Pixar to Release All New Movies in 3D

emcron writes "The Walt Disney Co. said Tuesday its Pixar animation studio will commit to 3-D by releasing all of its movies in the format beginning with "Up" in May 2009. Chief Creative Officer John Lasseter made the announcement in New York at a presentation of Disney's upcoming lineup of animated movies."

Comments

I hate 3D glasses.

[morgan_greywolf]

I've always hated 3D glasses. They don't quite fit me right (I have a wide head), and I don't have symmetrical vision (I see better out of my right eye than my left), so they don't work as well for me.

So let me know when the 2D versions come out? Kthxbye.

Re:I hate 3D glasses.

[Max Romantschuk]

So let me know when the 2D versions come out? The FA did in fact state that there will be 2D versions of the movies as well. The real question it what will theaters decide to show? Both, or just the newfangled 3D version?

Re:I hate 3D glasses.

[Steauengeglase]

I had the same feeling until going to a Real D 3-D movie. They have these orthogonal polarized glasses that look and feel a lot like a pair of Ray-Bans. They even design them to easily fit over any other eye-wear.

Re:I hate 3D glasses.

[Anonymous Coward]

You're dead on. The best 3D apparatus I've ever used fit poorly over my my glasses and if the lenses of the 3D gear weren't distorted, they were usually dirty. To make matters worse, the lenses always cut down the available light reflecting from the screen making theaters with proper lamp settings dim and theaters with low lamp settings (a lot of them) a painful experience to endure.

It's not that I have a problem with 3D per se, it's just that I don't want to take a step down in quality. No one will watch serious movies in 3D if the movies actually look worse.

Re:I hate 3D glasses.

[toleraen]

Are those the kind that they use at IMAX theaters? If so I'll pass...you have to sit perfectly still at the correct angle for them to work. Great for a 5 minute clip, terrible for a 90 minute movie.

Re:I hate 3D glasses.

[Anonymous Coward]

Who said anything about glasses? Stereoscopic displays exist, at least for a single viewer. The market is small, but the tech is maturing and a 3D animation house like Pixar has the depth information anyway, so why throw it away? Some post-processing effects probably need some attention, but that should be it. The 2D-Version is what you see when you close one eye. They may even make an additional render pass for the center position, if they can spare some cycles on the cluster.

Re:I hate 3D glasses.

[fluffman86]

I doubt they are the same. These glasses and movies will most likely be very similar to the 3D movies/rides at Walt Disney World. I can easily move around in your seat without getting sick, whereas the Red/Blue glasses make me dizzy. The glasses and movies at Disney are absolutely top notch...if you ever go you have to see Mickey's Philharmagic Orchestra, It's Tough to Be a Bug, etc.

Re:I hate 3D glasses.

[WiFiBro]

Back in the late seventies or early eighties it must have been, the first 3D tests on TV, I remember squinting through tiny 1cm red and green plastic squares we took form a game. Um, it worked but I prefer full colour.

Re:I hate 3D glasses.

[EnOne]

What I have been seeing is the trend of having the normal 2D version in 16x9 theaters and the 3D on the IMAX. Superman... Beowulf... it's easier to do this on computer animation films since you already have all of the z-depth values.

Re:I hate 3D glasses.

[retupmoca]

...I can easily move around in your seat... Note to self: never sit next to fluffman86.

Re:I hate 3D glasses.

[electrictroy]

Forget 3D.

I'd like Disney to revive its traditional 2D hand-drawn animation. Even if that means they produce only one movie every 3-4 years, I'd still like to see it revived. Hand-drawn art is gorgeous.

Re:I hate 3D glasses.

[fluffman86]

hahaha! oops, typo... :P

I meant I can move around in my seat, theoretically.

Re:I hate 3D glasses.

[Oktober Sunset]

The big advantage to them doing 1 film every 3-4 years is they might put a bit more thought into the script, and not churn out the same load of cheap gags and unorigional shit all the time.

Re:I hate 3D glasses.

[m50d]

I think you missed the most likely option: just the perfectly good 2D version.

Re:I hate 3D glasses.

[Talsan]

The real question it what will theaters decide to show? Both, or just the newfangled 3D version? That is the question. Four studios are apparently spending $700 million to outfit 10,000 screens with the technology, which means there will be fewer normal screens available for the 2-D versions, especially since theater owners believe customers are willing to pay a premium to see it in 3-D.

This is bad for people like me who are blind in one eye, rendering a 3-D film unwatchable. I enjoy going out to see movies occasionally, but if this takes off, I won't have any reason to do so anymore.

Re:I hate 3D glasses.

[Trespass]

High quality work is always gorgeous, regardless of the medium.

Re:I hate 3D glasses.

[Chris Burke]

So let me know when the 2D versions come out? Kthxbye.

Uh...

At the same time as the 3D version?

Most theaters aren't equipped to project 3D (at least not the polarized version, and the red-blue version is far to shitty to even be worth making). Basically no TVs are. Unless this announcement is intended to mean that Pixar has decided to stick with limited release to specific venues, rather than mass-market, as if to say "We at Pixar decided we don't like making so much money", then the 2D version will be the more widely released and heavily advertised version.

Basically, you'll have to go out of your way to see the 3D version. So... just don't stumble into an "IMAX 3D!" theater by accident and you'll be fine.

Re:I hate 3D glasses.

[Firethorn]

From my understanding of the technology, just because a screen is outfitted to be able to play a 3D movie doesn't mean that it can't still play a 2D one. It's just that unless you have a lot of screens, any theater that's bothered to invest in the 3D ability will show the 3D version by default.

Personally, I object to having to buy the glasses every single time, even if I keep the old ones. Less waste people!

As for your problem, maybe you could try wearing the glasses? That should filter out one side of the 3D part, leaving you with a watchable movie. Then again, it's not like I thought to try it the last time I saw a 3D film.

Re:I hate 3D glasses.

[Firethorn]

Today they use polarization. The screen puts images up twice as often, but polarizes half one way and half rotated 90%. Then they give you polarized glasses that filter out the opposite slides for each eye by having opposing polarization.

Full color, but still takes a little getting used to.

Re:I hate 3D glasses.

[Firethorn]

The technology will spread, especially if Pixar makes a habit of steady releases. Theaters will move along with the trend, as they've been loosing ground to home theater setups for years. They're even loosing some of the 'high-def' lead now with blueray.

As others have noted, if Pixar comes out with a 3D movie, it's rather trivial to also run off a 2D version for it, they're going to anyways for the home market.

Re:I hate 3D glasses.

[Yvanhoe]

They'll get better. They always do.

Re:I hate 3D glasses.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd love to see that also. Not for all their films, of course, but for a blockbuster here and there. (it has to be a blockbuster considering the army of cell animators it requires. And if you want american animators...)

But Pixar is and has always been a 3D-cgi house. It certainly makes sense for them to render a left eye camera for every film, if people want to see it that way. It's not like it requires anything but extra render farm time.

Re:I hate 3D glasses.

[Aaron Isotton]

I see better out of my left eye than my right. Maybe we should go to cinema together.

Re:I hate 3D glasses.

[MrSteveSD]

Hmm, the thing about 3D vision is that it really breaks down quite quickly over distance. A result of this is that 3D pictures look pretty boring unless there are lots of things in the foreground, like people ridiculously pointing into the camera or throwing things at the audience. So the storyline actually may suffer in order to make the most of the 3D.

Re:I hate 3D glasses.

[Stormwatch]

Forget 3D. I'd like Disney to revive its traditional 2D hand-drawn animation.

They're making one right now: The Princess and the Frog .

Re:I hate 3D glasses.

[tsjaikdus]

>>>> Forget 3D. I'd like Disney to revive its traditional 2D hand-drawn animation.

>> They're making one right now: The Princess and the Frog.

Yeah, but what I really meant is more like foot-drawn while balancing plates with one hand and juggling with the other. And also not with princesses and frogs in it.

Re:I hate 3D glasses.

[mblase]

When Beowulf came out locally, the theaters offered either 2D only or 2D and 3D. I imagine Disney would emphasize the same thing, if only because 2D shows are cheaper. There's no good reason not to offer both.

Re:I hate 3D glasses.

[mblase]

Forget 3D. I'd like Disney to revive its traditional 2D hand-drawn animation. Even if that means they produce only one movie every 3-4 years, I'd still like to see it revived. Regrettably, Disney is in the business of selling movies, not art, and so it's in their best interest to make films that (a) are technically superior to what's available on DVD or television, and (b) can be completed relatively quickly.

You can say it's okay to spend twice as long for them to make the movie, but I doubt you're willing to buy twice as many tickets or DVDs to make up their lost profits.

While I'm not going to agree or disagree on your perspective on beauty, I myself am of the opinion that good storytelling trumps pretty pictures any day of the week, and shop accordingly.

Re:I hate 3D glasses.

[Suicide Drink]

The big advantage to them doing 1 film every 3-4 years is they might put a bit more thought into the script, and not churn out the same load of cheap gags and unorigional shit all the time.

But then why don't they just this phenomenal script on their, apparently, moneymaking 3D endeavors?

Re:I hate 3D glasses.

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, it rather depends on who's actually doing the drawing, I'd say - it's not a guarantee for good stuff.

(Personally, I think that with a few exceptions, Disney hasn't really produced any movie of value since, oh, the 1940s or so. YMMV, of course, but for me at least, the beginning of the decline in quality did not coincide with the jump to 3D CGI movies.)

Re:I hate 3D glasses.

[The-Bus]

That would be their 2009 Christmas musical, The Princess and the Frog, set in New Orleans. It's hand-drawn.

(I believe their direct-to-video films are hand-drawn too, possibly).

I like Studio Ghibli's mix of hand-drawn and 3D. I believe Ponyo on a Cliff is going to be done in watercolor (or at least a style resembling watercolor).

Re:I hate 3D glasses.

[spazdor]

There may be some directorial decisions that have to be made differently. Cinematographic depth-of-field effects and occlusion play out differently with a stereoscopic camera, and even the scene blocking may have to be slightly different - if the camera is panning sideways past a foreground oject, for instance, the audience may see an obscured object in the background a few fractions of a second earlier than it would otherwise.

Re:I hate 3D glasses.

[Anonymous Coward]

Oktober Sunset, you are clueless.

