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

Forums - Sony - 3D will push PS3 further

disolitude on 07 April 2010
Icyedge said:
disolitude said:
 


No Nvidia doesn't use this tech. Nvidia 3d vision pushes 120 hz to the TV at all times and needs atleast 30 frames per eye to make any game work. You can controll the offset but each frame still needs to be rendered 2 times and the video card has its work cut out when it comes to the fill rate.

If you need proof of this, run any game using Nvidia 3D vision and have the FPS counter in the corner. The game running sub 60 FPS will chug but is still playable... at 30 frames it is completely unplayable. I tested this with Street Fighter 4 and anything under 45 frames per second is completely unplayable for a fighter. this is because 44 fps in 3D is actually 22 fps.

Thanks for the info, I was sure it was using this tech, may explain why the result are good through software then. I dont need proof from you on this subject ;).

lol...I was curious about that too when I got 3D vision but to my disapointment it has to render each frame. I had to upgrade the videocard when I realized this...

But the results are amazing so I am not complaining.

Its a shame that Nvidia 3D vision doesn't have a more robust drivers to be honest. For example, my TV is a DLP tv and it uses a checkerboard pattern. The checkerboard patters is a very cool form of interlacing and it merges the 2X frames in to 1 60 hz signal. So basically its 720p x 2 merged in to 1080p screen.

Nvidia 3D vision renders 2 1080p frames and then processes it to display on my TV. Essentially wasting 50% of the processing for the resolution...



Around the Network
Xoj on 07 April 2010
disolitude said:
kowenicki said:
disolitude said:
kowenicki said:
I find this story odd.

I was actually looking into the 3dtv's this weekend. Buggger all information anywhere about them in the UK so far. I am going to go to a big Comet store on the way home from work and see what they have on display.

I actually think Sky could steal a march on the PS3 (or any 3d enabled Blu-Ray player), they will have 3d channels (including sport) and presumably box office movies to rent as 3d.


While its cool that anyone who already owns a PS3 gets a 3D bluray upgrade, people that own a semi decent computer should be able to get a 3D bluray player much cheaper than PS3s 299.

Here is the cheapest legal option...if you dont mind doing illegal things its even cheaper.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16827135205

+

http://www.cyberlink.com/products/powerdvd/overview_en_US.html

Indeed, and I think Samsung (largest selling HDTV's) will bundle TV's with appropriate blu-ray players too.  As will LG and Sony probably.

Bestbuy in canada is already offering samsungs 3D stuff and its so bloody expensive.

40 inch 3D TV - 2499

3D bluray player - 399

2 sets of glasses + monsters vs aliens bundle - 449

I cant help but gloat and feel good about my purchase in 2008. I bought a 67 inch 3D capable LED based DLP TV for 2400. It supports everything...3d blurays (with 60 dollar bluray drive for my comp), Nvidia 3D vision gaming (which cost me 200 bucks), and most likely the PS3... I've been enjoying 3D for over a year now and am doing it on a bigger screen for less money :)

Not to mention that my TV does all this with zero ghosting cause its DLP technology. I saw Sonys and Samsungs new 3D tvs and some ghosting is still present since LCDs have refresh rate to worry about.

if u go for the cheap ones, 240hz ones are crazy nice, i heard panasonics aren't bad, and they are not as expensive. they are out of stock fast though.



Xoj on 07 April 2010
Icyedge said:
disolitude said:
vlad321 said:
Icyedge said:
vlad321 said:
Do people even realize what bullshit this whole 3D gaming is this gen?

Do you all realize that the PS3 doesn't have the power to handle 3D? You need to render each frame twice, basically running at 120MhZ total, for the 3D that you usee to work. What did KZ2 work at? Oh yeah, about 30. Now imagine if it required twice the resources to render. More so because you'd need it in HD as well.

If you are lucky, you will get games that looks like the worst Wii games in 3D, if you are lucky.

No you still need to render each frame only once, because your displaying the exact same frame twice. You display 120 frames but only render 60 that you display twice offset from each other.

No, you are just wrong. You render each frame twice, you don't just display it. The 2nd frame has to give the perspective as it was rendered a few inches to the side of the previous one, as if you were looking through the other eye.

Basically, the game has to render the first frame for your right eye, and then render a whole new frame for your left that is offset by a few inches. They are distinctly different images and each one has to be rendered. No console has the power to do this on other than simple Wii graphics, hell even my PC can't handle 3D well and it puts the PS3 to shame in power.

In order to do 3D on a console videogame, one of 2 things need to happen.

1. Game needs to be built from the ground up with 3D in mind and optimized so that it runs at 30/60 frames per second in 2D and 60/120 frames per second in 3D.

2. Existing game needs to have the frame rate modified so that it is set to minimum 30 frames per eye. 60 fps games can be done in 3D with 30/30 per eye. Wipeout HD for example...

In any case, Vlad is right, frame rate needs to double and you need a monster machine to do 3D...console or PC. Also, a game can be done in 720p if they are 1080p to save some performance...but considering most PS3 games already run at 720p (or lower), that wont help.

Edit - I see what Icyedge was saying. While it may be true that PS3 may pull off some trickery like that where it renders the frame only once and then doubles it (the PS3 driver update is hinting at this actually)...this will provide a subpar 3D effect. that the same tech as the 2D to 3d tech which is included in Samsung and LG TVs. So lets hope thats not it...

But its also the same tech used by nvidia to transform 2D games to 3D, the result are good no? Since its the developer that will program it the result should be better than when its a software that does it, because they can adjust the offset ratio depending on the scene and whats going on, things that software have a hard time to do. Until now the playable demonstration receive good reviews so im pretty sure it will work well. Probably not as well as real 3D games on computer tho.

of course but isn't bad, sharp parallex screens use the same concept tranform a 2d to 3d, no one expect a console to render things as newest nicest updated PC