subject: 3D: Fad or Future? [print this page] At present, there is an increasingly passionate debate going on amongst cinema buffs, film critics, industry professionals and virtually anyone who maintains a resounding interest in the future of film; Is 3D just paying us a passing visit, like a traveling circus that's as quick to capture our imaginations as it is to wear out its welcome, or is it here to set up shop and make itself at home as part of our routine, film going experience?First of all, let's be sure that we're not confusing terms. The 3D that we're speaking of here is not the enduring, digital revolution which sees characters and objects created in a three dimensional, virtual environment, brought to life through the principals of animation. I'm talking about stereoscopic 3D. A technology that gives the illusion of depth to a flat image, as recently popularized by films such as Avatar, and virtually every fantasy/action/animation orientated film that's been released since James Cameron's famous epic. Though this is not a new technology by any means, as the first experiments with stereoscopic imaging began as early as the 1800's, it has been refined considerably over the last couple of decades, and is now being endorsed by many of the world's most powerful filmmakers as 'the future of cinema'.The size of debate taking place at this time seems to have a couple of common arguments at it's center: Those unconvinced that 3D is likely to stick around, state that it's visual appeal is gradually wearing off, and that due to the higher ticket prices of 3D, it's only a matter of time before the majority of cinemagoers sway in favor of the conventional and cheaper 2d viewing experience.On the opposite side however, we have those who are not only optimistic about the lasting visual appeal of 3D, but also the financial viability of the medium. With film piracy as the chief looming threat to the enduring prosperity of the film industry, filming in a format that requires special glasses, as well as proper screening conditions and equipment in order for viewers to see the product correctly, seems like a sure safeguard against film piracy's increasingly detrimental effects within a struggling economic climate.As for the allegedly abating capture of the 3D experience; pundits from within the industry say that rather than it being the medium of 3D that's loosing its grip, it is the poor utilization of the medium in an increasing number of cases that may be causing a waning of interest. People in support of this view will quickly point out that there is good 3D and bad 3D, and that 3D conversion, particularly for live action films(films including real, or not entirely digital elements) is largely to blame for the latter.With both sides presenting sound arguments, it's safe to say that there are many, including those within the film industry, who are sitting on the fence when it comes to this whole debate. Is 3D currently savoring it's last precious moments in the limelight before being forced back into hibernation as a mere gimmick attraction, or will it prove to be the next mainstay of motion picture, cementing it's legacy right along side the invention of color film and synchronized sound? Only time can really tell. What's certain is that the film industry never sits still for long, and the question that may continue to beckon it forward is; Whether or not 3D is here to stay, what will be the next revolution in film?
