By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
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?

Well there are many different ways to achieve 3D in games. Some are easy, some are cheap to implement, some are perfect and therefore cost a lot more performance to implement and some are crude and cost even more performance whilst not delivering the best image quality.

The Nvidia method is the crudest and requires the most performance. It can yield 3D on games not originally designed to output like that but it also has quite a few artifaces. Its simply forcing the game to render at a different camera angle at its most basic.

The Killzone 3 method renders the best 3D effect however it costs almost as much performance as the Nvidia method. It requires a scene to be rendered twice as often so the compromise is that they lower the rendering resolution by 1/2 along the horizontal axis. So 1280 by 720 becomes 640 by 720 which makes it the lowest rendering 'HD' console game im aware of in this mode.

The Crysis 2 method is an anaglyph method. It uses the depth buffer and its more efficient in that it costs ~1.4% performance to implement as the game is simply reusing the original 2D image. However it suffers the greatest number of artifacts as one eye can see parts of the scene which are not needed to be rendered in the original 2D version. For example you might only be able to see one side of a fence in 2D however in 3D you might be able to see the other side of the fence so the game must be designed to minimise these artifacts.



Tease.