Cool link: Orlando Video Production

EMERYVILLE, Calif.—In Hollywood these days, the push to put out movies in 3D is on. In component, it’s a way to obtain some additional marketing buzz about a movie, but it is also a source of extra revenue simply because theaters charge a premium for showings in that format.

At Pixar Animation Studios, those rationales aren’t lost on executives, and when “Toy Story 3” comes out on Friday it is going to be offered each in 3D and the traditional 2D format. Indeed, last year Pixar worked to build up interest in the new film by promoting a special double-feature of “Toy Story” and “Toy Story 2,” both in 3D.

By this fall, there are expected to be about 5,000 3D-compatible screens across the country, up from close to 4,000 in March. And while that is a far cry from the 10,000 screens that a wide-release 2D film might be display on, there may be clearly growth in 3D.

Technology, of course, is really a large deal at Pixar, and there are a lot of individuals devoted to helping the studio break new ground with its films. And “Toy Story 3” is no various. But when it comes to making decisions about its 3D films, Pixar leans heavily on Bob Whitehill, the studio’s stereoscopic (3D) supervisor. Producing a 3D edition of an animated film like “Toy Story 3” is no simple task, Whitehill explained to CNET in an April interview at its headquarters here. In part, that’s because putting the 3D version together means that practically speaking, he and his team need to use the company’s impressive computing power to render two separate versions from the film—the “left eye” edition and the “right eye” version. And that, as Whitehill explains, can lead to all kinds of difficulties with mismatched imagery.

Whitehill spoke with CNET about a wide range of topics, including the so-called “Stereographers Mafia,” a group of 3D professionals from throughout Hollywood who meet from time to time and share their collective wisdom with every other. He also admitted that Pixar sometimes leaves some 3D depth “on the table” in its bid to become cautious about how it presents its films. But with “Toy Story 3” and the wonderful short that precedes it, “Day and Night” both about to hit theaters and showcase what the studio can do in 3D, there’s a good chance Whitehill and his team will soon be getting a few well-deserved pats about the back.

Q: How would you describe the distinction between 2D films and those in 3D? What’s the distinction?
Bob Whitehill: When I see a film in 2D now, it’s almost like the sound is turned down. There’s something about it that keeps you at arm’s length, whereas whenever you see it in 3D, you really feel much more involved, you really feel like you’re there more. Picture if you’re seeing a movie exactly where characters you care about are in actual peril and it’s just flat on the display and believe how frightening that will be to you. But imagine if it is dimensional, and you’re seeing burning trash and heat ripples or the jagged edge of the railroad trestle over a canyon. It’s almost like a premium encounter, nearly like seeing it on a large bright screen rather than a smaller screen.

Explain how you have to make the film for that left eye and then make it again for the correct eye.
Whitehill: We have a rendering group and we have this large render farm, and making these large images of over 2 million pixels every is really costly. They are just crunching math and all this brilliant programming goes into creating these images, and then we need to do it for the other eye. We basically need to do the entire movie twice. We also have to worry about those two eye views matching exactly. And there’s this point we call bit rot, exactly where when you render a frame for the 2D version and show it to the director, after which he approves, it, after which you render the version for that other eye four days later, it can look various than the first version. Like, someone might have changed a shade, or improved Lotso’s fur, so the fur looks a small much better, and he checked it in on Wednesday, after which they rendered the left on Tuesday, and you rendered the right on Thursday, and now Lotso’s fur doesn’t match. And you are able to get this odd shimmering impact because your left and right eye views aren’t the same. So there’s a lot of care and expertise and finessing that goes into creating both eye views as swiftly and accurately and expertly as feasible.

So it’s just about rendering. You’re not having to re-animate?
Whitehill: No, it is the rendering creation of the second eye view that is a challenge. But speaking of that, we do sometimes discover eyeline difficulties in 3D that aren’t evident in 2D. In 2D I might be able to cheat my eyeline [because I] don’t have that depth perception issue. In 3D, all of a sudden you recognize that the character isn’t talking directly to the individual they’re talking to. So we’ll have to go and fix that.

Why does that happen?
Whitehill: They chose not to be concerned about it in 2D simply because there you see much more of my face, you see my far eye, which is frequently essential, so profile shots aren’t like actual life. If we took a camera over here, you wouldn’t see our far eyes, it wouldn’t be a really great shot. And so in 2D, it looks fine and also you don’t recognize that depth distinction. But we discover quite a couple of of individuals that we need to fix. A character may lean forward, and I’ll be looking behind that character rather than forward.

