Real 3D or Fake 3D | Hacker News Reader

Real 3D or Fake 3D

realorfake3d.com

53 pointsfortran7724 comments

And yet the 3D upconversion of Terminator 2 was incredibly well done. Like anything else, the quality is based on the effort and money you put into it. (Compare with the 3D Jurassic Park, which varies from adequate to terrible.)

That said, the best native 3D movie I've ever seen is Dredd. The few upconverted scenes stick out like sore thumbs because they're so planar.

Dredd, while an excellent movie in general, really was a very good example of 3D cinema. I attribute it to the way the slo-mo effect reset the 3D perception in my mind.

I remember going to see one of the Abrams Star Trek movies in 3D and at the start on some technicolour planet someone throws a spear at the screen and I’d say most of the audience tried to physically dodge it. Thereafter I forgot about the 3D effect and my brain adjusted.

In Dredd, every time there is a scene where someone inhales the slow-mo drug the brightness of the scene increases dramatically. It restarted that part of the brain that made me want to dodge that spear.

Yes, the Slo-Mo effects were mesmerizing. In 2D they were pretty (despite depicting sometimes extraordinarily violent scenes, though I think this was a deliberate commentary by the filmmakers). But in 3D they had the uncommon quality of being hyperreal and hyperunreal at the same time, some weird appeal to your addled occiptal lobe - case in point where Dredd flings Ma-Ma out a window and the shards of glass twinkle like a gentle rain of thousands of diamonds. If someone watched those scenes purely in 2D they missed that experience entirely.

Look at Hitchock's "Dial M for Murder". That's a perfect 3D (real 3D) movie.

> If you only have one eye's worth of content, you can't just make up the content for the second eye

Has this person heard of computer graphics?

Most of these movies contain a huge amount of imagery that is 'made up' in various ways, even before you start thinking about the 3D.

this is slightly mis-led, but it is true that 3d conversion sometimes doesnt go as well (and often happens at the last few weeks of production, done by the some of the lowest paid people in the industry)

so there are different levels of "made up".

the VFX companies spend months to make the shots look perfect, and then the 3d conversion company rotoscopes some elements creates close enough 3d geometry to project it onto, shifts it in either direction (sometimes both, to try and maintain the original perspective) and finally re-paints or smartly clone-tools the missing elements that were previously behind other elements.

it's honestly surprising it's done as well as it is considering this has to be done once the movie is absolutely finalized and before it goes to the theater.

Yes, but I assume the “fake 3D” films don't do their CG effects in stereoscopy.

But I mean you can 'make up' new content. That's literally what they do for 'fake 3d'! They 'make up' new background content for areas uncovered by the shift needed to create the parallax, using either machine estimation or manual drawing. How else did people think this worked?

Yeah, the page is a bit disingenuous, and they're all affiliate links.

You need a depth map to compute parallax.

Yes they make one using simple models that roughly fit the geometry on screen. Then transform for parallax. That may reveal hidden areas so they fill them in either using an algorithm from surrounding areas and recent frames or manually.

This is explained on the website, linked from the main page, as the reason why he stopped updating the page.

2 movies last year. Is the website dead or is the 3D fad dead?

The 3D fad seems dead, again. A few years ago, 3D was a feature advertised on every new TV and many came with shutter glasses. Today, no sign of that. The main features today are picture quality, like black level and HDR.

Both. There were more 3d movies last year that are not listed so the site isn't up to date. But 3d is dying too. Kind of a shame as 3d looks amazing in vr. It finally has a good use case.

It's certainly waining but I had the misfortune of seeing Gemini Man in 3D so they're still doing stereo releases.

I don't get the hate for that movie. It was a perfectly adequate action movie and I loved the HFR (60fps, unfortunately missed out on the 120) 3D. The CGI face at the end was horrendous though.

The misfortune might be at seeing it in 3D.

They have stopped listing animations in 3D. Also closing the website.

We'll, I guess I'm easy to please because I loved Dr. Strange in 3D even though it's on the fake page.

I think the Marvel movies do okay upconverted because some consideration is given during 2D filming to how the upconversion can be facilitated. The trippy 3D in Doctor Strange, though, is one of my favourites as well.

Fake doesn't mean bad.

The "Fake" category should probably divided into subcategories of low-effort "bad" post-conversion and high-effort "good" post-conversions.

Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 stood out (hah) as a good 3D movie to me, and I've seen some of the real 3D ones.

Even 'Real 3D' is a misnomer. I work in the industry and we call it 'stereo' for a reason: it generates a feeling of depth but your eyes never have to converge so, via either route, your brain always knows that it isn't reality.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com