DVD Player Displays 2D Movies in 3D

Anonymous Writer writes "A company called Dynamic Digital Depth that wants to bring 3D television and movies to the mainstream claims to have developed a system that allows you to watch current 2D DVDs in 3D. They claim the TriDef DVD Player uses image analysis methods, developed by the company for their 3D content conversion service, to convert 2D video to 3D in real-time based on 3D depth cues in the original movie. It is the same company that produced the TriDef Movie Player software for the Sharp Actius R3D3 autostereo display notebook. "

Dubious

[Shimmer]

I haven't RTFA, but I'm dubious about this claim. There simply isn't enough information in a 2D image to construct a 3D image. If there were, your brain would already do it (and, in fact, already does to a limited extent). I don't see how computer technology is going to improve on what your brain can already do.

Press Release

[Mz6]

Since Sharp was mentioned.. here is a press release I dug up. Unfortunately, there is no datestamp to indicate when this was posted.

DDD AND nWAVE PICTURES SIGN DISTRIBUTION DEAL FOR 3D CONTENT [sharp3d.com]

what does it add?

[trix_e]

I can't imagine what this would actually add to the viewing experience. It's a novelty at best, and a distraction from the experience as it was originally intended at worse.

I remember going to see "Jaws 3D" when it came out when I was in high school. After the first floating fish went by and you got over the urge to reach out and try to grab it... well you had 2 more hours of that. woo hoo.

Who cares?

What would be cool is....

[HogynCymraeg]

Having another 8 bits of information for depth. You could then do this easily. Not sure how the hell you'd capture that info though.

Re:3D?

[kunudo]

It would show you the entire movie at once, since the fourth dimension is time.

Re:Urp...

[jsupreston]

I'd be really interested in this if it were to make it to Imax. Due to my eyesight, the 3D glasses are useless to me...except for giving me one of the worst migraines I've ever had in my life.

To clarify my situation, I am legally blind in one eye WITH corrective lenses (20/200). The only time I've ever experienced a 3D Imax movie, I was able to see the flickering which I assume is acutally multiple projectors at different refresh rates or something similar to generate the 3D effect. Since my optic nerves didn't know how to handle that kind of image, I got a migraine that lasted for several days.

stop the insanity

[MasTRE]

Can someone shed some light on this subject? This to me seems like the perpetual-motion machine. Some company always claims you will see in 3D w/o using glasses. Is this theoretically possible? I mean without actually recreating a 3D scene in front of you, is it theoretically possible for a 2D device to make you see in 3D w/o any special apparatus that you put in front of your eyes? It seems like the holy grail of 3D.

Requires display?

[Unnngh!]

From browsing through the site, it would appear [ddd.com] that this requires a special 3D display to work properly. So it looks like yet another stereoscopic display algorithm for converting 2d images into split frames for each eye, but designed to work without the stupid glasses or heavy goggles.

I'd be more interested to see how the 3d display work, myself.

And this is new?

[Kenja]

I worked on a system like this for broadcast TV and VHS tapes back in the mid '90s. Consumers didn't want stereoscopic 3D then and I doubt they want it now.

Re:what does it add?

[not_a_product_id]

I have to agree. Maybe if a movie was specifically shot FOR 3D but appart from that, why? Godfather in 3D, Jackie Brown in 3D - what the hell does that give us?

I'm not talking about pr0n here, obviously. ;-)

I want to use this to mess with the audience

[CatPieMan]

IF this technology comes to market, I could imagine some anime people thinking it would be fun to play around with this and make things look all weird (so that the background is right in your face, while the foreground is far away - or a person whose leg is near you, but whose face is far and have objects pass each other in ways that would look fine in 2D but would look weird in 3D).

In short, this could bring us a whole new world of experimental film. Interesting, if true.

-CPM

TrueForm TM

[dnoyeb]

Yep, and we know how well ATi's TrueForm(TM) works even when it has 3D data.

Automatically changing 1 thing to another without information is impossible. You must know enough about it (have enough prior information) to make resonable assumptions about how it should look. I suspect this technology is about 30 years away. Right along side face recognition.

Equally unbelieveing.

Re:Dubious

[hype7]

I haven't RTFA, but I'm dubious about this claim. There simply isn't enough information in a 2D image to construct a 3D image. If there were, your brain would already do it (and, in fact, already does to a limited extent). I don't see how computer technology is going to improve on what your brain can already do.

What's going to be really fun is when their analysis gets it wrong, and puts something from the background "up close" in the 3d world, and vice versa. It'll be like watching a movie in a 3D version of those distorting mirrors from the circus :D

-- james

Re:Dubious

[NanoGator]

"I haven't RTFA, but I'm dubious about this claim. There simply isn't enough information in a 2D image to construct a 3D image."

