The Future of 3D

I went to see Toy Story 3 today (in 3D of course) which has prompted me to think about the future of 3D TV and movies. First of all, let me say that despite the extortionate amount of money I spent on watching this film today - nearly £20 - I would do so again and again. It was simply brilliant, a great film full of highs and lows with plenty of the great humour you expect from one of these films. It was nice to see an audience of similarly aged people as well. I was half expecting mostly children although as it was during school time, perhaps not (have they broken up for the summer yet?) There was only one kid there and the rest were either adults or students.

The extortionate cost was made up of the following. Tram ticket - £3.50, film ticket - £5.40 plus £1.50 for the 3D. On top of that I decided to get their clip on glasses as I have no contact lenses with me in Sheffield at the moment and putting two sets of glasses on doesn't really work. That set me back another £4 and then I paid £3 for a small drink! In total, it cost me £17.40 to see this film - certainly not the cheap day out I was expecting.

I am more than happy to see animated films like this in 3D and in fact, I encourage people to do so. Because they are computer generated in 3D to begin with, there is no additional process to go through to make them 3D. No expensive cameras are needed and you don't get the same eye strain as you might do with a live action film. I am still very sceptical however about seeing a real film in 3D. By real I mean non-animated because I'm not sure the 3D element would add much. In fact, I think the loss of many of the techniques used in 2D cinematography cannot be counterbalance by the benefits of 3D resulting in a lesser finished product.

About the only times I could see it working would be for films such as Avatar or a space based action movie. Even for the latter I am still unsure because the high pace of action movies isn't really suitable for 3D because your eyes need time to adjust to the camera angle changes. It wouldn't be an option to lose these other camera angles either because they are what give the viewer a sense of what is going on and the changes are what keeps the tempo of the film up. The benefit of 3D for a space based movie is that you get the wow effect when you cut to the computer generated space shots and you can experience the vastness of space which cannot be captured in 2D. Similarly, films with a lot of wide landscape shots of lush countryside would benefit from this too and as long as they use the 3D to show depth rather than to push things in your face then they will be going the right way. My favourite 3D scenes are those that give you the impression of seeing things far into the distance and as this is what your eyes are used to anyway, there is no extra strain on them.

I am going to take a gamble now and say that 3D in the home is a long way off - perhaps ten years or so before everyday TV programmes are shot in 3D. I'm not even sure if ITV and BBC will bother producing / commissioning content to be shot in 3D because they would have to justify the extra cost associated with it. They won't be able to do this until either the cost is significantly lowered or the public are demanding it. Look how long it took to get is to adopt HDTV and even now there is only one BBC HD channel. Sky have already adopted the format for their sports channels and this is fine because they will be watched in pubs who can afford to buy expensive TVs and give everyone glasses. But before 3DTV becomes commonplace, they need to find a better solution than giving everyone silly and expensive glasses to wear.

Who knows, maybe in five years time I will be eating my words but even with the increasing rate of technological development, I can't see it happening and I'm usually pretty optimistic about these things. I think by the time I come to buy my next TV, it will be OLED - or the next best thing if it has a successor by then, but not 3D.