3D pictures first appeared in the fifties and have since undergone periodic revivals and technological evolutions, whilst never really managing to take off as anything more than a gimmick. These previous failures makes it somewhat easy for sceptics to dismiss the recent crop of releases as a temporary fad.

And well, I have to admit that after spending an afternoon watching various objects - cyber-punk robots, aerobatic planes, a singing rabbit… moving towards me out of the screen, I was left a little doubtful about the intrinsic artistic value of the medium and more than ever convinced of its potential to induce migraines (and no, I’ve never had eyesight problems).

Yet, there’s no denying that during the last five years or so the resurgence of 3D cinema has proved more promising than ever. For the animation industry in particular it represents a massive area of growth.

Improvements in production methods, the increasing conversion to digital projection and a need to boost ticket sales against the constant threat from the DVD market and internet piracy are all providing a favourable climate. This is being aided by the big-name directors embracing 3D – take the partly-animated spectacular mega blockbuster Avatar by James Cameron, or on the European side, Luc Besson’s kid’s fantasy flick Arthur. It’s also significant that the Cannes Film Festival chose Pixar’s 3D animation Up as its opening film in 2009 - incidentally, the film which just won the Oscar for best animated feature.

Going back to my sore head, the thing to note is that 3D techniques, and the quality of the results, still vary enormously.

One of the most fundamental technical choices is between converting 2D film into 3D or actually filming in 3D, with the latter coming far ahead for detailed realism (which - in part - explains the visual superiority of a film like Avatar). At the moment budgeting and time constraints often favour conversion - although it is also possible to combine both, with key objects or characters rendered in stereoscopic.

In any case a frenzy to release 2D-shot films, and even older classics, in bonus 3D versions could then do more harm than good: if they fail to provide a truly exceptional cinematic experience, cinema-goers will quickly tire of them and be reluctant to pay the extra 3 Euros. This is because making best use of 3D also requires adaptation of scriptwriting, lighting, framing, editing styles…

The good news is that leaders in the field have already been developing their own cinematic grammar rules.

One of them is Ben Stassen of nWave Pictures (Belgium), whose aim is for a total immersion of audiences. Avoiding the kind of in-your-face stunts traditionally employed in 3D imaging, he advocates concentrating instead on slowly drawing the spectator into the filmic landscape. nWave’s first animated feature Fly Me to the Moon was set in space, and all kinds of oceanic life is captured in its new project Around the World in 50 Years, presented at CARTOON Movie this year. Unfortunately I missed the screening, but audiences in Lyon were certainly convinced: nWave won the best producer tribute award at the event.

Within the next few years we may even already have the means to provide 3D entertainment without the need for wearing special glasses. The most ardent enthusiasts foresee all audiovisual content - not only in cinema theatres but on computer and television screens - being made in 3D in the future, once the necessary hardware is developed and made available at a reasonable cost for consumers. If the real revolution is really to take off though, technological advancements are not enough - we need to deal with the three-dimensional artform in its own language.