Thoughts on 3D

Will 3D TV ever catch on? That is the million dollar question. Or, rather, the 31,010,000,000 dollar question if Sony's current market cap is anything to go by.

At the helm of a technology behemoth with nothing to lose, Welsh/America Sony CEO Howard Stringer has made the ultimate gamble. If he wins, he and Sony will go down in the record books as the people who first the paved way into a new dimension of immersion, metaphorically and literally. If he loses, they disappear off the face of the planet.

Pulling out all the stops, funds and chutzpah, Sony has taken literally every single department's resources and thrown its collective might at trying to convince the public that they want 3D. Because, at heart, they don't. Yet. In the past, present and foreseeable future, 3D has been met with a certain amount of hostility, nausea and regurgitated popcorn. Why should now be any different? The technology is by no means still in its infancy. 'Old' 3D (the red and blue filmed cardboard glasses) is a decades old. In recent times, however 3D has re-emerged, stronger than ever, spurred on by meticulously rendered blue aliens scantily clad in leafy fatigues. Here's the lowdown:

Currently, in the 'new' generation of 3D, there are two main types of technology being pioneered.

1. Something called 'active shutter' technology, these hefty glasses require charging but deliver (marginally) superior picture, clarity, and no ghosting because they flick on and off dozens of times a second to match the also flickering displays. Cost? Anywhere from £50-£100. Read more here

2. RealD 3D, or passive glasses. You'll be familiar with these already if you've gone to see Alice In Wonderland, Avatar or another 3D movie in the past year or so. The dirt cheap (5p ish), plastic sunglass lookalikes are the regular fare for the less discerning viewer. Read more here

Sony currently backs both options, RealD in movie theaters and Active Shutter for its home viewing Bravia series. Both technologies present several problems - On one hand you have the Passive Shutter glasses (RealD 3D). Cheap, light, and nowhere near as good as its counterpart in terms of pure viewing experience. On the other you have the Active Shutters. Expensive, heavy, yet excellent where it counts.

Neither technology is perfect, yet there is currently nothing else out there. And there lies the catch. "Outrage!" I hear you shout. "I've just blown hundreds (possibly even thousands) of pounds or dollars on your shiny new 1080p Plasma, LCD or LED and I've gotta go buy something new! Not only that, but if I plan to watch a movie with more than two people I need to spend hundreds more to even get a good picture out of my television?".

Well.....yes. And it gets worse. "Worse!?" you shout "What could possibly be worse?". If you go ahead and buy that TV, be prepared to buy another one in about five years. But this time, it'll be glasses-less. Yep. No clunky, inconvenient, expensive, easily losable glasses. This technology is still very much in R&D, but if it works it could spell the end for all the companies, like Sony who have thrown their weight behind the risky current tech.