The Rise of 3D (stereoscopic) Animation

[zanekohler]

I figure I would ask this as Monsters vs Aliens being released today. What is everyone's thought to all the new animated films coming out in 3d.
Personally I love stereoscopic 3d. With that said I don't think every film has to be released in 3d. I think it can add a better experience like surround sound if done right. I think Coraline was fantastic in 3d. In part because I think they planned it with 3d in mind and as an accent, not a gimmick. I think a director has to be careful how you use it. If you have a character catering to an effect it takes you out of the film. I have seen a few of those.

Character1
"where did he go?"
Character2
" He went...That way!" (Points at camera for 8 seconds too long)

On the flip side I have to add when I am watching a film done well I no longer am aware it is not 3d.

Anyway love to hear other peoples thoughts

[CanAur]

http://www.constps.narod.ru/galery/Stereo/images/plastic_red_blu.jpg
http://s43.radikal.ru/i099/0903/ce/e3d7958e8f6d.jpg

I hate when they call this "3D" because it's not 3D at all! Just stereo.
I think there's nothing interesting but image volume effect.

First of all it must be part of great science of photography, coloring and perspective desingn !!

[lavallelee]

I think it would be great if we didn't have to wear 3d glasses. Rather it be projected infront of me holographically.

The 3d glasses are an outdated technology. I've seen some breakthroughs in holographic projection, just too expensive I guess.

[JayTea]

I haven't had the chance to see any of the current 3D films yet.
I saw a few back in the 1980's? that gave me headaches.
Digital technology has apparently fixed a lot of that.

One of the things struck me was how settings that would look "OK" (or even cluttered) in two dimensions looked terribly empty in 3D. I also felt at the time 3D would be better suited to news gathering and documentaries.

Yes, "stereo" would maybe be a bit more accurate term, but in my mind that is associated primarily with sound. :)

[zanekohler]

I saw a few back in the 1980's? that gave me headaches.
Digital technology has apparently fixed a lot of that.


They have supposedly fixed it or made it far better with 3 main things. They almost doubled the frame rate of the stereoscopic projector flashing so the flickering is less apparent. Also the new glasses are not just vertically and horizontally polarized. They are positioned in such a way where you can now reasonably tilt your head in either direction with out distortion. That was another reason for headaches. The third reason is something that the 3d companies that are involved have agreed upon to try and avoid. That is having something pop out extreme close and immediately fall waaaay back. That was one things past films were guilty of. Once again this caused headaches. It is just like moving your finger 1" from your eyes to 12" back and forth while tracking it for an hour. It strains your eyes. The last few 3d I have seen has been pretty good about this.

[IzzyS]

I've enjoyed the way the 3D works currently. it still a bit "flickery" and dim to me, though, which bothers my focus slightly. I love today's 3D for being able to see.. depth into the movie, worked really well with Coraline, I think.

[zanekohler]

Article on the "new" 3d and Monsters vs. Aliens
http://www.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/Movies/03/27/3d.monstersvsaliens/index.html

[JayTea]

... It is just like moving your finger 1" from your eyes to 12" back and forth while tracking it for an hour. It strains your eyes. The last few 3d I have seen has been pretty good about this.

Over the last twenty years there has been a tendency to cut action scenes with shorter and shorter clips.
(I've often heard older audience members complain they can't keep up)
I'm guessing 3D will force a slightly slower pace to allow the eyes to "focus" - or should I say "maintain focus".

[zanekohler]

That's a good point. It is going to make directors rethink little details.

On a similar note I read about a music video director who was rethinking how he filmed with so many videos being watched on portable devices. He mentioned more close ups of the face and less far away shots. Funny how technology can change how we approach the craft.


I did an animated flash short that was made to play in a mobile film festival. I knew it was going to be viewed super small. I kept it all one angle and the characters in silhouette.

[JayTea]

... I've seen some breakthroughs in holographic projection...

I wonder what technologies you have seen - especially firsthand.
From my occasional searches on the web for 3d display tech there does not seem to be technologies ( with a couple of yet immature exceptions ) that do any more than direct a pair of 2D images to the eyes. "Holographic" implies recreating a multitude light wave 'fronts' traveling in *many* directions.

Got any links? I'd love to see! :)

ps: This sounded snarky... sorry.

[lavallelee]

just a few i found

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H7K0GQPnmDI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8-pv6aG7_mA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sgm-_EiA62M

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=thOxW19vsTg

I think all of these are different from each other. But the technology is very close, one day it will be in all our homes! I hope im alive then. :D

[zanekohler]

I know the cnn one is virtual in that only the camera can see her in that spot. which is still pretty amazing because the camera can move and see her in 3d.

