07-23-2011 11:25 AM
30 12
tools
  1. Slam08's Avatar
    I'm a camera novice, but I was unhappy with the quality of pictures I took in 2D camera mode. The images looked flat an unappealing.

    Then I realized that if you take a 3D photo you can convert it to a 2D photo. I'm much happier with the image quality when a 3D photo is converted to 2D.

    I'd be interested to see what some experienced camera users thought of this workaround. It seems to work for me.
    07-05-2011 03:00 PM
  2. G1toEVO's Avatar
    I agree OP , noticed this yesterday.
    07-05-2011 05:37 PM
  3. cheechmo's Avatar
    Anybody willing to show visual proof? I'm having a hard time understanding how this could be technically possible. By converting it to 2D, wouldn't it basically just remove the image captured from one of the cameras, therefore giving you the same exact quality as if you had taken a 2D shot to begin with?
    07-05-2011 06:19 PM
  4. Wicket's Avatar
    it might do some kind of blending the 2 together. you can create HDRI this way, you take the same image at varying exposures and then in PS you blend them using different blend modes. now I doubt the phone is doing anything too fancy but it might merge the 2 images from each camera giving better range. my $.02
    07-05-2011 06:37 PM
  5. cheechmo's Avatar
    it might do some kind of blending the 2 together. you can create HDRI this way, you take the same image at varying exposures and then in PS you blend them using different blend modes. now I doubt the phone is doing anything too fancy but it might merge the 2 images from each camera giving better range. my $.02
    But with the dual cameras, you aren't taking the same image. It's two distinct angles, so if you blended them together, you would have two offset images.
    07-05-2011 06:53 PM
  6. Averix's Avatar
    How are you combining them? I think you're just stripping half the image.
    07-05-2011 07:03 PM
  7. cj100570's Avatar
    Converting the 3D pictures to 2D most certainly does not make them look better. And I might also add that you end up with a picture that's roughly half the resolution. The 3D pictures actually look better due to the combining of the 2 offset images. To test this for yourself all you have to do is open a 3D pic, tap the screen and then tap on on the 3D icon in the upper right hand corner.
    07-05-2011 07:20 PM
  8. Qoheleth's Avatar
    How do you figure 2d has half the resolution? A 3d image combines two 5MP images into one 5MP 3D image. When you convert that to 2d you still get a 5MP image. I think the "looking better" is an optical illusion though. 3d takes refocusing your eyes and can sometimes look blurry. 2d doesn't have that issue (but, of course, doesn't show the full depth.)
    BTW, one neat discovery I made while playing with 3D was the "Save as 2D" option built right into the camera app.
    07-05-2011 08:03 PM
  9. Slam08's Avatar
    Anybody willing to show visual proof? I'm having a hard time understanding how this could be technically possible. By converting it to 2D, wouldn't it basically just remove the image captured from one of the cameras, therefore giving you the same exact quality as if you had taken a 2D shot to begin with?
    I've attached some pics I took earlier.

    The first one IMAG0020 is a regular 2D pic I took with my htc evo 3d. Just point and shoot.

    The second IMAG0019-1 is a 3D pic that I converted to 2D.

    Imho, you can see much more detail in the second image, such as the stones in the church, and balconies on the buildings.

    I don't know why this is, all I know is that it works on my phone.
    07-05-2011 09:24 PM
  10. Wicket's Avatar
    But with the dual cameras, you aren't taking the same image. It's two distinct angles, so if you blended them together, you would have two offset images.
    true but the ocular offset isn't very big.. I wasn't saying this IS how or why, just speculating that it may be something similar. somehow taking the two images and making them work as one with overlapping, blending and potentially stitching them together.
    you can create 1 image from many even if the camera isn't in the same exact spot. of course again.. I don't think it's anything too fancy since it's just a phone and not full on Photoshop in there so it probably has some preset thing and it may work better for some images but be crappy for others.
    07-05-2011 09:28 PM
  11. kzibart's Avatar
    I've attached some pics I took earlier.

    The first one IMAG0020 is a regular 2D pic I took with my htc evo 3d. Just point and shoot.

    The second IMAG0019-1 is a 3D pic that I converted to 2D.

    Imho, you can see much more detail in the second image, such as the stones in the church, and balconies on the buildings.

    I don't know why this is, all I know is that it works on my phone.
    I'd be curious to know how the camera does the 3D to 2D conversion. I couldn't see it actually using both images. The pixels just wouldn't line up right. So my guess is that it just discards one of the images.

    As for the difference in look between the images, the converted one appears to have had a lot of sharpening applied to it. Maybe the camera app does this to 3D captures to enhance the 3D effect? Just guessing again.

