Visual Immersion Quotes

Usually, when you go to a movie, your consciousness floats above the film. 3D sucks you in and makes it a visceral experience.

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.

The first effect of looking at a good photograph through the stereoscope is a surprise such as no painting ever produced. The mind feels its way into the very depths of the picture. The scraggy branches of a tree in the foreground run out at us as if they would scratch our eyes out

In television, images are projected at you. You are the screen. The images wrap around you. You are the vanishing point.

I mourn the loss of the gigantic screen, but I guess you can't have everything.

I have seen games on Xbox 360 and HD TV and I'm amazed at how realistic the players look.

I wasn't sold on 3-D until it was in my own home. The images jump out at you, even more so than in the theater, because you're in tighter quarters and you're closer to the TV, so it feels like the depth is very dramatic.

To see life. To see the world. To watch the faces of the poor, and the gestures of the proud. To see strange things. Machines, armies, multitudes, and shadows in the jungle. To see, and to take pleasure in seeing. To see and be instructed. To see and be amazed. (Describing the powers of photography; written for the launch of LIFE Magazine, 1936.)

Not every movie, in my opinion, should be in 3D. There are a lot of stories I wouldn't shoot in 3D. But, you know, there are movies that are perfect in 3D.

A movie tends to box you in, at least as far as the aesthetics. You have an incredibly kinetic experience, which is the joy of cinema.

What's genius about 'Gravity' is that you are close upon the actors, but 3D works best when you have foreground, middle ground and background.

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

The whole idea is to propose an immersive experience. When you watch tennis, you watch from the outside, you're far from the court, the camera is far away and the whole story is about two persons hitting a tennis ball and trying to win.

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!"

The remarkable thing about 'Avatar' is the degree to which the technology is integral to the story. It is important to show Pandora and its Na'Vi natives in 3-D because 'Avatar' is fundamentally about the moral necessity of seeing other beings fully.

I've always seen my movies in particular as being an immersive experience. I mean, with the technology at my disposal, I've always tried to make them as immersive an experience as possible.

Sometimes you see films, not just science fiction films, where you get the sense that if the camera were to pan just to the left or the right, all of a sudden you'd be seeing light stands and crew standing around. But with 'Blade Runner,' the beauty of it is that it felt like a real, breathing city.

The computer is designed to mimic reality. And in an animated world, in my perspective, that's the worst thing to do. I want people to walk into a movie theater and be transported to a different world.

I think 3D can be an incredible thing on a movie and a terrible thing for a movie, depending on what kind of movie it is. And I've seen movies where I thought the 3D really enhanced the experience, and sometimes where I thought it just detracted from it.

I don't want to be a grumpy old man or too pessimistic, because if I have a chance, I would prefer to watch a film in the cinema with an audience on a big screen instead of watching it on a cell phone. It's a very different experience, but somehow I think this form will have its own future and life.

The dimensionality of 3D, the depth of field, the dynamism... it's an immersive experience. And on top of that it's great because the new glasses don't make you want to throw up and they don't give you paper cuts!

The normal cut in a theatrical film is anywhere from 3 to 6 seconds. That means thousands of images in a film over a couple of hours. In Visitors the cuts come every 70-plus seconds. The point of view is that the stiller one can be the more open to their senses they become. The whole world is quick right now. If things can be slowed down they stay in memory longer.

The biggest surprise watching video on the tiny, 2.5-inch screen (320 by 240 pixels) is completely immersive. Three unexpected factors are at work. First, the picture itself is sharp and vivid, with crisp action that never smears the screen is noticeably brighter than on previous iPods. Second, because the audio is piped directly into your ear sockets, it has much higher fidelity and presence than most peoples TV sets. Finally, remember that a 2.5-inch screen a foot from your face fills as much of your vision as a much larger screen thats across the room.

What I love about IMAX is that, when you're in an IMAX theater, in a museum, science center or aquarium, it's eight stories tall and it's immersive, and you can see it in 3D, you really feel like you're being transported to that place.

Science-fiction cities in general, I think, are so hard to get right, because it's so easy to just play some cheesy music or do something that takes you right out of it, but 'Blade Runner' got it right, and I love that about the film.