There is, kind of. Ever see those purple/orange glasses? There's an episode of Married With Children that was filmed to take advantage of those glasses. Thing is, you can't tell they filmed it that way if you're not wearing the glasses. It's not like the red/blue glasses that make a nauseating dual pattern on the screen. It looks like regular footage. I'm not 100% certain how they work, but I think they key off the highlights of the actors/objects they filmed. If I'm right, then most movies would be succeptible to this as fairly standard lighting creates those highlights. If that is right, then you could fake depth via an image processor.

Take what I'm saying with a grain of salt here, I'm using a lot of 'ifs'.

What about animation?

[Morrisguy]

Sure I'll be able to watch 3d live-action movies on this thing, but what about hand drawn 2d animation?

I would assume that the 3d image is generated by comparing the different hues and contrast between pixels or elements in an image. How would this work with animated characters, where most areas are colored in a same uniform color? Would it look like your're looking at a bunch of cardboard cutouts in front of a backdrop?

Then again, cardboard cutouts pretty much describe most of the characters I see in modern movies anyways...

Re:Dubious

[drinkypoo]

Actually quite a lot of work has been done in generating polygonal geometry from entirely two dimensional information. If the subject rotates you can get an awful lot of info just by picking out points, recognizing them as they move across the screen, and tracking their relations. This of course is nontrivial, and the subject of much debate at siggraph. I am not a graphics programmer type, but a friend of mine (well he was a friend before he loaned out some of my shit to someone who lost it, failed to replace it, and then disappeared anyway, now he's just this guy I used to know) is and he had amassed quite a bit of literature on the subject.

Presumably they're doing the lightweight version of this, generating a more or less accurate height field from the results (geometry is not useful in this case) and then separating the colors based on the height field, giving the illusion of depth. Your brain is capable of figuring out what is or isn't in the foreground (unless deliberately fooled due to nifty camera work and/or CGI) but it doesn't make you think there's depth where there isn't. In most cases that is a feature, because you won't be fooled like Wile E. Coyote and run into a painting at full tilt if you have depth perception available to you. But, it does slightly diminish the entertainment value of video.

Re:Dubious

[sklib]

I didn't RTFA either, but i'm betting that the "3D" algorithm does nothing more than tell what's in the foreground vs what's in the background using optic flow, render the foreground stuff "closer", and render the background stuff "farther", with small holes filled in.

Website vague - Patent more vague

[Kainaw]

The website blurs the line between discussing the automatic conversion of 2D movies (like the ones I have sitting by my DVD player right now) and 3D movies recorded in a standard 2D format DVD. I have no problem believing that a 3D movie encoded into a standard DVD can be viewed in full 3D. However, I was curious about the 'patented technology', so I went to the USPTO site and read the patent [uspto.gov]. It appears from the patent that the result of conversion from 2D to 3D is that it will take various 'objects' in the 2D image, outline them, and raise them off the screen. I have a strong feeling that you will get a Duke Nuk'em 3D image out of it, not the 3D you'd expect for the price of the 3D monitor and their converter system. I can't see that catching on.

Re:3D?

[davFr]

This was already studied and performed. Such a geometric figure is called a hypercube.
...I think it is also the title of an SF movie dubious sequel:o)

Trick: Watch Your Own Footage in 3D

[wls]

I stumbled on to this by accident a while back. You're obviously familiar with those stereogram images (look at infinity and a 3D surface emerges from a bunch of "random" dots). The trick is to give each eye different information.

I wondered, instead of doing this spacially, could one do it temporially? The answer is _YES_.

Open two copies of QuickTime and load the same movie in each. Put the two windows side-by-side. Now, advance the right one just a few frames (the arrow keys can do it). Then start BOTH running at the same time. (It usually takes a mouse click in one window and a keyboard focus on the other window to get this to happen.)

Now you have the same movie running side-by-side, although one is just a little off from the other.

No cross your eyes and produce an overlay of the two images. Obviously, smaller frames are easier on the eyes. Eventually your eyes will focus on the overlap, just as it does with the posters, and you can easily hold focus.

Surprise -- the movie has DEPTH. It's in 3D.

The only thing I can figure is that each eye gets a little different signal, and your brain has to piece the information together; when it does, you get 3D.

Normally you can use the red-blue glasses, sterograms, or hidden patterns in dots to do this. You can also get a similar effect by watching television with one eye closed (you're taking cues based on shadows and such), or, by having one eye look through a darkened filter. Not sure why that happens, but I suspect the difference between the left and right eye kick in the extra steps that trick the brain.

