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]

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:

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Trespass]

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

Re:

[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:

[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:

[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.

[retupmoca]

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

Note to self: never sit next to fluffman86.

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. [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]

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

Re:

[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:

[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:

[boyko.at.netqos]

Who the hell modded this funny?

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

Re:

[nametaken]

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

Re:

[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

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.

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:

[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:

[somersault]

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

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 [wikipedia.org]

Re:

[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:

[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!

[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:

[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:

[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

Re:

[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 us

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:

[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:

[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!

[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 [roughlydrafted.com]

Re:

[Thelasko]

That sounds +1 insightful to me

Re:

[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:

[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:

[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

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:

[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:

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:

[Angostura]

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

Re:

[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:

[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:

[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 spac

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?

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:

[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 [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)]

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]

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:

[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:

[elrous0]

Beer goggles are better anyway.

Re:

[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:

[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:

[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

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.

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:

[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.

Oblig. Futurama reference:

[TripMaster Monkey]

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

Leela: Mine's not working!

Re:

[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:

[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:

[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:

[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

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:

[mgblst]

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

Re:

[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 simpl

Re:

[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

Re:

[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

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:

[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:

[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.

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:

[pembo13]

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

Re:

[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 dista

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 i

Re:

[pzs]

Sorry, I was referring to the wider story here [bbc.co.uk].

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.

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!

more info

[truespin]

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

• Up will follow WALL-E for Pixar, featuring the voices of Ed Asner [aol.com], 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, an

Re:

[hansamurai]

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

Bwana Devil in 3D!

[Detritus]

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.

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:

[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

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 [imdb.com], 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 [variety.com]), 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)

Re:

[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:

[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?

[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:

[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:

[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: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: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:

[Pope]

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

Re:

[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:

[smellotron]

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.