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

Forums - Microsoft Discussion - MS: 360 can match PS3's 3D capabilities!

Slimebeast on 22 June 2010
disolitude said:
Slimebeast said:
RolStoppable said:
Slimebeast 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.

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.

1 plus 1 is 1?

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.


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... 

 

It just gets more and more confusing lol.

So let's say we have Killzone 2 or 3 and normally the PS3 outputs it at 30fps. In 3-D, will the PS3 output two frames at 15fps and the TV fixes the rest???



Around the Network
Doobie_wop on 22 June 2010
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.


You seem to know your stuff, are there smaller 3D capable TV's available, like say 22 Inches? How much do they go for and can I also use them as a PC monitor as well as for my PS3. Finally, is it worth getting for the 3D game's the PS3 has coming out? From what I've read and seen in stores, it seem's to be pretty good and I wouldn't mind giving it a go.

Thank's for the help.



Bet with Conegamer and AussieGecko that the PS3 will have more exclusives in 2011 than the Wii or 360... or something.

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=3879752

disolitude on 22 June 2010
Slimebeast said:
 

It just gets more and more confusing lol.

So let's say we have Killzone 2 or 3 and normally the PS3 outputs it at 30fps. In 3-D, will the PS3 output two frames at 15fps and the TV fixes the rest???


If KZ2 is running at 30 FPS natively, in 3D it will run at 15 frames per second per eye only if they drop the resolution or do some major optimizing. They have to render 2 images at the same time, hence it won't be running at 30 fps once that is done.

Here are 2 benchmarks I did myself over a year ago with 3D vision.

Street fighter 4 with everything maxed - 80 FPS - very playable indeed

http://lh3.ggpht.com/_m4ygvA6-tB0/SzMVYJR794I/AAAAAAAAALk/ddqLXPt_cDg/s912/SF4 no 3D2.jpg

Street Fighter 4 with 3D turned on - 38 FPS average - unplayable due to slowdown since thats less than 20 FPS per eye

http://lh6.ggpht.com/_m4ygvA6-tB0/SzMVX_XnCOI/AAAAAAAAALg/PRRChBJmlv8/s912/SF4 3D2.jpg

My old PC couldn't play SF4 in 3D and maintain 60 FPS hence the game was unplayable in 3D without lowering details.



disolitude on 22 June 2010
Doobie_wop 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.


You seem to know your stuff, are there smaller 3D capable TV's available, like say 22 Inches? How much do they go for and can I also use them as a PC monitor as well as for my PS3. Finally, is it worth getting for the 3D game's the PS3 has coming out? From what I've read and seen in stores, it seem's to be pretty good and I wouldn't mind giving it a go.

Thank's for the help.

There aren't any monitors available which will work with PS3 in 3D out of the box. PS3 is locking out old technology since it requires the new HDMI 1.4 handshake to show 3D on your screen.

Technically an old CRT monitor can do 120 hz and play this 3D stuff, but due to some of the standards introduced, they have locked out pretty much everything that doesn't cost 2000 dollars.

I think if we wait 6 more months, there may be 22-24 inch 3D monitors which are compatible with PS3. However they won't be cheap, as they will need their own set of glasses.

Best bet for 3D gaming is PC. It will cost you 1500 bucks for everything which isn't cheap, but the quality is unmatched...



Slimebeast on 22 June 2010
disolitude said:
Slimebeast said:
 

It just gets more and more confusing lol.

So let's say we have Killzone 2 or 3 and normally the PS3 outputs it at 30fps. In 3-D, will the PS3 output two frames at 15fps and the TV fixes the rest???


If KZ2 is running at 30 FPS natively, in 3D it will run at 15 frames per second per eye only if they drop the resolution or do some major optimizing. They have to render 2 images at the same time, hence it won't be running at 30 fps once that is done.

 

But why do they have to drop res? No they don't. It takes the same computational power to output 720p in 30 frames per second as it does to output 720p in 15fps plus 15fps (one to each eye).




Around the Network
HappySqurriel on 22 June 2010

Personally, I think it is foolish for either company to put much (any) effort towards 3D gaming on their current consoles being that it will (probably) not be a meaningful feature for people until 2015 (or later)



disolitude on 22 June 2010
Slimebeast said:
disolitude said:
Slimebeast said:
 

It just gets more and more confusing lol.

