Meant to be Seen

http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/199 ... y_launched

$850k goal. Lets just say I have my doubts as too the authenticity of their claims...

Gene Dolgoff is the man.

He may be the man, problem is his claims are pure bullshit.

I share your concerns.

However Gene is an extremely intelligent man. I've seen a couple of his seminars and otherwise watched him speak and he seems to really know his stuff. There were a couple concepts that were confusing me that his explanations helped sort out.

However I'm not sure that he has much business sense. He's great at the tech side, but I think he needs to surround himself with people that understand consumers better.

What he needs to do is release some 1080p SBS clips of what his converter outputs so that those of us that already have a converter or two can objectively compare them with what we've already got. This would prove one way or another whether he's delivering the impossible, or merely promising it.

While i once in time were optimistic about these kind of projects i'm totally flipped now. Once time and money are spent it needs to be handed out in what shape it ever is in which isn't good for 3d in general. There are too much converted material in both movies as well as games which detracts from a real and captivating experience. If you pick a random 3d-experience today it's a great risque it's a bad one because of the way it works today.
So i'm sorry: Kill it!, kill it with fire!

I have watched a lot of Gene's videos and read a lot of his stuff over the past couple of years. I am very fascinated by it, but I am always left curious HOW he can claim that everybody else's synthetic 3D is FAKE, while his synthetic 3D is REAL 3D.

He compares it (elsewhere) to how feature length motion pictures are converted to 3D, partially with computers, followed by many manhours of post-production to clean it up. He claims he can do the same thing, but without all the post-production. He provides the hype, but not enough details for me to jump right into his kickstarter. The unanswered question and unsatisfied curiousity leave me hesitant.

In my mind, he has not crossed the boundary between hype and anticipation, stuck in the middle where raised eyebrows are common.

Also skeptical. That, and I wear glasses. From going to the movies, glasses over glasses isn't the most comfortable or enjoyable experience. lol

geekmaster wrote:.. I am always left curious HOW he can claim that everybody else's synthetic 3D is FAKE, while his synthetic 3D is REAL 3D.

Fascinating.

I bought one of these already, 1080p 2D to 3D Converter HDMI Switcher Signal Video Converter ($38.12, free shipping):
http://www.ebay.com/itm/230777406526



So where in ALL of the various posts and videos on the net is there anything even slightly convincing that this inexpensive device is in any way inferior to what this kickstarter is selling? And why is that kickstarter box so darned large? And really, exactly HOW is it better than the BUILT IN synthetic 3D feature that my LG passive 3D HTDV already provides?

Gordon repeatedly makes bold claims that his "invention" is "real 3D" and the others are "fake 3D", with no supporting evidence, and no side-by-side comparisons. Bold claims require convincing evidence, of which he has not shown ME any evidence (not even unconvincing evidence). I would love to believe in this, but he needs to provide SOME evidence to support his claims before I will become a financial supporter in his kickstarter campaign.

What is amusing is that I bought that 3D converter for FPV use, and it has "Fly your vision" printed on it.

Although, I think his "holographic TV" is more interesting than a mere expensive synthetic 3D adapter:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AlWckIQNncs

First of all, I think it's BS and won't work. But...



Are they even for real????!?!??!

My God! Its full of stars!


I also do not see how any converted video can be 'real' 3d. If its missing the extra information available in the other eyes view, its not real 3D.

cybereality wrote:First of all, I think it's BS and won't work. But...

Are they even for real????!?!??!

I thought the pitch was okay but this picture did make me wonder. Why the odd random nebula pasted on the top / side?

Found the KS through one of Hip Hop Gamers tweets. My first though was "lets see what mtbs thinks". Now I know I'll give it a wide berth

Well, I think it can 'somewhat' work, but not so well. Firstly we realise that the end result of the conversion will be B grade 3d. It will most likely provide depth, easily done by separting the image and projecting it into the screen. There will be some weird glitches where things are at incorrect depth.

The bigger buggaboo is the technical issues with claimng all screens are supported. It seems to provide 2 sets of glasses, one is shutter and the other looks either some style of anaglyph or dolby3d colourd glasses. If they are intending to support old 60hz lcd's it will be 30hz per eye, ouch. But every attempt we have seen at that previously wasnt really able to make it work because of the vertical roll down speed of the refreshed image means there isnt enough time to get full screen timed refresh.

This may work to a degree, but with the takeup of 3d screen usage so low, why would you want this awful cludge of a solution to turn people off forever.

baggyg wrote:I thought the pitch was okay but this picture did make me wonder. Why the odd random nebula pasted on the top / side?

They are claiming the galaxies are visible "deep inside" and not just pasted on. Like they are planning to put full color white-light visible deep-detail holograms (if there even is such a thing) on the skins. Either that or they are some sort of holographic wormholes into deep space, or something...

And how is this fake 3D better than that already built into most "Smart" 3D TVs, or that $38 3D converter box mentioned in my previous post?

Perhaps those "galactic skins" are why it is so expensive...

oh no, not another automated 2d-3d convertor

yuriythebest wrote:oh no, not another automated 2d-3d convertor

But this one has very special magic smoke and mirrors and galaxies and stuff inside (or at least it should, at that price).

Sigh
'special magic smoke and mirrors' - yep. If you smoke enough weed before trying it (as the reaction people seem to), it will seem to be almost like you're really there!
Admittedly, in the video, the perspective of the poles 3:57 - 4:00 appears to be changing in a much more realistic way then using the 'fake 3d' in my 3DTV. We don't know if they have different solutions for different sources though, because this could just be a driver for PC.
I'd not bother risking my money on it until proven though.

Anybody who is interested ought to check him out on this hometheatre podcast: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8CMXrjTAKz8

Will it answer all of your questions? No. Will you be more curious afterwards... mayhaps.

All of this would be answered, one way or another, with some quality samples of the output.

And yes, that box does look terrible, but supposedly it's holographic, and not just a goofy picture.

I think the most important question at this stage is
"Is that Ricki Lake next to him on the Star trek photo?"

Gene made an update saying that he is working on releasing some SBS demo content. That will make or break his claims.

xhonzi wrote:Gene made an update saying that he is working on releasing some SBS demo content. That will make or break his claims.

But "demo content" can be cherry-picked to show only where his method outshines the competition, leaving out those examples where the competition is superior. Probably not a fair independent comparison.

This really needs an independent evaluation to be trusted. But at least SOME information is better than none, even if biased.

Agreed. I think that's where the reviews come in to play. If you and I can see some demos, and then reviewers can more or less back-up that the demos are representative of the quality.

But there are still no SBS demos. So...

My favorite part of the star box? Dat vga...

Converting can work well if done right. I tried a non-live one for converting movies etc. I converted a 720p dragonballz movie, had depth and pop-out. I used makeme3d, but I found a tuner card which converts live content which reviewers said it worked well.

Tuner card option has to be the best, since those can access the GPU directly and would have to have the least lag I'm guessing.