    I like the 2D image better. It could use more contrast, but the 3D->2D one just looks too over-processed to me. You can improve the 2D one, but it would be hard to fix the converted one to be less harsh.
    1fastmx5 likes this.
    07-05-2011 10:01 PM
  12. Slam08's Avatar
    I'd be curious to know how the camera does the 3D to 2D conversion. I couldn't see it actually using both images. The pixels just wouldn't line up right. So my guess is that it just discards one of the images.

    As for the difference in look between the images, the converted one appears to have had a lot of sharpening applied to it. Maybe the camera app does this to 3D captures to enhance the 3D effect? Just guessing again.

    I like the 2D image better. It could use more contrast, but the 3D->2D one just looks too over-processed to me. You can improve the 2D one, but it would be hard to fix the converted one to be less harsh.
    I see what you mean about over-processed. On my computer it really looks like that. But when I look at the images on the 4.3" screen of the phone, I don't notice the processing and prefer the conversion.

    I've never used photoshop, so I'm not sure which one would be better to work with and put on your computer.
    07-05-2011 10:17 PM
  13. cheechmo's Avatar
    I've attached some pics I took earlier.

    The first one IMAG0020 is a regular 2D pic I took with my htc evo 3d. Just point and shoot.

    The second IMAG0019-1 is a 3D pic that I converted to 2D.

    Imho, you can see much more detail in the second image, such as the stones in the church, and balconies on the buildings.

    I don't know why this is, all I know is that it works on my phone.
    I like the first 2D pic better. The second one, the converted 3D image, looks washed out to me, I'm guessing due to the auto-enhance or whatever they call it on the phone.
    07-06-2011 02:57 AM
  14. palanilopez12's Avatar
    I'm not sure if this is just my camera but in a low light setting when taking a picture in 3D it doesn't capture light well at all...when using the same settings and taking a picture in 2D things come out much brighter...has anyone else noticed this with their camera?
    07-06-2011 07:37 AM
  15. smgoma's Avatar
    I've attached some pics I took earlier.

    The first one IMAG0020 is a regular 2D pic I took with my htc evo 3d. Just point and shoot.

    The second IMAG0019-1 is a 3D pic that I converted to 2D.

    Imho, you can see much more detail in the second image, such as the stones in the church, and balconies on the buildings.

    I don't know why this is, all I know is that it works on my phone.
    I think the converted picture just looks unnatural.
    07-06-2011 10:17 AM
  16. Saneless's Avatar
    I'm with the rest.. the second picture looks weird, definitely some overprocessing going on.
    07-06-2011 10:35 AM
  17. thascourge's Avatar
    2nd one has some MAJOR sharpening going on - looks "crunchy"
    1fastmx5 likes this.
    07-06-2011 12:38 PM
  18. sohungry's Avatar
    I agree with everyone else, the second picture looks too "sharp", like the picture was taken when it was blaringly bright outside.
    07-06-2011 10:59 PM
  19. FaisDogg's Avatar
    Can anyone tell me how do I convert 3D to 2D...I cant figure it out....lol
    07-07-2011 02:22 AM
  20. Gents's Avatar
    How do you save the converted pic?
    07-07-2011 06:20 PM
  21. Gents's Avatar
    Nevermind I figured it out, duh. I think i do like the coverted image better. Thanks for the tip.
    07-07-2011 06:24 PM
  22. Gents's Avatar
    Anyway to save a 3d video as 2d?
    07-07-2011 06:40 PM
  23. Gents's Avatar
    Can anyone tell me how do I convert 3D to 2D...I cant figure it out....lol
    Go to upper right corner where it says 3d. Touching that will convert it to 2d. Then touch the magic wand at the bottom of the pic, the first option asks if you want to save ad 2d. You will retain your original 3d.
    07-07-2011 06:46 PM
  24. stopsign002's Avatar
    How has no one noticed the difference in resolution? The first image is 2560x1440, the second is1920x1080. Just saying
    07-07-2011 10:55 PM
  25. planet_x's Avatar
    How do you save the converted pic?
    Using a program like irfanview you can easily open the .mpo pictures...which is how the 3d photos are saved. The .mpo is NOTHING MORE than a joined file of the offset pics e.g. 2 unique pictures contained in one file.

    You cannot "combine" them without doing some distortion correction to create a single 2D photo. You can separate them and have 2 uniquely different photos that are slightly offset in POV.

    Using Irfanview you can save them out as two separate images and play with them.
    07-08-2011 08:40 AM
30 12
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD