Peter Jackson Quotes

Forty-eight frames per second is a way, way better way to look at 3D. It's so much more comfortable on the eyes.

I don't particularly enjoy watching films in 3D because I think that a well-shot and well-projected film has a very three-dimensional quality to it, so I'm somewhat sceptical of the technology.

I'm a massive hater of 3D. I don't like it at all. For me, you go to a movie theatre and you want to be taken to a place and transported to a place and be in that environment, and I know 3D is meant to do that, but the effect for me is the reverse. I feel like I'm looking though muddy water, and I can't really see the image.

I believe in 3D for certain kinds of films. I certainly believe in using 3D for all things in animation because animation has such clarity and so much depth of focus. It worked great with 'Avatar' because 70 percent of that film is animated.

I don't really like watching 3-D.

It might sound odd, but I want to thank Michael Bay because he's been saying how important it is to show 3D with the right luminescence. And that's very important for this film, a lot of which was shot at night or with very low illumination.

You gotta understand, when moving images first started, people wanted sound, color, big screen and depth.

I don't enjoy movies in 3D. I find I can't engage with the story as well.

Actually, 3D is really the most normal thing because it's how those of us with two eyes usually see the world. TVs are the unusual things in 2D!

I like that 3D is based on the fact that you look with two eyes, so two cameras imitate that.

3D prefers you to use wider lenses because when things are out of focus, and yet it's in 3D, it bothers you.

I have my misgivings about 3-D. I don't like the lack of blacks and whites, how it dulls the image, how the color gets corrupted. I don't necessarily like the experience of having heavy glasses in front of me.

The 3D thing has been abused slightly, I think. There is no question about that. 'Avatar' did it magnificently, and then, of course, there was the old 'leaping on the bandwagon' thing where there have been one or two films which, let's face it, all know look bloody awful with the 3D.

To be quite honest. I have seen a few things in 3D, and it didn't involve me anymore than when I saw something in 2D.

The 3D world allows you to engage even more with a film because you're somehow drawn into the landscape or the universe of that scene. Even when it's two people talking at a table, you feel like you're a third party.

The future of 3D will be defined by TV.

At 3-D Imax theaters, audiences have shown they are willing to pay a premium to wear headgear fitted with liquid-crystal lenses synchronized via infrared signals with the movie projector, which runs at twice the normal frame rate. These movie viewers plumb new depths in depth perception - they experience extreme realism.

Stereograph

I think 'Avatar' is much more appropriate to high frame rates because it's like a ride, and it's futuristic, and vividness and sharp edges and clarity would be an asset.

I've seen 3-D movies where it seems a little crude or too in-your-face.

I don't think 3D television gets huge adoption until the consumer experience is no different than HD television. Until you can sit down on your couch and just turn on your TV, and it's 3D without anything else happening, I don't think it'll be a massive adoption.

I don't like 3D movies that have things popping out of the screen. Firstly, I find it straining on my eyes, and more importantly, it distracts me from the movie.

I really believe that, as filmmakers, we have a duty, which is, if we're asking people to pay a premium price for a 3D ticket, we have a duty to deliver a premium product.

When people see what real 3D looks like, they'll go, "Oh, that's why I spend an extra $5 a cinema ticket. That's worth it!"

When you're dealing with shooting a lot of live action in 3D, you're committed to how much 3D you're giving the audience.