You keep repeating the same things over and over.
I find 3D a fascinating subject so I wanted to post 2 interesting articles about the differences between 2D and 3D viewing.

The first one shows that movies made for 3D should be made differently then made for 2D, and consequently 3D becoming the norm will hurt the 2D experience, and vice versa post process converting 2D to 3D makes bad 3D.

http://3dperfection.blogspot.ca/p/psychology-of-3d.html

Some excerpts:

THE PROBLEM

My biggest objective to the current use of 3D is that movie-makers are still thinking in 2D and still filming using 2D techniques. What they end up with is a 2D movie + depth.

THE SOLUTION

For a 3D movie to work, it has to be conceived from start to finish with 3D in mind. 3D is such a powerful tool (as much as colour, sound or even visiual perception itself) that I feel a whole new approach to movie-making is needed.

1) The 3D depth must be deep, immersive and consistent throughout the movie
2) Every single shot needs to be conceived with 3D in mind with the idea that the audience is the camera and a part of the environment.
3) The 3D camera should be thought of as an invisible character moving within the movie. Therefore it is more important than ever that the camera is seen to be the audience's eyes.
4) The composition of each shot is more important in 3D and there should be an obvious sense of background, middle and foreground so that we remain "within" the movie.
5) Fast MTV style editing has no place in a 3D movie but may be used fleetingly for effect e.g. for flashbacks or if a character is watching a 2D monitor or similar etc.
6) A slow tracking camera that moves within the world, especially going down tunnels or roads would work well in 3D and should be used to good effect.
7)The camera should always make us feel a part of the world, so positioning of the camera and its movement is crucial to make us always feel immersed.
8) The 3D depth must never change. Sudden changes of 3D depth will draw the audience out of the movie. A constant 3D depth will allow the audience to settle within the 3D world and stay within that space throughout the duration of the movie.

CONCLUSION

For 3D movies to be successful in the future, a whole new approach to both making and viewing a 3D movie is needed. For this reason, personally I don't want all future movies to be shot in 3D because 2D movies still have their place and importance. No, instead, 3D movies should be made sparingly and with a totally different approach to that of making a 2D movie. I believe that if a 3D movie is done well and gives the audience a real sense of being immersed in the environment, the audience will be willing to sacrifice certain elements that they are used to in 2D movies...i.e. fast editing between scenes. When making a 2D movie, the 3D element can't just be "added on" as an afterthought, it should be as important an element as the storyline and characters because essentially the audience becomes the 3D camera and we become an invisible character sharing the onscreen space of the world that we are watching. A whole new approach is needed for this to work.



The next one is from the founder of Legend3D, inventor of digital colorization and responsible for many 2D to stereographic 3D conversions. It is fairly technical, very interesting too.

http://bsandrew.blogspot.ca/2012/02/3d-movies-and-primal-brain.html

Conclusion

We know that our highly evolved frontal cortex mediates cognitive functions that normally inhibits or controls the amygdala and consequently evoked emotions.  I contend that our brain’s reaction to a 2D movie is more of a top down cognitive process involving the higher order frontal cortex.  The greater our suspension of disbelief, the more these higher cognitive functions come into play, releasing emotions mediated by the lower order amygdala.  On the other hand, in a 3D movie, emotionally packed visual information more directly affects these lower order emotional areas of the brain in a bottom up fashion, evoking a more primal subconscious response.

I can't say I agree with his further conclusions that 3D heightens the story telling. Maybe that's because of focus / convergence, edge problems, and everything feeling hollow getting in the way. People don't all experience things the same, for some the top down process might work more strongly, and for others the bottom up process.

Anyway there is no reason for the 2D art form to go extinct, or take a minority role, ever.
For now 3D still has too many downsides, for the one upside, feeling you are part of the scene in correctly done 3D.

On converting 2D to 3D, well Star Trek Into Darkness looked great converted into 3D, except for a few scenes where the people didn't look exactly right, but Man of Steel always had every person looking properly in 3D converted from 2D.

I don't know about converting 3D into 2D, but I saw my Windows 7 do it when I went to watch some of my 3D videos from my 3DS SD Card on it, and it looks spot on monichromatic looking. (but each time I turn on my Windows 7 and play a 3D video the first time since last turned on, it will take a really long time to play it LOL, but after that it only takes a few seconds even if it's a 3D video I have never played before)

Anyways you did an extremely awesome post. (which is why I bold it, because you make great points left & right)

Thanks for posting all of that. And yeah I agree with pretty much the whole entire post of yours. If you meant something else about converting 2D into 3D & vice-versa, then sorry for my misunderstanding.

Why critics who hate 3D should get their eyes examined:

http://bsandrew.blogspot.ca/2012/03/people-who-hate-3d-movies-should-have.html

Its a really good read.

3D to 2D conversion is nothing more then extracting either the left or right view from the video stream. Nothing special goes on.
As for 2D to 3D that depends on the suitability of the 2D material. When filmed in 2D with 3D in mind it can get good results. Legend3D, whose founder's article I posted, was responsible for the 3D conversion of Man of Steel. So good to hear he knows what he is doing.

My point was that some things that you can do in 2D are not compatible with 3D. Some more obvious then others ofcourse for example action intersecting the screen edges, Escher type / perspective tricks, the impact of dolly zoom shots, side by side shots, long zooms. Others like fast editting, fast camera movement, visual distortion, ageing, 8mm grainyness, fish eye, shaky cam, etc are merely more uncomfortable to watch in 3D.


Maybe I'll give Elysium a try in IMAX 3D, the 4K mastering has piqued my interest. It's a 42km drive though, $17.50 a person and no clue if they actually have 4K projectors, as the normal for Digital IMAX 3D is dual 2K projectors. I guess if they don't advertise it I won't bother.
Here is some info on the specific differences between RealD and IMAX 3D http://423digital.wordpress.com/2013/01/06/reald-vs-imax-digital-3d-whats-the-difference-cnet-asia

They are now promoting UltraAVX as the next level of cinema. It's still showing in 2K though (Christie Solaria 2230 DLP upgradeable to 4K), sreen size comparable to IMAX, but bigger seats and reserved seating. I guess another way to charge more money. Is it so much to ask to get better resolution in the cinema as at home :)

I'm pretty sure the subsitutes for IMAX have 4K projectors. Like XTREME in Rave Theaters (well some Rave Theaters have actual IMAX instead).

If you can find a theater with their own style of IMAX, then it should be 4K projectors. Plus the subsitute IMAX seems to be $15 to $16.

I haven't heard anything about Elysium being in 3D. I saw the 2D trailer and it's clearly going to be more better then what was describe about the movie.

It really shouldn't be so much to ask for no less then 4K projectors, especially when they keep raising the ticket prices a little here & there in general.

Are you going to see Pacific Rim in IMAX 3D or subsitute if you can be sure they are using 4K projectors?

The great thing about IMAX subsitute is that you can see IMAX size screen versions of non-IMAX movies, like R.I.P.D., but only for the first 1 or so weeks of release. Of course it's also advance audio & better seats for IMAX subsitute.