Identifying Good & Bad 2D to 3D Conversion

2D to 3D conversions vary greatly in terms of quality. Understanding what causes bad conversion and how to identify those issues is an essential skill to critique 3D and manage a conversion project. A bad conversion is usually the result of a cost cutting measure. Usually 1 or more of the 3 main artistic phases (depth, roto/matte, and paint) is shortchanged. — Inaccurate or conflicting depth cues and the “card-board cutout” effect arises when the depth process is shortchanged. Poor or low detail models, used to drive the depth of the scene, are the usual culprits. — The “rubber sheet” effect, “watery, stretched, or messy” edges, or lack of transparency is the result of shortchanging the paint process. To avoid painting occluded surfaces, the “rubber sheet” approach creates a sense of depth with no distinct separation between elements. Automated paint process often lead to “Watery, stretched of messy edges”. A transparency, such as smoke, is often allowed to play against a wall instead of in mid-air because that could require paint to remove and replace the smoke. — A “composited” looking shot can arise when the roto/matte process is shortchanged. Flyaway hair may be removed or matte edges may be overtly apparent because they are too hard or soft. This makes the shot look composited, even if it was captured practically. — Uncomfortable or fatiguing conversion arises if there is poor QC or stereography. Vertical alignment, too much positive parallax, and poor stereo continuity are likely causes of uncomfortable of fatiguing conversion.

Published

2010-10

Content type

Original Research

Keywords

Conversion, 2d to 3d, depth cues, monoscopic, stereoscopic, card-board cutout, rubber-sheet, cost cutting, eye fatigue, winking method

DOI

10.5594/M001386

ISBN

978-1-61482-944-7