Anybody disappointed that James Cameron didn't win Oscars

[Huckleberry]

I wouldn't say "barely comparable" based on the results. The old 3D stuff thrilled the audiences with stuff coming out of the screen just as this does. The problem with 3D has never been the film or video technology; it's the glasses.

... or could it be that the relative cost of making the movie has changed? Is that what makes this siginficant - that it is siginficantly less expensive technology - or was this another big-budget extravaganza that demands the popularity produced by novelty, in order to turn a profit?

Cameron couldn't film Avatar when he wrote the script for the movie. The technology for what he wanted to do didn't yet exist. It was designed specifically for this movie.

Check out how the cameras capture the motion and expressions of the actors and that information is used to make their CGI counterparts. (starts at about 3min)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L6JXUoWeZ7Q&feature=related

The Fusion 3D digital cameras designed by Vince Pace that were used for Avatar are not the same as old film cameras. This shows a little of the cameras unique operation.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fZmJ8A1Wl6U&feature=related

This doesn't include other details of the visual effects that were excellent in Avatar, like the physical interaction of human and CGI Na'Vi actors. I saw Alice in Wonderland in 3D over the weekend. At a few points there is a human actor riding a CGI horse. There is some poorly done editing when they move together. Avatar looked seemless to me.

There aren't any red and blue glasses. There is no need to be directly in front of the screen. I felt hardly any eye strain and didn't get a headache. I didn't even like old 3D movies. They were uncomfortable to watch and I could never forget I was watching 3D. The new 3D movies feel like I'm watching something on the other side of a window and it might jump through any moment. It's revolutionary 3D because it's not just a cool gimmick any more. I can watch a 3D movie and not even realize I'm watching a movie in 3D. The visual response is automatic rather than intentional.

They aren't cheaper though. Here's the visual effects equipment used for Avatar according to Wiki.

The lead visual effects company was Weta Digital in Wellington, New Zealand, at one point employing 900 people to work on the film[97]. To render Avatar, Weta used a 10,000 sq ft (930 m2) server farm making use of 4,000 Hewlett-Packard servers with 35,000 processor cores.[98] The render farm occupies the 193rd to 197th spots in the TOP500 list of the world's most powerful supercomputers. Creating the Na'vi characters and the virtual world of Pandora required over a petabyte of digital storage,[99] and each minute of the final footage for Avatar occupies 17.28 gigabytes of storage.[100] To help finish preparing the special effects sequences on time, a number of other companies were brought on board, including Industrial Light & Magic, which worked alongside Weta Digital to create the battle sequences. ILM was responsible for the visual effects for many of the film's specialized vehicles and devised a new way to make CGI explosions.[101] Joe Letteri was the film's visual effects general supervisor.[102]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avatar_(2009_film )

And glasses may not be a problem for much longer either.
http://www.pcworld.com/article/190937/3d_imageswithout_glasses.html
http://www.wipeout44.com/video/3d/real_3d_wii.asp

 

[Tribulus]

I wish that the whole 3d thing passes again as it did once before. I find that it takes a lot away more than it gives (lack of color detail vs 3d).

 

[DanP]

I wish that the whole 3d thing passes again as it did once before. I find that it takes a lot away more than it gives (lack of color detail vs 3d).

You see the glass half empty glass. I personally hope that promising entertainment technologies will constantly improve, and add more and more immersion. It will get even better in time. Why abandon it ?