Why hasn't anyone commented on this?

[Elsie N]

It was reported that a company at CES 2010, 3D Eye Solutions can turn a movie shot in 2D into a 3D version that can be viewed without 3D glasses (autostereoscopic 3D). They don't make the hardware, just the content that gets played on the hardware through their box. Supposedly they have already done the conversion of some movies like Wanted and a few others for Big Hollywood already.

Wouldn't this be easier than actually shooting the movie in 3D, plus you don't have to wear the glasses.

Anybody know more about this?

The piece I read was on Tom's Hardware at
http://www.tomsguide.com/us/3D-Eye-Solutions,news-5516.html

Here's another review on 3D technology, again including the 3DES technology

http://www.tomsguide.com/us/3DTV-autostereoscopic-CES,review-1490.html

[Joseph Ward]

Wouldn't this be easier than actually shooting the movie in 3D, plus you don't have to wear the glasses.

Anybody know more about this?

Good questions.
Converting a 2D planar movie into 3D stereoscopic is very expensive right now and can cost more than shooting it in stereo depending on some factors. Multiview Autostereoscopic Displays right now have a narrow viewing angle but probably will get better as time goes on with technology improvements. In the mean time enhancing 2D movies to 3D will be a transitional factor for older films to be a little more updated, like SD to HD upconversions, until most movies and broadcast are made stereoscopic 3D all the way.:thumbup1:

[KETCH ROSSi]

Testing for converted and or S3D original content to be viewed Glasless, has been testing for and announced since 08, we just hope that they do get it were is economically a viable solution to adopt, but there is more to it then just what it has been announced, two systems are in final testing as well and not yet announced but they will soon.

[Markus Stone]

Most of the solutions I have seen for this sort of thing rely on a depth map generated by hand - or with some computer assistance - that is then used to warp the original 2D image to get the other view/s. It's still heavily labour intensive, which is why it's still expensive.

It gets tricky with anything transparent/translucent/blurry. To generate a depth map, you have to assign each pixel a specific depth in 3D space - usually things closer are white, things far away are black.

As an imperfect example - if you're looking at your actor through a rain dappled window, is the pixel at the depth of the window, the actor's face, or the reflection of the street in the window?

You can see it gets complicated. Two camera shoots can deal with the fact that the pixel actually exists in all 3 depth planes at the same time.

Cheers

-Markus

[Pedro Guimaraes]

The best auto-stereo I've seen is the phillips .....has 8 "zones" of viewing. Even in the "zone" the technology has a way to go before becoming good enough to be considered to replace 3d Glasses technology. I've demo'd a total of 4 different brand of auto-stereo tv sets. None are quite there yet.

Alice in wonderland, Piranha 3D (upcoming 3D releases) were both shot 2D but knowing they were going to convert. SO that helped. Also the disney 3D release last year "G-Force" was also shot in 2D and converted. They sent all the footage to convert in the Philippines were the labor intensive process was alot cheaper.

There are many many companies in the business of 2D to 3D conversion. "In three" landed star wars and as far as I know all the star wars movies are in the process of being converted. I'm also aware of a host of other 2D movies that are in the process or in consideration for "dimensionalization"

In the end, it's not the same as material shot in 3D. Never will be since there is so much the other "eye" captures that adds to the 3D effect. Not to mention when you shoot in 3D you compose the shots differently etc....In a 2D movie you may not have the most effective 3D shots because they were not thinking about 3D when they were shooting. But it is still a viable way of producing 3D content. When you think of all the 3D networks that are on the way, the need for content is going to be immense. Undoubtedly I think that we will end up seeing alot of "dimensionalized" material. Of course like everything this will lower the costs of the conversion process.

Hopefully for us behind the lenses, lets hope that they decided to produce stereoscopic content instead of 2-3D everything. But it is troubling because in a financial sense converting matrial is very inciting proposition.

[Ben Holmes]

[QUOTE=Elsie N;535316]It was reported that a company at CES 2010, 3D Eye Solutions can turn a movie shot in 2D into a 3D version that can be viewed without 3D glasses (autostereoscopic 3D). They don't make the hardware, just the content that gets played on the hardware through their box. Supposedly they have already done the conversion of some movies like Wanted and a few others for Big Hollywood already.

Wouldn't this be easier than actually shooting the movie in 3D, plus you don't have to wear the glasses.

Anybody know more about this?

The piece I read was on Tom's Hardware at
[URL]

Here's another review on 3D technology, again including the 3DES technology

[url]

If you look at coverage of CES on many of the gadget blogs, you will see that many of the 3D ready sets coming out this year also 'convert' 2D to 3D. I expect this to fully suck.

