Ad description
An e-mail and a website ad promoted a digital media manipulation technique software package.
a. The e-mail stated "Create amazing 3D pictures Convert standard 2D photos into amazing 3D images in seconds".
b. The website ad contained a section dedicated to the creation of three-dimensional images from two-dimensional photographs. Text included "Turn your 2D videos into Hollywood-style 3D movies", "Create amazing 3D images even from photos taken with a standard camera" and "transform your 2D photos into 3D works of art".
Issue
The complainant challenged whether the claims that the product could create a 3D image from a single 2D image were misleading, because he understood the results would not meet the average consumers understanding of a 3D image.
Response
Rovi Corporation (Rovi) stated that their software easily and quickly converted 2D images into a 3D format and that the achieved effect was what the average consumer would expect. They stated that it was generally understood that humans' ability to perceive in 3D came from "stereopsis", which was how the brain used the images seen by two eyes to derive 3D information. They stated that the brain also used information such as texture, perspective, motion parallex, shadows and its knowledge of objects in order to perceive 3D images. They stated that the Creator 2011 software implemented a sophisticated set of algorithms that used a combination of these methods to process and restore the 3D information which was present but "hidden" within a 2D picture or video. They said that the 3D photo software operated in two different modes. They stated that one of them used two photographs of the same image taken from slightly different angles, thus representing the image seen by the left and right eye. They stated that the software allowed the user to make basic corrections to those images and that these images were then converted so that they would appear to be in 3D when viewed through the 3D glasses. They stated that the software could also work on pre-existing single photographs and that it would convert that single image into two separate images as would be seen through the left and right eye and that the same conversion from 2D to 3D would then take place.
They stated that the results would vary depending on the composition of the original image being converted. They stated that images with few or no 3D clues would appear "flat" and "2D" and that the composition of some images confused the brain to such an extent that the 3D effect was reduced and viewing may actually be uncomfortable.
They explained that there were many methods of viewing presented 3D images and that the oldest was called "anaglyph", which used the coloured glasses to view 3D images. They stated that the concept consisted of encoding the left and right images into a single image by using colour and then using appropriate colour filters placed on each eye to separate the right and left images during viewing. They stated that the benefits of using anaglyph was that it was easy to implement with standard hardware and that the viewing apparatus (the tinted glasses) were simple and of a low cost. They stated that the drawback was that, by nature, the method distorted and discarded colour information.
They stated that although the software provided users with the ability to create anaglyph versions of their pictures and videos and provided a pair of the 3D glasses with the product, it also supported other 3D formats and could use alongside sophisticated 3D viewing systems.
They provided examples of the images achieved through the software along with an explanation of how the software worked. They also provided a number of positive online reviews of the software.
Assessment
Not upheld
The ASA noted the extent to which a 3D image could be achieved would depend, in part, on the composition of the original 2D image or images. We also noted users would learn how the software worked and would be able to produce new images so as to optimise the 3D effect.
We noted the results using two images taken from slightly different angles created 3D images with significant variations in depth perspectives both in the background and foreground and considered that the results would be understood to be 3D.
We noted the results, which were converted from a single image and had been manipulated by the software, varied significantly depending on the content of the original image and that in some instances the results produced a significantly lower perception of depth compared with the images achieved from the two photographs. However, we considered that the resulting images from a single photograph were capable of producing an illusion of depth and that the results would be within the average consumer’s expectations of 3D images achievable through non-professional software. We therefore concluded that ads (a) and (b) were unlikely to mislead.
We investigated ads (a) and (b) under CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 3.1 Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so. and 3.7 3.7 Before distributing or submitting a marketing communication for publication, marketers must hold documentary evidence to prove claims that consumers are likely to regard as objective and that are capable of objective substantiation. The ASA may regard claims as misleading in the absence of adequate substantiation. (Misleading advertising) but did not find them in breach.
Action
No further action required.
