I just hope it uses polarized 3D, quite disappointed by all the new 3D TV's at CES, all use Shutterglasses, which means you're probably looking at $100-200 per pair of glasses for each individual who wants to watch something on your TV in 3D.
Not a very economical option (at least for the consumer) polarized 3D glasses cost less than $10 in comparison. There's also less points of failure on polarized 3D
This is nowhere near the power of even the cheapest IMAX projector. (iMax, Renegade_Warrior? Seriously?) 2500 lumens isn't exactly bright, not compared to an IMAX projector (there's no way you could mount it, at, say, 50 feet from the screen and expect to get a sharp image). Then there's the fact that a standard movie theatre projector is usually around $25,000 at least (IMAX projectors cost even more). Also, IMAX projectors have a far higher resolution than 1080p.
Did I mention that an IMAX setup usually takes up a small room?
This is the kind of projector someone puts in their living rooom. It's small and (comparitively speaking), cheap. Nowhere near professional quality and not even worth considering for a real theatre.
I just looked it up: A typical IMAX projector lamp puts out around 600,000 lumens; in other words, they are around 240x as powerful as the lamps in this projector. The lamps themselves cost around $6,000 each, weigh about 10 pounds, and are nearly 2 feet long.
In other words, the lamps themselves dwarf this projector. The only reason it's more expensive than a standard home-use projector is because it utilizes 3D. It's quite cheap.
Saying this projector is good for IMAX is like saying that your lawn mower engine can power a mining dump truck.
Shutter glasses and polarized glasses aren't that bad. Yes, they are ugly now, but if the tech actually takes a hold in the market Oakley and other mainstream sunglasses manufacturers would be missing out on a huge market for bad ass looking pairs you can lose in your couch and crush (just like their sunglasses).