While developing Snatcher I wrote a number of tools to get stuff done. The one that sparked the most interest in the community was a tool that can convert 2D images to 3D VirtualBoy images if a respective depth map is drawn. I decided to make this tool available for everyone awhile ago but got annoyed by someone who kept requesting features. So, I stopped programming some time ago. However, I decided to put this out in it’s current state. There are some features missing which I might add if this is actually put to use by someone.

There is some more info here:
http://www.planetvb.com/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=6068
http://www.planetvb.com/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=6060

Here is the lib I use:
https://www.codeproject.com/articles/257340/creating-d-image-from-depthmap

Here is a video that shows how to draw depth maps:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HVSf22VT1t4

Amazing! Playing with this right now. 😎

This is EXCELLENT! Congrats 4 the tool!

I wanted to 3D-fy some flat images of our Platformer Demo using this tool but it did not work, the 3D images do not show up in the converter.

Do the graphics have to fulfill some requirements like a certain bit depth or something?

Attachments:

1. 

   level-1-house.bmp
   

2. 

   level-1-house-depthmap.bmp
   

3. 

   level-1-tower.bmp
   

4. 

   level-1-tower-depthmap.bmp
   

Your files seem to have a blank alpha channel (and therefore are 4x 8 = 32bit). When I save them without alpha as 24bit (3x 8) I can use them in Vb3dConverter.
… very nice tool by the way – good job! :thumpup: 🙂

it has to be a 24bit rgb bitmap. Yours are 32bit. I might add a automatic conversion or at least some error output.

Attachments:

1. 

   ori24.bmp
   

2. 

   dm24.bmp
   

This is a great tool! While you’re in there digging around in the file handling code, I have a couple other suggestions:

1. It’s kinda hard to iterate, because the program locks the input files until you exit, even if you load new files (so they can’t be overwritten by the paint program). Bonus: save the selected settings for next time.

2. A “lite” version that doesn’t include gccvb and mednafen (and the two test buttons) might be a good idea.

3. Pixel art is generally small, and monitors are big and have lots of pixels; maybe a preview zoom function is in order? Nothing fancy… just a 2x and maybe a 3x would be enough.

4. (Low priority) Controls for remapping the depth map’s levels would be nice. I’m thinking low and high input levels, low and high output levels, and a gamma function (throw in compression and expansion if you want more to do ;-)). Calculating the above in floating-point and converting back to 8-bit gray at the end would be preferable.

RunnerPack wrote:
This is a great tool! While you’re in there digging around in the file handling code, I have a couple other suggestions:

1. It’s kinda hard to iterate, because the program locks the input files until you exit, even if you load new files (so they can’t be overwritten by the paint program). Bonus: save the selected settings for next time.

2. A “lite” version that doesn’t include gccvb and mednafen (and the two test buttons) might be a good idea.

3. Pixel art is generally small, and monitors are big and have lots of pixels; maybe a preview zoom function is in order? Nothing fancy… just a 2x and maybe a 3x would be enough.

4. (Low priority) Controls for remapping the depth map’s levels would be nice. I’m thinking low and high input levels, low and high output levels, and a gamma function (throw in compression and expansion if you want more to do ;-)). Calculating the above in floating-point and converting back to 8-bit gray at the end would be preferable.

I don’t fully get Point 4. The others are on my todo list. However, I won’t change anything if this tool is not put to use. I really don’t want to add features just to have a cool tool that no one needs. So, I would ask everyone to post here if they found it useful.

Also, there are some obvious things that can be improved. However, I would rather have a todo list of things that are useful in actual projects than a list of features that are nice to have.

I might also make this open source at some point.

Thanks guys, it’s working for me now! The result for the tower looks a bit weird, but maybe it’s not the right kind of image to throw at the converter. I should try a different one.

[STEREO KID]

KR155E schrieb:
Thanks guys, it’s working for me now! The result for the tower looks a bit weird, but maybe it’s not the right kind of image to throw at the converter. I should try a different one.

Maybe try the map attached with depth of 12 and turn off scaling. It’s an accurate orthogonal depth rendering of a 3d cylinder. This looks more ’rounded’ than the other map.
Anyway, repetitive patterns often cause problems in 3d. If you have only this pattern as a reference, Your brain will find more than one solution to merge it to a somehow working 3d image and therefore getting confused, which pair of tiles represents the “real depth”. If this is put into an artwork with other objects/details/3d references (like windows, birds or clouds), it should work much better …

Edit: Oh! Just earned my second star with this post – I’m a “VB Gamer” now … :thumpup: 😀 :vb:

• This reply was modified 7 years, 10 months ago by STEREO KID.
• This reply was modified 7 years, 10 months ago by STEREO KID.
• This reply was modified 7 years, 10 months ago by STEREO KID.
• This reply was modified 7 years, 10 months ago by STEREO KID.
• This reply was modified 7 years, 10 months ago by STEREO KID.

