Disney to Convert 'Chicken Little' Into 3-D

[itsallgoode9]

interesting change. Anybody know if this is using the clear lenses or red and blue lenses?

[opus13]

considering the whirlwind of crap surrounding this movie, this comes across as more of a gimmick instead of the film being able to stand on its own merits.

2cents.

[Gentrifier]

What whirlwind of crap are you talking about opus13? Having an animated feature go back to get portions rewritten is not unusual.

They are only releasing the 3D version on 100 screens. Considering it'll most likely get a 2500-3000 screen release, it's hardly enough to call it a gimmick used to save the film.

Please be at least a touch more respectful to the people who are working on the film.

[flipnap]

i dont think opus has even seen the latest from this movie.. As an animator i have a new appreciation for Disney and what they pulled off here.. especially the pitcher on the baseball field.. MAN thats as close to 2d as you can get.. good job on those rigs.. As far as the 3d, they will be using shutter glasses or polarized.. the high refresh rate of DLP will cut down on eyestress.. should be pretty cool

[Shaderhacker]

considering the whirlwind of crap surrounding this movie, this comes across as more of a gimmick instead of the film being able to stand on its own merits.

2cents.

What whirlwind of crap? See the film when it comes out then come back and express your thoughts on the 3d "gimmick". Until then.......

-M

[worker_bee]

Well its seems more of gimmick since it wasnt made for 3D like Polar Express was. Polar rerendered everthing with the purpose of 3D Imax and it was done quite well.

Hope this after the fact Chick version doesnt look like SharkBoy and Laval Girl 3D.

[flipnap]

Polar rerendered everthing with the purpose of 3D Imax and it was done quite well.

not true at all.. most of polar express was done as a post process for 3d..

[Emrys]

If by "post process" you mean "re-rendered", then yes it was all done by post process :). All the elements were either re-rendered and definitely re-comped to conform to the Imax3D standards.

M

[coboman]

most of polar express was done as a post process for 3d..

REALLY??? Wow, I would really like to see the technology that made that possible, and even better, economically more sound than just rendering with two cameras. (No sarcasm, I am really interested).

Because the technology that was posted some time ago that Lucas is planning to use, does not look very sofisticated.

[pearson]

What's with the ressurgence of 3D projection? Admittedly, the last thing I saw in 3D was "Captain EO" and "Honey I shrunk the audience", but even extrapolating some great advances in technology....I just don't get it.

IMAX I can appreciate. But 2hrs of eye-straining glasses... :shrug:

(and how is this a swipe at Pixar? They've never done 3D projection, as far as I know)

[malducin]

I have a few more links at my site with a bit more details (though not much). But it seems that it'll be similar to Polar Express in that the original assests are rerendered to cerate the 3D version:

ILM Helping Disney with Chicken Little 3D (http://www.ilmfan.com/main/index.php?module=announce&ANN_user_op=view&ANN_id=1219)

[amygdalae]

not true at all.. most of polar express was done as a post process for 3d..

Hey look, another statement of fact from someone who knows nothing about what they're declaring!

polar express did re-render all elements and re-comp.
All spline based functions in the comps were re-generated based on the new camera position(s).

If Disney is doing the post-process on 2d images, it sort of makes sense that they're doing it out of house. If they're re-rendering everything as polar did, it seems really crazy to do it out of house. You cant just box up your 3d assets and send them somewhere to be re-rendered. Much proprietary info and bits of the pipeline would have to be boxed up and handed to another facility just for the sake of rendering it? Seems ludicrous. Disney certainly has the firepower to render more frames, and they can afford to expand their render farm.

But then maybe perhaps they did come up with some process, though it seems prohibitively expensive and specialized for them to come up with something to de-proprietary their 3d assets and export them to be rendered elsewhere. The comps are a huge part of the output images. All shots on polar express for IMAX were tweaked and re-finaled. You dont just render another camera and put it in the theater. Weird.

[Velk]

Wow... Disney, you are failing me big time. I keep holding on to the hope that the great studio will come around and justify my faith in them. Still nothing. Another horrid story with decent annimation and overused cliche kiddie jokes (how many movies have had a puffer fish in them recently?).

This is not the story of Chicken Little from when I was a kid. This is looking to be trash.

[amygdalae]

I hope they work plenty of fart jokes in.
That seems to be par for them in the last few years. Treasure Planet had that character who spoke entirely in fart noises. He was covered in little farting tentacles... pleasant.

[flipnap]

Hey look, another statement of fact from someone who knows nothing about what they're declaring!

uh, sorry i offended you.. no need for hysterics.. i guess i shouldve expanded a bit.. i did mean re-render.. sorry i shouldnt have said post process.. i was simply referring to some of the extra elements thrown in there after the fact.. and also referring to the fact that it wasnt originally rendered stereoscopically..

(humbly genuflecting)

[Shaderhacker]

If Disney is doing the post-process on 2d images, it sort of makes sense that they're doing it out of house. If they're re-rendering everything as polar did, it seems really crazy to do it out of house.

What makes you think they can't do it in-house with the ILM team coming to them?

-M

[pearson]

I hope they work plenty of fart jokes in.
Seemed to work pretty well for the Shrek films...:shrug:

So many films these days (not just Disney, and not just CG) can't raise their humor above the simple sitcom level. I find that to be a huge turn off. I already can't stand most sitcoms, and to see it on the big screen doesn't make it any better. It's been turning me off of movies for a while now, so much so that I very rarely go to the theater. I mostly just wait for word of mouth and then rent the good ones.

[RobertoOrtiz]

Press release:
THE WALT DISNEY STUDIOS AND DOLBY DIGITAL CINEMA BRING DISNEY DIGITAL 3D TO SELECTED THEATERS NATIONWIDE

In a revolutionary collaboration with Dolby Laboratories, employing Dolby Digital Cinema combined with Industrial Light & Magic's proprietary software technology, Walt Disney Pictures debuts new 3D technology with Chicken Little, its first all-CGI animated feature!

Disney once again leads the film industry by introducing Disney Digital 3D, a brand new, state-of-the-art technology providing the first true three-dimensional digital experience in movie theatres, with the highly anticipated movie Chicken Little to be released on November 4, 2005. In collaboration with Disney, Dolby Laboratories plans to install its Dolby Digital Cinema systems in approximately 100 specially-selected, high-profile theatres in 25 top markets that will present the 3D film. Visual effects giant Industrial Light & Magic (a Lucasfilm Ltd company) will render the movie in 3D so it can be played on Dolby Digital Cinema servers at selected theatres. This joint effort will create the next leap forward in the evolution of motion picture entertainment, bringing animation to life.

This historic debut of an entirely new release format will further define, refine, and elevate the film art form and marks the first time a major motion picture studio (Disney) has fully embraced a digital deployment plan. Disney selected Dolby Digital Cinema, a state-of-the-art digital cinema presentation system, to debut Chicken Little's brand new proprietary CG animation process. Dolby's technology, combined with Industrial Light & Magic's newly invented method of creating digital 3D imagery, provides the first feature motion picture presented in true digital 3D. Viewers of Chicken Little will experience this revolutionary format with the use of special 3D glasses offering greater clarity and more comfort than conventional 3D glasses.

Commenting on the announcement, Walt Disney Studios chairman Dick Cook said, "Disney Digital 3D is a truly groundbreaking technology that combines the latest innovations of science and art, and we are proud to be a part of filmmaking history. Our proprietary, state-of-the-art CG animation process used to make Chicken Little and future animation projects will finally allow moviegoers to experience true digital three-dimensional entertainment in theatres". Cook continued, "Walt Disney pioneered many technological breakthroughs and set an uncompromising goal for his Studio to constantly push the envelope to offer a superior movie going experience. We are very proud to add this animation milestone to the long list of technological breakthroughs for the studio, and we are especially thrilled to work with entertainment technology leader Dolby in this exciting launch. Likewise, we are proud to have the wizards at Industrial Light & Magic to help deliver the movie in 3D".

