Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered


I hate 3D glasses. (2, Interesting)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | about 6 years ago | (#23011654)

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. (4, Informative)

Max Romantschuk (132276) | about 6 years ago | (#23011756)

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. (2, Informative)

EnOne (786812) | about 6 years ago | (#23012364)

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. (2, Interesting)

Steauengeglase (512315) | about 6 years ago | (#23011804)

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. (1)

toleraen (831634) | about 6 years ago | (#23011928)

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. (1)

fluffman86 (1006119) | about 6 years ago | (#23012304)

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. (1)

WiFiBro (784621) | about 6 years ago | (#23012338)

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. (5, Funny)

retupmoca (932711) | about 6 years ago | (#23012882)

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

Re:I hate 3D glasses. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#23011846)

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. (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#23012004)

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.

I have only one eye (4, Funny)

spun (1352) | about 6 years ago | (#23012394)

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

Re:I have only one eye (1)

wk633 (442820) | about 6 years ago | (#23012530)

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.

w00t! (2, Informative)

somersault (912633) | about 6 years ago | (#23011656)

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! (1)

Wicko (977078) | about 6 years ago | (#23011782)

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! (5, Informative)

sayfawa (1099071) | about 6 years ago | (#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 [wikipedia.org]

Re:w00t! (1)

Snowmit (704081) | about 6 years ago | (#23012174)

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! (1)

somersault (912633) | about 6 years ago | (#23012182)

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! (4, Interesting)

Animaether (411575) | about 6 years ago | (#23012482)

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! (1)

FooAtWFU (699187) | about 6 years ago | (#23012854)

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! (2, Informative)

ahecht (567934) | about 6 years ago | (#23012880)

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! (4, Informative)

QuoteMstr (55051) | about 6 years ago | (#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.

Re:w00t! (1)

Thelasko (1196535) | about 6 years ago | (#23012104)

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! (1)

JMZero (449047) | about 6 years ago | (#23012518)

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! (1)

anethema (99553) | about 6 years ago | (#23012240)

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! (1)

Generic Guy (678542) | about 6 years ago | (#23012544)

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! (-1, Redundant)

Takumi2501 (728347) | about 6 years ago | (#23011808)

I still don't know how the technology even works without the red/green separation?
I believe they use polarized lenses in the glasses. One lens is polarized vertically while the other is horizontal.

Re:w00t! (-1, Redundant)

garyok (218493) | about 6 years ago | (#23011812)

At some cinemas (like the IMAX in London) alternate frames (for each eye) are passed through vertically and horizontally polarised filters. You wear glasses with similarly polarised lenses and, when the polarisation matches, you see the image in one eye and, when it doesn't, you don't. Some also use LCD shutters synchronised with the projector to blank out the unwanted image to the eye.

I saw Beowulf at the London IMAX. All I'll say is don't sit too close to the screen cos you'll wreck your neck trying to see everything. Otherwise totally cool.

Re:w00t! (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#23011834)

I believe the newer 3D technologies work off of polarization. The filters in the glasses they give you are polarized in perpendicular directions, and they run the film twice as fast. In essence, the scenes for the left eye don't "fit" through the filter over the right eye, and the reverse is true. The frames come fast enough that two corresponding frames look like they happen at the same time (especially since each eye only sees one of them).

Re:w00t! (4, Informative)

ZorinLynx (31751) | about 6 years ago | (#23012042)

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! (1)

ZorinLynx (31751) | about 6 years ago | (#23012126)

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! (1)

lisaparratt (752068) | about 6 years ago | (#23012716)

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! (1)

binaryspiral (784263) | about 6 years ago | (#23012188)

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! (1)

LordSnooty (853791) | about 6 years ago | (#23012796)

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! (-1, Redundant)

ZeroExistenZ (721849) | about 6 years ago | (#23011866)

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

Polarization [wikipedia.org].

It's hard for me to visualize though, with a lazy eye. I rather had a lazy something else.

Re:w00t! (1)

effigiate (1057610) | about 6 years ago | (#23012902)

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.

Short on details... (1)

Max Romantschuk (132276) | about 6 years ago | (#23011672)

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... (1)

(Score.5, Interestin (865513) | about 6 years ago | (#23012740)

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? (1)

nofrak (889021) | about 6 years ago | (#23011680)

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? (2, Interesting)

Tennguin (553870) | about 6 years ago | (#23011764)

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? (1)

popeye44 (929152) | about 6 years ago | (#23012672)

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.


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? (1)

sapphire wyvern (1153271) | about 6 years ago | (#23012676)

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? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#23012794)

Please explain your second point.

