Audio Video News

Roger Ebert, one of the nation's most eminent film critics, is giving the 3D revival a thumbs-down.

"3-D is a waste of a perfectly good dimension," said the critic for the Chicago Sun-Times in a diatribe published in Newsweek. His lead summarizes his objections as follows: "Hollywood's current crazy stampede toward it is suicidal. It adds nothing essential to the moviegoing experience. For some, it is an annoying distraction. For others, it creates nausea and headaches. It is driven largely to sell expensive projection equipment and add a $5 to $7.50 surcharge on already expensive movie tickets. Its image is noticeably darker than standard 2-D. It is unsuitable for grown-up films of any seriousness. It limits the freedom of directors to make films as they choose. For moviegoers in the PG-13 and R ranges, it only rarely provides an experience worth paying a premium for."

Perhaps Ebert's most telling point is that it doesn't take 3D technology to suggest depth perception. Perspective does that: "When you see Lawrence of Arabia growing from a speck as he rides toward you across the desert, are you thinking, 'Look how slowly he grows against the horizon' or 'I wish this were 3D'?"

Ebert is not opposed to next-generation technology but he says Hollywood is betting on the wrong horse with 3D. Instead, he suggests MaxiVision48, which shoots film at 48 (as opposed to the conventional 24) frames per second to provide "smooth projection that is absolutely jiggle-free." Of course film is already projected at 48fps and existing video technologies upconvert 24fps to refresh rates of up to 240Hz, eliminating flicker and reducing motion artifacts, but presumably Ebert is referring more to public exhibition than to home technology.

Ebert has won a Pulitzer Prize for film criticism. More recently his newspaper blog has won a Webby Award. See his essay in Newsweek.

For an alternate perspective, see Pete Putman's rebuttal at HDTVexpert.