Pixar (now Disney) is the most orginal company doing animation. It is all about story at Pixar even though their technoplogy is top notch as well. If their stories sucked so much then why havent they had a box offce bomb?

There are many pretenders out there (Fox/Blue Sky, Dreamworks/PDI, etc) but Pixar is the real thing and none of the rest have come close to their story or technology, not to mention box office or awards (oscars, golden globes, etc.).

Re:I hate 3D glasses.

[goatpunch]

What I have been seeing is the trend of having the normal 2D version in 16x9 theaters

Which theatre have you seen with a 16x9 screen- your home theatre?

Re:I hate 3D glasses.

[geekoid]

"Hand-drawn art is gorgeous." No.

Some of the old school artist were fantastic.
Look at dalmatians and it's horrible rotoscope and mediocre art. Mediocre compared to the 7 dwarves.

There where several that were meh.
  Really, it depends on the artist and the time line.

Re:I hate 3D glasses.

[vertigoCiel]

You're in luck.

FTFA:

Walt Disney Animation Studios will offer "The Princess and the Frog," a musical set in New Orleans, in the traditional hand-drawn format for release for Christmas 2009.

Re:I hate 3D glasses.

[ek-sistence]

This has been a problem throughout the history of cinema; whenever a new technology was introduced movies became overly gimmicky as everyone focused on the great new thing. (Granted, 3D has been around for a long time, but is experiencing a resurgence).

Movies that focus on *showing off* a new technology (like sound, color or 3D) tend to forget the basics of storyline, character development - you know, the things that make a good movie. With the major changes like sound, eventually everybody stopped being so enthralled with the fact that people in movies could actually talk, and they got back to making movies as usual.

Maybe 3D is different and will always remain a little gimmicky, I don't know. But maybe it could be incorporated into an actual good movie, and Pixar does have a reputation for making films that are well done so if anyone can do it, I'd place my money on them.

Re:I hate 3D glasses.

[kv9]

They don't quite fit me right (I have a wide head), and I don't have symmetrical vision (I see better out of my right eye than my left) apparently you also have some reading comprehension problems.

Re:I hate 3D glasses.

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course they're not doing it for gee whiz factor - they're doing it to make money for the theaters, who've been losing revenues as more people watch at home.

Box office figures have shown that the enveloping feel of 3-D can attract two to three times more moviegoers who are willing to pay as much as $3 more per ticket, analysts said. Theater owners and studios hope the offerings will help bring people back to multiplexes for an experience that cannot be matched by increasingly sophisticated home theater systems.

posting anonymously to avoid undoing moderation...

Re:I hate 3D glasses.

[Pseudonym]

The converse is also true. Movies which are deliberately made to "show off" 3D gimmicks (Monster House springs to mind) tend to lose most of their visual interest when displayed in traditional 2D theatres or on home TVs (even hi-def ones).

Re:I hate 3D glasses.

[Pseudonym]

While I agree with you about Pixar, I disagree with you about some of the other studios.

Say what you will about PDI, but they've been in the business just as long as Pixar has, and they have the oldest renderer still in production use (p2r).

Interestingly, the old PDI studio in Redwood City has never had a bomb. The only dross coming out of DreamWorks has been the stuff produced in Glendale.

For the record, Blue Sky hasn't had a box office bomb, either.

The real dross (if you don't count Disney-before-the-Pixar-merger, which was really caused by Frank Wells' death and the reign of Eisner) is the stuff coming out of the visual effects houses who think they understand animation, like Sony Pictures Imageworks.

So yes, the best stuff is coming out of Pixar, but the other true animation studios aren't "pretenders" by any stretch.

Re:I hate 3D glasses.

[smellotron]

it's easier to do this on computer animation films since you already have all of the z-depth values.

Nitpick... z-depth values are the result of projecting a 3D scene onto a "layered" 2D raster. What's important is the original scene geometry (which you then film from 2 cameras instead of 1). If all you had was z-depth, you would already be partially SOL.

Re:I hate 3D glasses.

[glittalogik]

Any pair of polarised sunglasses with do the trick.

Re:I hate 3D glasses.

[YGingras]

The big advantage to them doing 1 film every 3-4 years is they might put a bit more thought into the script, and not churn out the same load of cheap gags and unorigional shit all the time.

They already made movies with all the good stories in the public domain. Now that they killed the public domain, we have to look at endless series of remakes of those stories.

Re:I hate 3D glasses.

[Oktober Sunset]

I was talikng about Disney not Pixar. Pixar are great, but whether they can stay good now they have been gobbled up by the corporate blob remains to be seen. Let's hope we get a few good films from them before Disney has them making Aladdin 4: Jafar May Need Glasses.

Re:I hate 3D glasses.

[kreyg]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Princess_and_the_Frog

Re:I hate 3D glasses.

[Lyntelle]

I found a new type of 3D glasses that might work for you. They're called TV Eyes 3-D glasses. They're real glasses, so you can bend the metal frames to fit your face. That's what I had to do, I've got a wide face too.

The really weird thing is that these work with regular movies not 3D movies. They use some different kind of effect that makes the background look farther away so stuff stands out more. And apparently you can use it even if you only have one eye.

I know that sounds weird. But isn't there a camera trick that makes the background stretch farther back?

Anyway, I figured I'd get a pair and see for myself. It doesn't look like regular 3D. But I can see a difference. And they work really well on computer animated movies. I watched Shrek and Cars and Finding Nemo and it all actually looked better.

Apparently it's kind of like how the polarized glasses work because one time when I watched Shrek it looked like a real 3D made movie. It was so neat. But then I watched it again and it didn't look as good. Still better than regular, but apparently it works best if you are in just the right spot or have the glasses adjusted just right. When I saw what the picture looked like on Shrek that time I just froze and watched the whole movie without moving. I didn't know it was possible to see it like that!

I'm still trying to figure out how they work. They look like they shouldn't. They're just a pair of glasses with a row of holes in them. I was pissed when I got them, because they didn't show the holes in the picture. The picture makes them look like polarized glasses.

It took me 3 days to get used to looking through them. But the damn things work. It's weird.

My point was, that you can see the Pixar movies in sort of 3D now.

(Besides, I don't think it's fair that they're finally starting to make more 3D movies, but they're not putting them out in 3D on DVD. That just sucks!)

w00t!

[somersault]

The 3D effect is very cool, I saw Beowulf in it. The outdoor night scenes were especially impressive, looking out over hills and such. I still don't know how the technology even works without the red/green separation?

Re:w00t!

[Wicko]

On my Tool CD, 10000 days, it has these little plastic lenses that are very blurry, and make you look like Bubbles from Trailer Park Boys, but they make the artwork in the CD appear 3D. Not sure how, but its difficult to do, I can't remember how to do it anymore. But it doesn't involve red/green images.

Re:w00t!

[sayfawa]

They use polarization separation instead. Two images, each with opposite polarization and with a slightly different viewing angle get to the viewer. Each lens of the glasses only lets in one polarization. For Beowulf they used right and left circular polarization. Which was surprising to me as I thought that circular polarizers cost too much to just be given away to moviegoers, but I guess those things are cheap now.

Obligatory Wiki article

Re:w00t!

[QuoteMstr]

How it works? Light polarization. Each lens has a different polarization, so it only lets through the right light.

Neat trick: take modern 3D classes, hold them flat in front of an LCD monitor, and rotate them on the axis perpendicular to the monitor. You'll see the display behind dim and brighten as the lenses see it at varying angles.

Re:w00t!

[ZorinLynx]

This technology isn't "newer", it's been around for decades.

I have a book published in the late 1930s or early 1940s at home called "The Marvels and Mysteries of Science", which is a very interesting read given our modern perspective. It has a complete section explaining how 3D movies work, including the polarization technique. Definitely nothing new!

Re:w00t!

[Thelasko]

You raise a good point. Will this only be available in movie theaters? If it's available for home viewing, how well does it work on an LCD TV? I guess it's an extra incentive to shell out $10 for the theater experience.

Re:w00t!

[ZorinLynx]

Oh yeah, also interesting is that it mentions use of polarized glass to reduce headlight glare. Cross polarized headlamp glass and windshields in cars would make oncoming headlight glare completely vanish!

Of course the fact that polarized glass cuts out 50% of the light going through it was the likely reason why this never caught on. This could be a serious problem at night!

Re:w00t!

[somersault]

Aye, I have the same album. It's probably the same polarisation technique as the other respondents mention

Re:w00t!

[Snowmit]

I dunno about other theatres but when I went to see Beowulf, they made us give the glasses back before we could leave.

Re:w00t!

[somersault]

I believe they were charging an extra £2.50 or something for the tickets for the 3D version, though I still got in 'free' and didn't have to pay anything for the glasses (which I kept) using my £12 a month unlimited card \o/ so I reckon they must be fairly cheap - but they weren't too stylish.

Re:w00t!

[binaryspiral]

Pepsi had a huge (American Football) Superbowl halftime show that was in 3d using some form of 3d glasses that didn't rely on red/blue color scheme. It was actually pretty neat.

Re:w00t!

[anethema]

This will work with any polarized glasses.

I was trying to do some work with my DMM and couldn't figure out why it was off. Couldn't be the battery I just changed it! Took off my sunglasses in frustration and there it was, full brightness.

Re:w00t!

[Animaether]

Depends on which you saw...

If you saw the IMAX 3D, then you got the standard polarized version (one left projector with vertical polarization, one right projector with horizontal polarization, and matching cheapo glasses).

If you saw the other one (RealD?), then you got a fancy set of glasses that had to be initialized first to match the current rotation angles for single-lens single projector, which projects both fields at once with rotating polarization. More than likely, you have to give those back (I did; NL). The main advantage is that you don't have to keep your head level... you can rest your head on your SO's shoulder and still enjoy the 3D effect instead of it being lost, muddied or getting ghost images.

I wouldn't call it 'circular polarizers', btw... tends to get confused with circular polarizers in photography which are just standard polarizers with another layer that 'de-polarizes' the result so that optical autofocus systems and such don't get confused.

Re:w00t!

[JMZero]

I'm hoping this comes out at home. For those of us with two projectors, appropriate polarizing filters, a special screen, and a few sets of glasses I have to say there isn't enough content. (Not joking - and if you're wondering, it's hard to get games working right but very cool when you do).

Re:w00t!

[Generic Guy]

This will work with any polarized glasses. I was trying to do some work with my DMM and couldn't figure out why it was off. Couldn't be the battery I just changed it! Took off my sunglasses in frustration and there it was, full brightness.