"Disney and Dolby's commitment to digital cinema paves the way for a large scale digital cinema deployment," said Tim Partridge, Senior Vice President and General Manager, Professional Division, Dolby Laboratories. "Dolby is a trusted brand for providing technologies that dramatically improve the moviegoing experience, and Disney has a fantastic reputation for delivering incredible movies to audiences worldwide. This is a great collaboration between both companies to launch Chicken Little on Dolby Digital Cinema".

ILM President Chrissie England said, "The digital 3D release of Chicken Little is a very exciting chapter in Hollywood history as it marks the next generation of moviemaking. We are delighted to participate with Disney in setting a new benchmark for the future. We are pleased that Chicken Little is the first animated movie to use our new process using Disney's actual 3D models, animation, and camera data. This process allows us to provide a richer, more nuanced viewing experience for moviegoers than any existing postproduction techniques. We feel audiences will embrace this experience as the new standard in animated features".

Chicken Little lands in theaters on November 4 2005.

>>Link<<
(http://www.animated-news.com/archives/00003690.html)

[coboman]

All shots on polar express for IMAX were tweaked and re-finaled. You dont just render another camera and put it in the theater. Weird.

Why not? I'm really courious to what "tweaaking" is necessary to achieve 3d. I take stereographic photos for a living, and make stereo renders as a hobby, and really never have had the need to "tweak" anything.

What do you mean by "tweaked "? Is it because some elements were flat matte paintings? Were you involved in this process? If so, could you give more info, as to the distance between cameras?

Any information will be most appreciated.

[Shaderhacker]

So many films these days (not just Disney, and not just CG) can't raise their humor above the simple sitcom level.

From what I've heard there aren't any pop culture jokes in the new Disney films.

-M

[Kimotion]

Well personally I want this film to be good and want it to succeed. It's just better for the industry.

[amygdalae]

Why not? I'm really courious to what "tweaaking" is necessary to achieve 3d. I take stereographic photos for a living, and make stereo renders as a hobby, and really never have had the need to "tweak" anything.

What do you mean by "tweaked "? Is it because some elements were flat matte paintings? Were you involved in this process? If so, could you give more info, as to the distance between cameras?

Any information will be most appreciated.

Well, depending on the shot you may want more or less parallax, you may have to re-layout some things to avoid collision with the camera and any objects or characters in the environment. Alot of the final image comes together in the composite, and that's all flat / spline based usually. So that all has to be re-calculated to work from another angle. Sometimes it looks better to make a new camera off to either side of the original, sometimes, to create two new cameras on either side of the original camera. There is alot of work in it.

Despite all that though, i see no reason why if they are re-rendering and not doing the new 'In-Three' style post-process, they need ILM. Disney has a pretty awesome bunch of TDs and software developers, their pipeline and technical resources have never been their problem. I'm pretty sure if they were just re-rendering onsite they wouldnt need ILM people to come tell them how to do it.

[pearson]

Well personally I want this film to be good and want it to succeed. It's just better for the industry.

Well, this movie will be all 3D which, according to Eisner, is the secret for true success in animation today. Since it's 3D they won't have to stress too much about making an entertaining movie; people will rush into the theater just because they'll get to see a chicken in 3D!
:rolleyes:

[UrbanFuturistic]

What's with the ressurgence of 3D projection? Admittedly, the last thing I saw in 3D was "Captain EO" and "Honey I shrunk the audience", but even extrapolating some great advances in technology....I just don't get it. It got cheaper. Plus they can now use polarised glasses (which are probably lighter than my prescription lenses) instead of those LED shutter glasses so it's also more comfortable and easier (relatively speaking) to set up.

regards, Paul

[CGTalk Moderation]

This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.