Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?
Movies Media Entertainment

Pixar to Release All New Movies in 3D 250

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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Pixar to Release All New Movies in 3D

Comments Filter:
  • 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.
    • by Max Romantschuk ( 132276 ) <> on Wednesday April 09, 2008 @09:12AM (#23011756) Homepage

      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: (Score:2, Interesting)

      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.
      • Are those the kind that they use at IMAX theaters? If so I'll 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.
    • by spun ( 1352 ) <> on Wednesday April 09, 2008 @10:09AM (#23012394) Journal
      3D does nothing for me ever since I lost an eye in a mugging.
    • So let me know when the 2D versions come out? Kthxbye.


      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
    • by Aaron Isotton ( 958761 ) on Wednesday April 09, 2008 @02:14PM (#23015420)
      I see better out of my left eye than my right. Maybe we should go to cinema together.
  • w00t! (Score:3, Informative)

    by somersault ( 912633 ) on Wednesday April 09, 2008 @09:02AM (#23011656) Homepage Journal
    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?
    • by 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.
      • Aye, I have the same album. It's probably the same polarisation technique as the other respondents mention
    • Re:w00t! (Score:5, Informative)

      by sayfawa ( 1099071 ) on Wednesday April 09, 2008 @09:16AM (#23011792)
      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 []
      • by Snowmit ( 704081 )
        I dunno about other theatres but when I went to see Beowulf, they made us give the glasses back before we could leave.
      • 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! (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Animaether ( 411575 ) on Wednesday April 09, 2008 @10:16AM (#23012482) Journal
        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.
        • 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: (Score:3, Informative)

          by 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
          • 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! (Score:5, Informative)

      by QuoteMstr ( 55051 ) <> on Wednesday April 09, 2008 @09:16AM (#23011798)
      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.
      • 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.
        • by JMZero ( 449047 )
          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! (Score:5, Insightful)

          by DECS ( 891519 ) on Wednesday April 09, 2008 @12:00PM (#23013810) Homepage Journal
          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 []
      • by anethema ( 99553 )
        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.
        • 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: (Score:3, Interesting)

        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
  • 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? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by MichaelSmith ( 789609 ) on Wednesday April 09, 2008 @09:07AM (#23011712) Homepage Journal

    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.

    • 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
    • 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).
    • 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.

    • 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?
  • by psergiu ( 67614 ) on Wednesday April 09, 2008 @09:11AM (#23011744)
    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? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by techpawn ( 969834 ) on Wednesday April 09, 2008 @09:18AM (#23011828) Journal
    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
  • by TripMaster Monkey ( 862126 ) on Wednesday April 09, 2008 @09:20AM (#23011848)
    Fry: Wow, the 3-D's great!

    Leela: Mine's not working!
    • 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
    • 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?

      • 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.

      • 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
  • by Jason1729 ( 561790 ) on Wednesday April 09, 2008 @09:21AM (#23011862)
    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.
    • by mgblst ( 80109 )
      Most things are 3d. This stapler, my phone, my gf.
    • 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
      • by DECS ( 891519 )
        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
    • by zenyu ( 248067 )
      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
  • by Speare ( 84249 ) on Wednesday April 09, 2008 @09:38AM (#23012024) Homepage Journal

    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.

    • by Dog-Cow ( 21281 )
      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.
      • by Speare ( 84249 )
        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.
  • 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.
    • by pembo13 ( 770295 )
      Have you gone to a doctor about this? Doesn't seem normal.
      • 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
  • 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

  • Alright people, it's official! Better hold off on the Blu-Ray purchases until the new HD-3D format comes out.
  • The real question (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Jesus IS the Devil ( 317662 ) on Wednesday April 09, 2008 @10:09AM (#23012390)
    The real question on everybody's mind is...

    When will we see 3D porn in theaters?
  • more info (Score:2, Informative)

    by truespin ( 807849 )
    more to be found []
    • 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, an
  • by Detritus ( 11846 ) on Wednesday April 09, 2008 @10:26AM (#23012604) Homepage
    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.

  • They had the colored anaglyph 3-d glasses in boxes of fruity pebbles recently.
  • 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.
    • by TheSync ( 5291 ) *
      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 (Score:5, Insightful)

    by LS ( 57954 ) on Wednesday April 09, 2008 @10:55AM (#23012952) Homepage
    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".


  • 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.

  • 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)

God made the integers; all else is the work of Man. -- Kronecker