Quote

My main camera is a Nikon D3. I use a French camera from the 1800s for wet plate photography, I use a Hasselblad sometimes. But to me the camera really doesn't matter that much. I don't have a preference for film or digital.

It's technically demanding to shoot in 3-D. It's an extra element. Also, just the size of the cameras. They look like these 'Transformers' monsters; they are incredibly big, many of them.

Unlike regular digital or film cameras, which can only record a scene in two dimensions, light field cameras capture all of the light rays traveling in every direction through a scene. This means that some aspects of a picture can be manipulated after the fact.

I look at the camera as sort of a missing link between motion picture photography and still photography.

Actually shooting a 3-D movie is not different at all than making a 2-D one. You never really notice that you're making a 3-D movie. The terminology used around the set is a little bit different, but other than that, you'd never know.

A movie camera is like having someone you have a crush on watching you from afar - you pretend it's not there.

When you shoot a movie, the camera is always taking, taking, taking and not giving anything back.

I photographed with film for many years; now that I work in digital, the difference is enormous. The quality is unbelievable: I don't use flash, and with digital I can even work in very bad light. Also, it's a relief not to lose photographs to x-ray machines in airports.

If you think about all the light that enters - that enters the lens of a camera, that's much more than a photo. The light field is all the higher-dimensional information that's lost in a regular photo. When we record all this information, that provides us the opportunity in software after the fact.

All my films are shot on hand-held cameras. These cameras took five years to build and had to be light enough to be carried.