A Quote by Peter Jackson

I think 3D at 24 frames is interesting, but it's the 48 that actually allows 3D to achieve the potential that it can achieve, because it's less eye strain and you have a sharper picture which creates more of a 3-dimensional world.
The one thing with 3D presentations is I think that 3D itself, whether it's 24 or 48, is at a very interesting point in time.
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.
I was on record before I did 'The Hobbit,' saying I don't care at all about 3D. And I suppose I should now say I care a lot about 3D. I've always loved 3D, I think everything should be 3D, and I think it's just a shame 'The Godfather' wasn't in 3D.
I've always been a fan of 3D, going back to movies in the '50s. I was part of the early '80s 3D craze, which was coming at you in Jaws 3D, so I've always wanted to make a 3D film.
Real anatomy exists in three dimensions, so any time you can view anatomical data in 3D, you'll have a much more accurate picture of the subject, ... Even multiple two-dimensional CT slices can never allow you to understand a subject's dental condition as quickly or as accurately as a quality 3D visualization.
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.
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.
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.
I've always loved 3D. In fact, as a kid, I was exposed to 3D at an early age because my grandfather was a specialist of 3D in cinematheques. And then my cousin put it in 'Science of Sleep' with toilet paper tube cities. But he was a specialist and I always wanted to do something in 3D.
I hope people don't compare 2D and 3D because 3D's new, it's unfair to compare to 2D which is really sophisticated, even when we're jaded about it. 3D just began, give it a chance, let the equipment and projection system catch up and be better, let the price go down, let more filmmakers get a hold of it more easily.
Depending on the budget [whether to use 3D on future movies]. I think I prefer 3D to 2D now. Also, because of 3D I have to use a digital camera, which is the way it's going anyway. That still confuses me, a digital camera versus film.
One of the things I really love about 3D is that because as we grow older on eye weakens more than the other, 3D becomes more difficult for adults to watch than it is for children who have very balanced eyes often.
I don't believe that Citizen Kane or Gone With the Wind, or any damn picture that you can name, would be better off in 3D. I think it's a gimmick. I find 3D distracting.
I think certain movies are right for 3D. I think certain movies are not right for 3D. And I think the specialness of 3D will be worn off if every movie becomes 3D.
I love 3D a lot, I have a great interest in 3D, so if I am given the tools to do a project with 3D, it's a dream for me.
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.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!