Re:what does it add?

[Boglin]

How about Hitckcock's Dial M for Murder? It was originally shot with 3D in mind. From what I've heard from people that actually saw it in 3D, it really does add to the film and isn't just used for cheap novelty.

If this kind technology actually takes off, it might encourage serious directors to use it. Since it won't be visible in the theater, it won't be the cheap novelty that they usually do, but they might keep in mind how it will look in 3D on the DVD.

You forget the "motion" in motion picture...

[SuperKendall]

If you are talking about a still frame, then real 3D seems as hard as you suggest.

But in a movie, the camera is moving pretty often, as are objects in a scene. If you look at a number of frames in a row you can get a pretty good idea of depth by how things move in relation to each other, or by natural reotation of an object (liek a person turn thier face).

All the DVD player needs to do is "read ahead" as it were to figure out what depth objects should have in a given scene. I'm sure there are all sorts of cheats you can do that would add fiarly correct looking depth to an object that would fall apart if you were trying to create a full 3D model, but which work great for 3D images on a screen.

Re:what does it add?

[Rob Parkhill]

Indiana Jones: Raiders of the Lost Ark.

This movie was meant to be seen in 3D. Watch it again some time and notice just how many times something comes flying right at the screen or pokes out at you.

A friend SWEARS that he saw a pre-release/test screening of Raiders in 3D when he lived in Albuquerque. Watching the movie again, imagining that it was supposed to be in 3D, I kinda believe him.

Re:Dubious

[Angostura]

Have a google on the Pulfrich effect or illusion.

There is a decent demo here.

http://dogfeathers.com/java/pulfrich.html [dogfeathers.com]

Another VisuaLABS

[wash23]

Reminds me of the VisuaLABS scandal [wired.com]. This guy fooled investors and squandered millions of dollars on his revolutionary 3D television which was nothing but an off-the-shelf large screen TV with a couple of lines etched into it and some camera tricks to give the illusion of depth. The founder (Sheldon Zelitt) was a bit of a wacko - spent his time in his inventor's studio playing with "optics" - which usually meant doing bizarre and childish things like gluing magnifying glasses to pennies with superglue (I made up that example, but you get the idea). I think he also once wooed investors with a parabolic mirror [optigone.com] magic trick which I guess none of them had ever seen. More info here [upfrontezine.com].

stereoscopic view linux kernel module

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know if it was reported here, but there is a module that maps opengl output to steroscopic output. It is designed for UT2003, but also seems to work with neverball, ....

It's not the same as reported here and it is not opensource as far as I know, but maybe interesting ?
You get 3d, but you need the glasses. Someone reported it seems to work with movies as well, but I haven't tried it yet.

http://happypenguin.org/show?VRizer
http://futu relab.aec.at/vrizer/

Why 3D makes you sick

[shirai]

Well, there are a lot of reasons but one that many don't know about is this.

But first a bit of background.

I was actually able to see a prototype of a (very low powered) laser that draws an image onto your retina. This was like maybe 5 years ago and it was the size of a full size freezer.

By looking into something that is quite similar to a viewfinder attached to the said freezer sized prototype, you could see an image. The cool part, is that you don't actually need a background "black" and hence the image can float in the air for you while you look at other things. They predict this device could be stuck on a pair of glasses (or sunglasses) in the future ala terminator overlay style. Yes, I saw it work but at the time it was the huge prototype.

I know how regular 3D works with one image to the left and one image to the right. But one of the big problems is that your eye cannot FOCUS on the image because to you an image might look like it is close to your face (via the left/right eye difference) but the actual image is far back where the screen is. This disparity causes you to feel nauseous. But a laser (and they hadn't done this yet) could modulate to place the image focally where it's supposed to be.

To make this more clear, if I drop a pebble in a pond, the curve of the ripple is different when I am near the drop point (very curved) compared to when I am far away (almost linear). In real life, the curve of the things you look at are all different based on how close/far they are. In 3D MOVIES, the line is always the same shape but your brain is interpreting it as either closer or farther (or is trying to anyways). Whamo. Instant headaches and nausea because your brain is having trouble figuring out what you are actually seeing the object.

There IS a copyright issue

[El Mulo]

Changing the way a copyright protected audiovisual work is presented can raise various legal problems. Remember the DGA v. Clearplay case? There is a legal interest of the author or who owns the copytight in the integrity of their works, and it can be protected in many different ways (Moral rights, although not in the States; Lanham Act art. 43 (a); the economic content of the authors reputation; freedom of speech, etc.). I'm a lawyer, but not in the States, so please excuse my english.