This week I went off to see what is being billed as the future of television. No, it's not a bigger screen or a higher definition picture, but 3D TV.

Yep, that's right - 2D is old school, flat and uninspiring according to some. So much so that what we need is to make everything three-dimensional.

With that in mind Sky have, over the last 9 months, worked on creating a 3D TV signal that they can then pump over the air on their standard network without having to spend thousands on upgrading their infrastructure.

The results are certainly interesting and although Sky imply that it could roll the service out technically tomorrow the real catch is that there isn't the remotest commercial or public demand for the technology yet.

Currently there is only one television that you can watch 3D content on, and it's only available in Japan. Then there is the fact that there isn't really any content available either. The 3D rigs, which involve two cameras working simultaneously together in a specially designed setup are big, I mean really big, and promise to add around 10 to 15% on the cost of production.

Doing a First Look review from just 10 minutes with the unit seemed inappropriate, especially considering the first likely chance you'll see this technology in the home is going to be around 2012 - 4 years away. We could have a new Prime Minister in that time.

So should you be interested? Well it's the very first steps in changing the way we watch television, including getting used to the notion of having to wear glasses to do it.

The technology Sky has opted for is less evasive than others currently available and there is no question that by the time Sky do start offering 3D content we won't need to be wearing glasses to view it, it will just be 3D, but do we want it?

I think in certain cases it will help enhance and enrich the programme but only if it's done right. There is no point making everything 3D for the sake of it.

We watched snippets from a football match, snippets from boxing and snippets from Sky 1's Gladiators. The boxing was visually the most impressive. It's a set stage where the camera has little distance to cover and therefore able to linger longer. Lingering it seems helps, as the football wasn't as impressive with its quick jump cuts following the play around the large field.

Gladiators however, as a piece of "studio" entertainment, wasn't as impressive and I'm not sure programmes like EastEnders would ever work.

However cartoons and movies (in the right genre) would no doubt work very well. Just imagine a film like Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon in 3D - wow.

It's incredibly early days. Just like wireless power, or discovering water on Mars, for 3D TV to get into the home, it has so many barriers to overcome. So many people and companies have to get involved. Think 10 to 15 years and you might be getting somewhere.

Why so long? Well you'll need a new TV, you'll need content and finally you'll need consumer demand. Some consumers are still trying to understand the need for HD, let alone why they would want 3D TV.

Luckily it seems Sky is fully aware of these barriers, especially considering the recession that seems to make everyone pay more attention, but it's going to be a long road to travel.

If Sky thought HD has been a tough sell to Granny, wait till they try and explain 3D TV to her.