A Quote by Neal H. Moritz
If I'm shooting actually a live-action movie and I feel like I can get the shots that I need with the existing 3D cameras, then I see there is no reason to not use those-to not shoot it in 3D. But there are limitations to the 3D cameras in terms of the amount of them, in terms of the size of them, in terms of where you can actually shoot them. There are definitely limitations so you have to weigh the costs. And you have to weigh also what ultimately what creatively you want to get.
Related Quotes
When we wrapped Resident Evil, we were a 3D movie, but it was no big deal. And then, Avatar came out and the whole of Hollywood was like, "Look at these grosses! 3D is huge. Let's all be 3D!" We just got on with doing what we were doing, which was making what we think is a really quality, kick-ass 3D movie, and we'll really be the first live-action 3D movie of the year.
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.
The 3D, it changes the way you shoot in a way, especially when you're shooting live action 3D elements.
3D, the ever-changing 3D. It's great. It's been really interesting. My family came to the set a few times, and I see them with their 3D glasses on. It's lovely to have them there and be a part of it, and see the magic that we're playing with, because it really is incomprehensible until you see it on a 3D screen.
Now 3D is no longer a fad but I don't get all crazy about it and say that everything has got to be in 3D. It is a nice tool, like color or sound or whatever. I was quite intrigued and I learned, 3D opened up a lot of questions about how to use it. I think it is great. It's like if a movie needs to be in black and white then that's how I will shoot it. I see color as just another character or black and white as a character.
You cannot do everything you want with the 3D camera, it's too big, and the digital quality of those cameras is a little bit limiting. With film, you have a lot more subtly, like with highlights and color. In terms of sharpness they (both formats) are very close; but in terms of nuance, of color and contrast, film is far superior.
I think some people feel that if you are going to have 3D, then you have to shoot in 3D, but they shoot 3D, so of course they're going to say 'my way of doing a film is better.' I'm not telling anyone how they should do their film, so why should anyone tell me how I should do mine?
What makes a mockery of a lot of these 3D conversions, where they're shot in 2D and converted to 3D. Having laid a real 3D movie, you realize that it's right in the production design. You design sets that enhance the 3D and you design interactive elements, like the rain or smoke. If you're shooting 2D, you don't know about that.
3D needs a trained eye. It can't be done by everybody. People who just do 3D just for the sake of commercializing their movie another five or six percent and they don't know really how to do it, they should care how to do it better by bringing other directors and collaborators into their lives to help teach and instruct how you really make a 3D movie because it's not just like putting a new lens on a camera and forgetting it. It takes a lot of very careful consideration. It will change your approach to where you put the cameras. So, 3D isn't for everybody.
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.
Having made a real 3D movie, you realize that, right from the production design, you're designing sets that complement the 3D. You're designing interactive elements, like rain or smoke - all this particulate matter in the air enhances the 3D. But if you're shooting in 2D, you don't know about that.
3D is very exciting. I love it. I'm a complete convert. Everything for me, from now on, is 3D. I'm completely convinced it's the future of home entertainment, as well as cinema entertainment. I think it's a paradigm shift, in terms of cinema, and those things don't happen very often. The introduction of sound, the introduction of color photography and now 3D have been the big shifts. They happen once every 40 or 50 years, so it's very exciting to be a filmmaker, working while one of them is happening.
I get a little nauseous and disoriented watching 3D, but as a kid I loved it and I was really into it, so if a movie can be in 3D, then why not?
The cameras were a little twitchy, and you'd get less footage and less set-ups every day. The interesting thing about it was that you just composed images in a completely different way because we had big 3D monitors on set, and you'd wear the glasses and see the image in 3D.
You get the most 3D effect when it starts about three to four seconds, that's when it starts feeling 3D. And then what you do, quick shots are always flat.
I'm not a massive fan of 3D. I've seen some good 3D, and I've seen quite a lot of bad 3D. I think if a film is created for the shock effect of 3D, then it's a certain type of film that I'm not massively bothered about.
Related Authors
Declan Donnelly Quotes
English
Producer
Ekta Kapoor Quotes
Indian
Producer
Gauri Khan Quotes
Indian
Producer
J. Michael Straczynski Quotes
American
Producer
James Wan Quotes
Australian
Producer
Jason Blum Quotes
American
Producer
Jimmy Iovine Quotes
American
Producer
Julie Plec Quotes
American
Producer
Noah Hawley Quotes
American
Producer
Noel Edmonds Quotes
English
Producer
Paul Heyman Quotes
American
Producer
Roger Ross Williams Quotes
American
Producer
Samuel Goldwyn Quotes
American
Producer
Shonda Rhimes Quotes
American
Producer
Travis Knight Quotes
American
Producer
Troy Carter Quotes
American
Producer