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!

What I'm wondering is why no one who actually saw and played Killzone 3 at E3 has made a single comment about a 15fps frame rate or a 540p jagged pixel-fest.

I'm guessing because neither applies.

There has been literally no talk among E3 attendees about reduced visuals or choppy frame rates. If anything, the opposite has been commonly stated, namely gorgeous visuals, how smoothly it ran and how dramatic the 3D effect was.



Around the Network
Squilliam 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.

It depends on what HDMI spec the Xbox 360 S uses as well. Noone has commented on that as far as im aware.

Hey Squill, can u chime in on the discussion between Disolitude and myself about 3-D and how much computing power it requires? Especially about this split 30fps twice into 15 then to only 8 frames per second which Disloitude claims.

I find it very hard to understand despite his lengthy explanations so maybe it's no point for you to waste time on trying to explain it to met either lol, but maybe u can at least confirm or deny the bolded part?



Slimebeast said:
Squilliam 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.

It depends on what HDMI spec the Xbox 360 S uses as well. Noone has commented on that as far as im aware.

Hey Squill, can u chime in on the discussion between Disolitude and myself about 3-D and how much computing power it requires? Especially about this split 30fps twice into 15 then to only 8 frames per second which Disloitude claims.

I find it very hard to understand despite his lengthy explanations so maybe it's no point for you to waste time on trying to explain it to met either lol, but maybe u can at least confirm or deny the bolded part?


I didn't say that...

I said 8 fps per eye... Its really simple.

1. PS3 games frame rate cut in half due to extra video processing to push 2 video streams. 30 becomes 15.

2. Image(s) user is looking are no longer 1 image for both eyes but each eye has separate image in order to achieve depth. 15 fps becomes 7-8 moving frames per eye. Game still runs at 60 fps which is what PS3 3D spec for gaming is. http://www.thesixthaxis.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/PS3-3D-01.jpg

I have played so many games that are getting me 40-50 fps in 3D on the PC and it just isn't optimal and doesn't look smooth. Trust me, you need 60 in 3D, so you can get 30 per eye and everyone is happy.



greenmedic88 said:

What I'm wondering is why no one who actually saw and played Killzone 3 at E3 has made a single comment about a 15fps frame rate or a 540p jagged pixel-fest.

I'm guessing because neither applies.

There has been literally no talk among E3 attendees about reduced visuals or choppy frame rates. If anything, the opposite has been commonly stated, namely gorgeous visuals, how smoothly it ran and how dramatic the 3D effect was.

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."



disolitude said:
Slimebeast said:
Squilliam 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.

It depends on what HDMI spec the Xbox 360 S uses as well. Noone has commented on that as far as im aware.

Hey Squill, can u chime in on the discussion between Disolitude and myself about 3-D and how much computing power it requires? Especially about this split 30fps twice into 15 then to only 8 frames per second which Disloitude claims.

I find it very hard to understand despite his lengthy explanations so maybe it's no point for you to waste time on trying to explain it to met either lol, but maybe u can at least confirm or deny the bolded part?


I didn't say that...

I said 8 fps per eye... Its really simple.

1. PS3 games frame rate cut in half due to extra video processing to push 2 video streams. 30 becomes 15.

2. Image(s) user is looking are no longer 1 image for both eyes but each eye has separate image in order to achieve depth. 15 fps becomes 7-8 moving frames per eye. Game still runs at 60 fps which is what PS3 3D spec for gaming is. http://www.thesixthaxis.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/PS3-3D-01.jpg

I have played so many games that are getting me 40-50 fps in 3D on the PC and it just isn't optimal and doesn't look smooth. Trust me, you need 60 in 3D, so you can get 30 per eye and everyone is happy.

Well I meant 8fps per eye.

Now look at the bolded. I dont agree with that. 30fps does not become 15fps. 30 fps remains 30fps because two streams of 15fps equals 30fps, so the machine outputs 30 frames per second.



