Seriously, I am SO glad I saw this because it looks absolutely BOLLOCKS! And there are alot of 2D to 3D conversion boxes out there (all made in China) that are labelled different but are identical to this dodgey video!
well, conversions will never be as perfect as a dual view recording e.g using two cmameras since in the 2D video you have no depth informations at all - you need to get these informations e.g from moving cameras (which works best) or a human beeing needs to define whats in front and what in back - thats very time and money consuming but quality still is not good or even perfect - even if this is done for serveral million dollars for some Hollywood movies
of course (see recent 3D moveies in cinemas) - a dual camera setup simulates what your eyes see - two slightly different views of the same scene - when showing the corresponding views of both cameras to the eyes our brain does exactly what we do all the time our eyes are open: calculate a 3D scene - to get a realistic view with two cameras the lenses should be at the same distance than aour eyes (2.5" or 63mm)
so everyone has the same eye distance 63mm, and the same focus point? Can you kindly help to give a definition for the "perfect quality" on stereo video... Thanks~
no the 63mm is the avarage eye distance - a few mm more or less will not be noticable, but when cameras are setup at 10cm or more you will see this - it ends up with a socalled lilliputithm view. but if lenses are separated at about 60-75mm all is fine - but it also depends on how large you will project the stereoascopic video/pictures - it makes much difference if you view it on a PC monitor, a 2m wide screen or cinema screen at 18m. Theroy is not easy - even experienced stereoscopists may fail
You are really a stereoscopic expert! I believe that there will be more contents captured by dual view recording device from now on. And there will still be some old contents which have no depth information, but people still want to see them in 3D. Although this conversion is an hard-to-do job, just like the tuning of the distance for stereoscopic projectors, people will still work on it until it achieves acceptable quality.
well I have seen really good conversions done by a conpany in Hollywood called InThree - they are working on e.g Spiderman, Jurasic Parc, Star Wars and others but one single movie conversion costs about 8 million dollars - still cheaper than filming once again but new productions should take stereoscopy in account and use two cameras from the scratch
What separates this from Pro Quality conversions?
nishaJD 2 weeks ago
Seriously, I am SO glad I saw this because it looks absolutely BOLLOCKS! And there are alot of 2D to 3D conversion boxes out there (all made in China) that are labelled different but are identical to this dodgey video!
LEFTJEFFA 2 months ago
0:39 if that were to pop out of my screen . . . i would shit myself
extrememonaXXX 6 months ago
Comment removed
extrememonaXXX 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
hello, you know a good program that converts videos 2D to 3D?? Please know that some do the conversion from 2D to 3D?
CassioLiskoski 1 year ago
conversion is as bad as usual - a real conversion is hard to do
Mr3Dvideo 2 years ago
Yeah it's true. Hope there are more people working on this now...
doraemon332 2 years ago
well, conversions will never be as perfect as a dual view recording e.g using two cmameras since in the 2D video you have no depth informations at all - you need to get these informations e.g from moving cameras (which works best) or a human beeing needs to define whats in front and what in back - thats very time and money consuming but quality still is not good or even perfect - even if this is done for serveral million dollars for some Hollywood movies
Mr3Dvideo 2 years ago
so dual view recording gives perfect quality ?
doraemon332 2 years ago
of course (see recent 3D moveies in cinemas) - a dual camera setup simulates what your eyes see - two slightly different views of the same scene - when showing the corresponding views of both cameras to the eyes our brain does exactly what we do all the time our eyes are open: calculate a 3D scene - to get a realistic view with two cameras the lenses should be at the same distance than aour eyes (2.5" or 63mm)
Mr3Dvideo 2 years ago
so everyone has the same eye distance 63mm, and the same focus point? Can you kindly help to give a definition for the "perfect quality" on stereo video... Thanks~
doraemon332 2 years ago
no the 63mm is the avarage eye distance - a few mm more or less will not be noticable, but when cameras are setup at 10cm or more you will see this - it ends up with a socalled lilliputithm view. but if lenses are separated at about 60-75mm all is fine - but it also depends on how large you will project the stereoascopic video/pictures - it makes much difference if you view it on a PC monitor, a 2m wide screen or cinema screen at 18m. Theroy is not easy - even experienced stereoscopists may fail
Mr3Dvideo 2 years ago
You are really a stereoscopic expert! I believe that there will be more contents captured by dual view recording device from now on. And there will still be some old contents which have no depth information, but people still want to see them in 3D. Although this conversion is an hard-to-do job, just like the tuning of the distance for stereoscopic projectors, people will still work on it until it achieves acceptable quality.
doraemon332 2 years ago
well I have seen really good conversions done by a conpany in Hollywood called InThree - they are working on e.g Spiderman, Jurasic Parc, Star Wars and others but one single movie conversion costs about 8 million dollars - still cheaper than filming once again but new productions should take stereoscopy in account and use two cameras from the scratch
Mr3Dvideo 2 years ago
讚啦！
JuiHsinLai 2 years ago