Hmmm, yes... So what you are saying is that by removing dark sunglasses would make things look, well, not as dark?

(okay, I realize this is about polarization but Mr. anethema really seemed to have stepped into this one all on his own:-)

Re:w00t!

[lisaparratt]

Except that modern headlamps are more than powerful enough to compensate adequately.

The reason it didn't catch on is because it'd cost the manufacturers too much without improving the drool-proof specifications enough.

Re:w00t!

[LordSnooty]

Could this be yet another 3D technique, which was achieved by wearing glasses with one dark lens & one clear lens (no polarisation here). No special processing was needed on the video (thus watchable for those without glasses), but it only worked on footage with lots of fast motion and objects moving across the screen quickly. The BBC used it on a special Doctor Who episode made for charity in the 1990s (almost certainly on Youtube), and a Seal video was made with the technique in mind (lots of CGI spaceships and rocks flying about the screen). TBH the technique wasn't much cop. As I recall it worked because the brain processes darker images slightly more slowly than bright images, so combining them tricked the brain into interpreting a 3D image.

Re:w00t!

[FooAtWFU]

I went to the 3-D DLP version (not IMAX) at the Metreon in San Francisco, and I did not have to give back the glasses.

Re:w00t!

[ahecht]

RealD glasses, at least here in the States, are "disposable" plastic glasses which you can keep. They do, however, use circular polarization instead of linear polarization (which is what is used in the cheap IMAX glasses). Since the circular polarization is angle independant, you can tilt your head. RealD is a single-projector system, since they use a liquid crystal filter in front of the projector to alternate between clockwise (right eye) and counter-clockwise (left eye) polarization.

What you are probably thinking of, in terms of glasses that need to be synchronized, are shutter glasses. These glasses have an LCD filter over each eye that electronically switches from clear to opaque so that each frame is only seen by one eye. Typically they will have IR sensors on them to sync up with the projector, and I've even seen them with built-in speakers for a surround-sound effect. I've only seen them used in the more upscale IMAX 3D theaters in the US, but I wouldn't be surprised if they're using them in regular theaters too.

Re:w00t!

[effigiate]

I had mixed feelings about the 3D in Beowulf. The 3D used (and perhaps all 3D) forced me to look at what the director wanted me to look at. If I wanted to look at something in the background, my eyes couldn't focus it. After a while of this, I just gave up and looked at the main suject in the shot. My eyes got tired very quickly trying to focus on stuff that couldn't be focused upon.

Re:w00t!

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder what's become of shutter glasses. You don't need a special screen for those, just a higher refresh rate. For an effective 70 Hz, the display would need to refresh at 140 Hz or 7 ms. The shutter glasses could have an inexpensive light sensor to autoadjust to the display's left/right toggle frequency. The only downside I see is that the glasses would need to be powered and probably heavier, but they sure look geekier.

Re:w00t!

[Jupiter Jones]

Even neater trick: Take two pairs of modern 3D glasses. Hold them both up to a regular light so that the light goes through one lens of one pair and then the corresponding lens of the other pair. Rotate one of the pair, and you'll see the light fade in and out as you change the polarization angle.

Rotate the one pair so that no light gets through. Basically, you're letting through only half the light with one lens, and what does get past it is polarized to a certain angle. The other lens then blocks all of that remainder, since its polarization is 90-degrees off. You've got crossed polarizers.

But that's not the neat part. Get a friend (unless you're Zaphod Beeblebrox) to position a third polarized lens between the two. Rotate it to a roughly 45-degree angle from the other two. You'll see light coming through again! This is a big WTF moment when seen in terms of classical physics (but is explained by quantum physics).

JJ

Re:w00t!

[Angostura]

That's annoying. I had that idea when I was about 8.

Re:w00t!

[Anonymous Coward]

Doesn't really depolarize it. A circular polarizer takes linearly polarized light (electric field vibrating only vertically for instance) and converts it to circularily polarized where the electric field is rotating, once around at the same frequency is was vibrating. (Mathematically, take the original vertical vibration, decompose it into two vibrations at +/- 45 degrees from vertical, delay one by 1/4 cycle in time (hence the alternative name of quarter-wave plate), and recombine them. The result points upward, then left, then down, then right, and so on for each cycle of the original wave.) The photographers circular polarizer is in fact a linear polarizer (to get the expected sky darkening, lessened reflections, etc) followed by a circular polarizer so the light entering the camera is in fact circularly polarized which, as you said, don't bother the autofocus systems.

SB

Re:w00t!

[Anonymous Coward]

those are just magnifying glasses. there are two images on the booklet, slightly different. you cross your eyes, merge the frames into one, and the differences give the impression if 3 dimensions. its the same sorta thing as those 'magic eye' books that were all the rage in the 90's.

Re:w00t!

[DECS]

The entire point of theaters going to 3D is to entice people away from their HDTVs with something that is unique and compelling can can't be as easily experienced at home.

That's why Pixar is doing it, and why George Lucas, James Cameron, Robert Zemeckis, Robert Rodriguez, Randal Kleiser, and Peter Jackson "implored the exhibition community to invest in digital projectors" to show their upcoming 3D movies.

Of course, at the same time Lucas also told Variety, "We don't want to make movies. We're about to get into television. As far as Lucasfilm is concerned, we've moved away from the feature-film thing because it's too expensive and it's too risky."

If 3D doesn't help get viewers into the theater, there will be fewer blockbuster movies coming out, and entertainment will shift further toward TV.

Five Ways Apple Will Change TV: 5 - George Lucas Talks Movies

Re:w00t!

[Hyksos_Sowo]

LCD TV polarize only in one direction, to see a different image on each eye you need a LCD that can alternate the polarity of it's light.

Re:w00t!

[Colonel Korn]

I've had this idea for a long time, too. My modification is to leave low-beams unpolarized but polarize high-beams, and then instead of making the windows polarizing filters, which would make the road itself and everything else seem darker, just do the rear-view mirror. This would protect you pretty well from the glare of a driver behind you while at the same time letting that driver use high beams to better see the road.

Re:w00t!

[Thelasko]

That sounds +1 insightful to me

Re:w00t!

[Anonymous Coward]

We have a pair of projectors set up at work for 3D visualization. The polarization lenses were about $500 each, and hard plastic glasses were about $8. Linear polarization lenses are only around $100 each, with the paper glasses under $1. However you can only tilt your head around 20 before the effect is lost.

Re:w00t!

[Chris Burke]

What you are probably thinking of, in terms of glasses that need to be synchronized, are shutter glasses. These glasses have an LCD filter over each eye that electronically switches from clear to opaque so that each frame is only seen by one eye. Typically they will have IR sensors on them to sync up with the projector, and I've even seen them with built-in speakers for a surround-sound effect. I've only seen them used in the more upscale IMAX 3D theaters in the US, but I wouldn't be surprised if they're using them in regular theaters too.

This is the same technique as the 3D glasses that come with some video cards and which have to be plugged into the card itself in order to get the sync signal.

And those version at least tend to cause massive headaches if you use them for very long. I'd have to assume the ones in the "upscale" IMAX theaters work better, or they wouldn't be very "upscale" for long. :P

Re:w00t!

[TheSync]

The entire point of theaters going to 3D is to entice people away from their HDTVs with something that is unique and compelling can can't be as easily experienced at home.

That is probably true to some extent, but the business model of making movies includes threatrical release, DVDs, cable/sat VOD, now Blu-rays, electronic sell through (iTunes, Amazon, etc.), and television. Sometimes the last few of those make as much money as the theatrical release.

I think it is safe to expect all of these content distribution channels to go 3D capable over time, using 3D as a revenue multiplier at every step.

Re:w00t!

[TheSync]

I'm hoping this comes out at home. For those of us with two projectors, appropriate polarizing filters, a special screen, and a few sets of glasses I have to say there isn't enough content.

3D displays are moving forward very rapidly, for example 3D DLPs for LCD shutter glasses and 3D LCD displays that use cross-polarized glasses or shutter glasses.

Re:w00t!

[TheSync]

Beowulf was in Dolby 3d in many places, which uses fairly expensive dichoic filters to separate light from 3 primaries into one eye, and light from 3 slightly different primaries into the other eye. Since these are more expensive than the RealD circularly polarized glasses, the theaters ask for them back.

Re:w00t!

[dj245]

This isn't just 3D goggles. You can also do this with 2 pair of polarized sunglasses. This is a good way to tell if they are polarized or not. At one angle you should be seeing right through the sunglasses. At 90deg to that they should be pitch black.

I've found a lot of sunglasses that were advertised as polarized but were not.

Re:w00t!

[Anonyme Connard]

There are other techniques, for example from Dolby (for digital cinema), based on the same idea as red/green glasses but extended to the full color spectrum.

We see colors thanks to the S, M and L (for short, medium and long wave) cones in our eyes: if only M-cones detect light, our brain understand it's green; if only L-cones detect light, it's red; if both M- and L-cones detect light, it's yellow. TV and monitors use this to simulate the visible spectrum with only three colors red, green and blue: red and green together are detected by M- and L-cones, therefore taken by our brain as yellow.

Dolby's system displays one view in RGB and the other in complementary colors (more or less CMY, to make it simple). Glasses are simple color filters, more complex than red/green ones, but more comfortable than polarized ones.

Re:w00t!

[Ryzzen]

I still don't know how the technology even works without the red/green separation?

Well, a lot less duct tape, for one...

Re:w00t!

[ScreamingCactus]

Yeah it does that with polarized shades, too. Very annoying if you want to use your computer outside. But it IS a good way to detect cheaply polarized sunglasses. Sometimes the polarization is up to 30 degrees off vertical, and sometimes each lens is polarized slightly differently. You get what you pay for, I guess.

There is another method I've heard of that uses LCD shutters synched to the television. When it displays the left frame, the right shutter goes black, and vice versa. I haven't seen them in action, but they should work on most TVs (especially DLP, which has faster image response time). The downside is I think they may be a bit bulky. The polarized glasses require a special projector to project the 2 polarized images.

Re:w00t!

[Anonymous Coward]

I really doubt that it's circular polarization. Explain how that would work. I guess it is vertical and horizontal polarization.

Re:w00t!

