3D technology has struggled to gain its foothold in the market during its first few years. There always seems to be some sort of tradeoff when it comes to simulating three dimensions on a 2D flat screen.

Certainly, 3D video works very well, at least when the proper equipment is available. 3D movies continue to provide some amazingly cool effects, but you do have to wear 3D glasses, which is a significant downside for some movie goers. Others experience headaches or nausea after watching 3D movies.

At this point, though, viewing 3D in a movie theater represents the best quality that’s available with this technology. TV manufacturers have tried to simulate this quality at home, but with the smaller screens, it’s more difficult to create the immersive 3D feeling that movie goers experience. Plus, you still have to wear those glasses.

So it’s easy to be pretty skeptical about companies who are touting tablets and smartphone screens that can create good 3D results … and without wearing 3D glasses.

MasterImage has recently announced plans to incorporate a 3D technology into LCD screens for smartphones late in 2012 and for tablets early in 2013 without adding significant costs to those items. It will probably result about a 10% premium for smartphones and tablets that choose to incorporate MasterImage’s technology into their screens.

MasterImage is using a parallax barrier to create the 3D look on the screens, which allows the company to forego the need for 3D glasses. A parallax barrier basically blocks part of the image from reaching one eye. So, when the human brain combines the images seen by each eye, a 3D image is simulated.

Parallax barrier technology certainly works to create 3D images, but there are drawbacks to it. Those whose eyes aren’t quite centered to the screen when trying to view it may notice a blur or may lose the 3D effect. In addition, sometimes the use of a parallax barrier can make the images appear dull. Some of the screen’s resolution is lost, too, because some pixels must be blocked to achieve the effect.

It’s interesting that MasterImage is aiming this technology first at smaller screens on tablets and smartphones, rather than going for a large screen, such as you may find in a movie theater. That likely highlights the difficulties in requiring the viewer to be centered on the screen to create the effect, and that this may be too difficult to recreate on a movie theater screen.

However, that doesn’t mean that MasterImage’s idea might not work in other products. For example, the University of Washington is working on contact lenses that will make use of circuitry to enhance the vision of the wearer. Because a contact lens must be centered on the eye, it might be a candidate to make use of this type of 3D technology.

For now, though, it’s difficult to imagine MasterImage’s technology creating a 3D revolution. There’s still just too many limitations on 3D to make it wildly popular among consumers. Outside of movies and some games, it’s difficult to find products that offer a lot of 3D content, for example. And even paying as little as a 10% premium on a smartphone might drive some people away, especially if they just can’t imagine having enough worthwhile 3D content available to justify the cost. Think about how many people at the movie theater complain about paying a premium of a few dollars to attend a 3D showing of a movie, versus the 2D showing, for example.

But it’s the problems with blurry images for those who aren’t quite centered that likely will be the most difficult for MasterImage to overcome. It’ll be very difficult for more than one person to watch the screen at the same time, and trying to view the screen in a slightly bouncing vehicle or airplane might cause nausea. 3D effects sometimes can offer “sick” quality, but they aren’t worth having a sick feeling afterward.