The conversion to 3D requires access to certain resources that simply aren't there relative to the Bond franchise; that is, you can convert Titanic because it is a comparatively recent product and the raw 70mm stock is there along with all the FX files* but you can't convert, say, The Wizard of Oz because all that exists are answer prints. I doubt there's enough material available to convert anything prior to GE (certainly nothing prior to DAF, what with EON maintaining that all outtakes, etc. up to that point were destroyed) and converting only part of the library would seem a little awkward from a marketing standpoint. I agree, though, that future Bonds will almost certainly be in 3D based solely on the rationale of box office revenue.
Much of this is true relative to IMAX as well: you have to have ultra high-resolution negatives (or, given the move to digital, files) as a base or you're just taking a standard film and enlarging way past the level it was meant to tolerate.
*Done correctly, CGI sequences represent a monumental 3D challenge, not simply doubling the computing time (which can be overnight for a few frames) but requiring considerable work to layer elements and separate components like smoke, fire, etc.
I don't know where you're getting your supposed "information" but most 3D conversions are done entirely with a scan of a high quality film print or negative as their basis and nothing more is required.
The basic process involves the original image(s) being manipulated by digital artists to essentially "photoshop" a second image that emulates the perspective of a view from a slightly different angle from the originally composed shot in the film in order to create the effect of the view from a second "eye". The initial image first has several layers manufactured through painstakingly cropping the exact edges of the desired objects in-frame. The items that are being made into different layers of the 3D image are then "completed" by essentially copying/pasting them from earlier or later frames in the shot (or completely manufacturing them in the case that there is insufficient picture information in previous or latter film frames) to make them look as though they were naturally viewed from the previously mentioned "slightly different angle". The basic result, if the image is not properly processed, would look somewhat like a "pop-up" book with certain items looking as though they are flat pieces of paper in front of other pieces of paper.
If the process is completed correctly, the "pop-up" book effect diminshes though the use of slightly maniuplating particular objects within the frame to make them look as though they were truly viewed from the "second eye" of the 3D viewer.
This may have not been the BEST explanation of how 3D conversion is done, but it should give a very basic understanding and most certainly does not require anything more, at
minimum, than a film print in good condition... the Star Wars films certainly don't have anything more than that. Episode I was recently given a new scan of the original negatives, but Episodes II and III only have 1080p video as their highest-quality source (and I highly doubt the original CG is going to be re-rendered for any of the 3D shots) so those films will end up as proof that an incredibly high quality source isn't necessary for a mainstream 3D conversion job... or it will fail miserably quality-wise and prove that you
do need higher than 1080p as a source. Also, unless a new film scan is done, the original Star Wars trilogy won't look very good either: they were scanned in at 2K (which is only
very slightly higher quality than 1080p).
If anything, the 9 fully Lowry-restored Bond films (DN-LALD + Moonraker) would most likely look better after a 3D conversion than any of the Brosnan-era films due to the incredibly high quality of the scans (4K vs 2K) and the generally pristine look of those restorations.
As for IMAX, you may get slightly higher quality, but (since it's just based off of a 35 mm negative) you're not going to get more detail than the original filmed "resolution"... it's just going to be on a bigger screen. I don't know if the IMAX presentations are going to be digital or film prints (maybe either one depending upon location) but the only plus of IMAX, apart from the bigger screen, is the fact that it's more likely you'll see a 4K projector in an IMAX theater than you would in a regular digital cinema. If there are any other benefits to IMAX, I would definitely like to know of them... I just don't really see the point atm.
Edited by larrythefatcat, 03 March 2012 - 08:40 PM.