[powerlord]

Considering that a Mini-Series or a 1 Season Series can tell a very good story and provide the film-maker with lots more time to develop things (instead of trying to shoe-horn everything into at most 2:30 hours), I'm not surprised.

What I AM surprised at, is that we're not seeing more works follow this model, at least in the U.S.. In Japan, mini-series and "short run" (1/2-full season) Anime and Series are much more common.

In the U.S. it seems the only way a series lasts one season is if its a "flop" (in terms of viewership), so it never gets renewed. Very few series are DESIGNED to only run one season.

Re:w00t!

[sssssss27]

You can just use LCD shutter glasses and double the FPS to 60 to get 30 FPS per each eye.

I imagine you are right though. They are probably doing this to try and differentiate themselves from the home market. They used to have the widescreen and high resolution advantage. Now a days though you see some home theater setups that are better than some actual theaters.

Re:w00t!

[vuffi_raa]

If you saw the IMAX 3D, then you got the standard polarized version..... ah good- my work took us to see the last harry potter in 3d on imax and sometimes it was cool and sometimes it was like I was drunk watching the movie, if something was happening on the side of the screen (esp in imax where the picture is so big) and you looked to the side, everything was blurry and double vision- it was kind of lame.

Re:w00t!

[vuffi_raa]

The entire point of theaters going to 3D is to entice people away from their HDTVs with something that is unique and compelling can can't be as easily experienced at home. though I can see that as a business model- not everyone has an hdtv (I have never gotten around to getting one yet-)and even for those that do the experience will always differ, if you are watching it on a 26 inch or a 50 inch or a projector or what have you- one thing that a theater noramlly does is equalize the experience of seeing the film since even the smallest screen in a theater will be far larger than what you have at home (unless you somehow have the $ to physically build a home theater)

Short on details...

[Max Romantschuk]

As far as I could tell the term 3D format isn't really well defined. I'm assuming a stereoscopic format of some kind, with something to deliver the correct stream to the correct eye?

I wonder if it well really be worth it depends on the material, I guess. Experience on the subject, anyone? And how about people with glasses?

Re:Short on details...

[(Score.5, Interestin]

As far as I could tell the term 3D format isn't really well defined. I'm assuming a stereoscopic format of some kind, with something to deliver the correct stream to the correct eye? I guess this means we won't actually see it until 2027 when Disney finally figure out how to DRM something in 3D.

Why?

[nofrak]

I just don't understand why a creative group of people would limit their creative range. I mean, if Michelangelo had said "screw it, I'm just doing sculpture," we would never have had the Sistine chapel ceiling, right?

Re:Why?

[Tennguin]

I am guessing that the reason is that the format cannot be replicated in current home theater setups. This is a two fold win for the studios as 1. it gives people an incentive to get off their couches and into the cineplex and 2. it makes it close to impossible for pirates to toss up on torrent sites.

Re:Why?

[Mprx]

Just because 3d is often used as a gimmick doesn't mean it always has to be that way. It's perfectly acceptable to compose the scenes as though it were a normal movie, without all that objects flying into your face nonsense. The 3d effect will still work, and as it becomes more common people will expect a more subtle treatment. Color was a gimmick once, but now we don't expect every movie to be as colorful as The Wizard of Oz.

Re:Why?

[CheShACat]

TFA says they will be releasing all films in both 2D as well as 3D formats, to allow people willing to pay "up to $3 more a ticket" the opportunity to enjoy a film in 3d. How is this "limiting" Pixar?

Re:Why?

[popeye44]

If they want to give me incentive to view a movie in a theater all they have to do is charge normal prices for everything. I'll pay the 8.00 to see a movie. I will not pay 25.00 for 2 cokes and a bucket of popcorn.

bleh.

The last two movies I seen in a theater were Chipmunks and Superman returns. One of those was paid for me.

Beyond that. The 3d stuff they have at sea-world, Disneyland etc is absolutely top-notch. I'd possibly go see one with the caveat that i'd sneak popcorn and soda's in my wifes purse.

Re:Why?

[TerribleNews]

Color was a gimmick once, but now we don't expect every movie to be as colorful as The Wizard of Oz. Oh, man, I totally want to go watch a few episodes of The Prisoner now. I can't think of a more masterful abuse of colour tecnology.

Re:Why?

[sapphire wyvern]

But considering how much the DVD market is worth, it's probably a double edged sword - which, in the 3d version, will no doubt be pointed directly at the viewer for "drama". Sigh.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

Please explain your second point.

Re:Why?

[mwvdlee]

Basically, this whole news release amounts to nothing more than "We're going to render each frame twice". With the second frame's camera slighly offset to the left (since most people have right eye dominance).

Re:Why?

[pnewhook]

I just don't understand why a creative group of people would limit their creative range. I mean, if Michelangelo had said "screw it, I'm just doing sculpture," we would never have had the Sistine chapel ceiling, right?

Actually he never wanted to paint that. He told the church that he was a sculptor not a painter but they insisted.

Back then if the church told you to do something you did it or the consequences were severe.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

nah, we'll probably just miss a few months until someone figures out a work around. There is no perfect anti-piracy technique. I remember when I was in about Jr. high there was a game one of my friends had that all of us liked. We had heard that the methodology used in creating the anti-piracy was cutting edge and was unbelievably difficult to crack (it has been since by the way). I just sat out of gym class one day and copied all the answers to the security questions out of the book an was good to go.

Industries will continue to bring out new forms of anti-piracy and pirates will find new ways around them, just like there will always be security holes in any software people are interested in breaking into.

That said, cam movies almost always suck, just wait for the DVD rip.

Re:Why?

[Zashi]

The church contracted and paid him to do it. *snicker* I love that what is considered one of the greatest Christian artworks every made was a commission--not done out of passion or faith.

Re:Why?

[eggnoglatte]

Well, the problem is that at the distance you normally have from a movie screen, binocular stereo does not give you a lot of depth information (the parallax between the two eyes is simply too small). At that distance you get most of your depth info from other depth cues, such as motion parallax (while you move your head), or just learned object sizes (i.e if you have a human in the picture you can estimate his position relative to other objects, and therefore get an idea of their size etc).

So, since binocular stereo does not normally give you depth info for the movie setting, ALL 3D films do one of two things (otherwise you wouldn't see any 3D effect at all):

• they amplify the parallax between eyes (i.e. they create the images with a camera spacing of a few feet rather than the 2 inches that you eyes are roughly spaced at), OR
  
• they keep the natural parallax, but shoot really small scenes. So now the images will appear to be much closer than the screen. This is bad, because your eyes will have to focus at a different distance from where it thinks the object is located.
  

Both methods are known to cause motion/simulator sickness in a significant portion of the population. To really make good use of binocular stereo, you have to have a screen that is much closer than what you have in a movie theater.

Re:Why?

[nofrak]

I knew somebody would mention this, but I think the point stands anyway. I mean, he didn't try to get out of it by doing a bad job, at least.

Re:Why?

[smellotron]

Oh, man, I totally want to go watch a few episodes of The Prisoner now. I can't think of a more masterful abuse of colour tecnology.

The Prisoner? I can't think of a more masterful abuse of striped "french mime" shirts technology. And Tinker-Toys.

Is this the same 3D James Cameron is using?

[CmdrSammo]

I still haven't seen any decent examples of this new format, anyone care to shed some light on what makes it so amazing? Is it any better than the old school red/green 3D of days gone by?

(didn't RTFA but read some on it before!)

Re:Is this the same 3D James Cameron is using?

[frission]

yes, it's a hell of a lot better. If you have an IMAX near you, they often show 3D movies. They've gotten away from the red/blue glasses and now use polarized lenses. Also, for the people with glasses, theses glasses go OVER your glasses, so everyone gets to look equally stupid. I wear glasses, and haven't had any problems with the design of the new polarized glasses.

Re:Is this the same 3D James Cameron is using?

[baker_tony]

Dude, leave work right now and head to your nearest IMAX. 3D movies these days are incredible.

Re:Is this the same 3D James Cameron is using?

[Pope]

Who cares how "stupid" one looks in a darkened theatre, with all eyes looking at the screen?

Re:Is this the same 3D James Cameron is using?

[Anonymous Coward]

Except that 3D movies, even the new ones, really makes your eyes hurt, which then gives you a nice headache. I guess because the eyes are trying to compensate for things that isn't there.

Re:Is this the same 3D James Cameron is using?

[pnewhook]

Actually is the disconnect between the motion that your eyes see and is telling your brain, and your inner ear that tells your brain you are not moving. That's why some people get motion sickness watching say an IMAX movie of first person perspective of a roller coaster.

Re:Is this the same 3D James Cameron is using?

[frission]

I was specifically talking about the IMAX 3d, when you're in front of a 70ft screen, with a beam of light that can be seen from the moon...it's a little brighter than you think :) I wasn't saying that the glasses need redesigning, I was just saying that everyone gets to look stupid...however it's less stupid than when you had to wear the cardboard blue/red glasses on top of or underneath regular glasses.

3D or Stereo?

[MichaelSmith]

For me it can only be 3D if you can walk around the projection and see other sides as if it was a solid object.

The linked wikipedia articles talk about ways of making stereo movies from mono movies but I think our brains already do that without the help of extra hardware.

Re:3D or Stereo?

[thermian]

3d's been around for a while, and never gained widespead adoption.

People fundamentally can't be arsed to do anything else but stick on a movie, sit down and watch it. Goggles? sure, if all you plan on doing for the length of the movie is watching the film. As in, no eating, no going to the toilet, no talking to anyone else, or if at home, no pausing the film while you do other stuff.

All those activities mean 3d goggles might be lost or damaged. Also, I don't know about you, but paper goggles aren't that comfortable.

Re:3D or Stereo?

[elrous0]

Beer goggles are better anyway.

Re:3D or Stereo?

[complete loony]

I'm guessing they would use either polarized or flickering LCD glasses to ensure only one pre-generated image is visible to each eye. With objects appearing behind or in front of the screen in line with your nose. As with other forms of stereograms, your eyes must be focused on the screen, while angled towards the 2 images. Even if you do see the 3D image it will always seem a little off since these 2 factors will not be giving your brain the same information. Tilt your head to one side and the illusion of depth will be lost.

Re:3D or Stereo?

[gEvil (beta)]

I recently was taken to see U2-3D (not like I was going to pay to go to it), and I have to say I was pretty impressed with how well it was done. Naturally, the depth effect was overdone a bit (is the drumset really ~30 feet deep?), but by and large, it looked really good. Polarized glasses are definitely the way to go for pretty good stereoscopic imagery (well, for the time being).

