Peter Jackson Quotes

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!

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 don't really like watching 3-D.

I used to get headaches in 3D movies, and I didn't want the movie to give people headaches.

The only thing about 3-D is the dullness of the image.

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 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 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.

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.

I didn't understand 3-D in the fifties and I can't say I get it now either. I just don't see what the big deal is.

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.

Double Spectacles

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.

If you close one eye and imagine a bright light constantly in front of the other eye, your vision is compromised. You can only see about 30 percent of what you should be able to see.

When i've done camera test, after we've shot and I've seen the monitor with the glasses (wearing a Kimono) and looking by myself in 3D. Oh my god. Especially for a Samurai film. I've never seen that. It's kind of a culture shock.

It's interesting how the frame rate actually changes the perception of the 3D as well as making it more comfortable to watch.

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.

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.

My own idea about 3D is that it is there to enhance the viewing experience but I don't think that you have to use it in a tricky way, I think that the minute you sacrifice story and character for something coming out of the screen, I think you've lost it.

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've never actually seen a 3-D movie. I've seen some dailies in 3-D and it kind of gives me a headache. But it looks really cool.