By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
jmill89 on 07 October 2010
Edit Thread
disolitude said:
jmill89 said:
disolitude said:
Barozi said:

People are surprised that the 360 can do 3D ?

I thought this was common knowledge.

Pentium 2 and fat old CRT monitors could to 3d gaming on the PC. No reason to think 360 couldn't do it...

http://active-hardware.com/english/reviews/video/3drevealator.htm

Check out specs below. Quake 2 in 3D was the shizzle back then... :)

Not that it matters or anybody cares, but there is a difference between 3d on the PS3 and 3d on the 360. At least theoretically but maybe not in practice.

The difference has to do with the bandwidth available on the HDMI ports. Because the 360 has a 1.2 HDMI port to do 3d it must send the signal in Half 720P side by side mode. Doing it this way you lose half the potential resolution by going 3d. This is also the way the PS3 did 3d before the update. I imagine those games would still operate the same as before.

The PS3's 1.3 HDMI port has the same bandwidth as a 1.4 port. This is why they were able to put out an update to conform with the new HDMI 1.4 3d standards. The PS3 supports two of them, full 1080p/24 3d, and full 720p/60 3d. The 1080p/24 3d mode is only for blu ray movie playback. There will be no loss in resolution with 3d movie playback. The 720p/60 3d mode is for games. This will be limited to what the developers can get the PS3 to render at an acceptable framerate, up to a maximum of 720p with no loss in resolution due to putting out 3d images.

So in short the PS3 is potentially capable of doing higher resolution 3d then the 360, if the developers can get the game to render in 3d above half 720p resolution and still have a decent framerate. If they can't then it doesn't matter

Pretty accurate post, but a few things are not correct.

HDMI 1.2 can support a maximum half 1080p resolution side to side 3D, so each eye sees 720p. After all HDMI 1.2 supports full screen 1080p at 24 bit color, so half of that is roughly 720p. Avatar on both 360 and Ps3 had to run at 1080p resolution to be 3D and supported various 3d formats (checkerboard, side to side, over under)...all of which end up being roughly 720p per eye. (http://www.joystiq.com/2009/07/31/avatar-game-requires-hdmi-for-3d-effects/)

COD:black ops is going to bring the 3D esolution down even more and will be running 720p/2 per eye on both consoles most likely...The 360 version will manually have to be set to 720p while PS3 will do it automatically with HDMI 1.4 TVs. Previous COD games weren't even 720p so its an achievement for them to get it to at least 720p, even if its cut in half when in 3D.

PS3 is capable of delivering higher res than 720p per eye in 3D due to having HDMI 1.3, but the TVs can't take it so there really isn't any possibility of that happening.

The article you posted is incorrect. Avatar uses the dunia tech 3d engine:

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-stereo-3d-article

It is either rendered at 640x720 or 1280x360, exactly one half 720p image for each eye. HDMI 1.2 does not have the bandwidth for full 720p each eye.

It's only the PS3 that is capable of 720p per eye. That is the definition of the HDMI 1.4 full 720p/60 3d standard. And this is one of the modes that the new tv's take. It is not capable of higher then that for games. They didn't even bother letting developers have access to the full 1080p/24 mode, they reserved it for movies.

Im not saying the PS3 can realistically render call of duty higher then 640x720 or 1280x360 per eye, which would be the maximum on the 360.