Re:3D or Stereo?

[teh kurisu]

It's possible to a degree, although you still have to wear something on your head and it's one screen per person, so it wouldn't work in a cinema.

Re:3D or Stereo?

[Thanshin]

For me it can only be 3D if you can walk around the projection and see other sides as if it was a solid object. I see. Where do you want your copy of Beowulf + glasses, sent?

Re:3D or Stereo?

[JMZero]

In order to display these movies at home, you'd need a fair bit of equipment - probably 2 projectors, or at least one and a fancy lens. And a special screen. I think after that you could spring for the $8 polarized glasses.

Re:3D or Stereo?

[Anonymous Coward]

People fundamentally can't be arsed to do anything else but stick on a movie, sit down and watch it. Goggles? sure, if all you plan on doing for the length of the movie is watching the film. As in, no eating, no going to the toilet, no talking to anyone else, or if at home, no pausing the film while you do other stuff. What makes it any different that wearing a pair of prescription glasses? I may be nearsighted, but I sure as hell never shit my pants in the middle of a movie because I was wearing them.

P.S. - you insensitive clod!

Re:3D or Stereo?

[shawn(at)fsu]

You could do it on a not so expencive scale. Sega master system let you play 3d games just fine. They did it by having polarized glasses that blinked for one eye then the other. The screen on the TV showed an image for the left eye then the right eye. It was pretty slick, never sure why it didn't quite catch on.

Re:3D or Stereo?

[JMZero]

Lens shutter glasses, like the SMS had, don't use polarized light - they just make each lens fully opaque in turn. I've got a newer pair that works with the PC (and the NVidia 3d drivers), but I haven't used them for a while. They work OK, but they have disadvantages: they require non-trivial hardware for every viewer and pictures tend to look flickery and dark. I suppose with better tech (more brightness, better refresh rate, some kind of better technology for the shutters) these disadvantages might be rectified.

Might be a money-maker...

Re:3D or Stereo?

[TheSync]

3D Cinema is moving away from active LCD "shutter glasses" and moving towards RealD circularly polarized glasses or Dolby 3D Digital Cinema which illuminates each eyes' image with light created from three slightly different primary colors and uses glasses that pass those different primary colors through fairly narrow band filters.

Re:3D or Stereo?

[ultranova]

As with other forms of stereograms, your eyes must be focused on the screen, while angled towards the 2 images. Even if you do see the 3D image it will always seem a little off since these 2 factors will not be giving your brain the same information. Tilt your head to one side and the illusion of depth will be lost.

Couldn't you have the computer generate an image which is blurry but becomes sharp when you focus your eyes to the correct distance behind the screen ? For that matter, would it be impossible to have the computer generate holographs ?

I don't think you could use a normal screen to show a holographic movie, thought.

Future news

[BadAnalogyGuy]

May 13, 2009
Pixar sued by epileptics over controversial "3-D" movie
C. Reston (staff reporter)

Shannon Flint didn't know what hit her. "I was putting on the glasses they handed out at the door and when I looked at the screen, I threw up and passed out." And she wasn't alone.

All across the country, long lines formed to get a glimpse of Pixar's newest creation "Up", a quirky comedy about lovelorn robots, but epileptics in the audience were also exposed to flashing lights from the 3D effects. Flashing lights are known to cause seizures in epileptics.

President Clinton has issued a statement demanding that Pixar and Disney be more careful with this new technology and has called for a 6 month moratorium on 3 dimensional movies. Pixar had no comment.

Re:Future news

[ahecht]

Nice comment, but (a) 3D movies have no more (or less) flashing lights than 2D movies (b) No one reported seizures in 3D showings of Chicken Little, Monster House, Nightmare Before Christmas, Meet the Robinsons, Beowulf, etc. (c) "Wall*e" is about lovelorn robots, "Up" is about a geriatric superhero (d) Obama FTW

Re:Future news

[Anonymous Coward]

"Up" is not about lovelorn robots; that's "Wall-E". I think you faked this article from the future.

And Clinton? Come on.

Re:Future news

[rubies]

"I was putting on the glasses they handed out at the door and when I looked at the screen, I threw up and passed out."

Same thing happened to me when I saw Nicole Kidman in "The Golden Compass". Can I sue them?

And for the DVD release ...

[psergiu]

And for the DVD release Pixar will ditch the old 2D disks and will release the movie on the newly released 3D DVD Sphere.

Camcorders

[NealBScott]

I suppose that by presenting the show in 3d, that makes it hard for the teenager in the projection booth to record with his camcorder and resell.

Re:Camcorders

[gEvil (beta)]

Or you just get a projectionist in one of the non-3D theaters to film it. Just because they're releasing movies in 3D doesn't mean that they'll exclusively be in 3D. In fact, TFA even says so: "...Pixar movies will be released in 3-D and the traditional two-dimensional format..." Not that I'd expect anyone to bother trying to understand what they're commenting on.

Re:Camcorders

[ultranova]

I suppose that by presenting the show in 3d, that makes it hard for the teenager in the projection booth to record with his camcorder and resell.

Is there any particular reason why the teenager couldn't simply record through a lens of the 3D glasses ? Or even both lenses simultanously, using two camcorders ?

4D for 3D again?

[techpawn]

If I wanted the experience so real I could touch it... I'd go outside and touch them. When I go to the movies, I suspend my belief for 2D. Even a live theater gives a flat 2D feel to the stage to a degree. 3-D makes me think the 80's... Next thing you know they'll resell "he-man" and "my little pony"...oh wait

Re:4D for 3D again?

[gEvil (beta)]

3-D makes me think the 80's...

It's okay. When you were growing up in the 80s, the 3D stuff that was coming out was reminding your parents and grandparents of the 50s and 60s.

Re:4D for 3D again?

[cowscows]

Yes, because you could just walk outside and experience everything that happens in the movies.

Computer animation reminds me of Tron. So 80's. This pixar thing sounds silly.

Re:4D for 3D again?

[Anonymous Coward]

Your parents remember the 60's?

Re:4D for 3D again?

[RealGrouchy]

If I wanted the experience so real it's in colour... I'd go outside and look at the colours. When I go to the movies, I suspend my belief for black and white. Even a live theater gives a flat false-colour feel to the stage to a degree. Colour movies makes me think of paintings from the 1800's... Next thing you know they'll resell "Casablanca" and "my fair lady" in false colour...oh wait Adjusted for curmudgeons a few generations older.

- RG>

Re:4D for 3D again?

[Doctor Faustus]

When you were growing up in the 80s, the 3D stuff that was coming out was reminding your parents and grandparents of the 50s and 60s.
What 3D stuff in the 80's? All I remember was Captain Eo.

Re:4D for 3D again?

[Anonymous Coward]

what's the old line? "if you remember the 60's you weren't in them?"

Oblig. Futurama reference:

[TripMaster Monkey]

Fry: Wow, the 3-D's great!

Leela: Mine's not working!

Re:Oblig. Futurama reference:

[gEvil (beta)]

That reminds me of something that happened once in junior high. Someone was borrowing a copy of Rad Racer from someone else, and they brought the red/blue 3D glasses along. One kid put on the glasses and started waving his hand around in front of his face going "Oh wow. Cool!" Sad thing is he was actually being serious... : p

Re:Oblig. Futurama reference:

[Anonymous Meoward]

This is a real issue for yours truly. I'm legally blind in one eye (20/400 with lenses). 3-D hardly ever works for me.

I have more cause than most people to truly despise those pictures with stereoscopic dots.

So depth perception isn't as automatic for me. Aren't you glad I'm not a proctologist?

Re:Oblig. Futurama reference:

[Anonymous Coward]

That kid was probably just a dumbass, but reaching into a 3D projection scene really is fascinating. Try it some time (and have someone else ridicule you for saying cool while you're looking at your own hands.)

Re:Oblig. Futurama reference:

[fruity_pebbles]

Same for me - I'm completely blind in one eye. 3D movies don't excite me one bit.

... except for that cheesy 70s 3D porn movie I saw a few years ago. That excited one bit of me in spite of the funny red and blue colors.

Re:Oblig. Futurama reference:

[steevc]

I think we should abandon stereo as some people are deaf in one ear.

Hell some people can't hear at all. We should go back to silent movies!

Re:Oblig. Futurama reference:

[Jason Levine]

3D doesn't work for my mother either. She has double vision. When the images that her eyes take go to her brain, her brain doesn't combine them fully into one image. Instead, she sees one version of the object and another version slightly above and to the side. Understandably, she has trouble working on the computer as she sees two of all of the icons, duplicate text (insert joke about seeing quadruple Slashdot stories here), etc. She's gotten used to it enough to drive and function in society normally, but her eyes are prone to fatigue and she can get headaches from time to time due to the strain.

Apparently, when she was younger, she had surgery to correct her double vision, and they corrected a problem with her eyes only to find out that her brain wasn't combining the signals properly. She's had other treatments over the years (vision therapy and the like) but they haven't worked.

When it comes to 3D movies, the people who make them assume that the images are going to line up perfectly in your brain to make the 3D effect. The images don't line up right for her so the 3D effect is ruined.

Re:Oblig. Futurama reference:

[smellotron]

When it comes to 3D movies, the people who make them assume that the images are going to line up perfectly in your brain to make the 3D effect. The images don't line up right for her so the 3D effect is ruined.

As sad as that may be for your mother and people like her... I don't know what alternative the studios would have, short of not producing 3D films. I'd say it's a pretty fair assumption to make, from a technical standpoint.

Re:Oblig. Futurama reference:

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm completely blind in one eye :( I haven't checked its legal status tho :)

3D doesn't work for me in real life, let alone new fangled movies! I think this has the tiny positive that video games and movies look as real to me as out the window anyways.

Re:Oblig. Futurama reference:

[Jason Levine]

I'm definitely not saying that they shouldn't hold back from making 3D films because a small group of people (my mother included) won't be able to view them. (After all, we don't stop making TV shows and movies because blind people can't view them. And I'm sure there are more blind people than people with double-vision like my mother has.) My post was more of a follow up on the parent poster noting that he can't see 3D movies being blind on one eye. At most, they should probably release movies in 3D and 2D formats. (Which is what Pixar is planning on doing, I believe.)

