There are upconverting DVD players which can take a regular DVD and alter the resolution to make it closer to blu-ray. Which isn’t always as good as blu-ray, but is a way to avoid buying 2 copies of each movie.
So are there DVD players that do the same for 3D movies, you put a 2D movie in and they can add info so that the product on TV ends up being in 3D?
No.
No.
No DVD player can add information. For something like upsampling a low-resolution movie, some can make prettier guesses than others on the interpolation, but there’s still no new information. Guessing on depth, though, given only the contextual clues available in the 2D movie, would require something awfully darned close to true artificial intelligence.
A studio can take a 2D movie and make it “3D”, but it looks crappy and you would be better off seeing the 2D version.
No, but my Samsung 3D TV has a feature that (attempts to) make 2D content 3D. I think it does it in a rather primitive level based on sharpness of what’s on TV to determine depth, but it has done a reasonable job at faking it.
Cyberlink PowerDVD 10 and 11 is a DVD and Blu-Ray player program for Windows that has a feature that can convert a 2D DVD to 3D during playback. It doesn’t really get good results, of course, but it does make the picture appear non-flat on a 3D monitor.
What I’m waiting on are the DVD players that automatically colorize black-and-white movies. We’ll call 'em TurnerVision and burn them in the streets.
In the future, old movies will be remade in photorealistic 3D environments and we will interact with them in our VR full body suits.
Punch Bogie in the face and get in the plane with Elsa! We are so missing out.
Well, that’s not really the reason for upconverting DVD players. The reason is because DVD players were around long before affordable HD flat screens. And HD flat screens got adopted much **much **faster than DVD players did. Ergo people already had a DVD player and (more importantly) big DVD collections when HD TVs became the norm. So there was a market for DVD players that could somewhat improve everyone’s existing DVD collections on their spiffy new big screen TVs. Upconverting DVD players were never really meant to be a ‘poor man’s’ Blu-Ray.
And BTW, aren’t 3D movies Blu-Ray only? Regular DVDs don’t have the capacity for it, do they?
Some titles on DVD attempt 3D in the old-fashioned way using coloured filters ( not very effective IMO) and I think DVD technically has the capability to handle two simultaneous views - but I dont think it has ever been exploited because flu-ray was becoming established when 3D was getting popular.
That’s some sick technology.
Actually, you’d be better seeing any movie in 2D, I think. However, if the movie makers take their time and put the real money in, a 3D conversion can work. I’ve heard Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2 was a very good 3D conversion, though I went to see it in 2D anyway(which is how it was filmed).
Blerdy Android auto correct makes me look a proper moron sometimes. That’s my excuse, and I’m sticking to it.
Right, and adding sound to movies is like putting lipstick on the Venus de Milo.
Maybe I’m wrong, but I though that quote referred to colorizing old B&W films. And in that case, yes, it is like that. I’m not outraged about it or anything but I have never seen a colorized B&W film that looked any better that way. In fact they always look worse.
And I’m still not sold on 3D either. Going from silent to sound, yes, that’s a positive. Going from B&W to (originally shot!) color, also ok. But 2D to 3D? Its still like Rumble-Rama™, its a gimmick. On a psychological level I think it’s not a plus because watching a film is an inherently *passive *experience, and 3D betrays that by being *too *immersive.
Its a movie, not Gears of War VI…
Nope, I’m right, you’re wrong. But you should assume that anyway. 
It’s new, that’s all. Wait for the artistic language to develop and you’ll see 3D films that wouldn’t work as 2D, just like there are films that would be pointless without sound, color, or both.
Ha. Rationalizing your prejudices is fun.
Yeah, one art form is so much less crass than the other.
There’s also a program that will take anaglyphic movies and convert them to be used on 3D sets. I linked it a long time ago, but I can’t be bothered to find it now.
Also, I note that the best 3D I’ve seen was on one of Johny Depp’s movies. (I think the Alice in Wonderland one), and it was upconverted. They actually gave the background a real sense of depth rather than having everything feel like it was within 2 inches in front and two inches in back.
Oh, and seeing as 10% of people can’t see in stereo and even more get headaches, any filmmaker who wants to make money is not going to make a film that works in 3D but not in 2D. That is, if anyone can even come up with something where 3D is necessary. Seriously, try to come up with something that isn’t a contrives special illusion that wouldn’t work when filmed in 2D.
The most you’ll wind up with films that are only shown in 3D, but have both 2D and 3D glasses.
You’re right, they could make 2D glasses pretty easily. Does anyone know, do they actually do that yet?
I don’t have a dog in this fight, but there are reasons to be skeptical about 3D that are not based in prejudice. One of my biggest problems with the technology is the fixed camera focus/depth of field. I know that I can’t change it in 2D, either, but the immersiveness and 3D-ness creates the illusion that you can, and your brain is constantly trying to focus on parts of the movie that are, by design, out of focus. This is very irritating on things in the foreground of the frame, like tree branches. I love the 3D experience, but things like this do take me out of it a bit.