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.

What? 30fps becomes only 8fps? You crazy? That doesn't make any sense.

The PS3 throws out a video stream at 30fps - and the shutter glasses split them to two 15fps streams to each eye.

I can't tell if you are just joking now...

PS3 doesnt output 1 video stream @ 30 fps when doing 3D. It throws out 2 video streams to add depth.

When doing this options are:

1. cut resolution in half and include 2 streams in 1 720p signal

2. keep both signals at 720p(1080p total) but cut frame rate in half to acomodate for extra video processing

After the Tv gets the 2 video streams it syncs it with shutter glasses as it blocks away every second frame for each eye and only shows you 1 frame at a time to each eye. hence cutting the frame rate even more.

I can't explain it better than that.

Just do some research on stereoscopic 3D methods. Every method does this...

Your wrong about the cutting two times.

Let's look at option 2 and pretend it's Killzone 2 because that's actually reality for Killzone 2. Both signals would be 720p and outputted in 15fps (and in total the PS3 outputs 30 frames per second. Thats native for Killzone 3. 720p at 30 frames per second, like most PS360 games). Now when these frames reach the TV doesn't have to cut them further, it just syncs with the glasses so that the glasses know when to shut off every other frame for each eye. Thus the framerate to the viewer is 15 fps with the original 720p resolution.

Your wrong about the cutting two times.

Let's look at option 2 and pretend it's Killzone 2 because that's actually reality for Killzone 2. Both signals would be 720p and outputted in 15fps (and in total the PS3 outputs 30 frames per second. Thats native for Killzone 3. 720p at 30 frames per second, like most PS360 games). Now when these frames reach the TV doesn't have to cut them further, it just syncs with the glasses so that the glasses know when to shut off every other frame for each eye. Thus the framerate to the viewer is 15 fps with the original 720p resolution.

Quick question.

Could you not use H/V polarization and send out alternate H/V frames, and avoid the need for active glasses??

I figured another way to explain this to you...

When rendering a 2D image, 30 frames per second shown is 30 frames for both eyes since they see the same image.

When rendering a 3D image, there are 2 video streams that are slightly separated, and eyes alternate between each frame to gain depth. So a 30 fps in stereo is actually 15 fps per eye in 3D. Otherwise you just see a mish-mash of images and no depth.

A 2D game running at 720p@30 first needs to send 2 video streams to be in 3D which cuts down the frame rate to 15. Afterwards it needs to show each eye its own frame which makes it around 8 fps per eye.

Here is an example of a performance benchmark in 3D - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=62X_JKBpu_c

That is going from 120 frames per second for both eyes...to 35 frames per second total combined for both video streams (so 17-18 per eye). This is an example of a really unoptimized driver and usually it isn't as bad, but you get the point...

Here are some impressions of Killzone 3 3D BTW - http://www.engadget.com/2010/06/16/playstation-3-in-3d-impressions-almost-but-not-quite/

"The big problem is that the game runs at a seriously reduced resolution in order to compensate for the doubled framerate of 3D."

Also, Wipeout HD runs 1080p 60FPS in 2D and 720p 30 fps in 3D. Care to explain why they had to drop the resolution and frame rate if only halfing the frame rate is good enough :)

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.