Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Are the Toy Story films worth seeing in 3-D?

This is topic Are the Toy Story films worth seeing in 3-D? in forum Digital Cinema Forum at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=16;t=000446

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 10-03-2009, 08:05 PM:

I have alway enjoyed both of the TOY STORy movies and have them on DVD and had watched them many times. As you all know Disney and Pixar just released them in 3-D yesterday and was wondering if they are worth seeing in 3-D. Many of you felt UP was just fine in 2-D and if this is also true with the Toy Story films, I will skip it and save $10.25 it would cost me to to see them in 3-D.

-Claude

Posted by Aaron Mehocic (Member # 15) on 10-03-2009, 08:31 PM:

My wife is very excited about the 3-D release. My daughters are just looking for a good time no matter what they do with Mom and Dad.

Ironically, since the local Carmike operation was sold to our company last year and the digital systems removed in favor of returning to film . . . we just don't know were to go to see it.

Personally, 2-D is good enough for me.

Posted by Jack Theakston (Member # 4484) on 10-03-2009, 08:52 PM:

I went to the press screening last weekend. The 3D is subtle over all, but very effective. If you like the two films, you'll love the double feature. They play off each other very well and there's a cute intermission clock in between the two films.

Posted by Luke Anderson (Member # 5316) on 10-03-2009, 10:33 PM:

I enjoyed them when I screened them, however I was a big fan of them the first time around. However I do not believe the 3D effect adds much to the viewing since it was not inteneded to be 3D in it's original conception. It did not have any of the classic jump into your lap and slap you in the face type effects that I have seen in other 3D pictures such as Meatballs a few weeks back.

Don't get me wrong the depth that is added to the overall picture presentation is pretty amazing, but I'm not sure I would have wanted to pay $13 for it. They basically took an amazing product and added depth to it and get the word out that Toy Story 3 is coming this spring.

Fun, but not impressive.

-LUKE

Posted by Geoff Jones (Member # 3668) on 10-03-2009, 10:52 PM:

Here's my answer before seeing them:

They are worth seeing on the big screen, period.

I don't like 3D, and if I had the choice to see them in 2D on the big screen, I would.

I'm taking my 5 year old daughter tomorrow. I'll give you my post-screening answer after that.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 10-03-2009, 11:30 PM:

The intro scene to Toy Story 2 is one of my listening tests whenever the sound is adjusted in any auditorium. That's right, setting the sound up by the numbers and just walking away without doing listening tests is wrong and immoral. With Toy Story 2, I am very familiar with it and how it sounds, so after tuning I use it to make any tweaks or whatnot. That is the extent of my interest of seeing these movies in 3D... to hear how other theaters sound in comparison.

Beyond that, I am content with the DVDs, though would definitely prefer Blu-ray.

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 10-04-2009, 01:12 AM:

Ah-HA....so the opening scene of TOY STORY II that was missing from the print they shipped me is in YOUR tool box, eh, Joe?!

I am a 3D freak so, it's no secret that I am happy to see any 3D film, but to tell you the truth, I have had just about enough 3D cartoons to last a long time. 3D animation has just been too over saturated; I need to see a few REAL people in 3D. I opted to see FINAL DESTINATION Friday instead of the TOY STORY(S). It really was refreshing to see live human beings for a change. I must say that the RealD 3D in FD was stunningly effective, albeit dark to the point of being annoying in the night scenes.

Now that Home 3D Video is just around the corner, no way Disney will not release the TOY STORY(s) I & II on BluRay, so Joe, you will get your wish. Indeed, no doubt they will release every single one of the previously released 3D cartoons to home 3D video. I for one will get most of them and FINAL DESTINATION as well.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 10-04-2009, 05:26 AM:

Toy Story II was in Surround-EX (I don't recall if the original was). Are they in Surround-EX on this 3D release?

Posted by Vern Dias (Member # 5241) on 10-04-2009, 11:02 AM:

quote: Frank Angel
Now that Home 3D Video is just around the corner

I don't know if you have seen Panasonics BD 3D process... I have, both at Panasonic in LA last October, and again at Cedia last month.

First of all, it is spectacular. The best 3D I have ever seen. However, the current version uses a 50HZ refresh rate. And it needs lots of lumens to compensate for the glasses.

In order to be a viable consumer product, it will require:

HDMI 1.4

Changes to the BD standards to allow the 3D format.

A new display, probably only available initially as an LCD display costing $$$$$$$.

