CLICK HERE TO RETURN TO BLOG
.

There's been a lot of hype about 3D recently. Just when you thought your newly purchased HD monitor was future proof, a new technology comes along to make you feel inferior once again. Surely 3D is the future?!?!

Not everybody's convinced by 3D. I have read on various forums that 3D is just a gimmick and that it'll never catch on. The main argument seems to be that glasses suck and that there isn't any real way of making 3D stuff with out them.

I agree with that, but come on, people- 3D IS the future. When you look at a photograph, or watch a movie, the one thing that's stopping it from looking realistic is that distinctive lack of D. There may be 4 other senses to focus on, but 3 of them are even more difficult to simulate than 3D. Why don't we just focus on perfecting visual and audio before moving onto other senses? It makes perfect 'sense' to me.

I'm a firm believer in archiving. Everything I do, I store in the highest quality possible. I shout at my Mum if she halves the image size to 'save disc space' (Come on Mum, upgrade from that 2003 system!). Even with two 1.5 TB hard drives, I'm struggling. I save every video clip I do in the highest possible format, at 20 mbps. Yup, forget standard 6.4 mbps 1440 x 1080, I DEMAND 60 fps, interlaced 1920 x 1080. Because in 10 years' time I'll be thanking myself for it. Look back 10 years. Would you save photos in 16 bit colour? NO you wouldn't! but imagine you did to save space. Today you'll wish that you hadn't. Memories fade with time with out being limited to poor backup quality.

Woops, I went off-topic. The point I'm trying to make is, I'd HAPPILY move to a 40 mbps, 60 fps, 3D HD backup format for my videos if I was able to. I might not reap the rewards for 5 years or so, but once the technology catches up I'll be pleased I took the effort today. Plus, hard drives are only going to get larger.

The main difference between a 3D monitor and a normal one is its refresh rate. Normal computer monitors are roughly 60 Hz, allowing for a smooth 60 fps. For 3D, it alternates the view between one eye and the other, halving the number of frames each eye can see. To counter for this, monitors need to be capable of 120 Hz. This will have benefits even when not in 3D. Movies viewed at 60 fps are better than at 30 fps. Believe me, you can see the difference. (Don't use VLC, from what I've seen it's limited to 30 fps. WMP or MPC are better!) 120 Hz will allow for smoother performance in games and the eventual possibility of 120 fps movies (Don't ask why, though I'm sure the porn industry would benefit). 120 Hz isn't new. Old CRT monitors were able to do it and extreme PC gamers swore by them. it's nice to see LCDs finally reach the standards set by CRTs. Movies currently run at 24 fps. Blurring makes it look smoother, but ultimately, higher fps will really help quality within movies as well. It's about time we moved out of the archaic 24 fps standard.

Despite all this, some people would still like 3D to die out again. It's been attempted in the past and it failed, but once again I think the haters are being negative and a bit arrogant of today's technology and tomorrow's possibilities. I back James Cameron's views that 3D should become a standard, despite others arguing that it should become the standard once the technology itself is the norm. Which comes first, the chicken ot the egg? I don't think that people will feel any incentive to upgrade their displays from HD to 3D HD, unless there's a substantial backlog of titles that support the technology. 3D today isn't wasted, it's just money in the bank for tomorrow.

HD allowed all movies to be re-sold in the new HD format. Even 70's film Clockwork Orange is available in HD (Yes, proper HD). Unfortunately, 3D doesn't have the same advantage. Films need to be filmed in 3D in the first place if they're to be viewed in 3D. I can't believe some of the debates I've had with people regarding this. There's no way of making 3D from a 2D source properly. Sure, some programs try, by making things that move faster appear nearer, but it can easily be fooled and the results are mixed.

In conclusion, 3D is the future. A bit like HD (Or what ever you want to call a 'higher quality format'), I can't understand why it's taken so long to get going. We'll be thankful for these advances in the future, even if it is a pain now. Plus now 120 Hz monitors will start coming back into fashion. Yessss.