disolitude said:
I figured another way to explain this to you... When rendering a 2D image, 30 frames per second shown is 30 frames for both eyes since they see the same image. When rendering a 3D image, there are 2 video streams that are slightly separated, and eyes alternate between each frame to gain depth. So a 30 fps in stereo is actually 15 fps per eye in 3D. Otherwise you just see a mish-mash of images and no depth. A 2D game running at 720p@30 first needs to send 2 video streams to be in 3D which cuts down the frame rate to 15. Afterwards it needs to show each eye its own frame which makes it around 8 fps per eye. Here is an example of a performance benchmark in 3D - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=62X_JKBpu_c That is going from 120 frames per second for both eyes...to 35 frames per second total combined for both video streams (so 17-18 per eye). This is an example of a really unoptimized driver and usually it isn't as bad, but you get the point...
Here are some impressions of Killzone 3 3D BTW - http://www.engadget.com/2010/06/16/playstation-3-in-3d-impressions-almost-but-not-quite/ "The big problem is that the game runs at a seriously reduced resolution in order to compensate for the doubled framerate of 3D." Also, Wipeout HD runs 1080p 60FPS in 2D and 720p 30 fps in 3D. Care to explain why they had to drop the resolution and frame rate if only halfing the frame rate is good enough :) |
I just don't get it.