So let's say we have Killzone 2 or 3 and normally the PS3 outputs it at 30fps. In 3-D, will the PS3 output two frames at 15fps and the TV fixes the rest???


If KZ2 is running at 30 FPS natively, in 3D it will run at 15 frames per second per eye only if they drop the resolution or do some major optimizing. They have to render 2 images at the same time, hence it won't be running at 30 fps once that is done.

 

But why do they have to drop res? No they don't. It takes the same computational power to output 720p in 30 frames per second as it does to output 720p in 15fps plus 15fps (one to each eye).

lol its cause it isn't 720p any more. You are rendering 2 images at the same time. 720pX2.

PS3 uses "frame packing" 3D format.

Here is an image which illustrates what frame packing format looks like. (top one)

http://zone.ni.com/cms/images/devzone/tut/3D_Video_Packing_2_500.jpg



Zlejedi on 22 June 2010

Hmm i can write thesis on nuclear phychics trust me. I just don't feel like writting one this moment ;)

If you can do it prove it and give consumer another option to choose from.



PROUD MEMBER OF THE PSP RPG FAN CLUB

Slimebeast on 22 June 2010
disolitude said:
Slimebeast said:
disolitude said:
Slimebeast said:
 

It just gets more and more confusing lol.

So let's say we have Killzone 2 or 3 and normally the PS3 outputs it at 30fps. In 3-D, will the PS3 output two frames at 15fps and the TV fixes the rest???


If KZ2 is running at 30 FPS natively, in 3D it will run at 15 frames per second per eye only if they drop the resolution or do some major optimizing. They have to render 2 images at the same time, hence it won't be running at 30 fps once that is done.

 

But why do they have to drop res? No they don't. It takes the same computational power to output 720p in 30 frames per second as it does to output 720p in 15fps plus 15fps (one to each eye).

lol its cause it isn't 720p any more. You are rendering 2 images at the same time. 720pX2.

PS3 uses "frame packing" 3D format.

Here is an image which illustrates what frame packing format looks like. (top one)

http://zone.ni.com/cms/images/devzone/tut/3D_Video_Packing_2_500.jpg

Ok, cool Im learning something new! But this sentence u wrote, it just can't be true:

"If KZ2 is running at 30 FPS natively, in 3D it will run at 15 frames per second per eye only if they drop the resolution or do some major optimizing. "

I don't accept that 30fps native becomes 15fps to each eye and with lesser quality.



disolitude on 22 June 2010
Slimebeast said:
disolitude said:
Slimebeast said:
disolitude said:
Slimebeast said:
 

It just gets more and more confusing lol.

So let's say we have Killzone 2 or 3 and normally the PS3 outputs it at 30fps. In 3-D, will the PS3 output two frames at 15fps and the TV fixes the rest???


If KZ2 is running at 30 FPS natively, in 3D it will run at 15 frames per second per eye only if they drop the resolution or do some major optimizing. They have to render 2 images at the same time, hence it won't be running at 30 fps once that is done.

 

But why do they have to drop res? No they don't. It takes the same computational power to output 720p in 30 frames per second as it does to output 720p in 15fps plus 15fps (one to each eye).

lol its cause it isn't 720p any more. You are rendering 2 images at the same time. 720pX2.

PS3 uses "frame packing" 3D format.

Here is an image which illustrates what frame packing format looks like. (top one)

http://zone.ni.com/cms/images/devzone/tut/3D_Video_Packing_2_500.jpg

Ok, cool Im learning something new! But this sentence u wrote, it just can't be true:

"If KZ2 is running at 30 FPS natively, in 3D it will run at 15 frames per second per eye only if they drop the resolution or do some major optimizing. "

I don't accept that 30fps native becomes 15fps to each eye and with lesser quality.

lol, thats fine, I don't expect you to trust what Im saying if ti doesn't make sense...I guess you need to see it in a real world application.

I don't see why its so hard to understand. 1 single 30 fps video stream becomes 1 single ~15 fps video stream when both images are rendered at the same time. Afterwards the shuttering glasses cut it down even more and make it 8 frames for left eye, 8 frames for right eye.

If PS3 was able to render left frame, right frame in a proper sequence and sync it with the glasses and send that signal to the TV, you wouldn't need a special TV.