|
||||||||
2D-3D conversion |
![]() |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#1 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: DUNDEE
Posts: 1,318
|
2D-3D conversion
Now the BBC has abandoned 3D with next to no 3D available a few years back having an interest in 3D I obtained a 2D to 3D converter box on ebay which converted a 2 D picture to 3D using the old anaglyphic process with red blue glasses this worked fine but was limited to 4 colours and did suffer from ghosting at the time I ignored the other capability's of this box as at that time I did not have a 3D TV it can do 2D to 3D side by side 3D using polarising glasses with a 3D TV
Having obtained a panasonic 3D TV I had not used the box for some time thinking it was obsolete I had several 3D TVs and found that the 2D to 3D simulated 3D built in to the TV is not very good compared to using a proper 3D source . last night I came across the old converter box and decided to give it a try so I connected it up to the satellite receiver I was amazed to see that the TV instantly detected a 3D source as opposed to 2D to 3D the picture just like the BBC picture two side by side pictures on pressing the 3D button on the remote I can get 3D on all channels using the remote for the decoder you can adjust the 3D effect its just like the BBC broadcasts with depth and thing appearing to come out of the screen these boxes are still available and have came down in price since I got my box and can recommend this to people who have a 3D TV |
|
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#2 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 5,008
|
Well it isn't true 3D. You can't generate what is not there.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#3 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Worcestershire, UK
Posts: 779
|
Robert
James Joyce you are not, he wrote a whole chapter that was one sentence, but at least he punctuated it! Do you know what a comma or a full stop are? I was interested in your post but cannot make head nor tail of it. |
|
|
|
|
|
#4 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 14,718
|
Quote:
Well it isn't true 3D. You can't generate what is not there.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#5 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: West Yorks
Posts: 6,180
|
Quote:
It is correct that the current conversion technology is not true 3D however future technology (apocalypse etc allowing) will be able to generate 3D from 2D. How many years in the future that will be I don't know.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#6 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: North Devon
Posts: 1,568
|
And it will never work with a man walking around a pictue gallery - all the 2d pictures will try to be in 3D as well!
|
|
|
|
|
|
#7 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 1,574
|
Quote:
Well it isn't true 3D. You can't generate what is not there.
'I had several 3D TVs' - are we really expected to believe that ? Better tell Hollywood that they wasted their money on expensive stereo cameras, computers etc - they just need a cheap box from eBay. |
|
|
|
|
|
#8 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 14,718
|
Quote:
Even allowing for future technology I can't see how you can generate true 3D from 2D. You can never put in what is not here.
Our brains actually do a very good job of this and almost all our 3D imaging from distance comes from the brain's processing. |
|
|
|
|
|
#9 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: DUNDEE
Posts: 1,318
|
In answer to some of the above negative posts -
I currently have 2 3D TV a panasonic and LG I also have a Panasonic camcorder and 3D Lens attachment and yes it is real 3D because the electronics in the box takes one 2D TV picture and takes 2 separate views left and right which are sent to the 3D TV exactly the same process the BBC was using side by side stereo the same thing could be achieved with 35mm photography and digital cameras by taking to pictures of the same subject a left and right image you can produce a 3d image like a viewmaster slide. The point I was trying to make is that since the BBC has abandoned 3D programming by using an electronic processor it is possible to do it in the home so people who have 3D TVs would be able to use them to watch 3D programing |
|
|
|
|
|
#10 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: DUNDEE
Posts: 1,318
|
the technology to extract 3D from a 2 D source has been around for years I am currently using it !
It has been possible to extract 3D from a 2 D image since Victorian times ! In the 1930s the first view master viewer was produced using to 2d images a right view and a left view you get an image in 3D |
|
|
|
|
|
#11 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: West Yorks
Posts: 6,180
|
Quote:
Oh the information is there it just needs technology that can extract it that we don't yet have in real time. As a simple example take an arrow travelling from the distance, the information of distance comes from size compared to objects around it and obviously it will grow in size as it moves towards the camera so the stereoscopic information comes from that.
Our brains actually do a very good job of this and almost all our 3D imaging from distance comes from the brain's processing. Your example of an arrow only works for a human as we have 2 eyes so have a depth of field. Which is why people have trouble judging distances if they lose vision in one eye. |
|
|
|
|
|
#12 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 5,008
|
Quote:
the technology to extract 3D from a 2 D source has been around for years I am currently using it !