The others look pretty dang cool. I wonder about the 360 one...if no matter what side you are on you are still seeing the same angle? In that it reflects the same angle based on where you are standing.

I know the animated band Gorillaz were going to tour by using glass and reflections on stage to give a hologram live like 3d show. Never read up on what happened to it.

[zanekohler]

Here is when they performed live on an awards show

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CPi9EVGuC94

[JayTea]

Cheoptics 360 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H7K0GQPnmDI
Korean? tradeshow http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8-pv6aG7_mA

Can't tell much about about how these work from the videos.
Cheoptics 360 looks impressive but I suspect that if you and a friend were watching from opposites sides of that 360 display you would both see same perspective of a displayed object. If a horse appeared to be facing you, your friend would *not* see its' tail.

Little girl in skirt http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sgm-_EiA62M

If I recall corectly this is a spinning mirror directing a number 2d images out in a flat circle. If you moved from standing to sitting while viewing this image it would not change.
There was some effort to track the viewers height so this could be corrected, but that would limit the display to one viewer - may as well have a VR headset.
The display volume is small and its' spinning mirror potentually dangerous.
Capture tech for this could be like the CNN gimmick.
--
CNN "hologram" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=thOxW19vsTg

This isn't a so much a demonstration of a display technology as it is a capture technology.
The display tech is the same as the virtual "first down" lines on American football television shows. Just the data is more elaborate. No actual 3D is sensed by the viewer. If you were in the studio with the man you would not have seen the woman there at all except on the usual monitor screens. He could not see her except for the usual monitor screens that are placed off set or electronically masked in green screen.

There is also a another dangerous small volume 3D display that uses intersecting laser beams to create floating plasma dots.

ps: Ack! Missed some thread additions while I was writing this!

[jeremyhopkins]

I'm all for 3d as long as the story is solid. What would be unfortunate is if resources are pulled away from story and editing to leave extra time for the 3d process.

[TimothyB]

I came by to see if anyone discussed this yet.

I've only seen Coraline in 3D with the colored glasses, overall looked very natural, as in good color and no noticeable flicker, so it didn't bother me, might have been the InTru3D type. Though, fast motion, it was hard to follow, everything fell apart, maybe the lack of motion blur was a reason, or and lower framerate of the motion in stop-motion.

I'm worried this might begin to extend the life of mediocre CG films, or it might generate even more generic films that are more fitting for an amusement park attraction than a real film. Like "Battle For Terra," (http://www.apple.com/trailers/independent/battleforterra/) which starts of reminding me of Titan AE, and a bit of what I read from Jame's Cameron's Avatar. Still, the designs look generic, stiff. Probably wouldn't have been made if it wasn't for the 3D gimmick.

Speaking of Avatar, I hear that's suppose to change everything when it comes to 3D, that theaters will finally convert just to show this film. And something about a 12 minute or so sequence from first-person, which they are trying to get just right. They figure watching films in 3D, done well, can change how your brain perceives it. So you might think back to scenes from a film more like a memory of being there.

Also, what's the best 3D tech? InTru3D or Real D 3D?

When you look at the InTru3D glasses, plastic, they do have a slight shade of color, but not noticeable. Haven't found much info on it.

Though, Real D, I wonder if that's the type my brother came home from once with disposable glasses that were clear (he saw My Bloody Valentine). The True D tech mentions something like 72fps per eye, each frame 3 times to reduce flicker, and the circularly polarized glasses to make sure each eye sees only what it suppose to see, even if you tilt your head. Which a few have mentioned, and how it makes it more tolerable now.

I don't see any reason for a holographic system except for displays like ads as you walk around say a mall. A movie can't really work that way, and not like you are going to be walking around the screen at theater.

[Lauren C]

It can be fun when use responsibly, I went and saw Coraline in stereoscopic 3D and really enjoyed it because I was able to see the puppets really close and they didn't use and cheap jokes about the 3D. But it's used too much as a gimmick. For example when a character reaches it to the audience or something to that effect, it's just a cheap, gimmicky tick, and I hope it's novelty wears off soon.

[TimothyB]

It can be fun when use responsibly, I went and saw Coraline in stereoscopic 3D and really enjoyed it because I was able to see the puppets really close and they didn't use and cheap jokes about the 3D. But it's used too much as a gimmick. For example when a character reaches it to the audience or something to that effect, it's just a cheap, gimmicky tick, and I hope it's novelty wears off soon.

