William Friese-Greene first filed the patent for the three-dimensional process in 1894. No, that’s not a typo; 3D film has been around for over 100 years. He developed a system that used a stereoscope to combine two images into one. The basic process remains the same to this very day, and in recent discussion about the future of the moving image, 3D has dominated the landscape.

The question seems to be whether 3D is the next step in film and video, or if it is just another gimmick to get more technology off the shelves and into our homes. To paraphrase: “Didn’t I just buy an HD TV?”

The answer can be found by simply looking at trends.

In the last few years, 3D movies have seen a resurgence, especially in children’s fare. 2004’s The Polar Express was one of the first, followed by films like Monster House and Meet the Robinsons. In 2007, Beowulf bucked the kid stuff, billing itself as one of the first serious 3D films aimed at an adult audience.

2009, however, takes the cake in the recent 3D saturation with a total of twelve mainstream Hollywood films jutting out at audiences last year. Even more are in the works for 2010, including Toy Story 3D and the Burton-Depp love fest of Alice in Wonderland. And if the recent box office receipts of a certain James Cameron movie are any indication, the trend may be here to stay.

Avatar is a film that, despite its shortcomings, has captured the lens-covered eyes of the world. Cameron has created a giant blue environment to which people cannot wait to escape. And, partially due to the giant marketing blitz that accompanied its release, everyone wants a piece of it.

The buzz around this movie seems to imply that cinema has reached its next level, and Avatar is the film that brought it there. While the film’s impact on modern cinema is certainly noteworthy (the movie now stands to surpass Titanic as the highest grossing of all time), the question of its lasting effect on image technology will remain unanswered for quite some time.

The world of mass entertainment has always been bombarded with new and improved ways of seeing. When the standard 4:3 ratio television became a staple in the early 1950s, movies switched over to widescreen format. The mantra of film executives was to “show em’ what they can’t see at home.” This led to another brief trend in the 1950s: 3D cinema.

Then came video in the ‘70s, which revolutionized the way images were captured and brought into our homes. More and more people were glued to the television, and movies went to stranger lengths to pull them out of their living room recliners. Earthquake (1974) introduced a gizmo called Sensurround: a large series of speakers that used low frequency waves to “shake” the audience. Some people reported nosebleeds.

The late seventies and early eighties provided a brief glimmer of hope for studio executives when films such as Jaws, ET, and the Star Wars trilogy created the idea of the modern blockbuster: adventure films with broad themes that pleased everybody and had convenient merchandise tie-ins. This blockbuster ideology continued up until very recently, when suddenly, everybody seemed to be staying at home.

Enter YouTube and the Internet. The laptop became the new form of entertainment for the all-too-important teen demographic, and illegal downloading put a hole in Hollywood’s pocket. On the television front, high definition, 50-inch plasma, and digital cable were the new standards. This brings us to 2007, the year Beowulf hit theatres in 3D Digital IMAX form.

The public is part of a giant game of technological poker, and the antes are going up at exponential rates. In a move that seems timely with the release of Avatar, electronics companies at the Consumer Electronics Show (CES) 2010 showed up to the conference floor with dozens of prototypes for 3D television, from the cinema to your rec room.

3DTV is not completely new, of course. It’s hard to forget the ‘90s sitcoms with the gimmicky 3D episodes. The idea this time around is constant 3D: sports, news, and drama, all with an added dimension. The technology works the same way as in films like Avatar: polarized glasses that allow a different image into each eye.

This in-home 3D sounds like a great deal until one learns the cost. Just to upgrade the TV and receiver box would cost upwards of $4000. That doesn’t factor in the cost of the glasses (how big is your family?), or the massive infrastructure overhaul needed to transmit the huge amount of data. Can you say tax dollars?

As if that weren’t enough, movie producers are already moving ahead, figuring out ways to watch a movie in 3D without glasses. Television will not be far behind, and computer technology is sure to be joining in pursuit for our eyes and ears. Holograms won’t be far away.

Technologies come and go, and yet every time something new hits the shelves, the general public seems to have amnesia, forgetting that they already own products with this same “cutting-edge” technology.

However new Avatar seems now, its use of 3-D technology may seem old in just a few years.