P3D Re: 2-D to 3-D conversions

[Michael Hodsdon <mike3d@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Michael Kaplan writes:
>There also are effects (like conversion of 2-D to 3-D) that might clearly
>qualify as 'pseudo' or false or fake.

Hey! Wait a minute! =)
  To call conversions an effect or fake is the same to me as
someone calling 
3-D photography "just a gimmick". I submit that a good
conversion is still 
true stereo and no more an "effect" than stereo photography
itself. Of course
I am biased but it seems to me that hand rendering the depth
and getting a good 
result "might clearly" be trickier than letting the camera
do it for you. ;)
In all seriousness I wasn't really offended by this remark.
Just pointing out 
that 2-D to 3-D conversion is an art form of it's own (to
some)and can be 
incredibly tough to pull off well. I feel it is more than an
example of an 
effect and kinda chuckled when I saw that. No real offense
intended Mr. Kaplan.

Greg Wageman wrote:
>If you're talking about those rip-offs that simply place a flat image
>behind a window, absolutely.
 
 Agreed! Hope I haven't made anyone angry. Just standing up
for 2-D
to 3-D conversion! =) Thanks, Mike Hodsdon



               
                   Grab your red/blue or red/green 
                      3-D glasses and check out
                   Mike's 3-D Cavalcade of Depth!
                       (red lens = left eye)

                  http://members.xoom.com/3dmike1/


------------------------------

End of PHOTO-3D Digest 3319
***************************