Is there anything different about the way Pixar does 3D than other studios?
Whitehill: I believe we be concerned a little less about the 3D impact than about the story and emotion. And also the downside of that’s that I believe we leave some depth about the table, so to speak. We do not go there to the nines when we could. It’s kind of seasoned to taste how much 3D you like. And I think we would err on the side of caution and an simple viewing experience and fitting in using the narrative instead of trying to truly accentuate the 3D. I think if you crystallize that, it is keeping stuff closer to display, versus bringing it out to the audience room. Individuals are going to feel more depth when something is floating out in front, but over the course of 90 to 100 minutes, we think concerning the type of toll that’s taking on the audience.

I’ve heard you say that the mindset about 3D is changing at the studios and using the directors. Do you foresee a time soon where the director is going to be truly engaged using the procedure?
Whitehill: I don’t know, and it is really up to individual directors. It’s an odd bird simply because I do know that our films will be a much better encounter if the directors got more involved within the 3D process. But they are still a excellent experience in 3D anyway. We worked so hard and so numerous small details go into these films, and you hate to leave a stone unturned, like, what if we combined these two shots, we could make it longer, and easier to watch in 3D and it’ll be super cool. You hate to see individuals moments and let them pass by, but the fact is, I may feel that is more essential than the general audience, frankly. They are just concerned that Jessie’s in danger. I do feel like the directors seem to become thinking a little more in 3D.

It’s only been about two or three years that films have been produced using the new style of 3D. Are we pretty much at the state from the art, or will there be much more innovation?
Whitehill: Well, I hope there’s much more creative innovative. Who knows what the next thing is. If we talked a decade ago, we wouldn’t know about bullet-cam from “The Matrix” and stuff like that is coming and people are doing to complete much more in 3D than we can picture right now. And technically, I hope that projection technology improves to obtain the brightest, clearest picture feasible into more theaters. It’s truly painful to go out and see your work projected dimly, or projected into the masking. We function so hard on each pixel, and sometimes you go into a theater and you see a foot of it on the black curtains on every side and also you just wish to shoot yourself. I hope that we function our way into a consistent 3D space that is easy to watch and yet rewarding and don’t have films that are heading hog-wild. Sky Broadcasting, the European satellite TV organization, is heading to complete a 3D channel, and they released their parameter guidelines and said nothing ought to be much more than 1 percent of display width forward, or 2 percent of display width back.

Did you agree with those parameters?
Whitehill: I did. I felt like it truly backed up what we do. I said to some people who accused us of being too gentle in our parameters, Take a appear at this, this is precisely what we do.

You mentioned getting characters coming out to the audience for that whole movie would be exhausting?
Whitehill: Yeah, it’s sort of the medical point. Separating that point of convergence and concentrate for an extended period of time is draining on your eyes. There may be some dispute about that, but couple of can question the studies that display that is hard to do, and it makes intuitive sense. You are separating your convergence distance from your concentrate distance and that’s going to create eye strain. But you want some of individuals moments since individuals moments are essential for 3D movies and that is why people paid additional money, to see depth and see some thing new. But it is all about tempering it and not overdoing it. I believe some of my contemporaries think a close-up should be a close-up, like an emotional head and shoulder shot, should actually be closer in 3D room, and I can see the thinking behind that. But to me, getting it forward really creates eye fatigue and you’re actually more removed from that moment simply because there may be some thing physical going on. I’d rather have it back at display, comfy, so you’re lost within the emotion, rather than lost in a small bit of the struggle to see it. But no one’s correct or wrong about it.

Are there standards developing on how to approach these things?
Whitehill: I think so. Everyone says concentrate on making it component from the story, make it comfortable, we do not want the gimmick of things coming to the audience, and then you go see the films and they do exactly what they mentioned they’re not heading to complete. But because from the fact that everyone’s talking that way, I think we’re heading to begin seeing it reflected about the display more and much more. I think as there may be more content, it would actually mellow out the 3D rather than the other way around, exactly where individuals feel they have to become much more aggressive and stand out.

Is there a community of individuals in your role? And how does it manifest?
Whitehill: There’s a group of stereographers right here and at Disney and Dreamworks and Blue Sky and Image Movers Digital, and we get together and have dinner at SIGGRAPH and talk about procedure. We call it the Stereographers Mafia, and individuals have been very generous about what they share. Pixar’s been a little tiny bit late to the party. Other studios were performing it a small bit prior to us, and people were very generous in what they shared with us, and I’m truly appreciative of that small mafia that we have.

CNET News