AVS Forum banner

1 - 20 of 53 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
959 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Any one had made comparison of Avatar's 3D picture from "2D to 3D" conversion from a 2D blue ray disc vs a real 3Disc?
I had tried the "2D to 3D" conversion of that movie, using the Epson 5030UBe projector. The 3D picture on screen showed the depth of the scene but nothing pulp out except the subtitle or the disc menu. I wonder if the 3D picture projected on screen from a 3D disc is much better than the "2D to 3D" conversion by the projector.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,789 Posts
Any one had made comparison of Avatar's 3D picture from "2D to 3D" conversion from a 2D blue ray disc vs a real 3Disc?
I had tried the "2D to 3D" conversion of that movie, using the Epson 5030UBe projector. The 3D picture on screen showed the depth of the scene but nothing pulp out except the subtitle or the disc menu. I wonder if the 3D picture projected on screen from a 3D disc is much better than the "2D to 3D" conversion by the projector.

There is NO comparison.:rolleyes: Do yourself a huge favor and get the bluray! I also have a 5030 & fooled around with the conversion. IMO it's a waste of time and looks terrible as have other conversions I tried with players. Avatar absolutely needs to be seen in REAL 3D!;)


Yer welcome!


Ed
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
959 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
There is NO comparison.:rolleyes: Do yourself a huge favor and get the bluray! I also have a 5030 & fooled around with the conversion. IMO it's a waste of time and looks terrible as have other conversions I tried with players. Avatar absolutely needs to be seen in REAL 3D!;)


Yer welcome!


Ed
Hi Ed, many thanks for your response. Any real 3D blue ray disc you would recommend me? Had you compared the real 3D disc of Avatar, by a 3D player vs 2D to 3D conversion by the Epson projector ? Was it really "day and night" difference?
Thank you.
Kwok
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,789 Posts
Hi Ed, many thanks for your response. Any real 3D blue ray disc you would recommend me? Had you compared the real 3D disc of Avatar, by a 3D player vs 2D to 3D conversion by the Epson projector ? Was it really "day and night" difference?
Thank you.
Kwok

No, I didn't try Avatar but I tried several others. Even animated movies just look weird to me. Here's a couple fairly recent ones that I thought were great:
Live and Let Die
Dawn of the Planet of the Apes
And a couple more I just thought of:
Gatsby
Guardians of the Galaxy
Here's one that I thought was a great family 3D movie:
Journey 2 The Mysterious Island--No Oscar winner here but an entertaining story for kids & adults with outstanding 3D. It was shot in 3D as well.
Most all of the IMAX ones are great. If you have any interest in nature movies you should get Richard Attenborough's 3D Collection from Amazon UK. Hours of outstanding photography/3D. http://www.amazon.co.uk/David-Atten...0&keywords=Richard+Attenborough+3D+Collection
It's listed as region B/2 but it's actually region free as I suspect his other 3D documentaries are.


Note that none of these are animated although I enjoy those as well. Hope this is helpful!
EDIT!
"Live & Let Die" is actually Edge of Tomorrow--sorry 'bout that!


Ed
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
959 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
No, I didn't try Avatar but I tried several others. Even animated movies just look weird to me. Here's a couple fairly recent ones that I thought were great:
Live and Let Die
Dawn of the Planet of the Apes
And a couple more I just thought of:
Gatsby
Guardians of the Galaxy
Here's one that I thought was a great family 3D movie:
Journey 2 The Mysterious Island--No Oscar winner here but an entertaining story for kids & adults with outstanding 3D. It was shot in 3D as well.
Most all of the IMAX ones are great. If you have any interest in nature movies you should get Richard Attenborough's 3D Collection from Amazon UK. Hours of outstanding photography/3D. http://www.amazon.co.uk/David-Atten...0&keywords=Richard+Attenborough+3D+Collection
It's listed as region B/2 but it's actually region free as I suspect his other 3D documentaries are.


Note that none of these are animated although I enjoy those as well. Hope this is helpful!
EDIT!
"Live & Let Die" is actually Edge of Tomorrow--sorry 'bout that!


