• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

How do they turn the 2D movies into3D?

Status
Not open for further replies.
G

glen

Lifer
And, Can it possibly be any good?
3D just doesn't seem to be quite right for me yet.
I am not against it on priciple, I just think it is not quite there eyt. We will see once the almighty PJ does the Hobbit. Anyway, I was asking becasue apparently Independance Day is going to be released in 3D. I don't understand how they can really do this.
 
they don't. they just charge you $16 to go into the theater and re-see their crappy "conversion."

If it's not shot for 3D, then it isn't 3D.

I think only Avatar, and maybe now that Hobbit movie were shot for 3D
 
zinfamous said:
they don't. they just charge you $16 to go into the theater and re-see their crappy "conversion."

If it's not shot for 3D, then it isn't 3D.

I think only Avatar, and maybe now that Hobbit movie were shot for 3D
Click to expand...

Do we know if they're converting the animated movies they're re-releasing as 3D, or actually re-rendering them as 3D? Say, the Toy Story trilogy?
 
My 46" Panasonic 1080p 3D Plasma can convert 2D to 3D on the fly. Brings watching HD porn to a whole new level. 😉

I have Avatar Blu-ray 3D that released exclusively for the Panasonic. Amazing that they were able to replicate what I watched in the theater, using an active shutter glasses. I've started collecting 3D Blu-ray movies just to see how different it is. It's not for everybody since some become dizzy.

Movies shot in 2D and then converted in 3D are not as effective as originally shot in 3D. Just imagine watching the whole Star Wars series in 3D.
Probably same thing with Titanic, imagine Kate Winslet naked while Jack was sketching her. ^_^:awe:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2D_to_3D_conversion
 
SKORPI0 said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2D_to_3D_conversion
Click to expand...
Depth from motion
It is possible to automatically estimate depth using different types of motion....
Depth from focus
Approaches of this type are also called "depth from defocus" and "depth from blur".[14] [12] The depth information is estimated based on the amount of blur of the object...
Depth from perspective
The idea of the method is based on the fact that parallel lines, such as railroad tracks and roadsides, appear to converge with distance, eventually reaching a vanishing point at the horizon...


My brain does all of these things automatically, which is why 2D movies don't actually look "flat".


IMHO 3D doesn't really add all that much to a movie, since there are already lots of depth cues in a moving image. That's why one-eyed people can still drive.
 
jagec said:
Depth from motion
It is possible to automatically estimate depth using different types of motion....
Depth from focus
Approaches of this type are also called "depth from defocus" and "depth from blur".[14] [12] The depth information is estimated based on the amount of blur of the object...
Depth from perspective
The idea of the method is based on the fact that parallel lines, such as railroad tracks and roadsides, appear to converge with distance, eventually reaching a vanishing point at the horizon...


My brain does all of these things automatically, which is why 2D movies don't actually look "flat".


IMHO 3D doesn't really add all that much to a movie, since there are already lots of depth cues in a moving image. That's why one-eyed people can still drive.
Click to expand...

Yep and why 3D video games on 2D screens work fine.
 
jagec said:
Depth from motion
It is possible to automatically estimate depth using different types of motion....
Depth from focus
Approaches of this type are also called "depth from defocus" and "depth from blur".[14] [12] The depth information is estimated based on the amount of blur of the object...
Depth from perspective
The idea of the method is based on the fact that parallel lines, such as railroad tracks and roadsides, appear to converge with distance, eventually reaching a vanishing point at the horizon...


My brain does all of these things automatically, which is why 2D movies don't actually look "flat".


IMHO 3D doesn't really add all that much to a movie, since there are already lots of depth cues in a moving image. That's why one-eyed people can still drive.
Click to expand...

sounds a lot easier than colorization, actually.
 
jagec said:
My brain does all of these things automatically, which is why 2D movies don't actually look "flat".
Click to expand...

I find that I have to push my 3D glasses down a lot, because I can't tell what's actually in 3D on the screen. The one scene that usually pops into my mind when I think about that was during Tron: Legacy when they were on the train. I pushed my glasses down and saw that everything behind the main characters was blurry (i.e. in 3D).

My guess is that it's the same problem that you mention. I already assume that depth exists for that object (even though it's really a flat image), which makes the 3D do very little for me.
 
I always had the impression they reshot them, kinda like when a super old movie comes back in 1080. I highly doubt the cameras of 1920 had HD. 😛

Then again with the way the movie industry likes to suck every possible penny out of a single idea, it does not surprise me one bit they would just fake it and reprocess it to make it look 3D.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top