Originally Posted by FilmReverie
I couldn't disagree more. Outside of Titanic every film that has been converted has shoots that show it was converted. This includes Gravity which was mostly native 3d (the cgi). If you are making a film that is going to be 3d, the director should be concentrating on the 3d, as 3d should be part of the film.
Shooting in 3d is getting easier and more affordable. .
I am not saying the director should not concentrate on 3D, but when shooting in 3D, each shot must include parallax adjustment, object alignment, and host of other things that double the length of production. Just as you've seen several conversion issues, I've seen lots of native 3D issues in films where the alignment was off and confusing to the eye. So yes, I will agree that if you can get a director that is instructed in 3D, using 3D, then that's a win-win, but for the most part, I've enjoyed conversions as much as I've enjoyed native 3D ala Avatar (had gross misalignment issues in the opening scenes, and some of the interior shots of soldiers had very mixed depth-of-field issues). Notable mediocre native 3D includes: Resident Evil-Afterlife, Transformers 3, Final Destination, Drive Angry. I really worried about 3D fading quick after I saw these.
Anyway, the argument will continue, and let's hope we are both on the winning side of it--