Talk:2D to 3D conversion

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm
	This article is supported by the Filmmaking task force.
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.
	This article needs an image (preferably free) related to the subject, such as a picture of the set or a film poster. Please ensure that non-free content guidelines are properly observed.

Untitled

First and foremost it should be pointed out that it is actually impossible to generate two different perspective images from one perspective image. i.e. technically the answer to the question of whether 2-D can be converted into 3-D is "no", "not really", "not properly" or "never". Apart from re-rendering, which is of course not a 2-D to 3-D conversion at all and has no place in this article, any method employed to create two perspectives from one will never look anything like true stereoscopic imagery and invariably looks like a childrens pop-up book. 60.241.100.51 (talk) 07:50, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree completely. Do you even know which films have conversion? Jurassic Park 3D was converted by Stereo-D and all reviews point to the 3D looking great and Stereo-D isn't the best studio that converts to 3D.Qwiggalo (talk) 05:40, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And I completely disagree with you - The claim that post-processed 2D-3D is the same as native 3D is unproven. IMHO it's a way to try and cash in on higher 3D prices without the expense of doing it properly, often resulting in poor quality 3D. Basiclife (talk) 07:16, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you. But re-rendering should be mentioned because it is a very similar topic. There is no need to conceal it and it needs at least to be defined as "no real conversion". --Fluffystar (talk) 15:05, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The section on animated filmed in 2D being easily converted to real 3D should be higher up because it is an interesting and useful fact, but it is buried under a lot of technical and industry information. I think it would be better at the bottom of the overview or right after it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.36.54.161 (talk) 14:47, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Broken link

http://www.mintviz.com/blog/masking-multiple-layers-in-adobe-photoshop leads to a missing page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trigalaxy (talk • contribs) 13:45, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed - Hi @Trigalaxy:, thanks for posting this. Using the easy-peasy built-in citation tool, I converted the raw link to a proper {{cite web}} template, filled in the blanks and added an archive url found at Archive.org. The only thing I had to type myself was the parameter "deadurl=yes". I'm detailing how I fixed it so that you might benefit and be able to do it in the future. Here are the changes I made. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:23, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot. Greetings, Trigalaxy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trigalaxy (talk • contribs) 19:26, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Audio data?

Has anyone attempted to infer depth information from changes in volume and phase from in-scene audio data associated with isolatable persons or objects? Gerald Fnord (talk) 19:22, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]