"From a technical side, there's nothing we can't do"

Microsoft has claimed that there's nothing PS3 can do in terms of 3D that the Xbox 360 can't emulate.

Speaking exclusively to CVG, Xbox global marketing boss Albert Penello said that Xbox 360 was "technically" ready for the 3D revolution.

However, the exec added that Xbox was "happy to follow" on the tech until player adoption rates made it worthwhile.

When asked if he was concerned that Sony had "got there first" with 3D tech, he replied:

"I'm not. We have 3D games - obviously the Avatar game came out last year - and the console fully supports 3D. But for us right now, we're more on the 3D input take, you know, revolutionising things with Kinect.

"We're going to take more of an attitude of seeing what the adoption looks like. Right now, there's nothing technically that we can't do on the 3D side - we already have games out there today.

"For us, it's more going to be let's see what the consumers say. Let's see what happens on the TV side and the sell-through side. It's something I think we're going to follow on, and that we're fine to follow on.

CVG then asked if Xbox 360 could do everything that PS3 can in terms of 3D.

"Yeah, that's true," said Pernello. "I think that when we decide we want to jump into 3D it'll be because the consumer's voted. But from a technical side, there's nothing about it we can't do. In fact, we're already doing it today."

Microsoft's big hardware announcement at E3 - the new 250GB 360 SKU - has gone down well with the media and gaming fans alike. Check out our 250GB Xbox Slim review for more.

Source computerandvideogames.com

Sounds like Microsoft has interest in 3D games as well. 

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.

I don't want 3D. I just laid down £850 on a new plasma, I'll be fucked if I'm replacing it any time soon.

the nice thing about 360's lack of HDMI 1.4 3D methods is that it most likely won't force you to buy a 850 pound plasma to use it.

The 3 Xbox360 3D games available work on DLP TV's, computer LCD monitors (using a PC capture card), 3D projectors...

So you can essentially buy something like this -

http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B001TH77I6?tag=3dmovies-21

or

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Optoma-DW318-Projector-widescreen-Ready/dp/B00337CXVQ/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1277154509&sr=1-1

What I want is for it to work on this:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Panasonic-TX-P42G20B-42-inch-Widescreen-Freeview/dp/B0039SLYE6/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1277154880&sr=1-1

Those numbers don't add up. Two 720p images don't equal one 1080p image.

Isn't it more like, one image 720p at 30frames per second and another image 720p at 30 frames per second and the combined image is 720p 30frames per second.

Well, I got confused and put it rong. I dunno why I felt the need to say that the end result is only 30 frames per second to each eye which the other eye can't see and vice versa (because of shutter glasses). But yes, the machine must be able to output 60 frames per second, so 1 plus 1 is 2.

But still, two 720p images dont equal one 1080 image and two 1080p frames definately don't equal one 2160p frame.

I think its wise for Microsoft not to invest in 3D right off the bat. I have a feeling consumers are not ready for 3D. The adoption rate will be low just think about it a second I for one will not be buying a 3D TV just got my HDTV last year and with 3DS I have to ask the question will glasses 3D be around too much longer?

Not to mention the cost fact at least 1,300$ TV plus addition 200$ glasses for everyone wanting to watch. Geez how many consumers can afford this? I don't think the adoption rate will be high enough for at least 2-3 years!

Actually 2 720 p images do equal 1080p in real world applications...768p to be exact, which is still considered 720p.  It comes down to amount of pixels rendering the image.

1080p = 1920x1080 = 2073600 pixels

720p = 1360x768 = 1044480 pixels

To do 1080p 3D, a system has to render 1920x1080 lines X 2...and that is 2160 lines. The resolution of 2160p does not exist as far as I know, but I keep it simple so people get the point. Otherwise the resolution that PS3 would have to render (pixel wise) is 2560x1440 to do 1080p 3D

Edit - Also, as far as the earlier statement that a gaming system needs to only render 720p @ 60 hz...hence show 1 720p image@ 30 hz to each eye is not correct. There are many types of 3D (side by side, over under, frame packing, checkerboard)...and for all of them the TV does the image flickering to the viewer, not the PS3/360. The consoles render both images and send it to the TV at the same time, while the TV syncs with the glasses and shows you one image followed by another...