Ok, I guess it’s important to recognize that for consumer technology manufacturers, the Consumer Electronics Association’s annual Consumer Electronics Show is the “biggest stage.” And it’s also a crowded one. Companies work for months and years coming up with what they can call their “big” announcement at the show, that they hope won’t ultimately be consumed by the tsunami of other “big” announcements. Which at least partially explains why yesterday, I wrote about home video chatting and today I’m writing about 3D television.

Over the last year, movies have started to take the leap into 3D. And the recent reported success of “Avatar” certainly helps demonstrate that consumers are digging the concept, though “Avatar’s” success could also be attributed to its big name director. So you might assume that you’d see the same reaction to 3D TV.

But, maybe not.

On the one hand, TV is all about entertainment, and I don’t think I’m alone in loving Imax movies for their lifelike experience. I mean, look at reality TV. People love watching other people. Nothing like literally adding a new dimension to feeling like you’re right there with them, right?

On the other hand, TV is all about entertainment, and consumers may not really care whether their entertainment is delivered in three dimensions or the same two in which it has been delivered for decades. As Gordon said on Tuesday, content is king. As long as the content is good, does the number of dimensions really matter?

Either way, I think there’s a distinction to be made in measuring consumers’ reactions to something like this – that distinction being, the difference between consumers liking the concept of 3D TV and consumers making the necessary technological (and monetary) investment to watch 3D TV.  Consumers may be enthusiastic about the concept, but the necessary investment will likely keep 3D TV from really achieving any kind of mass market presence, if it inevitably does so at all, for at least several years.

Like I mentioned yesterday with respect to Skype/LG/Panasonic’s video chatting via HDTV concept, given that consumers would have to invest a decent amount more in a new TV in order to be able to view 3D content, right now it’s probably not going to have much of an impact on the industry in terms of sales.

In terms of TV manufacturing, on the other hand, the impact just happened. A number of the largest TV manufacturers are already on board for 3D (Sony, LG, Panasonic, Toshiba), and many others will almost undoubtedly follow. So whether or not consumers want it, they’re selling it (or will be, anyway). The technology is there. The content will be there soon (currently announced = ESPN, a joint venture between Imax, Sony and the Discovery Channel, and some undisclosed channels from DirecTV). And both probably won’t be going anywhere. In fact, I’m sure they’ll be just the tip of the iceberg.

Regardless, what I do know from my personal experience with HD (which may or may not be related to 3D) is – from the moment I got my HDTV (Christmas 2006), I’ve been content to forgo certain programs in favor of others just because those others are in HD. The difference in picture quality is enough to sell me. Maybe this will be the same with 3D, maybe it won’t. But I’m willing to bet if you showed me the Super Bowl in 3D, I’d begin planning my next major TV purchase – which probably won’t happen for at least another two to five years – now. Frankly, I don’t care if I’ll have to wear goofy looking 3D glasses. Small price to pay for what I hope will be a better viewing experience.

Then again, there’s so much going on today in the consumer electronics world, something else could easily come along and steal 3D TV’s thunder by next January or even sooner. So while I’m excited by the announcement, I’ll be interested to see how the market develops.