| . 20.09.2018 19:39 |
I'm viewing this 3D SBS video on my mobile phone with a google cardboard VR headset. Not much of a 3D effect though, and the aspect ratio is all wrong: |
| The Fairy King 21.09.2018 12:22 |
Unless it's filmed in 3D, you can't make it 3D. You're welcome. |
| . 21.09.2018 12:36 |
The Fairy King wrote: Unless it's filmed in 3D, you can't make it 3D. You're welcome.A 3D effect can be achieved though. |
| . 21.09.2018 12:43 |
I'll going to try a little experiment on youtube. |
| . 21.09.2018 16:32 |
Here's a SBS clip I created, comments welcome. |
| The Real Wizard 21.09.2018 19:56 |
The Fairy King wrote: Unless it's filmed in 3D, you can't make it 3D. You're welcome.The entire point of stereoscopic photography is turning 2D into 3D. It has been done for almost 200 years. The same techniques can be applied to video too. |
| . 21.09.2018 20:42 |
The technique used for this video clip is quite different. Stereoscopic cameras take more than one image at the same time, but from two different vantage points (one for each eye). This clip was made from a 2D video and software was used to split and then basically shift one side vertically (amongst other things). The result can never be as good as something that was actually filmed with a 3D camera to start with, but sometimes it can still be still look quite good. |
| emrabt 22.09.2018 08:17 |
wrote: This clip was made from a 2D video and software was used to split and then basically shift one side vertically (amongst other things).Are you sure, because having one side show more horizontally (the right eye sees slightly more of the right side) and delayed by a frame or two is how this is usually done. It tricks the eyes into thinking it's a slightly different angle and works brilliantly when the camera pans around things. EdIt, Here's a frame grab, luckily Freddie moves his arms around so much that we can get a screenshot where the frame delay is noticable, and the sparkling background too. link |
| . 22.09.2018 09:06 |
Well I did say amongst other things, but you're right, the introduction of a delay does seem to be a key factor. Just exactly what other "trickery" this particular software uses to mimick the result of a stereo camera is a bit of a mystery. Like I said though, you can't beat a stereo camera to start with if you want the best results, this software can't produce angles that are just not there to begin with. I also altered the aspect ratio on this clip, as you can see it's not quite right but there wasn't an option for the setting I wanted! I will get it right with some practice, and perhaps different software. PS. Did you watch the clip with a headset / viewer, if so what did you think? |
| emrabt 22.09.2018 13:19 |
Unfortunately I have no way to view it in 3d |
| Chopin1995 22.09.2018 14:04 |
emrabt wrote: Unfortunately I have no way to view it in 3dYou can do it without any device, by naked eyes. But it's much easier to do it on a smaller screen. I can easily do it on my phone. You have to put your phone close to your eyes and look beyond it, like you're looking at the mountains, at the sky... Usually, it takes a while to master. But this video is not the best to play with, which was mentioned by The Kurgan. Videos filmed in 3D from the beginning are always better. Try this: link |
| Chopin1995 22.09.2018 14:09 |
It's called Crossed-Eyes Method |
| . 23.09.2018 07:08 |
Take a look at this one with the naked eye, it looks much better with a viewer though. |
| . 23.09.2018 14:49 |
I created this image of Freddie with what claims to be a 2D to 3D image converter. It doesn't appear to have any 3D effect, and can't see how an image converter of this kind can possibly work anyway. |
| . 23.09.2018 16:11 |
Quite pleased with my first attempt at taking a stereo photograph using my mobile phone and the shift method. link |
| Chopin1995 26.09.2018 11:46 |
^This looks nice! The photo of Freddie doesn't work because both of the sides look to be taken from the same angle. your photo works perfectly well. |
| . 26.09.2018 12:07 |
Thanks, I used an online converter for the Freddie image and I don't think it worked at all. I really can't understand how a single 2D PHOTO can be made to look 3D anyway. Have you come across any 2D to 3D image convertors that seem to work, even slightly? I'm still looking. |
| The Fairy King 26.09.2018 12:21 |
Chopin1995 wrote: ^This looks nice! The photo of Freddie doesn't work because both of the sides look to be taken from the same angle. your photo works perfectly well.Pretty much my point. |
| . 26.09.2018 12:26 |