Ed
Ed, I thank you for your time to reply me. Will consider to buy your suggested 3D discs. I have a sunny and warm day today. Do wish your have a great sunny and warm day as well. Best regards.
Kwok
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,789 Posts
Ed, I thank you for your time to reply me. Will consider to buy your suggested 3D discs. I have a sunny and warm day today. Do wish your have a great sunny and warm day as well. Best regards.
Kwok

You're welcome Kwok. Actually, the sun just came out here. It's been cloudy and sprinkling all day but FINALLY is beginning to look like Spring!:)
Happy viewing!


Ed
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,083 Posts
Hi All,

Recently purchased the Sony KDL 50W800B and thus far using just the simulated 3D.

Last night watched an underwater nature show on National Geographic Wild and compared the simulated 3D to standard definition with my DVR. Both pictures were beautiful, however, I was floored by the depth and natural realism that the simulated 2D effect created. Same with sports, especially golf. Also very happy with the DVDs that I own though have seen in store demonstration of true 3D so understand the difference along with the missing element of human creativity and imagination of the director that a computer chip can never replace.

But cost is a factor and replacing so many DVDs for their 3D counterparts is expensive and the one thing I do miss with the simulated 3D is with objects jumping at the viewer in lieu of being behind the set. Not so much with the nature shows and sports but the action movies. I see where some blu ray players have simulated 3D built into them. Since this means an actual 3D then being fed to the Sony, would the result be objects actually popping out at the viewer (though still simulated) instead of like looking through a window? Or will it still be the same? This way it won't be so expensive adding a bit to the effect and the future discs can be 3D

Thanks as always for the advice.

Joe
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
241 Posts
I see where some blu ray players have simulated 3D built into them. Since this means an actual 3D then being fed to the Sony, would the result be objects actually popping out at the viewer (though still simulated) instead of like looking through a window?
Unfortunately, no 2D-to-3D converter, not even the celebrated Teranex, does negative parallax (which makes for popouts). And "double dipping" the conversion process using two different devices won't work either. I can't imagine what you'd get, but it definitely wouldn't be decent 3D.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,037 Posts
This is native 3D.


Notice how the croc, the leaves and the bamboo fence are shifting independently.


This is a conversion by the Teranex, regarded by some on this forum to be the best converter. One user even claims it looks more realistic than native 3D.


Notice how it looks like a flat image that's simply turning. Other than that, the Teranex pushes the entire image back so it looks like it's floating further behind the TV screen. You can accomplish the latter effect by toying with your TV's 3D window setting, free of charge.

If I had $3K+ to throw at 3D content, I'd buy a couple hundred 3D Blu-rays instead.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,083 Posts
Unfortunately, no 2D-to-3D converter, not even the celebrated Teranex, does negative parallax (which makes for popouts). And "double dipping" the conversion process using two different devices won't work either. I can't imagine what you'd get, but it definitely wouldn't be decent 3D.
Hi fxrh,

Spoke to Crutchfield today and was told the same thing. The TV would be receiving a simulated picture and would display the information as it was being received.

My thought was that it would be output side by side or some other method but was told even though that would be the case, the information it was getting would be with the dimension going backwards away from the viewer (non technical my own translation :D ).

Would be too expensive not so much for the blu ray play but to start replacing the DVDs I own for the 3D versions. Know even with the backwards effect it is just simulated and not eye popping as intended on movies but it is very natural looking overall, especially with nature shows. Movies in general have a very natural depth to it which in many ways simulates how we really see things. But I won't compare it to the true 3D experience which I've seen demonstrated in stores. But this is a nice compromise, much more than I expected.

Can always do a pay per view.

Thanks again.

Joe
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,083 Posts
This is native 3D.


Notice how the croc, the leaves and the bamboo fence are shifting independently.


This is a conversion by the Teranex, regarded by some on this forum to be the best converter. One user even claims it looks more realistic than native 3D.


Notice how it looks like a flat image that's simply turning. Other than that, the Teranex pushes the entire image back so it looks like it's floating further behind the TV screen. You can accomplish the latter effect by toying with your TV's 3D window setting, free of charge.

If I had $3K+ to throw at 3D content, I'd buy a couple hundred 3D Blu-rays instead.
Hi Cake,

So in general terms the simulation effect is accomplished by the set determining how far back to push everything found in the picture.

Know that with shots of oceans, deserts, mountain areas, landscapes, etc. the depth seems very deeply spread back with buildings, people interspersed in between. Sometimes not as pronounced as others but overall most satisfying.

In 1994 was sent a VHS camcorder recording from one we met on a trip out west back and just recently dubbed it onto DVD and watching it back in 3D there was more limited "natural" dimension.

