Comments on: How Dreamworks Animation is Innovating 3D

By: HiddenPixar » Pixar behind the curve?

HiddenPixar » Pixar behind the curve? — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 20:42:11 +0000

[...] to an article on “/Film”, the process involves a “new technology which allows them to shoot the 3D world in a more [...]

By: 790

790 — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 04:12:40 +0000

I seriously have no desire for 3D I don’t care what they invent.

Movies are a 2D experience,,,,,,,,

By: Martin

Martin — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 20:43:09 +0000

“So it kind of worked pretty good, so I thought it was a quality experience.”
Ok Katzenberg, what do you know about quality.
*cough*Antz*cough* *cough*Shark Tale*cough*
Shall I go on?

By: gocitizen

gocitizen — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 16:12:45 +0000

and still, it’s Dreamworks Animation we are talking about. Make some GOOD films that resonate beyond pop culture humor and gimmick and I’ll start to perk an interest. Until then, it’s just new clothes.

By: Peter Sciretta

Peter Sciretta — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 09:41:59 +0000

Sean: Superman Returns was turned from 2d into 3D… but I think what Katzenberg is saying is two fold. 1. it’s mostly in regards to animation. Remember, he’s the head of an animation studio. 2. He doesn’t mean that live-action 3D films aren’t shot in 3D, he means that the process of taking the third dimension into account doesn’t usually happen until post production. Eye strain happens when two clips are cut together with different depth (and the other factors he mentions).

By: Sean Gleeson

Sean Gleeson — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 06:53:06 +0000

I know I can’t lecture Katzenberg about movie-making, but honestly, the claim that “Until now most 3D films have [been] created in a post production process” strikes me as utter nonsense. Are you sure that’s what he said? Were his comments perhaps only referring to CGI or cartoons or something?

You cannot turn a 2D film into 3D in post-production (other than perhaps adding 3d titles or some simple compositing). Every 3D film has to be shot in stereo, with two cameras. That’s not post-production. Can you give one example of a 3D film that was shot in 2D, but post-produced into 3D?

By: marz

marz — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 06:31:40 +0000

i was in boston recently and went to an imax show there.they were running a few 3d 45 min. shows and we saw one involving the ocean.it was a nice experiance and ima go to the one here in baltimore and watch another one…either the sea monster one or the dinosaur live one.i think it’s about time they merge the gap between hollywood movies and 3d imax films.we are in need of a change.to think what cloverfiled,jurassic park,indiana jones and all the action movies would be like in 3d is mind blowing!!now only if they made adult only theaters..and no,not XXX, im talking regular theaters where you must be a certain age to get in.i think one reason movie goers arent going as often is because the audiance over the years have gotten more rowdy.i can count on both hands how many times i wanted to leave the theater because folk were being rude..and it seems like half the time it’s people who get there late!

By: Peter Sciretta

Peter Sciretta — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 04:51:32 +0000

Austin: I agree with you in terms of storytelling, but it is really worrysome that, from the sound of it at Comic Con, Pixar is looking at 3d as a post production process. I really believe Dreamworks is doing it right by involving 3d in all steps of development. It prevents eye strain and results in a better viewing experience.

By: Austin

Austin — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 04:29:05 +0000

Pixar’s new film “Up” will be in 3D, so if any animated film could ever pull off 3D in a meaningful way, it would be “Up”. Not to mention the fact that Pixar has the wonderful storytelling capabilities to know how to use 3D effectively. I just can’t say the same for DreamWorks, whose movies tend to suck because they lack good stories.

By: Jon

Jon — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 04:21:51 +0000

Article needs more pictures. Pictures in article do not match the content of 3D film.

By: andy

andy — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 03:51:46 +0000

In the context of Dreamworks Animation…. new technology does not improve un-innovative, crappy stories.

In the larger context… yes, more and more movies will be 3D, until maybe even ‘The Queen’-esque movies are 3D, but still, new technology does not improve crappy stories. It will indeed, though, further distance indie filmmakers from Hollywood, for better or worse.

Also, I think WETA used a similar ‘virtual camera’ on King Kong. (Specifically I remember seeing footage of Peter Jackson in a mocap studio using a physical camera, “filming” Andy Serkis, to control the virtual camera).

anyway, nice article!

By: b-nasty

b-nasty — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 03:49:21 +0000

the future scares the shit out of me

By: Neil

Neil — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 03:32:41 +0000

oh peter…you and your IMAX…

By: Alex

Alex — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 03:13:35 +0000

So…”the new technology” is just a multi-million dollar version of what Sony Imageworks used to achieve the cinema-verite style of Surf’s Up? I have a gut feeling a cursory ode to Cloverfield is in line for Monsters vs. Aliens.

Also, The Departed would probably be better in 3D, but that is a testament to how pedestrian that film was. I wouldn’t see The Departed again just because it was in 3D. On the other hand, I think the filmography of Aronofsky could be interesting; I could see him as perhaps the only modern dramatic director whose films would not lose anything in the transfer.

3D is fully capable of making thrilling experiences (see: U2 3D), but I think it is unlikely to enhance in any manner other than superficial. I have no problem with that, unless a 3D Sigur Ros film goes unmade.

That being said, this is one of the best pieces thus far on Slashfilm and a refreshing departure from chiroptera.

By: edward

edward — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 02:50:53 +0000

i’m very disappointed peter. dreamworks?
the last thing we need is some more rotoscoping.

don’t be giving in this early!

By: Arch Stanton

Arch Stanton — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 02:46:04 +0000

Was a fad. Still a fad. Not even popular enough to be a “fad”.

I know the guy is rich and all, but you don’t need to kiss his arrogant ass just cause you’re tired of writing Dark Knight stories. :)

By: Goobity

Goobity — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 02:04:28 +0000

We’ll wait and see, I suppose. I get his enthusiasm, but the transition from silent films to ‘talkies’ and from black and white to color were revolutionary because they were successful.
CGI, the ‘next evolutionary step in film’ has had a rocky road for 20 or so years, and still isn’t a science, storytelling ‘tool’ or no. This may be a giant leap forward in film presentation from the studios standpoint, but we’ve all heard that before, haven’t we?
We’re a long, long way from Katzenberg’s ‘vision’…if it’s ever realized at all.

By: CinemaMad

CinemaMad — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 01:52:04 +0000

I did not realise there was so much more work involved in rendering 3D, although once it’s explained it does make sense — you have to do it 3 times. I also love the idea of a real camerman being able to frame the shot in real time — that is a really big advance. Setting up a virtual track along a set of way point (I guess that’s how they did it?) must have been a pretty trying experience for someone who is used to working onset. I think this is great news for Dreamworks. Looking forward to Aliens vs Monsters!

By: David

David — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 01:40:37 +0000

This is an interesting post for sure. I have seen a couple 3D films recently actually and it is pretty cool. I am still waiting for it to really work well. Right now I would have to side with the fad argument. Although, if they boost this technology a lot more then it could be the next revolution. My whole family actually saw Journey to the Center of the Earth 3D the other day and unfortunately the all felt sick afterward. They liked the movie and the 3D in spite of the sickness, but this is probably something the studios need to consider when making the technology better.

By: Dylan D.

Dylan D. — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 01:25:06 +0000

I think I’m gonna invest in Dreamworks.