Is Sky right to ban 2d to 3d conversions? Prev Post. This website uses cookies to improve your experience. We'll assume you're ok with this. I've read this. Close Privacy Overview This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website.
Out of these cookies, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent.
So what you do is decide, for every scene and every object on the screen, what depth it belongs to - pretend each object is a cardboard cutout of itself, and stack them up at the appropriate distances. You might be able to do the above automatically, or semi-automatically, by analyzing the perspective cues, etc, but it's probably largely a manual process - matte out an object, propagate the matte over time, set the z-depth for that object - repeat and repeat. Once you have the z-depth for everything, you know how much you need to shift every object by to create the view from the 'other eye', by simple trigonometry.
Now, you do the shift, and you find you're missing chunks of background that were covered in your source video, but not in your new shifted copy - exactly as if you'd cut the shapes out of paper, and shifted them over a bit - there's a hole. So now you have to fill all those in. Again, I don't know how well they've automated this - texture synthesis algorithms exist, and they may be able to help a great with this. I suspect a good deal of manual effort is still required perhaps they have someone paint in a hole, then propagate those areas to all future frames that have the same gap, etc.
All the above is just a guess, note - I don't actually know how they go about it. But that's what I'd try to do, anyway. My WAG is that it uses edge detection to identify objects which are in sharp focus then positions them in the foreground of the created 3D feed, with areas which are increasingly blurred due to shallow depth of field assumed to be in the background.
But who knows. There's nothing that can do this well automagically. There's a bunch of heuristic stuff you can do like try to use perspective lines if they exist or whatever, but since 2d images are fundamentally missing critical parts of the "scene" and the perspective's not quite right anyway. In general, the help it'll need scales with how aggressive you want to push it, anywhere from monty python cutouts akin to artificial coloring to avatar impossible.
Operations in india imply it's very labor intensive. May be possible that they're rebuilding models in 3d and skinning them all manually for the film thing. Once you do this, you see the original image - lots of work for nothing. However, if you instead of seeing it back through the tracked virtual camera, you define two other cameras that follow the same tracked path, except being very slightly offset left and right from the tracked camera, viola, you have a stereoscopic representation of the original image.
Of course, you can't exagerate the offset of the cameras too much therefore you can't do exagerate the stereoscopic impression either , because then the stretching of the texture on the displaced plane becomes too obvious.
If the above description isn't very clear, there is a pretty nifty demonstration of this basic workflow in fxguide TV episode 68 Quicktime, MB , where Simon Robinson from The Foundry shows it at IBC within Nuke - skip to about in the video, thats where it starts.
You can also see the anaglyph result of how well it works. Naturally, how automatically this works is very dependent on the original scene - shots with lots of parallax and nice trackable features shot with standard lenses can be setup pretty easily, others will need to be massaged by hand.
Since Toshiba is launching a TV that does this in real time, apparently they've found a way of doing this automatically, and very fast. Once loaded, the interface shown in the photo is displayed before us. In it we can see several elements, but there are three that are the most important and the ones we are going to explain to you. Conversion method selection: this dropdown list includes 4 different options for converting from 2D to 3D but we will only explain the ones we consider most useful.
This mode is especially useful to create models and print them in various colors changing the filament. Selecting levels and smoothing: these sliders allow us to select both the level of detail we want to preserve and the smoothing we want to apply. The ideal thing is to try different settings depending on your image.
In general, adding a bit of smoothing helps if our image is low resolution and the 3D model that is generated has noise, or very sharp peaks and edges.
Activation of image inversion: this switch has the function of creating the image negative, since depending on each specific case we will want the highest parts of our 3D model to be the brightest parts of the image or the darkest. As you can see, the program is very simple, and you just need to play a little with the parameters we have explained. If you have any doubt do not hesitate to ask in the comments section.
Once we have the 3D model generated, we are going to use this same software to scale it to our liking. To scale it we only have to click on the scaling icon in the toolbar at the bottom. Before changing any dimension we must make sure that the lock on the right is closed.
This means that we want to maintain the aspect ratio of our figure, that is, its proportions. If the lock were open when changing one of the dimensions, the rest would not be changed accordingly and we would end up with a deformed figure. Bearing this in mind, we only have to type in the dimensions we want for our 3D model and we would have it done. Almost all your current laminators such as Cura or Simplify3D support other more modern and efficient formats, so we recommend you try the 3mf format.
0コメント