| Author | Message | ||
     Dann Groothuis (Stannmaple) New member Username: Stannmaple Post Number: 7 Registered: 6-2007 Rating: N/A |
I read a while ago on a thread here: http://www.stereo3d.com/discus/messages/3179/3635.html?1136891091 That 3D combine can be used to "repair anaglyph" and give you a full color right eye view. Is there anyone who has experience with this software willing to write up a tutorial on the exact process to do this? I've e-mailed the guy from the thread, but can't get ahold of him. The thread is 2 years old, so he is probably not around anymore. Any help would be appreciated Dann | ||
| Larry Elie (Ldeliecomcastnet) New member Username: Ldeliecomcastnet Post Number: 20 Registered: 10-2006 Rating: N/A |
It works. The creator of the software, Richard Scullion, can help you, just buy a real registered copy. 3D Combine is one of the most useful single pieces of 3D software I have seen. People think the main purposes of the software is to make a solid version of a still or movie based on a depth map. It can do a whole lot more than that. It's the best format converter I've seen. Richard is very helpfull making all the features work. | ||
| 3d-geek (Rrrrob) Member Username: Rrrrob Post Number: 57 Registered: 5-2006 Rating: N/A |
my experience with the anaglyph repair was less than impressive--tons of artifacts/blocky/pixelated, pretty much useless...is the registered version better at this? For my AG to FS conversions, I only needed Stereo Movie Maker... | ||
| Larry Elie (Ldeliecomcastnet) Junior Member Username: Ldeliecomcastnet Post Number: 21 Registered: 10-2006 Rating: N/A |
OK, Richard Scullion gave me permission to post a pair of conversions. Both are from the short Shrek 3D. One is from the current version, the second from version 5 beta (shrekv20000smaller.jpeg). I had to lower the resolution to 70% of original in PaintShopPro to fit the size limits for a post. There are no artifacts/blocky/pixelation, and they aren't useless. The older version has a lower resolution for the right eye; the left is directly from flat DVD. Peter's Stereo Movie Maker is a good program too, but don't think this is useless. Larry Elie  | ||
| Larry Elie (Ldeliecomcastnet) Junior Member Username: Ldeliecomcastnet Post Number: 22 Registered: 10-2006 Rating: N/A |
Current version of 3DCombine Anaglyph to pair conversion. I had to lower the resolution to 70% of original in PaintShopPro to fit the size limits for a post. There are no artifacts/blocky/pixelation, and they aren't useless. The older version has a lower resolution for the right eye; the left is directly from flat DVD. Peter's Stereo Movie Maker is a good program too, but don't think this is useless. Larry Elie  | ||
| 3d-geek (Rrrrob) Member Username: Rrrrob Post Number: 58 Registered: 5-2006 Rating: N/A |
My experience was with Amityville 3D--it didn't work out very well AT ALL as the color flat portion differed from the separated blue anaglyph portion in aspect ratio, etc., which although corrected to some degree prior to loading into 3Dcombine, still gave horrible results because of the minor differences....the artifacts were MUCH worse than this example. I did try this method with Shrek at first, but again, horrible artifacts right off the bat with the flying fairy in the opening sequence. Is the quality exhibited in the above examples held through the ENTIRE movie? Most of what I ended up with looked like the pixelation I see around the donkey's ears in the right view above, but much worse. My version of Shrek 3D (and siegfield/roy Magic Box) were done only with Stereo Movie maker and turned out as well as the examples above (Stereo Movie Maker has a color correction function as well, btw, although I haven't seen mention of it anywhere, including at the homepage for Stereo Movie Maker). | ||
| Larry Elie (Ldeliecomcastnet) Junior Member Username: Ldeliecomcastnet Post Number: 23 Registered: 10-2006 Rating: N/A |
Well, I didn't see anything with much artifacting, but clearly the version 5 beta is better. Having said all that, there are a few things you might have done wrong in your conversion. First, I know version 5 (and probably the earlier versions) can convert even without the flat frame for reference. The quality is worse. That's no surprise. Is there any chance you weren't including the 2D reference? Another possibility is 3DCombine can do 2D to 3D conversions in various formats. The quality is much better than 3DPlus, but it isn't 'real' 3D unless you turn off the automatic conversion and create a real depth map. I know you wouldn't do it intentionally, but is there any chance you were doing a conversion? | ||
| 3d-geek (Rrrrob) Member Username: Rrrrob Post Number: 59 Registered: 5-2006 Rating: N/A |
I was using the blue/right separated anaglyph video on the right and the 2D flat full-color version on the left as the reference...red circles, for example car brake lights, would turn out as red squares in the 'repaired' side. When I tried it with Shrek, the pinkish glow around tinkerbell was all blocky as well. In both cases, I was using the 2D full color video for reference on the left, but I had used Stereo Movie Maker to split out the red/blue - left/right video beforehand, using the right/blue side as the repairable video. I am sure there is something I am doing wrong if you were able to get the results you posted--the repair looked like it was doing the best it could, but just not to any type of quality I would consider useable. I thought I saw a post here (can't find it now) where someone posted a picture of a praying mantis that exhibited the exact problem I was having... | ||
