There are 3 3D systems available now; RealD, XpanD, and Dolby. Sony showed their version to a select audience at CineExpo last June, so they will be the 4th at some unannounced date.
Since it was active glasses, you must have seen the XpanD system. I haven't seen an excellent demo of theirs, only small expo rooms, so I can't comment.
I have seen the Dolby and the RealD system, which was the first one to hit the ground running a few years ago, Interview with Josh Greer, Real D .
When I saw my first clip of Chicken Little with the RealD system long before it was released, I thought that my eyes were going to bleed from little needles being stuck in them. I saw their reel recently, and it was surprising how much better it was. Saw some post work being done with it, and I must say that the entire technology is quite cool and capable. Saw a bunch of the U2 concert on it, with a great sound system and I can imagine that the day will come soon when people won't want to see a concert film any other way...or vice versa, that people will go to cinemas to see concerts.
One advantage of DCinema is that niche products can be made and distributed, and niche markets can be hit because the distribution costs are lower, so concert films in a cinema with a great sound system can become marketable for example...or video games being played against cross town or cross planet rivals from a cinema.
In fact, the day will come soon when live 3D DCinema events can all be done for a marketable price (theNBA did a basketball game to good reviews last year) and people will flock to theaters for the event (not talking about 3 week long runs.) They already are flocking to cinemas to see live opera, broadcast from NY and SF and other places, in 2D. 3D will make it even more attractive when all the parts are nailed together and you bring your own fitted and/or prescription 3D glasses.
All current systems have a problem getting enough light to the eyeballs because of the way that each technology presently works. RealD handles this with a silver screen. Their glasses are kept cheap because they are to keep or be throw-aways. Dolby and XpanD are more expensive and washable. Dolby even has lenses that are hemispheric so that the distance of the light coming to the eyeball from the lens is the same as the eye moves. Somewhat more comfortable and they aren't as bulky cumbersome. (There is an inherent bulkiness to all the glasses because they have to keep all reflected and off-axis light out of the eyes to keep up the effect. So all the glasses have wide plastic parts.)
3D is still hard to do, and the production teams are still learning what can be done and what can be done well and what shouldn't be done. Animations were the first, and they have turned the corner. Several studios are now committed to making everything in 3D, with 2D as the down-convert.
There are some big producer non-animation productions being done in 3D now (Cameron getting the most press because he is also using the RED camera - this article has some good pull quotes James Cameron supercharges 3-D .) As the real pros get the technique down, it is likely that the movies won't give the same specious feeling - that the 3D will be part of the way we see things, not a technique to scare the bejezuz out of one with a snake being thrown in your face.
Journey got a lot of flack for appearing to just be pandering to the 3D coolness bandwagon. Unfortunately, there just aren't enough 3D sites...there aren't really enough DCinema sites...so they couldn't even pull off that stunt. I saw a part of it a year ago. In the scheme of things, one knows that this kind of picture had to be made, as schmalzy as it was. So fine, it is behind us now.
All in all, this is not likely to be a technology that goes away. It works, though it is still being refined. It is nothing like the old systems by any stretch. And while the old systems would get one producer backing it and then it disappeared, all the studios are behind this one. There is a consumer technology following in a few years. There are even systems that are showing a nascent technology of converting some classic 2D into 3D. I saw a minute or two of the original Star Wars that was done at a jillion dollars a second, and it was not cool at all. It was just perfect. At that point I realized that there is a chance that this is how movies will just be. </sorry for hype motions>
It is also an add-on to digital cinema technology in general, which is slowly advancing toward a general roll-out. 3D costs a lot of money. In the neighborhood of 15-20k more, on top of the 100k dcinema system. This is a technology where, besides getting rid of a chemical/plastic/environmental nasty, the studios save more than a billion dollars a year, until uhm...carry the 5, divide by...oh, yeah, forever. Never underestimate their intelligence, always underestimate their knowledge.
Frank Delaney ~ Ireland
This is brought up all the more because television now have such excellent quality, and television broadcast or use of BlueRay discs for example, is capable of excellent quality. People often mention how they can take a break when they want, don't have to pay the babysitter or listen to cell phones and smell rancid popcorn, etc.
I enjoy both, and they are both cocooning. One doesn't mix with their neighbors, for example. Even in the open air cinema of Monaco, you might talk to your friends before the show starts, but you don't see people talking to people around them socially (except to say - Can you smoke somewhere else please?) But I do like to see big movies in a big screen atmosphere, and I do buy sweets there when I don't allow them for myself anywhere else. Funny, eh? Never underestimate their intelligence, always underestimate their knowledge.