Yeah, when 3D is used lightly, it's great to see the added dimension to a good film, but when they do things that fly out at you, it usually feels out of place and breaks the illusion since it doesn't hold up as well. Coraline did it only a couple times, but in good taste. The opening title sequence with the needle threading was pretty cool. The hands from the piano were a little much.

Since seeing the movie, I've been reading in reviews for it, and MvsA, that it wasn't overused, especially Coraline, so I guess it was a problem with a lot of past films. It's just becoming so mainstream that your everyday CG film will include it. I think Ice Age 2 had it, and recently Bolt, and upcoming Ice Age 3 and Pixar's UP, which if you watched at home you would never of known it was in 3D at theaters.

[TimothyB]

My roommate just handed me Entertainment Weekly that has a 3D Movie Preview with glasses and 3D images of the latest upcoming movies.

Read the article here: http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20266638,00.html

Kind of what I thought. That 3D is kind of a hope to revitalize theaters. Lately with large 1080p HD TVs, Blu-ray, surround systems, people don't need to go to the movies as much. So 3D might bring an experience you can't get at home to drive people to the theaters. Only a few tvs right now have the ability to do 3D similar in the theaters, so the crummy glasses, like used on the Superbowl, are nothing compared to the theater systems.

The article mentions there was hope to have Monsters Vs. Aliens to open on 4,500 3D screens, but only around 2,000 screens. And the limited number of screens means short runs. Explains something I was wondering about a while ago, where tv ads were claiming it was your last chance to see Coraline in 3D, but it had only been a few weeks. Turns out the 3D showing was only around for 3 weeks, replaced by Jonas Brothers 3D film.

But the article goes on to say their goal is to make you feel like you are in the movie and not watching a 3D film. A snip-it from the article: ''We didn't want it to be cheesy,'' says Monsters vs. Aliens co-director Conrad Vernon. ''We want you to feel more like you are in the movie, rather than watching 3-D.'

Upcoming 3D films (pulled from the magazine):

Battle for Terra: May 1

Up: May 29

Ice Age 3: July 1

G-Force (that Disney guinea pig film, not the old anime Gatchaman that went by that name in the US, which has its own cg film soon): July 24

Final Destination: Death Trip 3-D: Aug. 28

Cloudy With A Chance of Meatballs: Sept, 18

Toy Story in 3-D (the sequels will follow in the later years): Oct. 2

Disney's A Christmas Carol (Jim Carrey as Scrooge, animated): Nov. 6

Avatar (A paralyzed war veteran is transported to another planet, which is inhabited by a nonhuman race, live-action): Dec. 18

Coming 2010: Dozens of films, including Shrek 4 (oh god), Alice in Wonderland, Alpha and Omega (Two kidnapped wolves try to return to their pack)

So it seems to be a revolution for theaters, or it could die out. If it stays, it probably will compliment the films, rather than be about 3D, so if you miss it in the theaters, you'll miss something your 60+ inch Blu-ray setup can't recreate.

Not sure if it will hurt 2D animation's revival. As if it's done right, the experience is to watch art come to life, you don't need 3D for that.

[AnimatorX]

I've been a 3D fan since 1983. That's right. I'm old...ish. The problem used to be the technology. It's improved dramatically since then, but I don't want every film to be 3D.

Or more to the point, I don't want to be forced to PAY for a 3D ticket, which can cost anywhere from 15-20 bucks. :eek:

[IzzyS]

I've been a 3D fan since 1983. That's right. I'm old...ish. The problem used to be the technology. It's improved dramatically since then, but I don't want every film to be 3D.

Or more to the point, I don't want to be forced to PAY for a 3D ticket, which can cost anywhere from 15-20 bucks. :eek:
I would've been a fan of one since I've first seen it, but I couldn't make out the "3D" images or focus very well.
but yeah, the ticket prices are crazy, hopefully they'll drop.
maybe make everybody return the glasses like in DisneyWorld

[zanekohler]

That is a problem I do have. The waste of all the glasses. I understand an extra cost because of the manufacturing of the glasses. However I do have a collection growing on my shelf. I feel guilty throwing them away. I did see a recycle bin only once after a movie. Later the same theater for a different movie did not. Not sure the reason why. Might be nice if you brought your own glasses back to save a little? :cool:

[IzzyS]

That is a problem I do have. The waste of all the glasses. I understand an extra cost because of the manufacturing of the glasses. However I do have a collection growing on my shelf. I feel guilty throwing them away. I did see a recycle bin only once after a movie. Later the same theater for a different movie did not. Not sure the reason why. Might be nice if you brought your own glasses back to save a little? B)
yeah, but they'd still charge as much due to the movie being listed as that price already, not sure if they'd give you new glasses, though.

