3D - Third time lucky?

They tried to sell us 3D in the 50s, and again in the 80s.

But now it seems its time has come...

The tech guys love it because the technical side has improved drastically (digital projection means no headache-inducing shimmer as the two images fail to keep 100% rock-steady alignment).

The ad guys love it because they love ANY gimmick.

And the studio executives love it because... just a minute - they are the ones pushing it: why DO they love it? Because it makes money? Or because it's harder to pirate! Either way they DO like it.

But does the public?

Now let me say at once that I haven't seen ANY of the current crop of 3D films - so I want to hear what those of you who HAVE have to say.

Surely 3D isn't really as important an addition as sound and colour, because you can show depth at second-hand just by moving the camera and revealing the relative perspective relationship. Nobody says: "That doesn't look real - I can't sense the perspective." The mind tries to read the depth from the other clues (relative size; focus; lighting etc). And of course, this isn't real 3D, like the hologrammatic projections in Star Wars, where you can view the image from any angle - it is only stereoscopic 3D: a 2D picture for each eye.

The Victorians had stereoscopic viewers, but we still shoot most photos in 2D: the novelty of stereoscopic photos never caught on.

So will stereoscopic 3D cinema and TV really become the norm, or is it all just a marketing ploy?

I saw a short 3D film at an IMAX theatre a few years ago... I think it was about rock stars vs. classical musicians or something of the sort... and it really did feel like I was stepping out into the action.

3D was a marketing ploy in the 1950s, and it failed for several reasons. One was that -- as you mentioned -- the combined images didn't register exactly, and this gave a lot of moviegoers headaches.

Another was that 3D images were too forced. Bwana Devil (1952), the first 3-D feature film, was advertised with the ad line "A lion in your lap!" Which there was. There were also spears thrown at the screen and trains heading toward the camera.

What there wasn't was good acting. The money went toward the gimmicks.

After a while, the public no longer warmed up to 3D. In fact, several made in that format during the 1950s were released only in 2D.

Releasing a film with unperfected technical advances can be hazardous. Becky Sharp (1935), the first feature film to use Technicolor's three-color process, was one example; a critic observed that the actors looked like "boiled salmon dipped in mayonnaise."

But if producers and directors can go beyond making 3D films simply for the sake of 3D -- that is, provide excellent writing, acting, sound, lighting, etc. beyond the tech effects -- then 3D will be here to stay.

Think of black and white TV shows. Sure, old B&W programs show up on TV from time to time. But who would produce a TV series in black and white now? And who would bother buying a black and white set these days?

New formats can endure if they're well-handled. After 1930, all feature films released in the United States were talkies; even Charlie Chaplin had musical scores in City Lights and Modern Times.