Re:Oblig. Futurama reference:

[smellotron]

At most, they should probably release movies in 3D and 2D formats. (Which is what Pixar is planning on doing, I believe.)

Especially since the right eye of most stereoscopic images would be sufficient footage. Not doing a 2D version would be like saying, "Sorry, I can't sell you a car; I have two of them for sale."

Re-release movies

[Anonymous Coward]

Just imagine if they re-released "Toy Story", they could give a whole new dimension to the name "Woody".

Re:Re-release movies

[Anonymous Coward]

I think they're planning to do this.

Why has it taken so long?

[Jason1729]

Since they already render the movies in a 3D world, I've always wondered why they don't make 3D versions of everything.

At least because of this, it should be little trouble (and very profitable) for them to go back and re-render their library in 3D.

Re:Why has it taken so long?

[mgblst]

Most things are 3d. This stapler, my phone, my gf.

Re:Why has it taken so long?

[Anonymous Coward]

Especially your gf.

Re:Why has it taken so long?

[Animaether]

Because it's not as easy as you think it is.

Think of it - every live action movie is already in 3D by default - so why aren't -they- being recorded in 3D simply by sticking two cameras next to eachother?
You could claim 'film costs', but compared to actor salaries that's a laugh, and the 'film cost' for CG movies would be there as well - you'll need more time to render the second perspective -or- more machines to render the second perspective so that you'll end up with the same timeframe.

Some shots are simply easy to plan as '2D' while difficult or impossible to do in stereoscopic vision.

I will say that it's easier in CG because you don't have to worry about the 'bulk' of an actual camera, but that's just about where the differences end.

Re:Why has it taken so long?

[zenyu]

Since they already render the movies in a 3D world, I've always wondered why they don't make 3D versions of everything.

At least because of this, it should be little trouble (and very profitable) for them to go back and re-render their library in 3D.

The 2-D compositing is used to both to create special effects, which would need to be redone, removed, or at least placed at the right depth, and to do lots of fakey cinematic tricks like depth of field, which are used to make things look more real to the viewer looking at a flat screen projection. With stereo you actually want to make both the whole image sharp so as not to create undo eyestrain (your eyes have limited depth of field, so this will actually look the same to you when done right, but doing it right is not trivial, some scenes may need to be rethought completely.) Now, since the movie is made up of 2D layers composited together it takes years to render the first cut you are talking about 1/ fixing up stuff so that it looks right in stereo 2/ re-rendering the whole thing another two times, once for each eye.

It can be done for older movies. But it's much easier to do when you are making the movie, since you have the director paying full attention to the task and he can rethink scenes so they look great in regular projection and stereo projection.

Re:Why has it taken so long?

[m50d]

There's a lot of data though; who's to say they're holding onto it? Remember how Babylon 5 was going to go back and redo their CG sequences with improved technology?

Re:Why has it taken so long?

[DECS]

3D is a gimmick to get people into theaters. In life action films, 3D gets pretty old quick. It's great for adding a few cheesy yucks to slasher films, but after awhile, the novelty grows old.

I went to a triple feature of 3D films and got my fill for a year or two: Jaws 3D, Jason 3, and something else IIRC.

In puter animation, 3D is free. 2D CGI films frequently use shots that would be impossible using a real camera. 3D just makes that kind of thing more involving. Beowolf did a lot of that; I didn't see it in 2D, so I don't know how much would be lost without the glasses, but it made the movie something I'd try as opposed to passing (I went not knowing it was CGI, amazingly).

Other gimmick film techniques, such as Cinerama, used multiple cameras to make a crazy wide shot. The problem is that when you have multiple cameras, it changes how you can zoom and pan, greatly limiting the cinematography you can use.

There are lots of "ways things are done" that would be exposed in live 3D filming. Adding 3D effects to a CGI film are cheap and simple, but live action movies would add considerably expense and complexity to get back less effect and impose greater limitations on the art in the film.

the Origin of Home Theater: TV and Movies Fight For Attention in the 50s and 60s

Re:Why has it taken so long?

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, they plan to.

I couldn't, for whatever reason, find a non-blog source for this, but:
http://arnaldolicea.blogspot.com/2008/04/pixar-release-schedule.html

Toy Story, Toy Story 2 are planned, but I'm sure if they are successful they will revisit more and 3-D-ify them.

-Lee

Re:Why has it taken so long?

[The-Bus]

They've been waiting for the projection hardware/software to get in line with what theatre owners want to pay. It would be very easy to show a Pixar movie in 3D in a few cities and charge $30 per ticket. It gets trickier when you suddenly have a couple of neighborhood theatres that want to do that: there's no giant market for 3D movies at inflated prices. But with the hardware being cheaper, you only need to charge a few dollars more.

I've never seen The Incredibles theatrically, so I hope that they bring it back in 3D into theatres.

home market is not important to Pixar?

[Speare]

What this announcement means to me is that the home movie market is not particularly important to the artistic vision of the upcoming Pixar stories. Very disheartening.

Home viewers don't have the 3D hardware, and even if they did, the displays are already horribly low-fidelity compared to the professional projection equipment. Encoding stereoscopic information into the already limited datastream just reduces the image quality even more, either in frame rate or color fidelity. Or the home copy of the movie just doesn't encode any stereoscopic view and you lose out on all the uses of 3D that they wove into the artistic cinematic choices throughout.

An example of this phenomenon is the Christmas movie, "Polar Express." The movie is crafted as a classic 3D experience: nearly every scene uses extensive use of depth, foreshortening and glistening reflective surfaces that really come alive in stereoscopic view. By contrast, watching the monoscopic view on the DVD is like covering one eye with a Dixie cup at the doctor's office.

And given my esteem for artistic attention to detail in past Pixar movies, this is a real problem in my book. The "depth" of Polar Express is nothing compared to even a Pixar short.

Re:home market is not important to Pixar?

[Dog-Cow]

What your post means to me is that you're an idiot. Adding an option does not mean they are ignoring any one segment of their market. If anything, they are now NOT ignoring a segment. Truly, you are an idiot.

Re:home market is not important to Pixar?

[Speare]

Right, because adding arctic fleece to bathing suits means that both eskimos and surfers are going to be happy with the product. A 3d movie isn't just a plain movie with 3d sprinkled on top, and will look like a plain movie if the 3d is removed again. The 3dness changes the whole way the cinematic choices are made to develop the story, and without the 3d viewing, the vertigo-inducing cinematic choices look extremely hokey and strange and amateurish.

Re:home market is not important to Pixar?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it's not that the home market isn't important. It's a way to draw people to the theaters. Much like how offering your music online (al a NIN), you should offer something in addition to get people to pay more.

Re:home market is not important to Pixar?

[nEoN nOoDlE]

Home theaters have always lagged behind the big screen in terms of technology. Why would Pixar continue to take a back seat to the tech, when they could make a better experience for the theater goers with 3D technology? Eventually, 3D will be commonplace in home theater systems, but until that time, filmmakers should be pushing the boundaries of their films instead of catering to the last generation. And by creating a different experience for theater goers, they're going to get people seeing the movies in 3D in the theater and then still buying them on DVD and Blu-Ray 6 months after the theater run instead of having people just wait for the Blu-Ray disk because their home experience is better than the theater.

Re:home market is not important to Pixar?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is not true - Samsung have FULL HD 3D tvs on the market today. They cost no more than the 2D vresion. I would not call this "horribly low-fidelity". In the time frame the story mentioned, there will be dual-stream blue-ray disc that work in both 2D and 3D, full HD, so I think the home 3D market is only going to get better.

3D Causes Migraines

[Alpha Prime]

I am glad to see that Pixar is going to release in 2D as well. No matter what kind of tech they use, I get migraines from 3D. It's probably because I watch all the back-action as well as the stuff you're 'supposed' to be watching and the blur in 3D background scenes causes severe eye strain and migraines.

Re:3D Causes Migraines

[pembo13]

Have you gone to a doctor about this? Doesn't seem normal.

Re:3D Causes Migraines

[guy-in-corner]

I have a similar problem -- I went to Universal Studios theme park, and some of the "rides" have the polarized 3D thing. And more recently, the MPH Show. Both times I got a mild headache (not a migraine) from about 10-20 minutes exposure.

I don't think I could handle a feature-length session of this, so I'm glad that the movies will also be available in 2D.

I think it might be because I'm slightly short-sighted in one eye, but the other eye is normal.

Re:3D Causes Migraines

[Baron_Yam]

No, it's perfectly normal! In 2D, the background is blurred because you're not supposed to be focused on it. When you move to 3D, your eyes will try to focus on whatever part of the image you're looking at based on the parallax. When the parallax and focal distance disagree, you get eyestrain and a headache.

There are only two fixes for this: dynamically adjust the image based on where the viewer is looking, or create a real 3D image where the actual distance to the image is the same as the apparent distance. I'd say VR goggles are probably the only hope, and they're not there yet.

Open Source 3D circular polarization tools

[sweetser]

Are there any? I would love to film and/or project in circular polarization 3D.

Creative bankruptcy

[pzs]

Like most other human beings, I love the Toy Story movies but seriously: can't you come up with a new idea?

I was saying only recently that it was only a matter of time before Pixar worried that they were losing it and grabbed desperately for their most successful franchise and here they've done it already.

I think it's a kind of prisoner's dilemma. In their eyes, they have a better chance of making a succe$$ful product if they make a Toy Story movie, even if the movie itself blows. Their reasoning is that whether the movie is good or not, they do better.

However, If they make a sucky Toy Story film, they cheapen the franchise, making the other Toy Story films somehow less to the viewing public and damaging their credibility - everybody loses.

I definitely enjoy the original Star Wars films less now that Lucas has taken a big dump on the Star Wars Universe with the execrable prequels - I'd rather he had never made them.

Re:Creative bankruptcy

[pzs]

Sorry, I was referring to the wider story here.

Re:Creative bankruptcy

[Fishbulb]

Making a franchise out of everything and driving it into the ground is the Disney Way. Sadly, it does pay off for them, since one successful in-theater movie translates to as many straight-to-DVD sequels as they please, once the kids are hooked on the characters.

Re-releases

[Wowsers]

If they re-released "Toy Story", it could give a new dimension to the name "Woody".

New 3D movie formats

[HalAtWork]

Alright people, it's official! Better hold off on the Blu-Ray purchases until the new HD-3D format comes out.