I, too, have a collection growing upon my shelf, haha

[TimothyB]

That is a problem I do have. The waste of all the glasses. I understand an extra cost because of the manufacturing of the glasses. However I do have a collection growing on my shelf. I feel guilty throwing them away. I did see a recycle bin only once after a movie. Later the same theater for a different movie did not. Not sure the reason why. Might be nice if you brought your own glasses back to save a little? :cool:

I noticed the recycle box for the Real-D glasses yesterday after seeing Monsters Vs. Aliens. And when in line to buy the tickets, a family told the clerk they brought glasses in hopes to save money ($3 extra for 3D here), but it was a no can do.

Though, Bank of America had some free offer I missed going for week that let you print a coupon for a theater to upgrade to 3D for no extra costs, but they were depleted by the time I checked.

Also, at a different theater when I saw Coraline, it was the InTru3D glasses, much more bulky than the Real-D ones, those you'd return and they'd reuse, you weren't even allowed to leave the auditorium without leaving it at a table for when you come back.

Though, I kind of like the idea of disposable ones, just for healths sake. So it's just one of those sad things where a lot of waste is created to be clean. Not to mention the plastic wrapping around every set of glasses. But with the reusable ones, who knows how well they clean them, I heard of people saying they spit clean the lenses if they were not clean enough, and that was an employee telling someone as he was distributing them in line at the entrance to the auditorium.

[zanekohler]

Yeah I figured once the cost was in place they would not change it.

I agree with the recycling. A side of me would wonder how well do they clean them. While wasteful at least I know I am getting a clean pair when new. I think the best you can do is bring back your old ones and just know you are doing your part ;)

[TimothyB]

I would've been a fan of one since I've first seen it, but I couldn't make out the "3D" images or focus very well.
but yeah, the ticket prices are crazy, hopefully they'll drop.
maybe make everybody return the glasses like in DisneyWorld

Yeah, I have the focus problem sometimes too. Mainly with scene that have a wide range of depth. Sometimes I can forget it's 3D because it works so well, but some scenes you have to work extra hard to watch certain objects, as long as the film takes those parts slow it's not too bad. One thing though, it's kind of difficult or unnatural for one's vision to keep adjusting to a whole new scene instantly right in front of you, something that doesn't happen in real life.

The recycle bin at my theater was off to the side in the large lobby, the side where new customers enter and show tickets, and visually blocked from the lines at the concession stand, easily missed and out of the way if things are crowded. The display just says please recycle 3D glasses with no other details. I kept mine since it was my first set of glasses. But they should really move the return display at the exit of the film, or at least somewhere on the path 3D goers will obviously see it.

Here's my small collection as modeled by a Totoro:
http://premium1.uploadit.org/TimothyB//3Dglasses.jpg

There should be a Harry Potter film in 3D, then they could have a special edition rounded pair so everyone looks like Harry Potter as they watch and leave. I think they made a cheap set for a book release once.

-

[zanekohler]

I got a special green pair for when I saw chicken little. I did keep those ones :D

[JayTea]

... I heard of people saying they spit clean the lenses if they were not clean enough, and that was an employee telling someone as he was distributing them in line at the entrance to the auditorium.
Ack. Must remember to take the individual alcohol wipes. :P

There should be a Harry Potter film in 3D, then they could have a special edition rounded pair so everyone looks like Harry Potter as they watch and leave.

LOL!

[zanekohler]

Just read this on Aint it cool...

BEAUTY & THE BEAST… Disney is putting out the first 3-D hand drawn animation title from their collection in theaters next year. Beauty & The Beast will be released February 12, 2010 in 3-D.

- They showed the opening number, Belle, in 3-D. It didn’t seem quite finished, some digital artifacts evident on some of the background characters. However, I think it looked fabulous. It felt like an evolution of the multi-plane glass process Disney pioneered. It didn’t feel like the Viewmaster version of Beauty & The Beast. Belle had real dimension when she spun around. In short, it felt natural. I’d love to see them visit their other classics, like Sleeping Beauty or Pinocchio if they can turn out as beautiful as this seemed.

My biggest concern was that 2d would look view master'ish. Kind of gives hope that he mentions it felt natural. Gimmick or not I think it would help traditional if it can compete in the 3d market with cg films.

