Slashdot Mirror
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."
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.
My blog
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?
which is totally what she said
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.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
And for the DVD release Pixar will ditch the old 2D disks and will release the movie on the newly released 3D DVD Sphere.
1% APY, No fees, Online Bank https://captl1.co/2uIErYq Don't let your $$$ sit in a no-interest acct.
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.
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.
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
Ask not what you can do for your country. Ask what your country did to you
Fry: Wow, the 3-D's great!
Leela: Mine's not working!
____
~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey
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.
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.
This guy's the limit!
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.
[
The real question on everybody's mind is...
When will we see 3D porn in theaters?
eTrade SUCKS
3D does nothing for me ever since I lost an eye in a mugging.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
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
It seems like every few years someone releases another film in 3D, and they all suck.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
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
There is a fine line between being a cultivated citizen and being someone else's crop. - A. J. Patrick Liszkie
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).
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
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
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)
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
Fixed that for you.