A new BD player, also costing $$$$.

Shutter glasses for each viewer which consume batteries. (At the demo at Cedia, I would say 1/3 or more of the glasses had weak batteries, causing them to lose sync with the IR emitters, making the image unwatchable.)

IOW, a whole new setup for the home which currently excludes any form of projection, which unfortunately is the preferred display mechanism of most high end HT's. Maybe dual projectors, one for each eye image would be suitable if the individual eye images could be split out to 2 HDMI outputs???

So, yes it's coming.

The question, considering today's economic envirnment is when?

Initially the volume of 3D home installations will be much too low to allow any of the studios to make a profit from BD releases that are exclusively 3D. However, I would expect to see dual format BD's at some point in time. I just wouldn't want to guess when.

Vern

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 10-04-2009, 12:09 PM:

quote: Vern Dias
Shutter glasses

Posted by Demetris Thoupis (Member # 833) on 10-04-2009, 12:52 PM:

Active Glasses. Hmm.. Well all systems have their plusses (except REALD) and minuses. I would choose X-Pand with active glasses any day if it means avoiding the dreaded Silver Screen.
Demetris

Posted by Vern Dias (Member # 5241) on 10-04-2009, 01:54 PM:

quote: Vern Dias
However, I would expect to see dual format BD's at some point in time. I just wouldn't want to guess when.

I should qualify this, as there are already dual format BD's out there, however using anaglyph (which totaly destroys any reasonable color).

Vern

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 10-04-2009, 02:44 PM:

Anaglyphic is to 3D as dumpster foraging is to fine dining.

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 10-04-2009, 02:50 PM:

It was fun to see these two classic PIXAR movies in their respective 3D versions and the up and coming "TS3" for next year.

Yet, sadly as with all re-releases, it just doesn't have the magic as if it was a new release.

Yet, one can tell that 3D is here to stay for the digital theatres - or should say 'have to stay' to keep digital alive..

-Monte

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 10-04-2009, 03:01 PM:

I don't kno Monte, I see enough positive advantages to digital especially for big chains which have to deal with those multitudes of booth monkeys and all the problems associated with film, especially with the advent of what looks like might be a wholesale move to 4K, the resultant very impressive digtal screen image plus the simplicity of operation might just trump any of the now seemingly diminishing negatives. Even the higher operating costs may no longer be a factor if, in the long run, even that may not prove to be the case.

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 10-04-2009, 06:28 PM:

quote: Frank Angel
especially for big chains which have to deal with those multitudes of booth monkeys

Didn't they hire them?

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 10-04-2009, 07:42 PM:

quote: Vern Dias
the current version uses a 50HZ refresh rate

Thats a pretty slow refresh rate! That alone may cause many artifacts to occur. In D-Cinema you can run at different rates... 3:1 4:1 and 5:1. All produce great 3-D in slow moving images. At high speed rates the two lower ones produce at least some artifacting... and you may possibly induce headaches at those slower rates.

As for Toy Stories, I'm going to skip seeing them. Just no decent 3-D in this area and this area pretty much encompasses all types. I just can't see sitting there for a double feature at 4 to 6 foot lamberts [Eek!]

Posted by Geoff Jones (Member # 3668) on 10-04-2009, 08:12 PM:

I saw them today on screen 10 (the so called "Giant" screen) at Colorado Mills. The screen looks to be about 50-60 feet wide and constant width. The auditorium is steeper than a ski jump, and you could see some very slight keystoning along the bottom edge of the screen.

The image seemed brighter than the last 3D movie I saw (Bolt). I wouldn't call it remarkably bright, but I didn't find it unacceptably dim, either.

Sound was terrific and the picture was generally great.

The 3D effect is mild. If you're into 3D, I'd imagine you'd like it. I found it to be "not terribly distracting or annoying." [Smile]

My 5 year old daughter managed to keep her glasses on most of the time.

The Pixar intermission between the movies was a lot of fun - like watching special features on a DVD. And the countdown clock was a helpful touch. The film-related gags at the start seemed weird (pretend film breaks, comments about the first reel being ready) since this release is 100% digital, afaik.

My biggest gripe was that they shouldn't have run the TS3 teaser at the start. It had too many spoilers for anyone who hasn't seen 1 & 2. They should have saved it for the end, and could have "teased" it during the intermission.

Was it worth seeing in 3D? No, not to me.

