3-D technology has been around for decades, but it's only in the past few years that the tech community has really started to push it. That's partly thanks to a few major blockbusters (Spy Kids 3D, Avatar) that convinced these companies that 3-D is now viable, but it's also due to the general malaise of film revenue since the piracy revolution.

3-D films often cost 50% more in theaters than traditional non-3-D movies--that's how Avatar made such ridiculous money--and in a time when piracy is taking a major bite out of revenues, that price differential is incredibly valuable.

On the hardware side, 3-D is finally cheap enough and advanced enough to put into home entertainment, including computer monitors [2], cameras [3], video game consoles [4], and HDTVs. For hardware manufacturers (one of whom, Sony, is both a film studio and a hardware company, and is unsurprisingly leading the charge for 3D-TV), this is a chance to get consumers to shell out for another TV, even if they just made the upgrade to HDTV.

Over the past two years, Sony, Panasonic, LG, and Samsung [5] have stormed every tech convention possible with 3-D. The Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas, the country's biggest, has been so packed with 3D-TVs recently that 3-D glasses are practically required gear. 3D, say these companies, is a revolution of immersion. It will change the way you experience entertainment. You will want it, and want it enough to shell out a few grand for new equipment.

As it turns out, according to a recent Nielsen study [6], that might not be true. The study measured consumer interest in 3D-TV both before and after being actually exposed to one, and came out with some pretty interesting findings. Though a full 25% said they were "very likely" to buy a 3D-TV set in the next year, after actually using one, that number dropped by more than half, to 12%. And though before testing a 3D-TV only 13% said they were "not at all likely" to buy a set in the next year, after testing that number jumped to a whopping 30%.

The main concerns held by those surveyed include the prohibitively high cost of the 3D-TV set (a premium of anywhere from $500 to $1,000 over an already pricey non-3D set), the lack of 3D content, and, notably, irritation with having to wear 3-D glasses all the time. Some of those problems can be fixed--prices will eventually come down, and if 3D is popular enough, the amount of content will go up--but the glasses are here to stay.

More troubling is that less than half (48%--only slightly less, but still less) felt that 3-D made them more engaged with what they were watching. That suggests to me that 3-D may simply not be more enjoyable than non-3-D, that it may not really enhance the viewing experience.

The only really good news is on the gaming front, with a whopping 71% of self-identifying "hardcore" gamers showing significant interest in 3-D.

What do you all think? Is 3-D at home destined for ubiquity or the gimmick file?

Dan Nosowitz, the author of this post, can be followed [7] on Twitter, corresponded with [8] via email, and stalked in Brooklyn (no link for that one--you'll have to do the legwork yourself).