It has been possible to extract 3D from a 2 D image since Victorian times ! In the 1930s the first view master viewer was produced using to 2d images a right view and a left view you get an image in 3D |
|
|
|
|
|
#13 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: North Devon
Posts: 1,568
|
Several tvs have a built-in 2d-3d conversion on the fly - but i'm not sure it's any good.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#14 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: DUNDEE
Posts: 1,318
|
This box is a huge improvement over the 2D to 3D conversion in the television - when the box is used the panasonic tv detects a 3D signal the TV shows two side by side pictures as when the BBC was doing 3D, pressing the 3D button on the TV then gives a 3D Picture
You can extract 3D info from a 2 D Picture you take to offset photographs of the original photo to make stereo pairs this can be seen in 3D using a stereoscopic viewer This is what the 2D to 3D converter box is doing electronically its taking a 2 D TV picture and producing on the fly to stereo pairs which are sent to the 3D TV which detects a 3D signal |
|
|
|
|
|
#15 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: West Yorks
Posts: 6,180
|
Quote:
You can extract 3D info from a 2 D Picture you take to offset photographs of the original photo to make stereo pairs this can be seen in 3D using a stereoscopic viewer
You are getting a very good 3D effect - but real 3D it is not. |
|
|
|
|
|
#16 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 14,764
|
Quote:
Robert
James Joyce you are not, he wrote a whole chapter that was one sentence, but at least he punctuated it! Do you know what a comma or a full stop are? I was interested in your post but cannot make head nor tail of it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#17 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Redditch Worcs
Posts: 17,296
|
Quote:
Except it's not 3D information it's extracting as there is no 3D information to extract.
You are getting a very good 3D effect - but real 3D it is not. |
|
|
|
|
|
#18 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Redditch Worcs
Posts: 17,296
|
Quote:
Except it's not 3D information it's extracting as there is no 3D information to extract.
You are getting a very good 3D effect - but real 3D it is not. |
|
|
|
|
|
#19 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: West Yorks
Posts: 6,180
|
Quote:
Yes it is, if there is two photographs taken from a slightly different viewpoint (the clue is in the pairs).
|
|
|
|
|
|
#20 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 951
|
A bit off topic but if you have Netflix and know how to use unblock-US there are a choice of 3D programs and movies on US Netflix
|
|
|
|
|
|
#21 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: DUNDEE
Posts: 1,318
|
Graham thanks at last someone on hear who knows what he is talking about !
The remote control can alter the 3D efect I am Dyslexic so always people put me down when I try to post something on this site The 3D converter uses electronic software to process 3D on the fly The Panasonic TV detects the 3D signal if it was not 3D it would not work. The same converter can also do anaglyphic stereo to use on 2D TVs in 1982 the BBC had a 3D program using this system they had to employ special TV cameras and you got free Glasses in Radio Times to watch the program , 30 years on the technology makes it possible to create this in the home with out equipment which cost £1000s of pounds in the 1980s. |
|
|
|
|
|
#22 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: West Yorks
Posts: 6,180
|
Quote:
I am Dyslexic so always people put me down when I try to post something on this site
|
|
|
|
|
|
#23 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 5,008
|
Quote:
Graham thanks at last someone on hear who knows what he is talking about !
The remote control can alter the 3D efect I am Dyslexic so always people put me down when I try to post something on this site The 3D converter uses electronic software to process 3D on the fly The Panasonic TV detects the 3D signal if it was not 3D it would not work. The same converter can also do anaglyphic stereo to use on 2D TVs in 1982 the BBC had a 3D program using this system they had to employ special TV cameras and you got free Glasses in Radio Times to watch the program , 30 years on the technology makes it possible to create this in the home with out equipment which cost £1000s of pounds in the 1980s. If you add a 3D flag to it the TV will think it is 3D even if it isn't. |
|
|
|
|
|
#24 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 14,718
|
Quote:
I would disagree that the information is there. A normal camera take a 2D picture so there is no 3D information there.
Your example of an arrow only works for a human as we have 2 eyes so have a depth of field. Which is why people have trouble judging distances if they lose vision in one eye. The processor would create a 3D representation of the image and then provide the slightly different angle needed for the parallax that 3D uses. Before we get real time in the TV conversions we will be able have studio based 3D conversions of any film. Whether this is desirable or will be popular is another matter. |
|
|
|
|
|
#25 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 14,718
|
Quote:
But you still cannot get true 3D from a single picture. You cannot get what is not there.
You are stuck in thinking of the picture as random pixels, it is not - if it were then compression would not work, digital TV relies on the non random nature of the picture. Okay 3D conversion is more difficult than compression but impossible it is not. It is easier for a film because you are not limited to a single picture as you have a whole series of them so parts that may be missing for one eye are likely present in other shots. |
|
|
|
![]() |
|
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 17:19.