Re:Why? (5, Insightful)

Mprx (82435) | about 6 years ago | (#23011778)

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? (1)

TerribleNews (1195393) | about 6 years ago | (#23012674)

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 [wikipedia.org] now. I can't think of a more masterful abuse of colour tecnology.

Re:Why? (1)

CheShACat (999169) | about 6 years ago | (#23011994)

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?

Is this the same 3D James Cameron is using? (1)

CmdrSammo (1086973) | about 6 years ago | (#23011692)

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? (1)

frission (676318) | about 6 years ago | (#23011852)

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? (1)

Pope (17780) | about 6 years ago | (#23012504)

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? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#23012826)

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? (1)

baker_tony (621742) | about 6 years ago | (#23012428)

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

3D or Stereo? (5, Insightful)

MichaelSmith (789609) | about 6 years ago | (#23011712)

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? (1)

thermian (1267986) | about 6 years ago | (#23011800)

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? (1)

JMZero (449047) | about 6 years ago | (#23012546)

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? (1)

complete loony (663508) | about 6 years ago | (#23011874)

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 depth will be lost.

Re:3D or Stereo? (1)

gEvil (beta) (945888) | about 6 years ago | (#23011898)

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? (1)

Thanshin (1188877) | about 6 years ago | (#23012348)

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?

Future news (1, Funny)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | about 6 years ago | (#23011734)

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 (3, Informative)

ahecht (567934) | about 6 years ago | (#23012414)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#23012430)

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

And Clinton? Come on.

And for the DVD release ... (4, Funny)

psergiu (67614) | about 6 years ago | (#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.

Camcorders (1)

NealBScott (1168201) | about 6 years ago | (#23011820)

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 (4, Informative)

gEvil (beta) (945888) | about 6 years ago | (#23011868)

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.

4D for 3D again? (3, Insightful)

techpawn (969834) | about 6 years ago | (#23011828)

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? (3, Funny)

gEvil (beta) (945888) | about 6 years ago | (#23012006)

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? (1)

cowscows (103644) | about 6 years ago | (#23012018)

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: (5, Funny)

TripMaster Monkey (862126) | about 6 years ago | (#23011848)

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

Leela: Mine's not working!

Re:Oblig. Futurama reference: (1)

gEvil (beta) (945888) | about 6 years ago | (#23011942)

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: (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#23012196)

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: (1)

Anonymous Meoward (665631) | about 6 years ago | (#23012086)

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: (1)

fruity_pebbles (568822) | about 6 years ago | (#23012436)

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-release movies (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#23011856)

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

Why has it taken so long? (3, Interesting)

Jason1729 (561790) | about 6 years ago | (#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.

Re:Why has it taken so long? (1)

Animaether (411575) | about 6 years ago | (#23012374)

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? (1)

zenyu (248067) | about 6 years ago | (#23012590)

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.

home market is not important to Pixar? (2, Interesting)

Speare (84249) | about 6 years ago | (#23012024)

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? (1)

Dog-Cow (21281) | about 6 years ago | (#23012506)

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.

3D Causes Migraines (1)

Alpha Prime (25709) | about 6 years ago | (#23012120)

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 (1)

pembo13 (770295) | about 6 years ago | (#23012214)

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

Re:3D Causes Migraines (1)

Baron_Yam (643147) | about 6 years ago | (#23012454)

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.

Re:3D Causes Migraines (1)

guy-in-corner (614138) | about 6 years ago | (#23012440)

I have a similar problem -- I went to Universal Studios theme park [universalorlando.com], and some of the "rides" have the polarized 3D thing. And more recently, the MPH Show [mphshow.co.uk]. 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.

Open Source 3D circular polarization tools (1)

sweetser (148397) | about 6 years ago | (#23012210)

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

Creative bankruptcy (1)

pzs (857406) | about 6 years ago | (#23012222)

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 (1)

Fishbulb (32296) | about 6 years ago | (#23012648)

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.

New 3D movie formats (1)

HalAtWork (926717) | about 6 years ago | (#23012382)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#23012918)

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

more info (2, Informative)

truespin (807849) | about 6 years ago | (#23012598)

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, 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!

Bwana Devil in 3D! (2, Funny)

Detritus (11846) | about 6 years ago | (#23012604)

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.

That 3-D aftertaste... (1)

Fishbulb (32296) | about 6 years ago | (#23012766)

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.

Where have I been? (1)

wootcat (1151911) | about 6 years ago | (#23012842)

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...

Too bad that they're polarized and not anaglyph (1)

Typingsux (65623) | about 6 years ago | (#23012914)

They had the colored anaglyph 3-d glasses in boxes of fruity pebbles recently.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account