Well, I was interested in the 3D-Techniques as well after I had seen Avatar (with the circular polar system). It's pretty amazing. It looks like Sony, Apple, LP and maybe even Samsung are planning to bring out circular polarized screen (First TV-screen and then computer screens for games). The thing is that it needs a dual graphics card with a dual input, because there are 2 images. The only other systems would be with shutter glasses (way too expensive and complex) or with anaglyphs (no true colours). It would be great to see KDE in 3D though, but usability might then be an issue.
Anyway, the technology is almost there, but the big problem is free software for it. Even in blender (except the game engine), you need to coordinate 2 cameras because it's not laid out to do stereoscopy natively, which is pretty much a pain. The algorithms for the focal distance and that kind of stuff would be easy to implement. Really, the biggest issue is showing the 3D contents...
I disliked that there was still the concept of focus. If not everything is in focus then not everything is clearly visible. I can understand this problem in recorded images. but do not see why the out of focus images are rendered. When rendering, everything should be sharp.
He, I liked the movie too. And the 'Unobtanium' thing - I found it funny. If you make the most expensive movie ever, yet have the guts to make fun of such a rather important element (phun intended) I think it's neath
I saw the Pocahontas in 3D link, I thought it was really funny. I kinda found it funny that they could poke fun with the unobtanium name, but would have preferred 'reallytoughtofindonium'... I am no movie critic, but I certainly enjoyed it.
It would look very fake if everything was sharply in focus. I did wonder if the effect was amplified by the clever use of motion in many parts of the movie.