Was it worth seeing on the big screen again? Absolutely. These were the best wide release movies I've seen in the theatre all year. I had a grin on my face the whole time. Go see 'em!

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 10-04-2009, 08:17 PM:

Did Pixar render the second eye on these, or did they fake it?

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 10-04-2009, 09:22 PM:

I'm pretty sure rendering another eye would be tremendously easy. Just move the camera over a bit (different amounts depending on the scene) and hit "render". Done in 5 minutes.

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 10-04-2009, 09:46 PM:

quote: Frank Angel
I see enough positive advantages to digital especially for big chains which have to deal with those multitudes of booth monkeys and all the problems associated with film...

Won't argue there at all, esp. when you do the "auto-start" function on the servers or main IT distribution where all one as to do is go upstairs, turn everything on that is needed and leave. You let the scheduler do the rest.

Definitely have to admit: no booth monkeys present since they've been now confined behind the conc shoveling popcorn in the containers that the customers purchased, or sweeping up the popcorn in the houses that they just sold to the customers.

...And no errors in presentations.

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
I just can't see sitting there for a double feature at 4 to 6 foot lamberts

Little help here: Why does Real Dumb and others HAVE to have their 3D presentations at such a low foot lambert level? You'd think that it would tons better at 12 to 16 than at 3.5 to 5 fL's

-Monte

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 10-04-2009, 09:59 PM:

I agree, Joe. And given the relatively simple nature of the scenes in these movies and the increase in processing power that's available today vs. when they made these movies originally the render time should be really short. I hope that's what they did.

Posted by Demetris Thoupis (Member # 833) on 10-05-2009, 01:39 AM:

quote: Monte L Fullmer
Little help here: Why does Real Dumb and others HAVE to have their 3D presentations at such a low foot lambert level? You'd think that it would tons better at 12 to 16 than at 3.5 to 5 fL's

There is a perfectly simple explaination to this. Cinema owners want the 3D systems in their biggest or bigger auditoriums becase they potentially see more revenue from the 3D releases. In this area, our industry lacks the capabilities of illuminating 3D in more than 5 to 6 max fl on the screen. Considering any 3D system whether it would be Dolby or Real Dumb or MI or X-Pand you need actually tripple the light output when the 3D drops in to manage to achieve the 14fl as in 2D. Although many will argue that 14fl on 3D will offer washed out colours e.t.c perhaps the Dolby System is the best as you can make settings in the colour outputs from the server and avoid this. Brad managed to get about 110fl on 2D and 10fl on 3D at a theater but he was throwing on a screen no bigger than 10m wide which is a small one and he was using 6.5k lamps. Most theathers exceed the limit of 12m x 5.1m which starts to show how low the output gets on the screen when the 3D kicks in. So instead of forcing everyone to go with the double stack projector feature to manage to achieve a light level of more than 10 fl, companies have decided than 5 is actually good enough for all 3D features. At Cine Expo I saw footage of Avatar with the RealD XL system and it did not look dark actually although I am not sure how much light they were using. So in any case, until ppl start putting the 3D systems in their smaller screens (10m and less wide) I am certain we won't be seeing the 3D specs changing to achieve a higher light output. And something final, there is not a single projector out there which uses the full chip capabilities. In flat films more pixels are being used than in scope which actually makes the scope films suck at resolution although I never see someone post such argument in Film-Tech.
Demetris

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 10-05-2009, 04:29 AM:

quote: Demetris Thoupis
In flat films more pixels are being used than in scope which actually makes the scope films suck at resolution although I never see someone post such argument in Film-Tech.

Would this, then, be the reason for the double release lens format as with "G-Force" and the upcoming "Avatar" - doing the full frame, scope release on film whereas with the digital release in a flat lens,"letterbox" format?

I've noticed that "Monsters/Aliens" didn't look as good as does the "Up" and "IceAge3" releases in 3D.

Prob, why SONY is really pushing the 4k envelope to get scope up to full 1080 resolution on 2D releases and even with the 3D with their dual lens concept.

What is Christie/TI doing with this if they're now getting ready for 4K? Do a dual lens idea, or just the single lens with a much finer pixel chipset for their light engines to get that resolution up to HDTV levels....?

thx-Monte

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 10-05-2009, 04:36 AM:

I believe they have not yet made a decision on Avatar's digital format.

