions of 3-D newbies, if anything of 3-D newbie millionaires.
JUST KIDDING I love this stuff and it is my passion, plus it's not like I did not take my due diligence in showing it at CEDIA despite the great expenses. I took a big risk; my work is now held as a benchmark for the HT industry. So I believe I am reasonably qualified to comment how other new 3-D experiences relate to what We saw at CEDIA- that is case in point this thread.


Now regarding the absence of specular effects, and I am VERY MUCH WITH YOU ON THIS, the theory at least what I referenced to old School German Rules of 3D, they came up with a Rule( and you know how serious Germans can get about Rules
) that because the eye separation is 65 to 70 mm that is best that the 3-D remain as a window through which you are looking (ie no specular or more commonly known In your Face effects).


This box that I saw rendered fantastic although specular effects devoid 3-D.


I am familiar with several software, and the built in Samsung converter, and the Teranex is in a league of it's own, comparing favorably to Alice, Avatar and MvA in it's beautiful presentation albeit entirely "behind the screen" ecosystem portrayal.


So I hold Avatar in high esteem but I am not going to be sycophant about it, I demand more (as you have termed it) specular stereo effects, and yes I think sometimes the successes goto Cameron's head whereby sometimes he talks out of his arse, like the lot of us.
It is a pity because the same camera he invented for Avatar PROVED BEYOND DOUBT that it does produce prodigious amounts of specularity (see resident Evil Afterlife- arguably the very best 3-D action movie ever made) and take it from someone who hates the franchise with a passion.
 
#15 ·
First thing that grabbed me by the .... DVD of Breakfast at Tiphanys.






I walked around this room full of people and at no point was the wrong person depicted in front or behind innacurately, it tried jumping back and forth, SUCKER WORKS!!!!




The circus show back curtains had hole pattern cut outs revealing a second back curtain (prime trigger for occlusion error) also spectacular results.








 
#17 ·
I watched a little of Sony's implementation of 2D to 3D conversion, and it was very disappointing compared to Samsung's. Did I see a bad demo, or is Sony just not doing it as well?


I'd appreciate a heads up about when and where future demos of this technology will be taking place. I'd really like to see it in person.
 
#18 ·
Mathew,


I bow to your obviously much greater knowledge of 3D. In all seriousness, I'm here to learn, and I appreciate the years of experience that people such as yourself bring to these discussions. But, I'll ask you here what I've asked you in other threads - what specifically is it that you want 3D filmmakers to do differently? In terms of 3D cameras and shooting techniques, are you saying that there is only one right way to shoot 3D? Are you saying that because he chooses to shoot 3D "unrealistically" that James Cameron's movies are bad? When you say Avatar is the worst 3D movie ever made, the generalization seems extraordinary.


When you ask the questions, "Who wants to see an actor growing in size and getting flattened in just a second or two of action time.

Who wants to see nothing but gigantically scaled version of actors and robots that move as if they ware made of Styrofoam." The answer appears to be: if the box office for Avatar is any indicator, over 2 billion dollars worth of them want to see that. I did - four times. Now, I'm not trying to say that because it's popular 3D, it's right. But you do seem to be saying that because it's not realistic 3D, it's wrong. I'd respond to that by saying that little about filmmaking has ever been realistic, even in 2D. As I said in a recent response to one of your posts, 2D filmmaking is full of unrealistic two dimensional distortions, including those created by wide angle, telephoto and zoom lenses, vertigo shots, camera dollies, sudden high angle to low angle transitions, etc, etc, etc, etc. These things have been used for over a century to engage and entertain people. Are you condemning such 2D lenses and shooting techniques because they're not realistic? Are you asking 2D filmmakers to stop using them? Are you asking 3D filmmakers to stop using unrealistic 3D cameras and shooting techniques and only shoot 3D the way you think it should be shot?


Maybe I'm simply misunderstanding what it is you're saying, and asking. Obviously, you have a lot of experience, and you spend a great deal of time thinking about these issues. But there seems to be a disconnect between your vision of what 3D filmmaking should be, the reality of what 3D filmmakers are doing and what people like seeing in their 3D entertainment. I know I've asked this question before, and I know it sounds like I'm calling you Quixotic, but I'm really curious about what your goals are. Please have patience with me. I honestly do want to understand your position better than I do.
 
#19 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by icester /forum/post/19475684


OK

To start with Cameron's AVATAR is the worst 3D movie ever made. It is 100% 3D gimmick and totally unrealistic geometrically distorted parallax limit driven total brain confusion. In addition is is totally striped of any stereoscopic specular effects. Everything is paper textured with color patterns just like in any 2D to 3D conversions.

Who wants to see an actor growing in size and getting flattened in just a second or two of action time.

Who wants to see nothing but gigantically scaled version of actors and robots that move as if they ware made of Styrofoam.


Next, the 'money printer' or '2D to 3D magic conversion box'

Many thought of it as ultimate money making machine

even giants like Phillips Electronics got hooked on it

and spent few hundred millions to produce a ready product. It is called WOWvx and the box is selling for US$ 35k. Well, the current status is R.I.P. and nobody is buying even despite the fact that the TV is glasses free.

Why?

Because everything is 2D to 3D conversion and there is no way to show a normal stereoscopic image or a movie.


Now if you want to convince anybody that 2D to 3D is worth spending money on then you should provide some realistic performance examples which are not based on sets captured with camera horizontal panning.


Also if your examples have no stereoscopic specular effects

then I personally would not want to buy or watch such content.


Hope this does not heart your filling or get you upset.


Talking advantage of millions of 3D newbies is a short live adventure as they will quickly learn what is realistic stereoscopic content all about.


