DVDizzy Forum

Why? Because the studio is learning a lot about animation in the process. It helps them define what the main differences (except the most obvious ones) between 2D and 3D are, their aesthetics and their weaknesses and strengths. What handdrawn animation can do for CGI and vice versa. They are inventing new software that could turn out useful in other areas not thought about yet. The process could result in some unsuspected extra prizes on the way.
And when completed, the first one will be a new version of Beauty and the Beast, one can witness the result. If it is flawless, then it is a success. If it is not, then they can identity the problems and improve of fix them for their next project.
Disney's animation knowledge will benefit from it, but how much, I don't know. Hopefully there will be some articles or commentaries about it later.

That's a good way to put it.

Merci. One of the things that makes this possible, is that computers were already involved from the start, as all movies since The Little Mermaid. What would be interesting to know, is if Disney will ever try to experiment with the old school features, where they used real animation cels.

Converting flat 2D to 3D is a very tricky process. It involves a fair bit of roto work to generate new plates that then can be placed in varying positions within a 3D camera's world. CLASH OF THE TITANS 3D is such a process, which frankly did not work very well on it (levels were poorly defined, lots of smearing/haloing, etc). Converting a SNOW WHITE or CINDERELLA to 3D would possibly require $20 - 30 million, and it would require reconstructing some of the artwork to avoid the problems COTT faced.

Fortunately, Disney used Pixar-developed CAPS (Computer Animation Production System) for BEAUTY AND THE BEAST 2D, and possibly Alias Power Animator for generating the 3D components. If Disney saved all the BATB artwork (digitally painted cel sequences, 3D models, etc. - most likely they did) and their latest animation software having 3D camera capability can read/import them, then it's straightforward creating a view-master style 3D at least, and possibly something greater.

For the moment, it seem more likely that Disney will focus on the CAPS features. Even a view master style could be great. I remember when watching single cartoon frames on a view master when I was a kid, and was thinking; why can't the cartoons be that on TV or the theatre?

If it becomes popular, will this be the future of handdrawn animation as well?

Rumpelstiltskin wrote: If it becomes popular, will this be the future of handdrawn animation as well?

Well, considering 3D is growing and become more an industry standard, it wouldn't surprise me. Heck, even non-blockbuster-type filmmakers like Martin Scorsese, Steven Soderbergh and Werner Herzog will be utilising 3D for their next films.

Though, interesting enough, Christopher Nolan announced he won't be doing the next Batman in 3D, even though by 2012, I expect the large majority of blockbusters will be in the format.

I doubt we will ever come to the point where all movies will be made in 3D.
Disney's ambitions here are very similar to what John Lasseter and Glen Keane tried to do with their "Where the Wild Things are" test. Even if the multiplane camera was able to add some extra layers of depth to the animation, they hoped a process involving computers could improve the illusion of three dimensions further. With CAPS, this was finally done, but now there will be an even greater depth. and hopefully, it will still feel handdrawn (which it probably will).

The computer software used by nearly all major animation companies today (including Disney) has 3D camera capabilities built into the package. So should a producer wish to make one of their new "cel style" productions in 3D, they can do so relatively easily, though (so far) the output will be a collection of true 3D objects and 2D "cel-style" planes, much like the more advanced Viewmasters. The only major difference would be setting up the animation camera for Z-depth, rendering of two (not one) streams of output, and additional media space requirements. Cost increases should be modest, far less than trying to convert an original 2D only, pre-CAPS show into 3D.

kurtadisneyite, did you know your signature spelled "dead" wrong, as "ded". I don't know if that was intentional, but you can edit your profiled and fix it.

I hope they only choose to make some movies in 3-D, and always have the option of seeing the movie in 3-D or 2-D.

A good thing then that they didn't scrap all the CAPS tools after Eisner decided to stop producing handdrawn animtion. Who knows, maybe all the movies from the 90's to present will get the same threatment, just as they are being converted to bly-ray these days.

