An article that A. A. Campbell-Swinton wrote in an issue of Nature in 1908 provides the impetus for developing modern television.

He first proposed employing cathode ray tubes as both transmitters and receivers in an attempt to devise “distant electric vision.”

More than a century later, television has trudged a mountainous climb. But it hasn’t peaked yet.

So many options exist today.

It takes some knowledge before one can make an educated decision when it comes to electronics. For instance, which type: LCD, LED, DLP or Rear-Projection? What parameters in refresh rate, resolution, contrast ratio, Internet capability, inputs and outputs? It’s no fleeting choice.

I had my battles with LCD TVs when they were first introduced.

The manufacturing hadn’t matured then. Now we have hardy, affordable TVs on our shelves.

Something nags at me, though.

The last time I was in an electronics store, I stopped in front of a 240-hertz LED TV. That’s a high refresh rate, or frequency of data being drawn.

When I viewed what was on, I realized my eyes couldn’t differentiate the picture from a 120-hertz, slower TV.

Ironically, this improvement had no benefit.

The whole point of improved refresh rate is to smooth the image and reduce blur. At a certain point, one cannot detect blur — few people can detect blur above 72 hertz.

Two-dimensional TVs might have reached their fullest potential.

So what’s left on the horizon? With present parameters exhausted, how can TVs offer more options?

Simple. Add another dimension: 3-D television.

Yes, 3-D TV. They are slated to be available as soon as next year. Exact pricing is not yet available, but we can be sure they will cost a penny more than regular HDTVs.

In the late ’90s and earlier this decade, HDTVs struggled to stake their claim in the market.

People deemed HDTVs unnecessary. Regular TV was already good enough. So a decade later, most of us have these new models.

We can expect the third dimension to invade the American living room soon.

Even though the idea of 3-D has existed since the cardboard glasses of the 1950s, sales to individual consumers could start another buying spree for several reasons.

Movies can be shot using improved HD technology, improving 3-D video quality from its predecessors.

Also, companies like Mitsubishi have already started releasing glasses-less — say that three times fast — models, so no hassle there.

Additionally, much of today’s entertainment, such as computer animation and games, is created from scratch. Video can be generated with 3-D in mind.

In fact, games are already created in 3-D but normally have to be downgraded to 2-D.

With these new TVs, gamers can become even more lost in their digital worlds — a staggering feat in itself.

Broadcasting in 3-D has already been achieved. Sky Entertainment successfully broadcast a live music performance in this format in April.

Just imagine live sports broadcasting in 3-D. With the basic hurdles overcome, it is easy to see that 3-D has the mettle to fall into place.

So why all this constant improvement in television technology? We can’t even catch our breath, and there’s a better, shinier product staring us in the face during holiday shopping.

Partly, companies might just be flexing their muscles.

In-home 3-D technology might be new and still a bit unexplored, but if one company makes an attempt, the rest must follow.

Companies always need something new to tempt the public.

As we sit down to enjoy our newly installed TV, Mr. Salesman gestures us over to his newest stock.

Business must continue in these trying times.

It is unclear how much consumers support this new installment, but movie theater ticket sales for the 3-D version of a release form the majority of total sales.

For example, the 3-D version of “My Bloody Valentine” accounted for 71 percent of all sales.

As HDTVs have started becoming a commodity, and every neighbor has a Blu-ray player, people need something new to show they are equipped with the coolest toys.

If home 3-D technology can get past a few hiccups, it will become deeply rooted in entertainment culture. There might be a classic Betamax-VHS format war similar to the recent Blu-ray and HD-DVD battle.

As there are several ways to create the extra dimension, corporate competition is sure to ensue.

Also, production and networking costs need to lower to become practical. Consumers need to be convinced to shell out an extra several thousand — a difficult task, given today’s economy.

I personally wouldn’t buy a 3-D TV anytime soon, but don’t let my insecurity bother you.

I’ve learned something from buying newly budding technology: Let it bloom first.

Besides, I just want to give the engineers time to smooth the image.

Even so, consumers will be apprehensive to make their first purchase, as sets could decrease in price with time.

But also, many will dislike the options — or lack thereof — that 3-D TV might first bring.

Can different viewers watch the same television — but one in 2-D and the other in 3-D? Exactly which programs will be available in 3-D, or will everything be 3-D? Can the same TV play both types of video?

These are all questions of versatility, a core requirement for any gadget to survive in our options-loving society.

E-mail Abdul at [email protected].