So it seems to recreate the natural sense of dimension we experience but not the "eye popping" experience one can make with true special effects obviously. Am I right with my observation in general?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,037 Posts
Hi Cake,

So in general terms the simulation effect is accomplished by the set determining how far back to push everything found in the picture.

Know that with shots of oceans, deserts, mountain areas, landscapes, etc. the depth seems very deeply spread back with buildings, people interspersed in between. Sometimes not as pronounced as others but overall most satisfying.

In 1994 was sent a VHS camcorder recording from one we met on a trip out west back and just recently dubbed it onto DVD and watching it back in 3D there was more limited "natural" dimension.

So it seems to recreate the natural sense of dimension we experience but not the "eye popping" experience one can make with true special effects obviously. Am I right with my observation in general?
I wouldn't say it "recreates a natural sense of dimension," or "determines how far back to push everything." It just takes a video and pushes it back. It doesn't know that the crocodile is in the middle and that there's water behind and in front. It keeps it all on one plane. The reason it gets landscape shots right is the same reason a stopped clock gets the time right twice a day.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,083 Posts
I wouldn't say it "recreates a natural sense of dimension," or "determines how far back to push everything." It just takes a video and pushes it back. It doesn't know that the crocodile is in the middle and that there's water behind and in front. It keeps it all on one plane. The reason it gets landscape shots right is the same reason a stopped clock gets the time right twice a day.
Hi Cake,

Just lucky I guess. :)

But by "natural" I meant as far as what our vision is used to seeing in everyday depth without the extra added effects which of course makes one's jaw drop but can be exaggerated. Please know I am no expert on this but from what I have read and can understand from my own experience, when we focus on a certain area, it is really just that field of vision where the depth is pronounced. With true 3D, just about every object has it's own individual plane, as with the crocodile demonstration. That's where I was coming from with my thoughts. Could the limitations of simulated 3D, though just pushing things back and by keeping it on that one plane, actually have stumbled onto something? Not the 3D experience one wants to be immersed in, of course, but more of the realism one is used to?

Just thoughts, not a commentary. ;)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,083 Posts
Hi fx,

Thanks for passing that along.

One not need to be astute to understand simulated has its tremendous limitations, especially because I consider an actual 2d to 3d conversion like Titanic like an audio remixing of older recordings meticulously done and not just a digital remaster.

Might not have mentioned that I did not purchase the set for the 3D as it was I have a large collection of DVD-Rs dubbed from TCM, HBO, etc and they looked very good on my older Sony KD34XBR960, the highly praised CRT that after ten years saw its better days. Also have a Panasonic recorder with flexible recording so am able to use the entire disc in proportion to the exact tme of the movie for the best picture quality, down converted to 480 via s video of course. Won't do this for Lawrence of Arabia but for 40 cents a film, makes me able to pursue the hobby. So the simulated 3D was an unexpected treat since was not expecting anything at all from what I read.

Hope that clarifies where I was coming from. Not in the market for 3D at all, this was a nice surprise, having seen actual store demonstrations with blue ray. :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
959 Posts
Discussion Starter #16
Many thanks to all you folks throwing in your ideas since I started this topic.


An un-related message to share here. I purchased a factory refurbished Epson 5030UBe (wireless), but its wireless transmitter did not work with the projector. Epson had exchanged a new wireless transmitter and yet it didn't work. I eventually returned for refund 2 weeks ago. Now I am looking at the Sony 40es. Do wish it will be on discount soon. Today is the last day of Epson 5030UB (not wireless) at sale price $1999. If any one looking for a new projector, it should be considered. I prefer Sony's color accuracy, so I wait for it to cut down the price, hopefully this month or June. Who knows? Please keep sharing more ideas and experience. Best regards.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,101 Posts
A friend and I watched a couple of 3D Bluray on an LG 42" 3D TV more than a year ago whilst I was testing it out, followed by 2D->3D conversion by the set. Recently the friend watched 2D->3D conversion on a Panasonic 3D TV and said that it looked much better than the LG.

I'm wondering if this is simply due to improvements in 2D->3D conversion within the TV over the time period, or better processing by Panasonic.

Previously I had heard that Mitsubishi projectors had the best 2D->3D conversion (ignoring the Teranex or equivalent high-end gear).