Doing the same with the old classics would be expensive. But just as an experiment, it would be interesting if they focused on an old short, for instance a Silly Symphony cartoon, and tried to turn it into a CGI short. If they could make virtual 3D copies of the characters and the background, and then superimpose them on the original material, frame by frame, it would turn out as a real 3D version. How much it would cost, is another question.

^one problem in your analysis: Blu-ray requires no particular conversion, as CAPS films were made in HD Digital.

Also, one short did get converted to digital 3D. The chip n' dale peanuts short.

No analyses, just a comment for the sake of conversation. And I have never heard about the 3d version of Chip 'n Dale before now. A short search on Google doesn't show anything either.

Yeah, i just wanted to use that term. And I think it was "Bowling for Peanuts" or something like that. The 1953 short got converted to digital 3D for "Meet the Robinsons". The 2D release had a different short.

Too bad neither Bolt nor PatF had shorts accompanying their releases.

I think they need to leave the old classics alone. I remember seeing "Beauty and the Beast" on Imax. What a mistake. The film was never meant for Imax and they put it up there anyway. Every flaw or trick to save time was up there for all to see that just was not the case on normal theater screens of tv screens. Same thing with "The Lion King" as well.

Now I hear they want to subject it to 3D? Is this what Disney will keep doing, re-releasing these classic film using whatever the current fad is every decade or so? It's sad how they try to find new ways to make money off of old classics while trashing said films. It is no different then the Direct to Video films, no different.

how is it a bad thing? old classics kept being re-released in theaters before the advent of home video.it provides a refreshing experience for each generations whatever the fad is for the moment, we'll always have the original version. just as long as they dont alter anything but provide an alternative experience.

Looks like the 3D version of the Chip'N Dale cartoon was done in the 80's, so it must have been done with much simpler tools than they are using today.

I thought Glago's Guest was supposed to be shown with Bolt or some feature. I'm still waiting for it.

If pimping up these movies with the newest fads is what needs to be done to keep them contemporary and popular amongst the age-demo that Disney is trying to reach out to mostly these days, then so be it. It's not like you can't enjoy the original (sans fads) on your choice of format. Re-releasing them with the newest technology also gets them back in the public eye, which is always a good thing. More popularity, means more success, followed by them actually taking the time to do something with these films, instead of letting them 'rot' in the vaults. If they'd gain knowledge about animation during the process, then that'd be a nice extra.

Rumpelstiltskin wrote:A good thing then that they didn't scrap all the CAPS tools after Eisner decided to stop producing hand drawn animation.

CAPS has already phased out in favor of Toon Boom. This is less about CAPS as it is digital layers of animation, which they'll never ditch. and CAPS would have to remain if only for archival purposes. Unless they find a good way to transfer everything to a modern system.

I am aware of that. But then we are talking about producing new movies. From what I have heard, you still need CAPS to be able to read the data for those movies who were made with this system. And only when the data are available can you do something about them, like converting the film into 3D.

Maybe Disney some day will come up with their own system that is better than Toon Boom, but then they would need to update it now and then to prevent the system from getting too old compared to others available out there. Perhaps it is just as good to use what is already available.

>>I have never heard about the 3d version of Chip 'n Dale before now. A short search on Google doesn't show anything either.<<

The 1953 Chip an' Dale cartoon "Working for Peanuts" was originally made and released to theatres in 3-D. Walt Disney's "Adventures in Music: Melody" was also made in and originally released in 3-D in 1953. Both shorts were combined into one program for exhibition at Disneyland's Mickey Mouse Club Theatre in the late 1950's as "Mouseketeer 3-D Jamboree" with newly shot live-action 3-D Mouseketeer footage (including Annette on a swing) as a wraparound.

All of this genuine Walt era 3-D animation still exists.

http://www.moviegoods.com/Assets/produc ... 1020.A.jpg

http://i.newsarama.com/images/melody.jpg

http://davelandweb.com/fantasyland/imag ... rs_3DJ.jpg