Re:New 3D movie formats

[Anonymous Coward]

You know, that is what I hate from this marketing stuff.

If I want to see a title that only comes out in Blue-Ray I will have to buy:

HDTV: $1000
Home Theater: $200
Blue-Ray Player: $1000
The actual movie: $5

For a total of $2205, assuming you didn't bought the HD-DVD gadgets

At least, with the analog v.s. digital HD TV they have a good reason (so to speak): we need to save the spectrum to give you more cellular phone lines.

I usually buy DVD, but just see they a couple of time and usually to have some background noise. $2205 is a lot for a noise generator. I think I will move to the radio.

But this

Re:New 3D movie formats

[TheSync]

I predict that Blu-ray will have enough bits on it to be able to handle stereoscopic (xpol or shutter glasses) 3D. Obviously it can handle anaglyphic today (I suspect the Hannah Montana disc is going to use this). I also suspect the actual solution for true stereo 3D may involve an external decoder box (at least for legacy players). Note this is all wild speculation on my part.

Re:New 3D movie formats

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah well it was a joke anyway, because we're just on the cusp of adopting blu-ray in the first place I thought it was funny.

The real question

[Jesus IS the Devil]

The real question on everybody's mind is...

When will we see 3D porn in theaters?

Re:The real question

[DECS]

OMG It's coming right at me!

Re:The real question

[Achoi77]

arrgh! I cannot unread what I have just read! :-(

Re:The real question

[RealGrouchy]

When will we see 3D porn in theaters? Um... when the glasses are cheap enough that you don't have to give people used ones?

(seriously, a joke about porn and it gets +5 insightful? You people really are sick!)

- RG>

Re:The real question

[Sinical]

Ask, and you shall receive.

http://www.bangin3d.com/

I've seen it with the glasses (we serve their traffic so our salesguy got a pair (of glasses)). Works pretty well.

Re:The real question

[DougWebb]

When will we see 3D porn in theaters?

It's called Amsterdam. For soft-core, try a strip club

Re:The real question

[smellotron]

You people really are sick!

Oh yeah? Well you're grouchy!

I have only one eye

[spun]

3D does nothing for me ever since I lost an eye in a mugging.

Re:I have only one eye

[wk633]

Me too. Well, I have two eyes, but only one works at a time. We'd still have to wear the glasses just to filter out the other eye image, and it's horribly flickery. I think I'll wait for the DVD, thank you very much.

Re:I have only one eye

[DoctorFrog]

I have amblyopia, aka 'lazy eye' which is not all that uncommon. I don't see stereoscopically but I do see out of both eyes. The result is that any 3D system that relies on providing a slightly different image to each eye just disorients me and eventually gives me a splitting headache.

Re:I have only one eye

[jacobw]

That means that somewhere out there is a mugger with three eyes. He can see in 4D!

Re:I have only one eye

[neoform]

I have only one eye (Score:5, Funny)

It's all fun and games until someone loses.. oh, right.

Re:I have only one eye

[boyko.at.netqos]

Who the hell modded this funny?

Sometimes, I think the Internet is full of sick people.

Re:I have only one eye

[morgan_greywolf]

No, it's not, and, in fact, I have this too. I could run down the list of eye problems I have, but I suspect that this would cause a glazing effect on everyone else's eyes. :)

Re:I have only one eye

[nametaken]

I can't believe you didn't go for the "insensitive clod" angle on that.

Re:I have only one eye

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't feel bad, I hear he's a Cylon.

Re:I have only one eye

[sentientbeing]

Just move your head side to side very fast and blink with your remaining eye at the same frequency.

approx 2Hz should do it.

As long as the theatre's dark, I dont forsee any problems with yours or anyone elses enjoyment of the movie.

Re:I have only one eye

[Vexor]

Was it a laser accident?

Let's keep the regular 2D animation thx.

True, a cardboard cutout is technically 3-d (nt)

[Woundweavr]

;)

more info

[truespin]

more to be found http://www.cinematical.com/2008/04/08/breaking-disney-pixar-announce-upcoming-slate/

• Up will follow WALL-E for Pixar, featuring the voices of Ed Asner, Christopher Plummer, John Ratzenberger and Jordan Nagai.
  
• Tinkerbell will go direct-to-DVD, followed by three sequels. So four Tinkerbell films all together.
  
• Rapunzel is back! Not only that, but the classic story will be done in full CGI.
• King of the Elves is another film coming from Disney animation in 2012, and it's based on a Phillip K. Dick story.
  
• Toy Story and Toy Story 2 to be released in 3-D in 2009 and 2010.
• Toy Story 3 hits theaters on June 18, 2010
• Newt will be Pixar's film in 2011, and it comes with this description: "What happens when the last remaining male and female blue-footed newts on the planet are forced together by science to save the species, and they can't stand each other?
• Cars 2 coming in 2012!

Re:more info

[hansamurai]

Disney doing Phillip K. Dick? That's pretty interesting. Rotoscoped 3D CGI?

Re:more info

[DerekLyons]

An Incredibles sequel is noticeable by it's absence. :(

Re:more info

[FleaPlus]

Rapunzel is back! Not only that, but the classic story will be done in full CGI.

I'm actually pretty interested in Rapunzel, due to the rendering methods they're implementing for it. From the wikipedia page:

The film will be made in CGI, though Rapunzel will resemble traditional oil paintings on canvas: "There's no photoreal hair. I want luscious hair, and we are inventing new ways of doing that. I want to bring the warmth and intuitive feel of hand-drawn to CGI. [5]

"For inspiration, Keane and his animators are referencing a painting by French Rococo artist Jean-Honore Fragonard, The Swing, applying a certain richness that they have never attained in animation before.

"A fairy tale world has to feel romantic and lush. So we were able to duplicate the shot with the girl on the swing in 3D, to do a dimensional tree where the leaves turn, but it still feels like it has calories if you look at it too long. Very painterly.

"The next step was to do an animated human character: to get a softness, a feel of blood in the veins. I want skin moving across bone and tendon and there's a subtlety to this. The thing is, I don't want realism.

"Kyle Strawitz really helped me start to believe that the things I wanted to see were possible... that you could move in a Disney painterly world. He took the house from Snow White and built it and painted it so that it looked like a flat painting that suddenly started to move, and it had dimension and kept all of the soft, round curves of the brushstrokes of watercolor. Kyle helped us get that Fragonard look of that girl on the swing... We are using subsurface scattering and global illumination and all of the latest techniques to pull off convincing human characters and rich environments." [6]

One of the main ambitions of the makers of Rapunzel is to create movements that are just as soft and fluid as of that in the old Disney Classics.

Re:more info

[geekoid]

"...and they can't stand each other?"

The ensuing of hilarity~

Bwana Devil in 3D!

[Detritus]

Oh joy, they can release Bwana Devil again in 3D!

It seems like every few years someone releases another film in 3D, and they all suck.

That 3-D aftertaste...

[Fishbulb]

Ugh. EW.

I don't think to myself, "you know, this movie is good, but it would be GREAT IN 3D!" I thought The Incredibles was great, but that's because it had a great, compelling story.

3D is just sugar coating. It's in the same league as special effects. Maybe it can show you something you've never seen before, but it doesn't really expand the story.

They need to focus their time and money on great writing, directing, editing, and production. Not on a gimmick.

Re:That 3-D aftertaste...

[smellotron]

I don't think to myself, "you know, this movie is good, but it would be GREAT IN COLOR!" I thought Robin Hood was great, but that's because it had a great, compelling story.

Color is just sugar coating. It's in the same league as sound. Maybe it can show you something you've never seen before, but it doesn't really expand the story.

Fixed that for you.

Re:That 3-D aftertaste...

[n17ikh]

Sure - I've seen lots of great black-and-white movies, and I've seen a lot of great silent movies. Color and/or sound are great to have but aren't essential to the story, and in fact we're seeing a return to "artistic" black-and-white films, or films that make great use of a single color (Sin City, for example), or films that are silent, though those aren't as common (The Call of Cthulhu). And before you go and say that the video itself is sugar coating - well, then, you've got a book, and I've read a lot of those that were pretty great too.
As far as I'm concerned 3-d is still used as a gimmick, just as color was (Wizard of Oz, maybe? Damn, that emerald city sure was green) when it first came out. When they can get it to where I don't have to wear polarization glasses over my own glasses (annoyingly distracting), that'll be nice, but my prediction is that 3d will remain mostly in the domain of computer-rendered films, where it's far easier to add a slightly shifted camera angle than it is to film with a second camera on a soundstage.
Point is, adding technical features to something doesn't always make it better, but it can certainly help. If, however, you have to do gimmicky stuff like have people pointing right at the camera or slow-motion bullets flying out into the theater at the expense of the art of the film, then it's probably not worth it, unless it's a simple enough flick to begin with that no one cares about the artistry of it, and are watching just to watch (a good action movie, for example.)

Where have I been?

[wootcat]

I must be the only one here who missed the news that Disney bought out Pixar -- back in 2006. I feel like I've woken up in an alternate universe...

Re:Where have I been?

[Anonymous Coward]

You're going to be really blown away when you discover that it ended up being a reverse takeover at the board level and Steve Jobs esq. is now sat on the board of directors of Disney.

Too bad that they're polarized and not anaglyph

[Typingsux]

They had the colored anaglyph 3-d glasses in boxes of fruity pebbles recently.

More important: 60 frames / second

[pyite69]

Pixar movies would look especially good at higher frame rates. I wish Pixar would render them at 720p60 to show on ABC or on their DVD's.

Re:More important: 60 frames / second

[TheSync]

Pixar movies would look especially good at higher frame rates. I wish Pixar would render them at 720p60 to show on ABC or on their DVD's.

But dude, 24p is the "film look", and thus must be 10000% better than 60p which is just "television". And you better spend 30 minutes per frame doing "color correction" as well!

Of course, all this "television" stuff sucks compared to good old film, even 16mm, because it doesn't have the grain you need for the "film look"

Gack. You can tell I've been in Hollywood too long (about 6 months)....

The meaning of 3D

[LS]

It's pretty obvious here that the meaning of 3D is stereoscopic, but it can be confusing to just throw around the term 3D. It can have three meanings in this case:

1. The movie is rendered using 3 dimensional data onto a 2 dimensional plane. yes I know all pixar films have been computer generated, but the less informed might think they might actually do hand drawn cartoons.

