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 hate 3D glasses.

[morgan_greywolf (835522)]

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 (132276)]

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.

[electrictroy (912290)]

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.

[Oktober Sunset (838224)]

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.

[MrSteveSD (801820)]

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.

[Trespass (225077)]

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

Re:

[Steauengeglase (512315)]

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:

[toleraen (831634)]

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.

[retupmoca (932711)]

...I can easily move around in your seat...

Note to self: never sit next to fluffman86.

Circular versus orthogonal polarisation.

[DrYak (748999)]

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. [wikipedia.org]

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 [wikipedia.org].
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)

I have only one eye

[spun (1352)]

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

Re:I have only one eye

[jacobw (975909)]

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

Re:I have only one eye

[neoform (551705)]

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

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

Re:I hate 3D glasses.

[Aaron Isotton (958761)]

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

w00t!

[somersault (912633)]

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:

[Wicko (977078)]

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 (1099071)]

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 [wikipedia.org]

Re:w00t!

[Animaether (411575)]

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:

[ahecht (567934)]

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

Re:w00t!

[QuoteMstr (55051)]

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:

[Thelasko (1196535)]

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!

[DECS (891519)]

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 [roughlydrafted.com]

Re:

[Jupiter Jones (584946)]

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

Re:w00t!

[ZorinLynx (31751)]

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!

Short on details...

[Max Romantschuk (132276)]

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?

3D or Stereo?

[MichaelSmith (789609)]

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:

[complete loony (663508)]

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 [wikipedia.org], your eyes must be focused [wikipedia.org] on the screen, while angled [wikipedia.org] 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

Re:

[gEvil (beta) (945888)]

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:

[teh kurisu (701097)]

It's possible [youtube.com] 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:

[elrous0 (869638)]

Beer goggles are better anyway.

And for the DVD release ...

[psergiu (67614)]

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

4D for 3D again?

[techpawn (969834)]

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) (945888)]

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:

[cowscows (103644)]

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.

Oblig. Futurama reference:

[TripMaster Monkey (862126)]

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

Leela: Mine's not working!

Re:

[gEvil (beta) (945888)]

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:

[Anonymous Meoward (665631)]

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?

Why has it taken so long?

[Jason1729 (561790)]

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:

[mgblst (80109)]

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

home market is not important to Pixar?

[Speare (84249)]

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

[Jesus IS the Devil (317662)]

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

When will we see 3D porn in theaters?

Re:The real question

[DECS (891519)]

OMG It's coming right at me!

Bwana Devil in 3D!

[Detritus (11846)]

Oh joy, they can release Bwana Devil [wikipedia.org] again in 3D!

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

The meaning of 3D

[LS (57954)]

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

Re:

[Tennguin (553870)]

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 (82435)]

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:

[mwvdlee (775178)]

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:Camcorders

[gEvil (beta) (945888)]

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:Future news

[ahecht (567934)]

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:

[smellotron (1039250)]

I don't think to myself, "you know, this movie is good, but it would be GREAT IN COLOR!" I thought Robin Hood [imdb.com] 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.