Posted by Demetris Thoupis (Member # 833) on 10-05-2009, 07:18 AM:

In reality no projector is projecting full 2K resolution. We are only projecting 1.8 in flat and about 1.6 in scope which sucks deep time. So all Digital lovers can see that still Film Rules.
Demetris

Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 10-05-2009, 10:26 AM:

quote: Demetris Thoupis
In reality no projector is projecting full 2K resolution. We are only projecting 1.8 in flat and about 1.6 in scope which sucks deep time. So all Digital lovers can see that still Film Rules.

For at least several months now all Christie projectors do full 2K 3D.

Due to the use of 2K digital intermediates for the last several years, I find that 2K digital presentation look at least as good as the 35mm releases. By extrapolating the look of 2K DLP, I would expect that 4K DLP with a 4K source file will look at least as good (and probably better than due to no generational loss, jump or weave) as the best 35mm film can offer.

Posted by Jack Ondracek (Member # 1466) on 10-05-2009, 10:27 AM:

I find the commentary about 5fL or lower being "acceptable" to be quite interesting. Owning a drive-in, I can't help but remember how many times outdoor presentations have been uniformly trashed, merely because of this one factor.

I took one of my daughters to see TS1&2 this weekend. I found the 3D to be subtle enough that I forgot it was even there... which tells me that the original would have been good enough. 195 minutes is a long time to be wearing those glasses... especially if they have to be worn over the ones you already wear!

Otherwise, it was a decent show. Saturday matinee, about 120 people in a 200 seat auditorium

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 10-05-2009, 11:40 AM:

So, the TS double feature came in at third place last weekend, getting beat by week 3 of "Cloudy." Realizing that they couldn't do as many shows due to the double feature, would this be considered a success, or "just OK" business?

Posted by Caleb Johnstone-Cowan (Member # 3710) on 10-05-2009, 12:03 PM:

Saw Toy Story 3D last night and it was great. The 3D gave a new depth to the image and showed just how much of an achievment that film was. There were loads of little bits all over the film that I'd never noticed, also got the Mr. Potato Head 'ass-kissing' joke for the first time! Well worth it, can't wait for Toy Story 2 now which we're getting early next year.

Posted by Demetris Thoupis (Member # 833) on 10-05-2009, 12:09 PM:

quote: Lyle Romer
For at least several months now all Christie projectors do full 2K 3D.

Lyle I am not talking either 2D or 3D. I am talking in general. 2K resolution Digital Cinema is 2048 x 1080. No projector out there uses the FULL 2048 x 1080 resolution of the chip. And in the case of Christie, Christie simply managed to use the same resolution used on the 2D for flat and scope to the 3D portion of the DMD chips. So the case of Full Resolution still stands. It is not done yet.
Demetris

Demetris

Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 10-05-2009, 01:39 PM:

quote: Steve Guttag
Toy Story II was in Surround-EX (I don't recall if the original was). Are they in Surround-EX on this 3D release

According to the note in the box, they are both 7.1. I'm assuming that means 4 surround channels? Is this the first theatrical release to have that configuration?

Also, the original was not originally in EX, but I think it was remixed into EX for one of the DVD releases.

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 10-05-2009, 02:15 PM:

Mike,

I do not know about the original TOY STORY but TOY STORY 2 was released to theatres in EX. I know this to be a fact because I made an effort to see it in a EX theatre when the Dolby website at the time listed it as a upcoming EX release. It has been a while since I saw the movie on my DVD but I think the credits indicate it is in EX .

-Claude

Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 10-05-2009, 02:40 PM:

Yes, TOY STORY 2 was definitely EX, but TOY STORY 1 was definitely not.

Posted by Joe Elliott (Member # 4006) on 10-05-2009, 03:38 PM:

The intermission is in EX also. They did a great job mixing it, because when Rex and Buzz are supposedly running the film, it sounds like the voices are coming from the dead center of the rear of the theater. I see people turn around and look in every show before they realize it is part of the show.

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 10-05-2009, 03:57 PM:

Caleb,

So UK is running 1 and 2 as separate releases? At present, we're doing the double in February but from the weekend's figures I wonder if we'll have the 'GRINDHOUSE' effect and they'll split them here too.

That'd be a shame.

Posted by Caleb Johnstone-Cowan (Member # 3710) on 10-05-2009, 07:02 PM:

Toy Story 2 comes out 22nd January here. We only have Toy Story for one week, UP opens on Friday.

I don't know why Disney UK has split the two films, but will see if anyone at work knows. I can think of several reasons but the first one that came to mind was kids having to sit through that long a feature.

