Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: Anyone have experience with 2D to 3D conversion?  (Read 2288 times)

uuglypher

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 34
Anyone have experience with 2D to 3D conversion?
« on: May 25, 2017, 05:42:00 PM »

Does anyone have examples to post of 2D to 3D conversions?

Dave
Logged

BartvanderWolf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6699
Re: Anyone have experience with 2D to 3D conversion?
« Reply #1 on: May 25, 2017, 06:26:00 PM »

Does anyone have examples to post of 2D to 3D conversions?

Hi Dave,

Could you elaborate what you are looking for? Virtual Reality 360-degree panoramas (stills or movies), or Stereo photography/movies (anaglyph, printed pairs, lenticular, polarized glasses), or 3d modeling (CAD/CAM, or photorealistic/ray-traced rendering)?

Cheers,
Bart
Logged
== If you do what you did, you'll get what you got. ==

uuglypher

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 34
Re: Anyone have experience with 2D to 3D conversion?
« Reply #2 on: May 25, 2017, 07:26:51 PM »

Hi, Bart,
I'm interested in the most basic techniques of using a single, 2D image as a basis for contriving a similar, yet disparate image  to make a stereo pair which, by stereopsis, will yield a 3D effect.
Logged

BobDavid

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2833
Re: Anyone have experience with 2D to 3D conversion?
« Reply #3 on: August 28, 2017, 07:56:25 PM »

Hi, Bart,
I'm interested in the most basic techniques of using a single, 2D image as a basis for contriving a similar, yet disparate image  to make a stereo pair which, by stereopsis, will yield a 3D effect.

There is a ton of literature on stereopsis and cameras. I have some stereo Kodachromes from the early 1950s. The stereo camera that took them had two lenses set a few centimeters apart. I don't remember the focal length of the lenses. Scenic stereo photos were common in the early 1900s; the viewing apparatus were rudimentary. ... The trick is to take two photos, approximately a few centimeters apart aligned along the X-axis. Depending on how close or far you are to the subject will influence the effect. This may help you begin your project. stereo photography For you to pull this off from a still image will require major work in Photoshop and a viewer. This is an exercise in art and science. You may want to look into lenticular photography. It's gimicky, but it does work.
« Last Edit: August 28, 2017, 08:10:16 PM by BobDavid »
Logged

Alskoj

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 184
Re: Anyone have experience with 2D to 3D conversion?
« Reply #4 on: October 04, 2017, 10:18:33 AM »

I've done this before...
Take a photo of a scene that has "depth" holding the camera in portrait mode, then move about a foot to the right or left and frame the image as close to the first shot as possible.
Then process / edit the two shots identically and insert them side by side in a new document or file.
Display them on your monitor and as you look at them, slightly cross your eyes so that the two images merge into one. You will see a 3D version of the scene. Be aware that some folks can't do this. Same principal as the " 3D Magic Eye" books.
Logged

smthopr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 319
    • http://www.brucealangreene.com
Re: Anyone have experience with 2D to 3D conversion?
« Reply #5 on: October 04, 2017, 11:38:00 AM »

Hi, Bart,
I'm interested in the most basic techniques of using a single, 2D image as a basis for contriving a similar, yet disparate image  to make a stereo pair which, by stereopsis, will yield a 3D effect.

A quick google search turned up this: https://www.blender.org/

I would note that almost all these applications probably apply mostly to motion picture work.  And from my experience (as an observer, not an operator), a lot of outlining of picture elements (often by hand or mouse) is necessary for optimum results.

When creating left eye / right eye from only one eye, one needs to analyze each picture element, mask them, and be able to offset them individually for the second eye to place them in the correct depth.  Also, these elements, when offset for the "new" eye will reveal background that was never photographed as it was previously covered by that element.  So then one needs to recreate the background that was never photographed.  Automated software may work ok on some images, but don't be surprised if a lot a manual labor also needs to be applied.

And lastly, this new "3d" image might look like flat cardboard cutouts in "3d space".  The next step would be to create distortions in the elements to make them appear more rounded in the new 3d image.  You've got your work cut out here...  Good luck!
Logged
Bruce Alan Greene
www.brucealangreene.com
Pages: [1]   Go Up