Ironically, it seems to me that the original version would be a more desirable starting point in creating a 3D version than the special edition. For example, if we're going to see the death star blow up in super clear 3D, isn't it better to use the original 1st generation finished shot rather than one that went through the computer an extra time in 1996?

AxiaEuxine said:

I wish this whole 3D fad would disappear. Its a cheap gimmick and still doesnt look real. I might as well hold a viewmaster to my face for 2 hours.

 Hear hear.

xhonzi said:

They provide 2D showings for most-if-not-all.  If you don't like it, don't take it away from those of us who enjoy it.

Most is not all. And some people in Hollywood want this fad to take over movies in general, which is an unnerving thought for those of us who are not into it and who want to still be able to see movies in 2d ten or twenty years from now. Your thing you enjoy may take away what we enjoy, so excuse us for not being happy about it. And we're sick of the endless hype for a money-grubbing gimmick and some of us are sick of hearing the hype for the OT on 3d when Lucas still won't restore the OOT. And some of us are even sick of James Cameron or movies with a political agenda (like Avatar). But us wanting it to go away is hardly taking it away from you. We have no power in this matter, so we're not taking anything away. We are just expressing opinions and that shouldn't bother you.

Sluggo said:

I think it would be closer to stretching a pan and scan movie to widescreen format. 

Why can't George just leave the Star Wars movies alone?  He should go screw with his Howard the Duck movie if he wants to proof a new concept..  At least we don't have half a dozer different versions of Raiders.

I agree. I dread what new changes Lucas will make to the OT for his 3d version. Replace Harrison Ford and Carrie Fisher with cgi versions or something. And then there'll be the blu-ray edition, long after every other film in existence has come out on blu-ray, and it will be the super-super-special edition, with David Prowse replaced with Hayden in a suit and the Yoda and Jabba puppets replaced with cgi.

Here are some little tests I've done some months ago on my silent edition. It's not really good, but maybe could help to understand the concept of 2D to 3D.

 original:

Depth map (quickly hand made on photoshop):

second eye (made on photoshop using Filter>Distort>Displace horizontal -3 and choosing the depth map as displacement map): 

anaglyph result:

animated gif:

A new test made with Triaxes stereoTracer...
As a pair of "stereo" pictures I simply put 2 consecutive frames of my Star Wars scene.
The result was this depth map (the grey bar at the center is simply the restriction of the unregistered version):

And still with StereoTrace I generated 5 frames and made an animated Gif out of them:

While there are some obvious very bad unwanted distortions, I think it's pretty amazing giving the poor amout of difference that the two original pictures has.

skyjedi2005 said:

Who wants to see Episode 1 in 3-D?

Jar Jar binks in 3-D but no oot restored, thanks george!

It'll be worse than that. I bet there will be more changes made to the OOT when it's put out on 3d. Look for David Prowse replaced with Hayden in a suit like from the nooooo scene and the Yoda puppet replaced with a cgi Yoda that glowers in a macho way.

I read that Cameron is working on converting Titanic and it should be ready in 2011 for release. I wouldn't mind seeing it in the theater again.

So I guess the knowledge and technology is up for it. So  bring it on, Georgie

Last we heard, Lucas was put off by the sheer per-minute cost of the conversion, especially since he's looking at 12 hours of it. Anybody know if the cost has gone down significantly in the last year or two?

Well, he could save some money by only doin around 6 hours...

Baronlando said:

Last we heard, Lucas was put off by the sheer per-minute cost of the conversion, especially since he's looking at 12 hours of it. Anybody know if the cost has gone down significantly in the last year or two?

I don't know, but I heard Ridley Scott wants to convert his futur Robin Hood in 3D...

What would be the point in converting a new movie in 3D before its release (instead of shooting it directely with 3D camera) if the cost of the conversion is so high?  So I think the cost has gone down (or Ridley has gone stupid).

I read that it would cost about 10-12 million dollars to convert it. After the huge success with Avatar that would be money wisely spent. I hope Ridley pulls it through.

With that price it would cost Lucas about 60-80 million...?

I really don't think that too many people would pay to see the prequels again, 3D or not. And the old movies was shown theatrical just 12 years ago. So I understand why he'd held it back.

But than again, he's all for the new technology so I guess it's just a matter of time.

TMBTM said:

I don't know, but I heard Ridley Scott wants to convert his futur Robin Hood in 3D...

What would be the point in converting a new movie in 3D before its release (instead of shooting it directely with 3D camera) if the cost of the conversion is so high?  So I think the cost has gone down (or Ridley has gone stupid).

Well, Avatar could have flopped and that would pretty much been the end of Live Action 3D.

Clash of the Titans is also being converted...

And me thinks that the technology nowadays is good enough to create 3D instead of filming it.