Waiting in line for tickets to this week’s film review, Alice in Wonderland 3D, I got to thinking. It’s pretty big business this whole 3-D malarkey now isn’t it? Let’s face it, it’s not really a ‘new’ thing. We’ve all seen stuff in 3-D before. Donned the red and blue glasses and spent more time gawping at our friends’ suddenly nerdy faces than paying attention to the screen. Be honest, the first time you saw a rock fly towards your face in a cinema auditorium, you swerved out the way like it was a wet condom didn’t you? Don’t be embarrassed, so did I. But then I’m a person who, 60% of the time, puts my jumper on the wrong way. It’s not just you (and me) though. Remember footage of the first people to experience the cinema? That film with just a train coming towards the screen. We thought they must have all had mental problems in the late 1800s right? Who could be fooled by a train on a projection screen? Clearly we were wrong.

As I say, 3-D technology has been around for decades, one of my clear memories making up the 80s, are the red and blue, stylish white card rimmed glasses. So why only now is it really starting to kick off. What’s changed?

Because I’m not a member of the 3-D film industry, and because I don’t understand any of the stuff on Wikipedia, the answer can only be theorised. Despite the recent mass availability of the additional dimension, Alice in Wonderland was the very first proper 3-D film I’d ever seen. Before that my only other experience was one of those IMAX Space documentaries that don’t really say anything about Space, and only pump money into explaining what exactly the technology can do. ‘So what if Venus doesn’t have any rings, put some on it, it looks cool in 3-D!’

There’re already two major Hollywood films not only available, but apparently must-see 3-D experiences this year, A.I.W and Avatar. But one thing I was suddenly made aware of before the film started, was the whole change that’s come with it being so popular. When you go and see a film like this, you don’t only get the film in 3-D. You get trailers for other 3-D films (which there were about 7, including the usual box office smash, family and children’s films you’d expect to get in the format. Shrek 4, Toy Story 3, and something about a kid and a dragon How to train Your Dragon, but also proper adult films like Resident Evil, and Clash of the Titans. Even completely pointless films, entirely pointlessly appearing in the format, such as the soon to be released twin dance films Streetdance 3D, and Step Up 3D. Deciding which of those to watch is like deciding which Neville brother is going to rape you. Then trying to work out which one that is. As well as 3-D films, they’ve also got 3-D commercials now! Did you know about this?! I suppose why not? It’s just footage isn’t it. The same kind of stuff. More money is spent on TV ads per second, than films anyway. Much more. So why not.

It’s all over the place. My theory for the sudden influx, is sport. One of the brand new 3-D Cinema ads is for Sky’s 3-D service. Featured is some 3-D programming you might like to watch if you had the service. As with usual Sky ads, they tell you they’ve got films, dramas, documentaries (no one watches the Sky documentaries of course, but people like to pretend they’ve bought the box in part for the ‘award-winning’ documentaries, and not just to record X Factor and Strictly Come Dancing whilst going to the cinema to watch Step Up 3D... Wankers), and sport.

There seems to be a few different ways to create, to present, and to watch 3-D content. Methods employed in the past, are to create the extra dimension in post. If you separate different objects from the screen into different slates, then move them about on the 3rd axis, you can select where they will be seen to be in relation to each other. Then all the computer programme does is take that information and reprint the film reel with two version of each slate. For the red/blue glasses method for example, one version of the slate will have a red filter (which won’t be able to be seen through the red lens, and the other slate in blue will be similarly invisible to the opposite eye. The difference between seeing something in real life, and seeing something on screen, is that in real life you see it at different angles, through your two eyes (apologies to one eye’d readers), then your brain mixes them together to give the 3-D aspect (this is also why cycli don’t make the best drivers). Whereas when you see something on a screen, you still see it in real life yes, but you see a 2D version of it. This is because when it was real, it was recorded from one angle (as if it was being seen through one eye).

This sounds simple, and admittedly it sounds when reading it back, as if we should all be really confused as to where and what things are on the screen. This isn’t the case. If a film is exciting, with good actors, then it can be really engaging, you can at times forget it’s a film at all, and trick your brain into thinking you’re really seeing it. But that’s just because we’re used to watching films. We know the rules of perspective. We know roughly how big something is, and the relation between the size of two objects. We know that a school is bigger than a spoon, so if we see an image of one cowering under the other, we know the spoon must be in the foreground.

In the past, this effect of creating red and blue versions of objects to give a 3-Dimensional effect has been created either physically by hand, or by computer software (this is the reason for the sudden influx of 3-D features around in the 80s-90s, as the technology became cheaper and more available with computers. The same digital method isn’t possible with live events such as sporting occasions. This answer is quite simple, that in order to replicate a 2 perspective view, all you have to do is record the view from 2 perspectives. If the problem arises because the scene has been recorded from one angle with one camera, compared to our natural recording with 2 eyes from 2 angles. Why not record with two cameras, from two slightly different angles, a similar distance away from each other as a human’s eyes? Why not? 2 reasons.

1)Camera technology needs to become small enough to be able to get two cameras this close together. Cameras can be tiny these days, and have been for years, but I’m talking about professional quality 70mm film cameras, not a disposable Fujiwank with a picture of a colourful fish on the front. £6.99 (including developing) from a beach-front shack.

2)The replication of having 2 eyes with 2 cameras is one thing, producing the technology to mix those images into one, where depth perception can be derived from the two different angles at the same time, is a complete other thing. It’s bloody hard.

Now though, a group of boffins seem to have huddled together, realised they’re not going to cure cancer, and started work on something actually possible. They’ve done it! All of it means live sporting events in full 3-D. They’ve already screened two England Rugby Internationals, live in 3-D cinemas up and down the country. With today’s French encounter along with this Summer’s Football World Cup booked in, the future’s bright for the technology. But where does it end?

VHS won the war with Beta-Max, the age old CD won the war with the newer MiniDisc, DVDs won the war with Laser Discs, Blu-Ray won the war with HD DVD. Remember HD DVD? Of course you don’t, it was only about a year ago and it’s already been relegated to the arse-end, grotty basement of your memory. Only one piece of similar technology can exist at once. Blu-Ray’s only just started, most people don’t have a player yet. And now they’re going to release 3-D players onto the bemused world? It’s not just a two horse race either. There’re others on the sidelines... 4-D! What even is 4-D? It could be one of a few things, whichever one bucks its ideas up and turns mainstream first. Physically interactive experiences (blowing wind and splashing water at you when something similar happens on screen). Smell-o-Vision. A small man paid to punch you for a couple of minutes if you really want to watch Ricky Hatton make his 3rd comeback at 52 years old.

And whatever happened to those 3-D players we were promised where a hologram is beamed directly into the centre of your living room? If I were you, I’d save your cash and wait for one of those.

Life’s Better in 3-D - Brought to you by James Wormald -