| Richard Scullion (Rscullion) New member Username: Rscullion Post Number: 2 Registered: 7-2006 Rating: N/A |
All, Larry told me about this thread and I thought I'd wade in. 3DCombine 5 does a better job than 3DCombine 4, but the screenshots shown above are fairly typical of the quality that can be achieved. FYI I've included a screenshot of the tinkerbell scene that 3d-geek mentioned. This was done in 3DCombine 5. Richard  | ||
| Dann Groothuis (Stannmaple) New member Username: Stannmaple Post Number: 13 Registered: 6-2007 Rating: N/A |
Hey guys, I'm confused. I can't find a version 5 anywhere. The only version I see is v4.2.5. Also, I've tried with lots of different codecs as input files (Panasonic DV, MJPEG, lagarith) and I always get the same error (but in different spots depending on the codec) when trying to "repair anaglyph." It says something like "could not unpack packed bitmap" The only codec that actually worked was xvid, but won't that diminish the quality when it's output to DVD? What codec do you use with the AVI before inputing it into 3D combine? Thanks Dann | ||
| 3d-geek (Rrrrob) Member Username: Rrrrob Post Number: 60 Registered: 5-2006 Rating: N/A |
That does look much better than the results I got--is it the process I used to separate the anaglyph or the version of 3D combine i used that was to blame (if anyone can guess)? | ||
| Larry Elie (Ldeliecomcastnet) Junior Member Username: Ldeliecomcastnet Post Number: 24 Registered: 10-2006 Rating: N/A |
Reply to Dann; I have got the "unpak" error too under 4.2.5 sometimes, and the location for the error may even change if you re-run with the SAME codec. It never occurs if I only work with short (10 min or so) segments. I didn't get it often with xvid or divx. I don't think the 'quality' will diminish significantly from DVD; you have to re-render to Mpeg 2 anyway, and 3DCombine is much faster with Divx. Version 5 is BETA. I have not had any problems with the "unpack" error on Version 5. It also can work directly in Mpeg2 if you like, and has some other enhansements that probably would only help you if you have a full render farm. It has (or had) a new super high quality that did some amazing conversions from 2D, but at the cost of about 1 minute of converted video for 10+ hours of P4 Dual 2.8 GHz time.... Perhaps with a 8 core or a full render farm.... To Rrrrob; Perhaps Richard can help. I never saw the problem. Then too; I convert to Divx (or MS Mpeg4 version 2) before I do anything else as the programs is so much faster. Perhaps there's a color transition as part of the codec that I was on the other side of? After all, we are talking animation here, and the number of colors is relitivly small. Larry Elie | ||
| Dann Groothuis (Stannmaple) New member Username: Stannmaple Post Number: 15 Registered: 6-2007 Rating: N/A |
Hey, Larry, Thanks for the reply. That's very helpful. I did the conversion with 3dcombine 4 and I also got some terrible artifacts. It looks like it's because it's putting the red not where it SHOULD be, but where it WAS in the 2D version, which is logical, but doesn't make for a very nice picture. I've attached an example, although with movement, the blockiness looks MUCH worse. So, I still can't find 3Dcombine 5 beta anywhere? Where can I get a copy? Thanks Dann  | ||
| Dann Groothuis (Stannmaple) New member Username: Stannmaple Post Number: 16 Registered: 6-2007 Rating: N/A |
Oh, and here is the 2D reference (oops) Dann  | ||
| Dann Groothuis (Stannmaple) New member Username: Stannmaple Post Number: 17 Registered: 6-2007 Rating: N/A |
Oh, one more thing... I wanted to point out that the whole movie doesn't look bad, only certain parts. It seems like the parts that have a lot of red and that are the "extreme 3D" parts (so the parts where the red from the 2D wouldn't line up) | ||
| Richard Scullion (Rscullion) New member Username: Rscullion Post Number: 3 Registered: 7-2006 Rating: N/A |
Dann, Are you a registered user? If so, get in touch by email r_scullion@hotmail.com and I'll set you up with the current alpha of 3DCombine 5. | ||
| Dann Groothuis (Stannmaple) New member Username: Stannmaple Post Number: 18 Registered: 6-2007 Rating: N/A |
Hey Richard, I am not a registered user. At this point I am doing the "try before you buy" version, but I think I only have 3 or 4 more times left. I was trying it out to see if it does what I'm looking for. Are those blocky effects that I see in version 4 typical or am I doing something wrong? If they are typical, does version 5 fix this problem? I am very interested in the software and have enjoyed my trial. I'm interested in purchasing it, but I want to make sure it is useful for my purposes first. Thanks Dann | ||
| Richard Scullion (Rscullion) New member Username: Rscullion Post Number: 4 Registered: 7-2006 Rating: N/A |
Dann, 3DCombine 5 will be available in try-before-you buy form when it is released. The algorithm is better in version 5. | ||
| Dann Groothuis (Stannmaple) New member Username: Stannmaple Post Number: 19 Registered: 6-2007 Rating: N/A |
Excellent! I'm very excited about this software and especially what I hear about the new version. When is it expected out? Thanks Dann |