Mathew Orman

http://www.*******************.com/


ps. problem with occlusion is non issue now since it is removed with one step by applying perspective distortion to the reconstructed 3D volume. The front foreground objects are scaled up totally covering the holes in background :)

I feel that your claim is mostly subjective.
 
#20 ·
Peter,


Is there any chance that you can provide a left/right image pair of the converted content so I can see how it looks myself? Based on your pictures all I can see is that it did create a lot of parallax between the views but I can't tell how it actually looks....


I am a little confused also. In your reply to Matt you said that the Teranex did not create negative parallax: "This box that I saw rendered fantastic although specular effects devoid 3-D." Based on the screenshots it looks like the box does create negative parallax on at least the ABC logo (unless it is being shown at the same depth as the basketball player). Again having a stereo image for me to view would really help me visualize this.


Also I noticed that there appears to be vertical mismatch in certain scenes/objects. Notice that the ABC logo appears to be higher in one view. This will cause eyestrain since it should simply be shifted horizontally between views.
 
#21 ·
I will ask for that, but it will take time I am swamped with work and all this pressure has affected my GERD, so I have to take it easy for awhile.


In the meantime
SHOULD TRUST MY CAPACITY TO SCRUTINIZE GOOD 3D[/URL] .



The mismatches could be the Samsung.
 
#22 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by CINERAMAX /forum/post/19484996


I will ask for that, but it will take time I am swamped with work and all this pressure has affected my GERD, so I have to take it easy for awhile.


In the meantime
SHOULD TRUST MY CAPACITY TO SCRUTINIZE GOOD 3D[/URL] .



The mismatches could be the Samsung.

What shows in your images is mostly motion parallax without any geometry corrections and floating window due to frame delay. Motion parallax methods are only correct for scenes that are static and only camera pans in horizontal direction of forward/backwards using split perspective. Motion parallax sports scenes are never correct

becasue scene objects move in arbitrary directions.


Why is it that every time some asks for a sample of 2D to 3D conversion all one gets is excuses?


Mathew Orman
 
#23 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joseph Clark /forum/post/19476545


Mathew,


I bow to your obviously much greater knowledge of 3D. In all seriousness, I'm here to learn, and I appreciate the years of experience that people such as yourself bring to these discussions. But, I'll ask you here what I've asked you in other threads - what specifically is it that you want 3D filmmakers to do differently? In terms of 3D cameras and shooting techniques, are you saying that there is only one right way to shoot 3D? Are you saying that because he chooses to shoot 3D "unrealistically" that James Cameron's movies are bad? When you say Avatar is the worst 3D movie ever made, the generalization seems extraordinary.


When you ask the questions, "Who wants to see an actor growing in size and getting flattened in just a second or two of action time.

Who wants to see nothing but gigantically scaled version of actors and robots that move as if they ware made of Styrofoam." The answer appears to be: if the box office for Avatar is any indicator, over 2 billion dollars worth of them want to see that. I did - four times. Now, I'm not trying to say that because it's popular 3D, it's right. But you do seem to be saying that because it's not realistic 3D, it's wrong. I'd respond to that by saying that little about filmmaking has ever been realistic, even in 2D. As I said in a recent response to one of your posts, 2D filmmaking is full of unrealistic two dimensional distortions, including those created by wide angle, telephoto and zoom lenses, vertigo shots, camera dollies, sudden high angle to low angle transitions, etc, etc, etc, etc. These things have been used for over a century to engage and entertain people. Are you condemning such 2D lenses and shooting techniques because they're not realistic? Are you asking 2D filmmakers to stop using them? Are you asking 3D filmmakers to stop using unrealistic 3D cameras and shooting techniques and only shoot 3D the way you think it should be shot?


Maybe I'm simply misunderstanding what it is you're saying, and asking. Obviously, you have a lot of experience, and you spend a great deal of time thinking about these issues. But there seems to be a disconnect between your vision of what 3D filmmaking should be, the reality of what 3D filmmakers are doing and what people like seeing in their 3D entertainment. I know I've asked this question before, and I know it sounds like I'm calling you Quixotic, but I'm really curious about what your goals are. Please have patience with me. I honestly do want to understand your position better than I do.

Oh,

I do not want filmmakers to change anything.

This way my upcoming 3D creations will have no competition.

But if you are interested in what it takes to create realistic

3D content follow the sticky thread on

3D Tech Talk.


Mathew Orman
 
#24 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by CINERAMAX /forum/post/19484996


I will ask for that, but it will take time I am swamped with work and all this pressure has affected my GERD, so I have to take it easy for awhile.


In the meantime
SHOULD TRUST MY CAPACITY TO SCRUTINIZE GOOD 3D[/URL] .



The mismatches could be the Samsung.

Thanks peter take your time. If there is one person on this forum who has shown that they know what they are talking about with 3D it's you (and not icester!!
)


Hope you feel better soon
 
#25 ·
why Cameron and other spend $50.000 till to $100.000


"""PER MINUTE"""


to convert 2D movies into 3D?


no question a high end 2d to 3d converter is may better than a 3D TV build in

converter but I doubt you like to play long time with it and still have fun.


but lets see this unit first in action before i will make my final judgement.


this sounds a bit of """ 3D without glasses""".


i just comes back from Electronica 2010 in munich the biggest electronic show in

the world.

opposite to our booth a other company have one of the latest glass free 3d tv there
 
#26 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by CINERAMAX /forum/post/19485516


kicking me in the nuts when i am suffering from serious pain is a nono.

I thought that was my raison d'etre.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top