AVS Forum banner
1 - 5 of 5 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
so since everyone talks on how they suck and what knot... i jsut wanna know one simple thing:


on 3d blu rays... whats the differnce between native 3d and converted 3d?


i see no real difference. what should i notice? what distinguishes native to converted?


please give me examples or picture evidence. thanks!


(sorry im new to this and yes i did search.. only to find many arguments of how *insert movie here*'s coversion sucks)
 

·
Registered
LG 55" C9 OLED, Yamaha RX-A660, Monoprice 5.1.2 Speakers, WMC HTPC, TiVo Bolt, X1
Joined
·
45,683 Posts
Native 3D is content acquired by recording two different views of the same image, one for the right eye, one for the left. Non-native 3D is taking an original single view of an image and simulating the two eye views of native 3D.


In most all cases non-native 3D is not anywhere as good as native 3D. A number of problems can occur, including lack of apparent depth.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,170 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by RealFnCool /forum/post/19540909


thank you for the response. is this why some 3d movies look funny? kinda like a pop-up book?

Yes,


all 2D to 3D conversions look like that.


Zero specular effects, zero transparency and all look as if made with paper textures.


Mathew Orman
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,262 Posts
I saw that pop up book look in the Monsters Vs Aliens demo. When the alien troops are marching in the background and the alien boss is talking in the foreground.


The boss looks like a paper in front of the moving troops. I'm wondering if this is because he was too far out from zero parallax?
 
1 - 5 of 5 Posts
Top