Reply to topic  [ 2 posts ] 
Sky 'sceptical about 3D conversion' 
Author Message
Legend

Joined: Sun Apr 26, 2009 12:30 pm
Posts: 45931
Location: Belfast
Reply with quote
Quote:
Brian Lenz, director of product design and TV production development at Sky, has spoken candidly about 2D to 3D conversion technology, explaining that the results can be poor.

Speaking at the 3DTV World Forum in London, Lenz said about the tech: "I am sceptical when it comes to 2D to 3D conversion – any attempts to do it quickly and cheaply will make it bad 3D."

3D conversion appears in the new Samsung 3D TVs and will also be integrated into Toshiba's Cell TV.

The technology has been put into the television sets, mainly due to the lack of 3D content available. As its name suggests 2D to 3D conversion creates a 3D image in real time out of 2D images, processing the footage within the television.

Editing 3D

There are problems with this, though, as Lenz explains: "Creatively, 3D is different to 2D. You want slower cuts, your editing style needs to reflect the 3D image.

"Because of this, 2D cuts don't work in 3D, so 3D conversion will never rise to the level of native 3D content."

When asked if Sky would use conversion technology in its 3D channel, Lenz was quick to note: "Sky is focused on native 3D. That's not to say that there will be advancements over time with 2D conversion, I don't doubt that that will be the case. But we are looking at native 3D."

3D moviemaking

Neil Dodgson, from the University of Cambridge and an expert in 3D agrees about converting 3D, saying: "Automatic 2D to 3D conversion is a poor substitute for real 3D. Coverting 2D to 3D manually is adequate, but very expensive, costing 2,000 Euros a minute to convert.

"It also puts people off. Clash of the Titans was recently converted into 3D and got poor reviews. Bad 3D can put off moviemakers and that is not good for promoting the technology."

Dodgson believes that the best way for 3D to work is to make it a key part of filmmaking process.

"If 3D is to survive it must not be a gimmick but actually part of the moviemaking tool set", he notes. "Up and Avatar hold up well in 2D – they do look better in 3D – but this is because they are good movies without the 3D."


Read more: http://www.techradar.com/news/televisio ... z0oz6vZWQz

Makes sense, but I had no idea the TVs were set to do conversion :o

They'd better hope it's good :)

_________________
Plain English advice on everything money, purchase and service related:

http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/


Tue May 25, 2010 10:55 pm
Profile
Legend
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2009 2:02 am
Posts: 29240
Location: Guantanamo Bay (thanks bobbdobbs)
Reply with quote
I think that this is more about the conversion from 2D to 3D at the film making process. It does make the very good point that 3D as a gimmick is a waste of time as Clash Of The Titans showed. If the film was made in 3D specifically then as long as the shots are integral to the film then it can work.

_________________
Do concentrate, 007...

"You are gifted. Mine is bordering on seven seconds."

https://www.dropbox.com/referrals/NTg5MzczNTk

http://astore.amazon.co.uk/wwwx404couk-21


Thu May 27, 2010 1:09 am
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 2 posts ] 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
Designed by ST Software.