[Don Bluth]

I figure I would ask this as Monsters vs Aliens being released today. What is everyone's thought to all the new animated films coming out in 3d.
Personally I love stereoscopic 3d. With that said I don't think every film has to be released in 3d. I think it can add a better experience like surround sound if done right. I think Coraline was fantastic in 3d. In part because I think they planned it with 3d in mind and as an accent, not a gimmick. I think a director has to be careful how you use it. If you have a character catering to an effect it takes you out of the film. I have seen a few of those.

Character1
"where did he go?"
Character2
" He went...That way!" (Points at camera for 8 seconds too long)

On the flip side I have to add when I am watching a film done well I no longer am aware it is not 3d.

Anyway love to hear other peoples thoughts

Interesting discussion everyone. When I was a teenager, 3D was also the rage, but was talked about as a promotional gimmick to pull curious audiences into the theaters. Technology can't fix a poor script! When I venture out to see "Monsters vs Aliens," I hope I am not disappointed.

Have any of you noticed that these days, the general discussion with the movie makers is usually about technology. It would be so nice to hear another type of dialogue centered around the movie's subject matter or dramatic power, or pathos, or character; anything other than the latest techno-babble, after all ,our main thrust should be all about story - shouldn't it, or am I just out of touch?

[zanekohler]

Have any of you noticed that these days, the general discussion with the movie makers is usually about technology.


You make a good point there. While I think I noticed it indirectly I never really looked at it that way. I can't help but think for many bragging technology is about filling theater seats vs enhancing. Maybe it is just rubbing off from Home theater system industry boom. As more and more people are getting home theaters they are learning terms like HD and Digital through the process. Being told these will make their tv shows look way better(nothing to do with story). Lots of businesses have surely learned to throw in the word HD hap haphazardly. My guess is movie makers and theater owners have tuned into this as well.

[TimothyB]

.....
Have any of you noticed that these days, the general discussion with the movie makers is usually about technology.

On a similar note, for 2D animation, technology wasn't something that could be advertised usually, so instead, trailers and advertising focus too much on announcing their big star voices. This I guess happens to CG films too.

Sure, you want good actors to flesh out the characters, but why not talk about other aspects like you mention. It's like the studios know kids will want to see these films no matter what, but they advertise the big star cast as if there's nothing else redeeming to attract adults.

Just this last weekend I saw an ad for a new adult oriented tv cartoon advertised on Fox, nothing about it looked appealing to me. The jokes fell flat, like it was suppose to be funny just because of the adult topics and being a cartoon, and half the commercial was about showing who was voicing who, like you must see it because of that.

If the story and acting are good, I don't care who's behind the voice. I want the voice to become the character they created, I don't want to be picturing some mega star they advertised to death.

I suppose there's more to this than that, probably an essential part of making a successful film. That the technology, star cast, are all about advertising to attract the most people and buzz. But it sure can make most films appear shallow.

Maybe this is why so many films that are actually highly rated with everything that makes a good film fall under the radar until you watch it win an Oscar. While the big block busters with the special effects and actors earn the most money, but often the worst reviews. And if a film unexpectedly becomes a big success for all the good reasons, it's sequeled to death with nothing that made the first film appealing.

Sorry, I went a little off topic.

[zanekohler]

Was reading at Cartoon Brew (http://www.cartoonbrew.com/ideas-commentary/3-d-is-a-fad.html) on 3d. They brought up some interesting points.

Director Patrick Lussier (of the recent 3-D slasher flick, My Bloody Valentine) is quoted in the L.A. Times piece saying, “You could do My Dinner With Andre in 3-D and it would be incredibly compelling.”
Like Mr. Bluth mentioned, talking about technology over story


They supply some answers to why the big push
“why”? Here’s the answer: the studios are promoting 3-D films right now in an effort to convince the theaters to convert to digital projection. Once all theatres go digital, there will be no need for the studios to create expensive 35mm prints, they’ll be no more costs for reels and cans; the cost of transporting 100 pound film canisters coast to coast, the cost of storing prints in film depots and later, the cost of destroying worn prints will be eliminated. The savings to the studios will be enormous. Digital distribution will cut down (or hopefully eliminate) film piracy; and 3-D films can attract people to theatres to experience a visual show they cannot (as of yet) get on cable TV, blu-ray discs or over the internet.

As much as I wish this was not the reason I have to say I agree. I don't think any company would push that much money into something for our only better quality. Be interesting to see if this lasts if and once theaters get converted.