Just wondering if anyone has done a comparison between the brands or whether they are all using the same chip (Panasonic was using LG panels, so there is a good chance they use the same chip too).

Would really like to see what Ultra-D can do with 2D->3D conversion since they use a number of cues within the images (including 3D parallax when a 3D source is available) and the result is basically a 2D->3D conversion for everything. Unfortunately the domestic release seems to have gone quiet.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,083 Posts
A friend and I watched a couple of 3D Bluray on an LG 42" 3D TV more than a year ago whilst I was testing it out, followed by 2D->3D conversion by the set. Recently the friend watched 2D->3D conversion on a Panasonic 3D TV and said that it looked much better than the LG.

I'm wondering if this is simply due to improvements in 2D->3D conversion within the TV over the time period, or better processing by Panasonic.

Previously I had heard that Mitsubishi projectors had the best 2D->3D conversion (ignoring the Teranex or equivalent high-end gear).

Just wondering if anyone has done a comparison between the brands or whether they are all using the same chip (Panasonic was using LG panels, so there is a good chance they use the same chip too).

Would really like to see what Ultra-D can do with 2D->3D conversion since they use a number of cues within the images (including 3D parallax when a 3D source is available) and the result is basically a 2D->3D conversion for everything. Unfortunately the domestic release seems to have gone quiet.
Hi IanD,

Haven't made any comparisons but have found that subtle improvements in picture settings go hand in hand in making the simulaed 3D effect a bit stronger in depth beyond that created by the level effect adjustment itself. In addition to the incrimental adjustments for contrast, brightness, color, resolution, etc., I have found those for noise reduction, glasses brightness, etc., set to a specific level help create a stronger simulation instead of being set to "auto".

It is probably like comparing sets with the user adjustments in general not properly calibrated - one is not seeing a set's true capabilities.

I've had the Sony 50w800b for not quite a month and am more used to simulated 3D than when it was first a new toy. Have seen the effect dependent somewhat with the quality of the picture itself. Fortunately, the user settings for simulated 3D are separate from those for 2D so the proper adjustments can be made without compromising the integrity of the other. Did not know that at first.

That's my experience. Hope it helps you with your decision.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,625 Posts
Previously I had heard that Mitsubishi projectors had the best 2D->3D conversion (ignoring the Teranex or equivalent high-end gear).

Just wondering if anyone has done a comparison between the brands or whether they are all using the same chip (Panasonic was using LG panels, so there is a good chance they use the same chip too).
I had a chance to check out the Optoma HD 50 last year which is using a pixelworks chip / video processor for 2D > 3D conversion and was rather impressed (I had not thought it could be that good).

Of course, it's difficult to agree on a set of parameters to judge the performance without seeing it with one's own eyes, but I have a proposal: Over at my friend's house we watched the opening sequence of Star Wars and that told us a few things about operation:

Looking at the starfield was like looking into a box with walls to the left, to the right and further back. Apparently the processor creates a fixed stage (like a theater stage if you think about it) and then places objects onto this stage, guessing which ones go to the front and which ones go to the back (probably by measuring if something is in or out of focus).

During the actual film, the 3D performance was rather good than bad. I would say it was that good that I would love to watch every film at least once with this 2D > 3D conversion, but there was little doubt that a "real" 3D program would be much better and more reliable.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,101 Posts
I had a chance to check out the Optoma HD 50 last year which is using a pixelworks chip / video processor for 2D > 3D conversion and was rather impressed (I had not thought it could be that good).
Most of the time the manufacturers aren't forthcoming about the processing chips they use for 2D->3D conversion, which makes comparison more difficult.

At it's simplest, I think you can divide the screen vertically and judge distance of an object by how close to the top it is, but proper 3D assessment obviously requires much more detailed processing of other cues.

My friend said the Panasonic 3D was like looking at a curved screen with objects extending towards the viewer: that sounds more like simply taking distance from centre to determine greater depth.

From what little I can glean, Ultra-D uses many cues to determine distance, including how much a moving object shifts between left and right views over time, plus shading and perspective angles. However this requires considerable processing that the usual 2 or 4-core chips can't handle. Therefore I think they might have the edge, but since the technology has not gone public it's difficult to tell, plus their focus has been on glassless 3D, which is a pity they didn't also work on a parallel 2D->3D system on a chip for standalone processing for all 3D viewing methods.
 
1 - 20 of 53 Posts
Top