Our brains are very good at inferring 3D depth when a scene is rotating like that. There are forms of 3D that rely purely on rotational latency, like the NuOptix system:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cG_fmhl0JtI
To see the 3D effect in that video you must hold something dark over your right eye (only) a lens from a pair or dark sunglasses should work, note that it is NOT a stereoscopic video, your brain is creating the depth using something called the Pulfrich effect:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulfrich_effect
It's a neat trick but obviously has very limited applications.
When it comes to 3D conversion there sure are a lot of haters out there..
There are probably several reasons for this. Purists will only ever except true stereoscopic content (shot with two cameras), and it's true that when 2D conversions are done badly (think Titans) they give the whole of 3D a bad name, and potentially hurt 3D adoption by a sceptical public. You can understand the cynicism with Hollywood studios seeing it as another opportunity to generate more revenue from their back-catalogue it will be very tempting for them to cut-corners, and then there's the whole argument about viewing what the director originally intended, but let's not get into that
I think everyone accepts that professional grade 3D conversion requires a lot of skill and a great deal of time do properly, this will inevitably cause resentment of auto-conversion systems by certain people, but to jump on anyone who even dares to experiment with consumer conversion tools and label them a purveyors of fake 3D is just ridiculous. The best way for people to learn about the value of stereoscopic 3D is to compare it with the alternatives available to them, to compare a stereoscopic video, a professionally converted video, and an auto-converted video, learning to see the differences for themselves, and then hopefully sharing their experiences with others, surely that's what these forums are all about?