MTBS Interviews the President & CEO of In-Three Inc.

Respond to the movers and shakers by making THEM move and shake!
Post Reply
User avatar
Neil
3D Angel Eyes (Moderator)
Posts: 6795
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 6:00 pm
Which stereoscopic 3D solution do you primarily use?: S-3D desktop monitor
Contact:

MTBS Interviews the President & CEO of In-Three Inc.

Post by Neil »

Is In-Three our industry's secret weapon for getting 2D movies shown on 3D home theater screens?

What are your thoughts on converting 2D movies to 3D? Have you seen it? Is it really that good?

Artistically, do you think 2D content, even if properly converted, will look its best in S-3D if it originally was not intended to be shown in S-3D?

Regards,
Neil

User avatar
Likay
Petrif-Eyed
Posts: 2912
Joined: Sat Apr 07, 2007 4:34 pm
Which stereoscopic 3D solution do you primarily use?: S-3D Projector Setup
Location: Sweden

Post by Likay »

Sounds interresting.

However my mind and common sense (if any) tells me that in 2D there's no dept information and therefore it might be impossible to convert it to 3D. Maybe they use the fact that you can see different angles in 2D regarding moving pictures and somewhat from there be able to do the 3D-conversion... yada yad.,.. Really curious though and also want to see some examples.

cheers
Mb: Asus P5W DH Deluxe
Cpu: C2D E6600
Gb: Nvidia 7900GT + 8800GTX
3D:100" passive projector polarized setup + 22" IZ3D
Image

User avatar
LukePC1
Golden Eyed Wiseman! (or woman!)
Posts: 1387
Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 11:30 am
Which stereoscopic 3D solution do you primarily use?: S-3D desktop monitor
Location: Europe
Contact:

Post by LukePC1 »

Maybe they just invent depth in that places, where they are not able to calculate it. Just invent it, test it and if noone complains why not sell it that way?

What would be nice is a depth profile, so the user can adjust Convergence and so on like in Games :)

I think it is too slow (and expencive) to make everything manually for every film, but it might be worth the effort on some hits...
Play Nations at WAR with this code to get 5.000$ as a Starterbonus:
ayqz1u0s
http://mtbs3d.com/naw/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

AMD x2 4200+ 2gb Dualchannel
GF 7900gs for old CRT with Elsa Revelator SG's
currently 94.24 Forceware and 94.24 Stereo with XP sp2!

User avatar
pixel67
Sharp Eyed Eagle!
Posts: 443
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 8:18 pm
Which stereoscopic 3D solution do you primarily use?: S-3D Projector Setup

Post by pixel67 »

I fully support 2D conversion and think it is a great idea! Why? It really isn't any different that watching a standard DVD in an HD-DVD or Blu-Ray player. As long as the user understands what the differences are between the two formats then they can coexist. What the industry CAN'T DO is categorize native stereoscopic content and 2-D converted content under the same naming convention (S-3D). This would confuse the end user and would be like calling a standard DVD a true "1080P DVD" just because you can play it in a high def DVD Player. I have been playing around with the Tridef Media Player that actively converts 2D content into "3D" and the effect is quite convincing once you tune the separation and convergence. I went through my families whole digital photo album yesterday and the converted content looks REALLY cool! But it is NOT the same as, or as good as, native stereoscopic content. The industry needs a better naming convention that fits both formats. For example, monoscopic 3D and stereoscopic 3D (M-3D vs S-3d). Both are good if the end user understands the difference. Converting 2D gives us quick access to decent content, which is a great thing! But true S-3D will always be the gold standard.

Pixel
Nvidia 3D Vision Drivers
GTX 280/SLI
Optoma Pro350W
Xpand X102 Glasses

User avatar
Neil
3D Angel Eyes (Moderator)
Posts: 6795
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 6:00 pm
Which stereoscopic 3D solution do you primarily use?: S-3D desktop monitor
Contact:

Post by Neil »

Check out the 2D to 3D conversion photos supplied by In-Three. See what you think. It's in the new "MTBS Photo Exchange" found in the Downloads section.

Regards,
Neil

sharky
3D Angel Eyes (Moderator)
Posts: 1819
Joined: Fri May 25, 2007 4:08 am
Which stereoscopic 3D solution do you primarily use?: S-3D desktop monitor
Location: Italy
Contact:

Post by sharky »

ok i have seen the pictures and there is something that does not convince me. actually 2 things...

1) the depth effect is PERFECT.. nearly better than on real 3D photos... (if possible)

2) if you look at the picture with the frog in the flower, the frog is taken in 2 different perspectives.. i couldn't immagine how a sofware could "generate" another perspective of an image.

neil do you think they mind putting a picture of me in 3D? i would like to see on a "2D for shure" picture what depth they can archive.. i would really love to see what they can do from this one:

http://www.mad-sharky.com/gallery/displ ... fullsize=1

its an old picture but has many different depths (leg, arm head, wall).. i think its sort of a "challenge" wich will prove me (and others) theyr power.

its not a "you are a cheater" challenge.. :D its simply unbeliveable to have SUCH A GOOD 3D from a FLAT image. so if it is really a image you made (only you know) than this post should be a great compliment to your work.. :)

:)

bye

igor
Adam Savage: "I reject your reality and substitute it for my own."
Jamie Hyneman: "It's really cool, but really unusual."

Image

Jahun
Binocular Vision CONFIRMED!
Posts: 258
Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2007 2:29 pm
Which stereoscopic 3D solution do you primarily use?: S-3D desktop monitor

Post by Jahun »

The obvious issue of any 2D to 3D conversion is the lack of 2 different perspectives. This is not a enormous issue for objects relatively far away, but for instance out of screen effects suffer from that.

Either it is done manually or automatically by algorithms, both must have issues. The best transferable scene is a side ways dolly'ing (if that is the correct word) camera in a not so busy scene. In that way you can also get the different perspectives, perhaps that is used on the frog scene?

Anyway, for static scenes it is hard to derive depth automatically, but perhaps a sort of little depth is doable, nothing in your face but just a more pleasant viewing. In time, I suppose Hollywood will start to produce in 3D alltogether, which would lead to better 3D for us :)

User avatar
Neil
3D Angel Eyes (Moderator)
Posts: 6795
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 6:00 pm
Which stereoscopic 3D solution do you primarily use?: S-3D desktop monitor
Contact:

Post by Neil »

Come on, Sharky!

In-Three is converting pictures for film, not Playgirl! :P

Regards,
Neil

artox
Cross Eyed!
Posts: 190
Joined: Mon May 07, 2007 2:05 pm
Which stereoscopic 3D solution do you primarily use?: S-3D desktop monitor
Location: between dimensions

Post by artox »

I agree with what was said the 2d converts look almost too good to be true, I don't know what algorythms they are using, but it's working.
I would however like to see a custom photo being converted, not only the ones provided by them.

User avatar
Likay
Petrif-Eyed
Posts: 2912
Joined: Sat Apr 07, 2007 4:34 pm
Which stereoscopic 3D solution do you primarily use?: S-3D Projector Setup
Location: Sweden

Post by Likay »

Neil wrote:Come on, Sharky!

In-Three is converting pictures for film, not Playgirl! :P

Regards,
Neil
Sharky should take this as a compliment shouldn't he? :P

cheers
Mb: Asus P5W DH Deluxe
Cpu: C2D E6600
Gb: Nvidia 7900GT + 8800GTX
3D:100" passive projector polarized setup + 22" IZ3D
Image

Post Reply

Return to “MTBS Interview User Remarks”