The grindhouse aspect and intermission clock sounds cool but don't you want people to get bored between shows and wander to the stand.

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 10-05-2009, 07:10 PM:

quote: Caleb Johnstone-Cowan
but don't you want people to get bored between shows and wander to the stand.

Why on earth not?

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 10-05-2009, 09:52 PM:

Toy Story 2 was also available in IB. I wonder how the DLP show compares to THAT.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 10-05-2009, 10:39 PM:

I walked in to an auditorium showing Toy Story 2 tonight, it was about halfway through the movie. There were plenty of glasses in the cardboard bin outside the door so I snagged one. The 3D looked OK. It certainly didn't enhance my enjoyment of the movie and it didn't make me want to hang around and see more. I threw the glasses in the trash and left.

Posted by Jeremy Weigel (Member # 4208) on 10-06-2009, 01:23 AM:

I think they should have split it here too. Most people leave after the first one simply due to the fact that the kids just don't want to sit in a theatre for another 90 minutes. Right now we're averaging more than half the audience leaving after Toy Story and some of those that stay for part 2 leave about half way through. I experienced this myself with my 4 year old nephew. He even got tired of wearing the glasses.

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 10-07-2009, 08:45 PM:

Are some theaters showing these as two separate shows (and billing customers twice)? Seems that way:

This link will only work until Thursday 10/15/09

Posted by Paul Linfesty (Member # 214) on 10-07-2009, 08:47 PM:

Well, that link has in parenthesees that it is a double feature, evenb though they list each showtime seperately.

Posted by Caleb Johnstone-Cowan (Member # 3710) on 10-07-2009, 09:47 PM:

quote: John Wilson
quote: Caleb Johnstone-Cowan but don't you want people to get bored between shows and wander to the stand.

Why on earth not?

I am always online when I can't sleep so the odd missing question mark creeps in! If we had an intermission we would send someone in to hawk in the screen.

It's a shame people are leaving early, Toy Story 2 is one of the few sequels that is as good or better than the original film.

Out of interest have any customers come in expecting to see Toy Story 3 yet? We had a couple actually buy tickets but a few more a bit confused.

Posted by Charles Greenlee (Member # 3856) on 10-28-2009, 02:34 PM:

Saw them. Overall I enjoyed it. Toy Story 1 was ok in 3d, but rather unremarkable. Toy Story 2, the 3d was much better on.

Posted by Karl Borowski (Member # 5424) on 10-28-2009, 02:55 PM:

Charles, are you implying that this has something to do with TSII being newer, better done.

Or do you think it's just from dumb luck / random chance that TSII was made in a matter that, unbeknownst at the time, was more conducive to a later 3D conversion?

(For people that say "wtf" to $20 words, were there more 1st person perspective ping-pong ball at the face shots in TSII?)

I've only seen the first one in 3D DLP, so I guess I'll have to catch the second movie, which never impressed me as much to really comment one way or the other.

IDK if better 3D would be worth my time though.

Posted by Charles Greenlee (Member # 3856) on 10-28-2009, 04:24 PM:

Actually, I'm not sure why it's better. Not really knowing what I'm talking about, I can only guess that the software for the second movie had a truer 3D environment. I'm assuming they were able to go back to the material from the rendering software. Or perhaps TS2 was made with the hopes of being in 3d, even if it wasn't originally released in 3d. I'm sure someone on here would know.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 10-28-2009, 09:03 PM:

We got Toy Story 3 teaser posters today -- they don't say "3D" on them anywhere. The same has been true of the Avatar posters and trailers we've gotten. I'm glad studios are realizing that they can market their movies without relying on 3D to get people in the door. (And in fact, 3D could be keeping some people OUT of the door!)

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 10-28-2009, 09:36 PM:

quote:
(And in fact, 3D could be keeping some people OUT of the door!)

You are 100% correct! Saw it happen umpteen times in Caspar, WY myself whilst sitting in the lobby.

Mark

Posted by Scott Jentsch (Member # 1681) on 10-28-2009, 09:43 PM:

After seeing a different movie, I borrowed a pair of glasses and sat in on Toy Story 2 for a few minutes.

They were in the part where Woody is just meeting everyone and they are riding on the turntable and talking to Stinky Pete.

The 3D effect was very good! It wasn't distracting (aside from having to wear glasses) and I had a real sense of depth from the movie. Even the cellophane in the window of Stinky Pete's box looked like it was at the proper depth in relation to the box and Pete.