[Ben Holmes]

If you want to see why this will suck, see if you can find the Father Ted clip
on YouTube where he explains: "let's try again Dougal. Big cow, FAR away. Small cow, CLOSER".

I don't expect my TV to be smarter than Dougal...

[Elsie N]

Sounds like the consensus here is that the 3DES company's approach is just not going to compete with camera production 3D on anything near an equal basis. Thanks to all who weighed in.

[Ken Waller]

Fake 3-D sucks. Taking 2-D movies and making them into 3-D is flawed. I've seen the SUPERMAN RETURNS 3D in IMAX and to me the regular parts of the movie looked better than the Faux 3-D. Did anyone here think the running in the cornfield scene looked good in 3-D. I didn't think the Harry Potter scene looked any better. I like 3-D movies that were originally 3-D to start with.

PS
to be fair there were a few shots that did work in Superman Returns like when he dropped the boat and it fell away from the camera. That was nice so I see why they think this works, yes sometimes it works but for the most part it looks off and each time they asked you to remove your glasses you noticed how nice the 2-D IMAX looks.

[Eric Lange]

If you want to see why this will suck, see if you can find the Father Ted clip
on YouTube where he explains: "let's try again Dougal. Big cow, FAR away. Small cow, CLOSER".

I don't expect my TV to be smarter than Dougal...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=98hO97ky-sA

The whole episode is total genius, very funny...


To the 2d to s3d thing.

I have been taking large plate architectural stereograms for twenty years (amongst other things) originally for high end digital and photogrammetric work and high end immersive VR applications. For the eye and brain to generate a full and accurate three dimensional percept of a scene requires very rich high frequency 3d texture (with a fine grained high contrast aspect), and well optimized camera geometry. This generally only comes from shooting well lit complex high texture subjects so that the brain can easily pick out and perceive rich and engaging nuances of various 3d surfaces and various features. This also enables one to accurately elucidate the general disposition of the whole scene as well as to draw ones attention to a small area of interest. This only comes from a well shot and well engineered stereogram (static or dynamic, live action or rendered CG). The conversion processes from 2d to 3d nearly always have the aspect and feel of crude flats moderately shaped and disposed variously on a “stage”, completely lacking the complex and rich true 3d texture. So yes it is possible to perceive the particular depth range and disposition of the “cardboard” models but it pales in comparison with well executed true stereo.

It is possible to view the conversion technology as some kind of threat to live S3d capture processes, but I believe the punters are fairly media savvy and will very quickly learn the difference between true stereo versus synthetic 2d to stereo conversions. I’m sure the same arguments came about when people were first colorizing movies.

For now I much prefer the shutter glasses or polarization over the lenticular (auto-stereoscopic) displays simply because of distracting moiré patterns that seem to conflict with the perceived depth content as well as a general lack of fine grained/high res sharpness of the display.

Cheers,

Eric

[benjamin]

Hi, we've got few problems with our impero...
first we have noticed that it doesn't work with the wire, the impero is not recognize by the birger mount (sync and V-A leds are switched off).
Secondly when we use the remote without the wire, the advanced functions such as "limit knob" and "limit lens" do not work.
Does anyone have the same problems? And do you know where I can find good and clear instructions in order to use the Impero?
Thanks

Ben

[Pedro Guimaraes]

Like I said I'm no fan of 2d to 3D.......but I have seen some "tests" for some high dollar "A-list" clients that are very impressive. I wouldn't write it off. I've heard more than a few times people considering shooting in 2D for 3D. If you have alot of money and want the "camera freedom" of shooting 2D......it's viable and people are considering it and doing it (Piranha, G-force).

I agree with the consensus. It will never look as good as stereoscopic content. That color analogy is perfect. With all the tools we have today, youo could "colorize" a movie very well. Still every shoots in real color.

[Eric Lange]

Pedro, I have to say that what you write seems to have an ominous and familiar ring to it. I am somewhat fearful of the point you make, as many times over in the modern age, convenience almost always wins over quality, especially if there is substantially more effort and skill required to achieve that quality.

So one could clearly say that 2d to 3d conversion could provide imagery that is stereo-spatially more stable and phycho-visually more “palatable” than badly shot or weak true stereo. And one could say that true well shot S3d will always be far superior to converted 2d footage, but requires greater knowledge skill and understanding to properly execute. Given the way that the “suits” think and are mainly interested in the bottom line (i.e. “just get the popcorn eaters through the door”), and that directors want (on the whole) to be unfettered by weird and complex constraints, that the 2d to 3d conversion does as you say seem viable (as you say) for “A” list clients.

