| Author | Message | ||
     ChrisC007 Rating: N/A |
I have been a fan of 3D films since the early 80's when I first went to see Jaws 3-D. Since then I have seen a lot of 3D films. Amityville 3-D was one I wanted to see, but was too young at the time! When I heard that it was being released in 3-D DVD I was delighted. The delight soon turned to disappointment when I received the DVD. I knew that it was going to be Anaglyph, but it was a rubbish print which was very poorly done, full of ghosting and retinal rivalry. I have also seen a "Living 3D" version, which I turned off after about 15 minutes because it was so bad. It has been my mission to create a true field sequential version of this film. I have recently spent a considerable amount of time sourcing both Left and Right eye perspectives of the movie. It has taken me a long time to work on this 3-D version of the film, including (in some scenes) re-colouring anaglyphs by hand one frame at a time and perfectly cropping and matching up both perspectives. Last night I encoded the first 10 minutes of film and it looks outstanding (considering the amount of faded footage I had to use). It is by no means commercial DVD quality, but I would say it's as good as, if not better than, a direct VHD->DVD conversion. It is going to be the best non-commercial field sequential DVD that I have in my collection, and I do have a lot of decent ones! Would it make me a bad person if I sold copies on e-bay? Let's face it, the big studios aren't going to release Field Sequential versions of their 3D Catalogue for some time yet (if ever). If someone else had done all this work and was selling good copies on e-bay, I would have jumped at the chance to buy it, and would have bid high. After all, this is actual 3-D and not "Living 3D", which is utter crap and, in my opinion, should be banned from e-bay! Hmmm....what to do??? | ||
| 3Dman Rating: N/A |
I think you should send on ebay. may be including some information like: I m only selling this because there is no official Field-sequential of this movie. and i will remove if notified. I will not but buy because a do have a real 3D copy in FS , sorry I will not say who or were i get it. the quality is excellent. but if you make a conversion of the 16 minutes of "Freddy's Dead" i will buy will be removed when notified | ||
| Anonymous Rating: N/A |
The vast majority of field-sequential 3-D DVD movies sold on eBay are "unofficial" digital conversions of the original films, created without permission of the corporations owning the copyrights. This is obviously illegal, and if Hollywood studios like Warner Brothers ("House of Wax," "Dial M for Murder") and Universal Studios ("Jaws 3D") wanted eBay to remove the involved DVDs, their lawyers could probably accomplish this with a single phone call. Apparently these studios are turning a blind eye to the eBay sales, because 1) the specific movies are decades old, 2) the niche market for field-sequential 3-D DVDs is miniscule in any case, and 3) several of the major studios have stated that they will never release field-sequential 3-D versions of their movies, so the "unofficial" versions aren't in direct competition with the studio releases. So yeah, go ahead and offer your creation on eBay. Unauthorized fake 3-D versions of "Amityville 3-D" have already been sold there for some time, with no apparent reaction from the copyright owner, M-G-M. | ||
| Peter Wimmer Rating: N/A |
You should NOT write "I m only selling this because there is no official Field-sequential of this movie. and i will remove if notified." or something like that because that would be a admission of guilt, making it easy to prove that you deliberately violated copyrights. | ||
| ChrisC007 Rating: N/A |
I have a question. As around 90% of the conversion was from anaglyph, I used software to do a lot of the conversion and only did around 100 individual frames by hand. Does anyone know of software (or filters) other than Peter Wimmer's DeAnaglyph or 3dCombine that can repair anaglyph videos? I found that DeAnaglyph could only do individual frames at a time and 3dCombine left way too many artifacts in some scenes. | ||
| Peter Wimmer Rating: N/A |
Chris, are you a software developer? If yes, I could send you the source of DeAnaglyph, so that you can improve it. It would be necessary to add support for movie conversion and processing of the image border. In addition, the core algorithm should be ported from Borland Delphi to C/C++ or Assembler to speed up conversion. The algorithm itself is rather simple. | ||
