Is this an EON sanctioned product or an unlicensed quick and dirty cash grab? I recall Wilson and Broccoli being very cool to 3D photography and not really displaying any understanding or appreciation of the medium at all.
While Dr. No wouldn't be my first choice as an experiment in post-converting a Bond movie it does have a couple of advantages in that the cinematography is fairly static without any significant panning shots and much of the film occurs in fairly bright areas devoid of fog, smoke and other effects that would flatten out the image.
Personally, if you're going to do a 3D conversion of a Bond movie, Moonraker would seem a more obvious choice to me as the imagery would lend itself to a 3D presentation, especially the commando raid in outer space. Skyfall would be another interesting choice since the movie was shot digitally and much of the presentation already has a strong sense of stereoscopy in terms of the placement of objects in the foreground and background as well as characters often moving forward towards the camera.
The technology for 3D post-conversions has improved dramatically. James Cameron's work on Titanic's 3D conversion was first rate and most reviewers commented on how natural and convincing the 3D looked. Of course, Cameron also spent a ton of money on the conversion. 20th Century Fox partnered with JVC to come up with a less expensive 3D post-conversion system which automates much of the process. Their first release with this system was a post-conversion of the Will Smith action vehicle I Robot and the results, while mixed, did manage to yield quite a few nice 3D moments that exhibited good depth and even limited pop out of the screen.
Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing a few of the Bond films converted to 3D as long as they are planned properly and the money is spent to get it done right.