I hope in some sense that this should scare people into making excellently prepared and executed stereographic work, rather than just fly by the seat of your pants (rough and ready stereo). I know Pedro/Stereoscope’s group are really helping in this respect (spoke to JR for several hours at a conference a few years ago, and we really ticked a lot of the same boxes).The devil really is in the detail and it really pays to understand everything you possibly can about stereographic processes (really challenge yourself to become Mega Nerds/Anoraks) and leave no stone unturned.

I think the colorization analogy might be fitting, but at the same time I think in the “old days” people were willing to put up with a hell of a lot more technical hassles for a process than they are today. Taking color as an example, the Technicolor process, really was an unbelievable pain the arse to carry out and yet people somehow made it work. I wonder if this generation (I am 39) will really have the will to carry through very difficult processes for the sake of quality or will the bottom line and suits really make the decision for a compromised but “easy” work flow?

Cheers,
Eric

[Eren Ozkural]

Fake 3-D sucks. Taking 2-D movies and making them into 3-D is flawed. I've seen the SUPERMAN RETURNS 3D in IMAX and to me the regular parts of the movie looked better than the Faux 3-D. Did anyone here think the running in the cornfield scene looked good in 3-D. I didn't think the Harry Potter scene looked any better. I like 3-D movies that were originally 3-D to start with.

PS
to be fair there were a few shots that did work in Superman Returns like when he dropped the boat and it fell away from the camera. That was nice so I see why they think this works, yes sometimes it works but for the most part it looks off and each time they asked you to remove your glasses you noticed how nice the 2-D IMAX looks.

Oh dear good Lord, the shots where Lois/the kid are about to drown...eye strin city here I come! And Nightmare Before Christmas 3D...i had to look away quite often as I was getting major headaches and disorientation.

Just a disclaimer: I'm not "that" guy who complains about stereo 3D. I've never had a problem with 3D originated movies. I' don't get motion sickness either. I'm testing out 3D workflows at the office this week actually.

As for auto stereo...I saw a display at the "live 95'" tradeshow at Earls Court, back in '95. Let's just say that I've been waiting for us to have glasses free 3D at home for the past 15 years. It rocks...well, it rocked my 10 year old world back then...can't comment now.

I tested out a few of the Garmin 3D monitors, playing guitar hero/COD4 etc. in 3D back in 07/08...I think it generated depth maps on the fly without pulling it directly from the game (i.e without consulting the geometry inherent in the gameand just converting the video feed on the fly with some Nvidia driver).

Let's just say that I was about to put my money down for one before I really got to grips with it. Thank God I didn't. Ghosting galore...

[Simon Dunne]

www.ddd.com

Realtime 2D to 3D. They also do 'glasses free' 3D viewing products. It's been around for a while.....

Simon

[Mark L. Pederson]

In the end, it's not the same as material shot in 3D. Never will be since there is so much the other "eye" captures that adds to the 3D effect. Not to mention when you shoot in 3D you compose the shots differently etc....In a 2D movie you may not have the most effective 3D shots because they were not thinking about 3D when they were shooting.

Well said. It's like up-rezzin your SD to HD. You may end up with HD ... but it ain't the same as shootin' it.

[Marc Wielage]

The guys at in-three.com (http://www.in-three.com/technical.html) have some good technical papers describing not only how their process works, but also a lot of background on 3D terminology, how to solve depth issues, editing considerations, and a lot of other stuff.

Having said that: Jim Cameron is on record as criticizing Tim Burton's 2D-to-3D workflow on Alice in Wonderland, which I think is kind of unfair given that he hasn't seen it yet. (His comments are over on Slashfilm.com (http://www.slashfilm.com/2008/12/02/james-cameron-criticizes-tim-burton-and-3d-dvd-releases/), among other news sites.) Me personally, I think that any A-budget 3D film has to use a variety of techniques to create 3D imagery, especially in a fantasy/green-screen situation.

I also think the moment compositing is part of the process, you have the flexibility to create as much depth perception as you want. I bet the space battles in even a film as old as Star Wars could look spectacular, depending on how much time and money they want to throw at it -- assuming that they kept all the blue screen camera negative (which I think they did).

I also think a lot of people underestimate the incredible complexity of dealing with massive amounts of 2-camera footage. With double the data storage, this makes dailies, editing, conforming, color-correction, and outputting very, very complex, time-consuming, and expensive. This is a big challenge even at HD resolution.