Is 2D->3D conversion worth the cash?

[thinboifat]

I am buying a 32 inch 3d tv in a months time, either the samsung D6100 or the D6510. The differences between the 2 are that the D6510 has 400hz clear motion (vs 200hz), aesthetics, built in wifi and the 3d conversion. Now, im going to use wired ethernet and the 400hz doesn't make too much difference in my eyes. So, its basically £120 extra for the conversion tool, IS it worth the cash? Is watching converted 3d actually any good? (3D clash of the titans was drivel, and thats with hollywood 3d conversion) Should I just buy the D6100 and spent the rest of 3d blu ray?

 

[Scooby2000]

3D is not worth having anyway on a 32" IMO unless you sit like 2ft away. Converting 2d to 3D is a gimmick its not going to be as good as actual 3D. Converted films at the cinema are bad enough these sets are doing it on the fly, eww.

 

[thinboifat]

Thats my initial opinion as well, if hollywood cant get it right then surely real time conversion certainly cant. But when you watch inception, you cant help but wonder.....
In regard to size its for the bedroom, I purchased an expensive panasonic 2d set a year and a half ago, and the picture is amazing, so I have no desire to alter the set up. 3D home cinema in the bedroom FTW

 

[giangdarookie2]

I think this is the same debate as the SD to HD scaling debate. You cannot make something up if its not there. nomatter how good the algorithm is.

So I think it does not worth the money fake 3D is not 3D...

 

[Scooby2000]

I think this is the same debate as the SD to HD scaling debate. You cannot make something up if its not there. nomatter how good the algorithm is.

So I think it does not worth the money fake 3D is not 3D...

Good point, may be worse though, upscaled 2D SD I could live with on a small screen but poor fake 3D? eww Anyway on a 32" Like I say 3D is pointless you need a big screen IMO for the effect to work, you'll be constantly referancing the edge of the screen. Anyway who needs 3D at home when good HD has plenty of depth and pop, especially for a 32" I'd spend the money on a bigger 2d set myself, or put any savings towards upgrading the downstairs set in a year or two.

 

[thinboifat]

Remember that the TV screen size itself is irrelevant, its the field of view that matters; yes 32 inch way too small for a lounge, when you sit the same distance as my height away, the field of view of a 32 inch would be the same as a 46 inch in my lounge.

As for the conversion I think I agree, upscaled HD certainly doesn't make the viewing experience worse, but i could see a converted 3d image making it worse. Has anyone tried a converted 3D and genuinely preferred it to standard?

 

[OnThePerryFerry]

I bought a Panasonic DMP-BDT310 Blu Ray Player [with 2D-3D conversion capability] to specifically function with my 3D TV [the LG 47LD950] which has no bells and whistles on it at all- albeit, the picture quality in HD is stunning with its 200Hz and "no-headache" Passive 3D Glasses.

I personally think that CGI-type animations and cartoon 2D-3D conversions work better than real-life footage. I played a short Shrek 3D DVD animation [approx 11 mins long] which was made to watch with those awful red-green paper glasses, but the Disc also had a regular 2D version of the short animation. On pressing the Blu Ray Players' 3D button- it definitely added depth to the animation. It's not earth-shattering, but it works well enough in a sort of depth-field view to justify the function.

I also tried the Kung Fu Panda Short too, which features CGI animation and 2D cartoon footage and the results were also reasonably good. This was not the case with say Inception [in the exploding dream scene of boxes and paving], where the depth is there but nothing seems to "come out at you" unlike Avatar or Tron Legacy DVD's which have ready-made 3D cues fit for purpose for example and look fantastic- to my eyes at least.

To be honest, with 2D-3D, at best- the DVD seemed crisper [upscaled] and vivid compared to the original 2D version, so I can imagine trying to re-view old DVD's that have been long neglected as 2D-3D might be an interesting way to refresh the retro discs. So I wouldn't dismiss it as a gimmick, it's not stunningly 3Dimensional, I would re-brand it as 3Depthy.

And at least for me, it makes no difference whether I set the 3D depth scale from -5 to +3, it still looks the same to me on both ends of the scale- it just seems to shift from left to right slightly. I don't know if anyone else had the same experience they could share with us.

But there is as far as I am concerned, a completely useless feature that exists on the Panasonic BDT310 which adds a [black, blue or red] blurry border to the edge of the picture to separate it from the bezel and allegedly create a deeper 3D image... in one word- fail. It just makes the screen footage shrink in size and makes you feel as if you've got creeping Glaucoma in your eyes and your edge-vision is gradually eroding away. No need for that.

Of course, there's no comparison to Real3D Hollywood films, but the kids seem happy enough with this cheap home alternative. I have noticed the ooing and aahing over the 3D effect stops a few minutes into the film and then they just get on with watching it like any other 2D movie.

With minimal 3D Blu Ray [or DVD] content available, beggars can't be choosers. These are early days and early innovations... so we put up with what we're given. Although I'm holding out for 3DH vision [3D Holographic!].