| ChrisC007 Rating: N/A |
Hi Peter, I'm afraid the last time I ventured into software development was writing in machine code in the mid 1980's. I've kinda lost touch since then (I really should get back into programming/developing). I am very impressed with your Stereoscopic Player and, as a 3-D enthusiast, use it on a regular basis. 3Dman - I was going to try "The Mask" from the 60's as my next project (a cop-out really as only a few short sequences were shot in 3-D and I already have some of the L/R footage), but I suppose I could try tracking down the right eye perspective of Freddy's Dead - anyone already got this, or do I have to start from scratch again? | ||
| bob Rating: N/A |
won't field sequential flicker badly at one-half the normal viewing rate? | ||
| Peter Wimmer Rating: N/A |
> won't field sequential flicker badly at one-half the normal viewing rate? On TV, flickering is unacceptable, but you can also play it on a computer at flickerfree 120 Hz. | ||
| Scott Warren Rating: N/A |
Yes, you can use a computer and set the refresh rate to 120Hz, but that won't change the frame rate of the video. With Interlaced Stereo using standard NTSC, you'll be stuck with the equivalent of 1/2 the vertical resolution and 1/2 the temporal resolution. Another example of why many "backwards compatible" solutions could be considered unacceptable. Scott | ||
| Anonymous Rating: N/A |
If by temporal resolution you mean frames per second per eye, isn't this dependent on the refresh rate? So if ALL NTSC videos are designed for a 60 fps display (to match the U.S. television standard) and using shutter glasses with television viewing halves this to 30 fps per eye, doesn't computer playback at 120 HZ double this back to 60 fps per eye? (Yes, it's stll 1/2 the temporal resolution of the original AT ANY SPECIFIC refresh rate, but how does that affect display image quality at high refresh rates?) | ||
| Scott Warren Rating: N/A |
Look at it this way... If you have a digital LCD watch and it blinks 10 times a second, which you'll pretend is just barely imperceptible... Currently it reads 11:58, ten blinks of that then 11:59, ten blinks of that, 12:00. Add stereoscopic interlace: Now it reads 11:58L, 5 blinks of that alternating with 5 blinks of 11:58R. It's still 10 blinks per second, but EACH EYE only see's 5 blinks (of 11:58L and 11:58R respectively). You DON'T want to make the watch run any faster 'cuz that would screw with the perception of speed/time. Now assume it's showing not just 11:58L/R, but 11:58.1, 11:58.2, 11:58.3. In the old monoscopic form you would have a continuous progression from 1-10 (or 0-9 for those techies out there). In the stereoscopic form, the left eye would see 11:58.1L, 11:58.3L, 11:58.5L, etc. Blockier/jaggedy-er motion. Even if you change the blink rate after the fact to double (so that each eye gets the usual minimum/imperceptable flicker), it's still going to be 11:58.1L, 11:58.1L, 11:58.3L, 11:58.3L, 11:58.5L, 11:58.5L. There is no way to truly re-create those missing frames and make the motion fluid (certainly not in real-time). The frame rate equates to the progression of numbers, the refresh rate equates to the blink rate. Similarly, you're sacrificing vertical resolution. The most each eye will see is 240 lines (barring some psychological blending effects). Not even Standard Definition... Scott (aka Cornucopia) | ||
| Matt Rating: N/A |
Careful who you sell to. The guy who sells the 'living 3-D' and other bootleg DVDs is a regular on this site. | ||
| 3d-geek (Rrrrob) Junior Member Username: Rrrrob Post Number: 30 Registered: 5-2006 Rating: N/A |
i feel like a true 3D version of this flick doesn't really exist...i keep hearing how it's almost done, or it's done, or I-have-one-but-I-won't-tell-you-where-I-got-it, etc., but then....NOTHING. Until now. If you are interested, check ebay in early March 2007 or email me and I will direct you to where to purchase an advanced copy (and only $13.99 US!). | ||
| Matt Widmann (Matt) New member Username: Matt Post Number: 1 Registered: 2-2007 Rating: N/A |
If you don't mind me asking, is this a conversion from the anaglyph DVD or an interlaced conversion from a film print transfer? | ||
| 3d-geek (Rrrrob) Member Username: Rrrrob Post Number: 41 Registered: 5-2006 Rating: N/A |
oops...thought i responded to this like a month ago...must not have saved. It's a anaglyph conversion. |