2. The movie is rendered/filmed from two perspectives, and viewed for a stereoscopic effect

3. The image is actually projected out into 3 dimensional space. This sounds unlikely, but there are actually some 3 dimension display technologies already available that allow for viewing from from any angle.

Anyway, you get my point, let's be specific when we use the word "3D".

LS

Remaking 'Up'?

[kahei]

If Pixar are tackling Up, but I guess they're a bit more avant-garde than I thought.

I kind of hope they don't use the original cast.

Just following suit

[WebGangsta]

It's no surprise the Pixar has announced this as Dreamworks announced the same thing last year.

In fact, from this 3/12/2007 article (DreamWorks going 3-D in 2009), it even says "Disney is also expected to release most of its future toons in digital 3-D, though the studio hasn't announced any definite plans beyond "Robinsons."

Nothing to see here, move along
.Nothing to see here, move along

(the above sentence was written in Slashdot3D for those of you with the special glasses)

Chief Creative Officer

[Anonymous Coward]

Somehow, this sounds as creative as a sausage factory. Expect the same simplistic stories with the same tired jokes... in 3D. No danger of seeing films with the depth of Kôkaku kidôtai or Sen to Chihiro no kamikakushi coming from them.

I know pixar is cool here because big rendering farm == instant erection, but adults should probably just pass.

Exactly

[catbertscousin]

Sound was once a gimmick, then it was color, then surround sound, then CGI, etc. etc. Once movie makers settle down and use it as a tool instead of just a cool effect, we'll get some good 3D movies. Early CGI films remind me of early 3D films because the CGI jumps out and hits you in the face; now it's all standard and carefully integrated with the live action so you don't notice it and it no longer distracts from the film. The biggest trick in movie making is creating the illusion - getting your audience to suspend their disbelief. Anything that breaks that illusion by calling attention to itself distracts the audience and usually hurts your film.

Re:Exactly

[geminidomino]

Sound was once a gimmick, then it was color, then surround sound, then CGI, etc. etc. Once movie makers settle down and use it as a tool instead of just a cool effect, we'll get some good 3D movies. Early CGI films remind me of early 3D films because the CGI jumps out and hits you in the face; now it's all standard and carefully integrated with the live action so you don't notice it and it no longer distracts from the film. The biggest trick in movie making is creating the illusion - getting your audience to suspend their disbelief. Anything that breaks that illusion by calling attention to itself distracts the audience and usually hurts your film. Counter-argument: "Bullet-time" effects. Got big in the Matrix, abused like a red-headed stepchild ever since...

Upp

[DirtySouthAfrican]

I immediately had thoughts of the "Land of upp".

redo the star trek animated series in 3D

[Anonymous Coward]

Why don't they take the star trek animated series which almost no fans have seen and reuse the sound for a 3D cg production?

Stereopairs

[mapkinase]

As a person who used to look in 3D to biological macromolecules, I am used to "stereopairs": images of 3D objects slighly rotated in relation to each other and printed or displayed side by side. You look with your left eye on one image and with right eye on another. Comes in cross-eye and relaxed format.

Most molecular graphics software is capable of producing really cool dynamics using stereopair view.

I wonder if anybody seen videos on the internet produced in this way for objects other than molecules (like animation, or even real life movies).

In my experience less than half of the scientists working in the field of 3D structure of biological macromolecules were not able to see the stereo.

I wish Pixar would exploit this stereopair format as well for DVD versions, so one could view it on any screen without any glasses.

SCTV: The Movie?

[zrodney]

Finally, a medium that can take the high caliber of SCTV and Count Floyd's MONSTER CHILLER HORROR THEATER and deliver it to a mass audience in it's original format!

http://www.sctvguide.ca/programs/monster.htm

Circular versus orthogonal polarisation.

[DrYak]

you have to sit perfectly still at the correct angle for them to work. Great for a 5 minute clip, terrible for a 90 minute movie. The glasses and movies at Disney are absolutely top notch...if you ever go you have to see Mickey's Philharmagic Orchestra, It's Tough to Be a Bug, etc. The old polarised glasses use linear polarisation.

The filter that separates left/right pictures only works if you head is perfectly aligned (vertical). If you tilt the head, the polarisation of the pictures relative to your glasses will be tilted instead of vertical/horizontal and you'll see "ghosting", i.e.: each eye see both left/right frame instead of the correct one.

Modern glasses use circular polarisation.
Now the filter works whichever is the angle of your head. Clockwise and anti-clockwise polarisation remain the same even if you tilt your head.
Now the problem would be that the /parallax/ of the source will be wrong (if you completely tilt your head 90Â on the side you eyes will need to have top and bottom view of the scene, whereas the screen will be still emitting left/right).
But, you will still have a lot less problems because your eyes won't be receiving 2 image at the same time.

The worst glasses are the old anaglyphs (red/blue) : Only the intensity line up between your eyes, the colors are different for each eye and the result looks weird. Some people can use it and see 3D (I do), but most people only get a headache.
The only advantage of the anaglyph is that the movie work with existing technology. It's just frames with weird-colors. Whereas the other needs polarised filters on the projector(s)

Extra Speical Pixar

[Anonymous Coward]

So a number of other studios have announced stereoscopic movies in the near future. DreamWorks Animation beat Pixar to the punch by announcing that all movies starting with "Monsters vs. Aliens" will be in stereo.

So why does Pixar get the special treatment (i.e. a story on Slashdot)?

Probally because it would double the rendertime.

[tacroy]

Probally because it would double the rendertime.

Re:Typical jews

[morgan_greywolf]

Get the Jews out of your government, and ENTIRELY out of your country too

Hello? Osama Bin Laden? Is that you?

Studio Ghibli

[Fnord666]

As long as Lasseter leaves Studio Ghibli and Hayao Miazaki alone, he can do whatever he wants with the rest of Disney.

Bouncy bouncy!

[Anonymous Coward]

I've seen the original "Up!". The idea of a Pixar remake fills me with both anticipation and dread.

Re:Bouncy bouncy!

[vertigoCiel]

They share only a title in common. Up is about a man who attempts to fly to South America to fulfill a promise to his late wife.

Been there, done that

[Sloppy]

When will we see 3D porn in theaters?

Hot Skin (3D porn movie from late 1970s) occasionally makes it out to "art house" theaters. I got to see it just a few months ago, as part of Pornotopia at the Guild Cinema. It's every bit as cheezy as you'd hope, and I think it'd be a lot less entertaining outside of a crowded theater. If it comes to your town, be there.

Good movies bring people, not 3-D

[Anonymous Coward]

> Box office figures have shown that the enveloping feel of 3-D can attract two to three times more moviegoers

Besides being technically well done, what ultimately makes Pixar movies successful imho is that they have good storylines -- they're basically good movies. The fact that they're good CG is somewhat incidental.

Don't count on relying on gimmickry like 3-D to attract people to the movies. Hopefully Pixar movies will still be good movies now that they're owned by Disney, but only time will tell, and this doesn't sound like a step in the right direction to me.

Knick Knack was 3D

[CruddyBuddy]

Back in the 90's Pixar produced the short Knick Knack as 3D. I remember it well because I was at Siggraph when it was shown.

If you've ever seen Knick Knack it's a cute little flick. The long shot showing the chatchkies on the shelf was one the better ones. The bathing beauty with the 'come hither' finger was also effective.

What really sucks for those who remember or have the original on tape is that it was re-done recently and the balloon breasts on both the bathing beauty and the mermaid have been completely removed. Talk about breast reduction! Disney censors probably screamed when they saw those two characters, but they mangled a really cute classic as effectively as George Lucas.

JAWS 3D 1983

[Latinhypercube]

Can someone please tell me what is so revolutionary about this ? This is EXACTLY the same technique used with JAWS 3D 25 years ago. Gimmick to drag people to the cinema.

Technology vs. Storytelling

[dougr650]

Great, now we can all look forward to "The Little Mermaid 5: Undersea Princesses Strike Back" with more stuff gratuitously flung and/or thrust toward the viewer than ever before!

Does anyone even remember when the Disney brand meant beautifully-painted backgrounds and high-quality animation coupled with excellent (although somewhat formulaic) storytelling? Now it's all about churning out torrents of raw crap for the direct-to-DVD market, and soon we can have those steaming geysers directed right in our faces in glorious 3D! The future has truly arrived.

While I've certainly enjoyed and admired much of Pixar's work, moving to a 3D presentation will only contribute to the "gee-whiz" technology factor and will only detract from the storytelling aspects of film. Try to think of even one 3D movie where the 3D effects had any positive impact in advancing the story or improving the film in any way. CG movies already struggle with keeping the effects from overwhelming the narrative and most studios fail miserably in that battle.

Pixar seems determined to drag itself down to the level of Lucasfilm by competing on the basis of technology rather than well-developed characters and storyline.

Same thing for Dreamworks

[pablodiazgutierrez]

I was told by an employee (so I assume it's public information already) that they're going to do the same starting with the feature following Kung Fu Panda.

Much as I hate Sony...

[MsGeek]

...I have to defend Sony Pictures Animation for Surf's Up. Fun story, great salute to surf culture, some of the most awesome effects animation in quite some time. With penguins that can ACT, not penguins rendered unable to convincingly act by their photo-realistic character design, as in Happy Feet.

I didn't care for Open Season but I was pleasantly surprised by Surf's Up. It's worth a rental, even for grownups. Especially grownups who like surfing. Or The Big Lebowski.

Re:Much as I hate Sony...

[Pseudonym]

Just to be clear, I wasn't claiming that everything that comes out of visual effects houses trying to do animation is dross. What I'm claiming is that pretty much none of it comes from dedicated animation studios, unless you count Eisner-era Disney.

And Real D...

[MsGeek]

...is the system Disney helped develop with Texas Instruments, and is absolutely amazing. High refresh rate digital projection, polarized glasses, the only 3D movie system that never gave me a headache. I saw Chicken Little in it...lousy movie, awesome 3D effects.

Re:Typical jews

[Khaed]

I was thinking Mahmoud Ahmedinijad (or however his lastname is spelled). I'm pretty sure bin Laden doesn't have internet in his cave.

Rendering for 3D

[EnsilZah]

I was wondering, when they render for stereoscopic 3D do they have to do twice the work or are there optimizations that make rendering the second image faster than the first?