Quote

48 frames per second is something you have to get used to. I've got absolute belief and faith in 48 frames... it's something that could have ramifications for the entire industry. 'The Hobbit' really is the test of that.

When you make a 3-D movie you actually have to plan the way the visuals look because there's a parallax issue, and there's an issue of editing; you can't edit very quickly in 3-D because the eye won't adjust fast enough for it.

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 is the way we experience life.

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.

I think it tends to be overused and can be a little bit gimmicky. A lot of people are using 3-D now because they feel have they have to... that will come and go and the pictures that deserve to be in 3-D will continue to be. When it's done bad, it can make you carsick.

In a regular theatre, you'd be kind of moving your eye from one character 5 feet over to the right on the cut. In IMAX, suddenly that's like 20 feet. So I would love to do something. I think I would really want to take the massive screen into consideration so that it would be done properly.

I think the more realistic you try to make the graphics and the experience, the more you limit yourself to a single vision.