[MBCook]

> Roger Ebert is the sort of person who believes any technology older than him is normal and anything newer is inherently wrong because it's not what he's used to.

I think you're being far too hard on him. He had seen the 3D fad come and go before. He had a set of standards and I think he was right to stand by them. As it is 3D adds almost nothing to film making at the moment: there are technological limitations and we don't have a good idea of how to use it. Right now it increases ticket prices, is usually 'shoveled-on' to a movie, and reduces the light hitting the viewer's eyes (a long-standing pet peeve of Ebert).

> We didn't evolve to blend a series of 30 static images per second into seamless motion, but we cope with that so well that no-one actually thinks about it.

There is a reason we don't see many fast pans in movies. 24fps forces some compromises. I have no doubt that 48 (or something higher) will eventually become the standard, but just like color/sound/3D we'll need to develop the techniques around it to use it properly.

[dagw]

As much as respect and often agree with Ebert, he has an annoying tendency towards absolutes, just like the video games and art thing. I'm in full agreement with him on this at the current level of technology, but "never" is a long time and I'm certainly not willing to bet on what's going to happen 50-75 years down the road.