Attachments:

1. 

   3d-cylinder_depth.bmp
   

thunderstruck wrote:
I don’t fully get Point 4.

Maybe the attached screen-shot of the PaintShop Pro Levels tool helps explain it.

Attachments:

1. 

   pvb_levels.png
   

KR155E wrote:
Thanks guys, it’s working for me now! The result for the tower looks a bit weird, but maybe it’s not the right kind of image to throw at the converter. I should try a different one.

Yeah, the problem is that your image and depth map don’t match. The image must already been drawn with the right perspective. Like in the images I attached.

Attachments:

1. 

   ori24a.bmp
   

2. 

   dm24a.bmp
   

RunnerPack wrote:

thunderstruck wrote:
I don’t fully get Point 4.

Maybe the attached screen-shot of the PaintShop Pro Levels tool helps explain it.

Ahh, yeah, I do that in photoshop all of the time. I think that’s the better way then trying to convince the converter to do it.

thunderstruck wrote:

Ahh, yeah, I do that in photoshop all of the time. I think that’s the better way then trying to convince the converter to do it.

Yeah, much better… apart from the whole “not seeing the effect on the resulting image without reloading” thing 😛

It’s your project, so you don’t need to add a feature if you don’t want to, but don’t try to justify it by saying that using an external program is “better”. By definition, “the best” would be for the tool to contain every aspect of creating both the image and depth map, with a real-time preview.

My point is: although making a clone of Photoshop just for making VB images would be complete overkill, the usefulness of some features might just outweigh the difficulty of implementing them. I think this is one of those features, but if you don’t, just say “I don’t feel like doing that” and we’ll leave it at that.

Like I said, it’s a very useful tool as it is, and the other fixes I mentioned would make it indispensable.

RunnerPack wrote:

thunderstruck wrote:

Ahh, yeah, I do that in photoshop all of the time. I think that’s the better way then trying to convince the converter to do it.

Yeah, much better… apart from the whole “not seeing the effect on the resulting image without reloading” thing 😛

It’s your project, so you don’t need to add a feature if you don’t want to, but don’t try to justify it by saying that using an external program is “better”.

I don’t see where I justify anything. I just said that I think doing these things in photoshop works better.

I might interpret your post wrong but you sound rude and snotty. I have no problem with feedback but comments like this are a great way to ruin my day.

thunderstruck wrote:

RunnerPack wrote:

thunderstruck wrote:

Ahh, yeah, I do that in photoshop all of the time. I think that’s the better way then trying to convince the converter to do it.

Yeah, much better… apart from the whole “not seeing the effect on the resulting image without reloading” thing 😛

It’s your project, so you don’t need to add a feature if you don’t want to, but don’t try to justify it by saying that using an external program is “better”.

I don’t see where I justify anything. I just said that I think doing these things in photoshop works better.

I might interpret your post wrong but you sound rude and snotty. I have no problem with feedback but comments like this are a great way to ruin my day.

I wasn’t trying to be rude, I was just stating a fact. It’s demonstrably not better manipulating the depth map in an external program, especially with the current state of Vb3dConverter requiring you to close it before you can save your changes, open it again, reload the two files, set all the settings the way they were, then, if it still isn’t right, doing the whole thing over again. I also know that the program was just a means to an end, and it obviously served your needs at the time, so it’s a total success, in my book.

I’m also, obviously, not trying to tell you what to do in your own software. I’m just saying how the program could be improved.

Besides, I know you’re too good a developer – and just generally far too intelligent – to have your day ruined by being told your program isn’t perfect…

Still friends? 😀

just playin’! 🙂

Attachments:

1. 

   kick-his-ass.png
   

RunnerPack wrote:
Besides, I know you’re too good a developer – and just generally far too intelligent – to have your day ruined by being told your program isn’t perfect…

Ohh, you got that wrong. I know very well that the program isn’t perfect. I actually said that several times already. I just thought that you expressed your opinion in a rather rude manner which I found upsetting. However, I will just take it as an expression of your personality.

RunnerPack wrote:
Still friends?

Sure.

first of all I’m not a programmer. Second of all this is a great powerful tool many congrats and kudos. Third, the export just isn’t working for me. I click it and it turns blue but nothing happens? Any body else with this problem? Can any body help me, Thunder, anybody?

Morintari wrote:
first of all I’m not a programmer. Second of all this is a great powerful tool many congrats and kudos. Third, the export just isn’t working for me. I click it and it turns blue but nothing happens? Any body else with this problem? Can any body help me, Thunder, anybody?

It creates an output directory next to your source files.

Many Thanks Thunder, as usual you rock!