# Power DVD 2D-3D



## NBPk402 (Feb 21, 2012)

What is the deal with converting 2D to 3d? How are they doing this? I have watched a movie where they did this and it is weird... In some ways it is like a 3D movie but it doesn't come out from the screen at all. It is like they are messing with the clarity. What do you think of it?


----------



## Harpmaker (Oct 28, 2007)

ellisr63 said:


> What is the deal with converting 2D to 3d? How are they doing this? I have watched a movie where they did this and it is weird... In some ways it is like a 3D movie but it doesn't come out from the screen at all. It is like they are messing with the clarity. What do you think of it?


I really don't know exactly how they do 2D to 3D conversion (there is also more than one way I think), but ALL of them will produce weird effects on one kind or another BECAUSE THE IMAGE OR MOVIE *WASN'T MADE IN REAL 3D!* I mean honestly, it takes a huge effort to get 3D right even when it is designed to be 3D in the first place. When done right the effect can be amazing, but so much of the time it isn't right even in commercial movies. To use a computer to change a 2D still image (or a movie, which is just MANY still images) into 3D is very hard to do and takes a massive amount of work and knowledge of the process.

The root of the problem is that the way people see in 3D requires that the right and left eye images be slightly different in position (basically, the distance between our two eyes). This can be done photographically by using a camera that has two lenses instead of one (or a single lens and mirror setup to mimic that). The key is that for the 3D image to look "real" there must be a point in the image where the two lenses are in registry. Lets say you are taking a photo of someone pointing a finger at you, the registry point may well be the end of that finger. I took my own 3D photos 30 years ago using a simple Polaroid SX-70 by taking two photos of the same image (the subject couldn't be moving). I would take a photo using my right eye to look through the viewfinder (after picking a registry point) and then immediately take another photo using my left eye to look through the viewfinder. This gave me the two slightly different positioned images needed to create 3D. The weird thing was that the easiest way to view those pics was to put the picture taken with the right eye on a table then position the left-eye photo to the immediate RIGHT of the right-eye photo (so the right-eye photo was on the left and the left-eye photo was on the right), and then look at the two photos and cross your eyes until a 3rd virtual photo appears BETWEEN the two real photos! The virtual photo would be in great 3D! And yes, if you did this too much you got a very nasty headache. :devil:

For a 2D image to be properly converted to 3D it would take a program that could properly ray-trace the existing image and then convert the angles properly to get a good differential image. That is still not yet available to my knowledge.

BTW, I just got a new 27" ASUS monitor that has "instant" 2D to 3D conversion built in to it. Most of the time that just doesn't work well at all. I have tried viewing many of the 3D movies on YouTube and most of those aren't very good either. The problem is that the differential separation is wrong (too strong or too weak) or the registry points aren't right.


----------



## NBPk402 (Feb 21, 2012)

Thanks for the info... I only have 2 movies so far that are 3D and I was surprised that there was a 2D to 3D conversion process. I def will be watching more 3D movies if I hear that they are done right. It just struck me that it was strange how the picture looked with their software... Sorta like I want to be 3D but not quite there. It didn't make the picture look worse though just not right (if that makes any sense).


----------



## Jasonpctech (Apr 20, 2010)

Looks good on most animation, the depth seems better but really more of a novelty you will use it and then ignore it. Great feature to have as a bonus though kids dig it.


----------

