Hi all,
I went to see two recent 2d to 3D converted films (Harry Potter and G-Force), simply because I was "teed off" with 2D to 3D conversion houses saying that 2D to 3D conversions are as good as and possibly "superior" to shooting in 3D

So I put in a document of my observations after the visit to the cinema.
I seem to be getting a few emails and comments that I know not what I speak for defending the "notion" that conversions are inferior to capturing in 3D in the first place.

For the record, I like conversions but for older movies as a novely concept. and I regard conversions like any other tool or "special effect" at the disposal of film-makers.

Here's the document:
http://www.slideshare.net/clydd/2dto3dconvertedmovies

if you have the time, please do browse it and leave your thoughts on it.

Kind Regards
Clyde

A friend of mine worked on the Harry Potter conversion for months up here at IMAX. He was one of hundreds of people painstakingly working on just those 12 minutes for over a year.

The economics of 2D to 3D conversion certainly don't make sense unless you have a guaranteed audience (Harry Potter, Star Wars, etc.) I think Sony had estimated the lowest cost is about $100,000 per minute of screen time. That seems low to me considering the manpower required.

I saw the first few minutes of Star Wars (Episode IV) at CES in January and it was awesome. (I happened to watch it with Joey Fatone BTW, who is a huge Star Wars fanboy.) I think Mistubishi had the demo footage in side by side format. Man I'd love to get my hands on that demo to try it on the JVC monitor.