By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
disolitude on 25 June 2010
Edit Thread
Slimebeast said:
Squilliam said:
disolitude said:

He is correct and slighly wrong at the same time.

360 can technically do exact same 3D as PS3. 1080p image - 720p per eye.

But theoretically PS3 can do 2160p - 1080p per eye due to HDMi 1.3 vs 1.2

However, considering that PS3 and 360 struggle to do a game in 1080p...rendering a game 2160p game is impossible for these consoles...unless that game is pong.

So yes, there is no reason why 360 can't do 3D. Microsoft doesn't sell TVs however, so they really have no reason to push the tech.

It depends on what HDMI spec the Xbox 360 S uses as well. Noone has commented on that as far as im aware.

Hey Squill, can u chime in on the discussion between Disolitude and myself about 3-D and how much computing power it requires? Especially about this split 30fps twice into 15 then to only 8 frames per second which Disloitude claims.

I find it very hard to understand despite his lengthy explanations so maybe it's no point for you to waste time on trying to explain it to met either lol, but maybe u can at least confirm or deny the bolded part?


I didn't say that...

I said 8 fps per eye... Its really simple.

1. PS3 games frame rate cut in half due to extra video processing to push 2 video streams. 30 becomes 15.

2. Image(s) user is looking are no longer 1 image for both eyes but each eye has separate image in order to achieve depth. 15 fps becomes 7-8 moving frames per eye. Game still runs at 60 fps which is what PS3 3D spec for gaming is. http://www.thesixthaxis.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/PS3-3D-01.jpg

I have played so many games that are getting me 40-50 fps in 3D on the PC and it just isn't optimal and doesn't look smooth. Trust me, you need 60 in 3D, so you can get 30 per eye and everyone is happy.