The Fairy King wrote:Not really.Chopin1995 wrote: ^This looks nice! The photo of Freddie doesn't work because both of the sides look to be taken from the same angle. your photo works perfectly well.Pretty much my point. The first post you replied to concerned video, which can be manipulated to give a 3d effect (as already discussed). There is also software out there which claims to do the same with a single 2d image, quite a different matter. Are you saying the technology does not exist? |
| The Fairy King 26.09.2018 12:35 |
wrote:I'm saying it's not real 3D, unless it's made with the proper instruments. Taking a "2D" picture or video and turn it 3D with some trickery doesn't make it 3D. Simple as that. :DThe Fairy King wrote:Not really. The first post you replied to concerned video, which can be manipulated to give a 3d effect (as already discussed). There is also software out there which claims to do the same with a single 2d image, quite a different matter. Are you saying the technology does not exist?Chopin1995 wrote: ^This looks nice! The photo of Freddie doesn't work because both of the sides look to be taken from the same angle. your photo works perfectly well.Pretty much my point. |
| . 26.09.2018 12:50 |
I have a copy of the Bohemian Rhapsody promo video (interlaced) which is labelled ''3D field sequential Depthmap''. Does anyone know what equipment is needed to view it properly? Screen shot: link |
| . 26.09.2018 15:50 |
The Fairy King wrote: I'm saying it's not real 3D, unless it's made with the proper instruments. Taking a "2D" picture or video and turn it 3D with some trickery doesn't make it 3D. Simple as that. :DI could argue that even if it's "filmed in 3D", it's still not "real 3D". A cinema screen is flat and two dimensional, and glasses are required to complete the "illusion" or "trickery". I'm not saying the result isn't better, because I already said it is. At the end of the day it's still a 3D "effect" though. |
| popy 27.09.2018 01:46 |
The Fairy King wrote:At least home made. But then there is Hollywood, but i never went to see any converted 3D movies. New ones or re-releases like Titanic or Jurassic Park.wrote:I'm saying it's not real 3D, unless it's made with the proper instruments. Taking a "2D" picture or video and turn it 3D with some trickery doesn't make it 3D. Simple as that. :DThe Fairy King wrote:Not really. The first post you replied to concerned video, which can be manipulated to give a 3d effect (as already discussed). There is also software out there which claims to do the same with a single 2d image, quite a different matter. Are you saying the technology does not exist?Chopin1995 wrote: ^This looks nice! The photo of Freddie doesn't work because both of the sides look to be taken from the same angle. your photo works perfectly well.Pretty much my point. As for the method used on the Queen Budapest video, it's the same as this. But it works far better on this kind of shots With fixed camera shots, i really think people shouln'd bother converting it using the same method. |
| . 27.09.2018 07:01 |
But it's not the same method, the Budapest clip in post #1 is SBS? I viewed the Pink Floyd film with my nvidia anaglyph (red/cyan blue) glasses, it's not a bad effort and looks quite good in some parts. There are other types of anaglyph 3D glasses, I have some Nuoptix ones that work great with this 3D Doctor Who 1993 BBC special "Dimensions In Time". The beauty of this video is that it also looks fine in 2D without any glasses. I also have some ColorCode (amber/blue) 3D glasses (issued by channel 4 in the UK) they worked quite well with their 3D broadcasts. How to choose your anaglyph 3D glasses: link |
| . 28.09.2018 08:29 |
I converted the SBS image I created and I'm quite pleased how my Avometer model 7 from 1948 looks in red/cyan anaglyph. I have just discovered the exact same model appears in the first episode of the new Doctor Who series - spooky! link |
| emrabt 28.09.2018 18:20 |
I remember when the Doctor who one aired, you could make your own glasses by remove a lense from a pair of sunglasses. |
| . 29.09.2018 09:15 |
emrabt wrote: I remember when the Doctor who one aired, you could make your own glasses by remove a lense from a pair of sunglasses.That doesn't work nearly as well as the proper Nuoptix glasses though. |
| . 29.10.2018 16:08 |
I have just watched the NASA IMAX film on the Hubble telecope in red/cyan anaglyph, and it looks pretty impressive. 1080p screen capture: link |
| . 29.10.2018 23:12 |
Another Queen related red/cyan anaglyph: link |
| . 05.11.2018 12:39 |
This looks great wearing my Nvidia 3D vision glasses. |
| . 17.01.2020 13:27 |
Something not quite right about this one. ">link |
