Robert Richardson & 3D, Film vs. Digital: Oscar 2012 Q&A
Q. All right. I'm wondering if you can talk about working in 3D. This is not the first 3D film to win, but it's unusual to get recognized with 3D.
A. You're right. I think the odds of winning are extraordinarily small. I was the crystal ball didn't work this way. [?] I know it worked that way for Mark Wahlberg, but for me, I didn't see it. I don't know [unintelligible] a Mark Wahlberg piece, but his predictions are near two for three. Uhm, yeah, I know it's very difficult to choose 3D, and I'm surprised by it as well. And I think it's not just 3D. It's a digital aspect versus a film aspect.
Q. Where do we go now, dramatically, with 3D now that you've paved the way?
A. That's a huge question, but I don't think there's any limits for it. 3D is a very solid step. I believe it's 15, 20 percent, give an arbitrary percentage. The advantage is a tool towards what filmmakers can use, if used, as just that, as a tool, not as a gimmick. There's an end. I do believe it will alter that, but, technically, I don't believe we can go into that here, 'cause I could go on for an hour [inaudible]. ...
See the full interview here: