Originally Posted by Don Landis
I would only add that it is OK to take some time to check out different auto conversion systems. So far I have not seen any that come close to post conversions we have seen recently. I have this feature and never use it.
When I want to fake 3D from a 2D clip in a 3D edited project, I will just push the 2D image a bit back behind the screen plane and this is good enough for me not to make it look too unnatural. The cheap 2D-3D conversion software I have really sucks and makes my 2D stuff just look extruded, not natural at all. I never use it.
I'm curious what is possible but I don't have access to other converters aside from my LG set. I've seen a couple demos on Youtube of some of the affordable set top boxes and it puzzles me why anyone would wear glasses to watch their randomly warped images.
There are people out there who find it passable, but there are also people who thumb-up Youtube 3D content that's simply 2D footage moved 1 frame out of sync, as well as people who cross their eyes with parallel 3D e.g. Oculus Rift videos. Maybe these are the same people who can't see 3D properly. To them native 3D is probably a bit confusing, so it's hard for them to differentiate between native, autoconverted, inverted, and frame-delayed.
I'm really ok with people enjoying it, but there's too much wrong with claiming it's anywhere near the quality of postconversion. That one guy who was selling a $20K converter, he posted some images offscreen with the glasses off, and while he was saying that it was better than some of the early postconverted films, I could see a lot of vertical misalignments, which to any 3D content producer is a big no-no. For a device to intentionally produce those errors in an effort to give the illusion of depth is just head-smack-worthy.Edited by cakefoo - 8/19/13 at 1:11am