Around the Network
Slimebeast said:
disolitude said:
Slimebeast said:
Squilliam 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.

It depends on what HDMI spec the Xbox 360 S uses as well. Noone has commented on that as far as im aware.

Hey Squill, can u chime in on the discussion between Disolitude and myself about 3-D and how much computing power it requires? Especially about this split 30fps twice into 15 then to only 8 frames per second which Disloitude claims.

I find it very hard to understand despite his lengthy explanations so maybe it's no point for you to waste time on trying to explain it to met either lol, but maybe u can at least confirm or deny the bolded part?


I didn't say that...

I said 8 fps per eye... Its really simple.

1. PS3 games frame rate cut in half due to extra video processing to push 2 video streams. 30 becomes 15.

2. Image(s) user is looking are no longer 1 image for both eyes but each eye has separate image in order to achieve depth. 15 fps becomes 7-8 moving frames per eye. Game still runs at 60 fps which is what PS3 3D spec for gaming is. http://www.thesixthaxis.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/PS3-3D-01.jpg

I have played so many games that are getting me 40-50 fps in 3D on the PC and it just isn't optimal and doesn't look smooth. Trust me, you need 60 in 3D, so you can get 30 per eye and everyone is happy.

Well I meant 8fps per eye.

Now look at the bolded. I dont agree with that. 30fps does not become 15fps. 30 fps remains 30fps because two streams of 15fps equals 30fps, so the machine outputs 30 frames per second.


PS3 outputs 3D using frame packing.

1 frame but 2X resolution.

http://www.thesixthaxis.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/PS3-3D-02.jpg

Then the TV takes it and shows top frame first, bottom frame second.

You think PS3 can double the resolution and keep same frame rate?



so 'MS' said that? :S color me shocked

anywho I will believe it when i see it



In-Kat-We-Trust Brigade!

"This world is Merciless, and it's also very beautiful"

For All News/Info related to the PlayStation Vita, Come and join us in the Official PSV Thread!

disolitude said:
Slimebeast said:
disolitude said:
Slimebeast said:
Squilliam 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.

It depends on what HDMI spec the Xbox 360 S uses as well. Noone has commented on that as far as im aware.

Hey Squill, can u chime in on the discussion between Disolitude and myself about 3-D and how much computing power it requires? Especially about this split 30fps twice into 15 then to only 8 frames per second which Disloitude claims.

I find it very hard to understand despite his lengthy explanations so maybe it's no point for you to waste time on trying to explain it to met either lol, but maybe u can at least confirm or deny the bolded part?


I didn't say that...

I said 8 fps per eye... Its really simple.

1. PS3 games frame rate cut in half due to extra video processing to push 2 video streams. 30 becomes 15.

2. Image(s) user is looking are no longer 1 image for both eyes but each eye has separate image in order to achieve depth. 15 fps becomes 7-8 moving frames per eye. Game still runs at 60 fps which is what PS3 3D spec for gaming is. http://www.thesixthaxis.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/PS3-3D-01.jpg

I have played so many games that are getting me 40-50 fps in 3D on the PC and it just isn't optimal and doesn't look smooth. Trust me, you need 60 in 3D, so you can get 30 per eye and everyone is happy.

Well I meant 8fps per eye.

Now look at the bolded. I dont agree with that. 30fps does not become 15fps. 30 fps remains 30fps because two streams of 15fps equals 30fps, so the machine outputs 30 frames per second.


PS3 outputs 3D using frame packing.

1 frame but 2X resolution.

http://www.thesixthaxis.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/PS3-3D-02.jpg

Then the TV takes it and shows top frame first, bottom frame second.

You think PS3 can double the resolution and keep same frame rate?

That makes sense then. All in all the PS3 outputs the same amount of pixels like it does in 2-D mode and the only thing that is changed is that each eye only sees half of them.




MS can say what ever they want, we will see, Also its not that the PS3 can't handle, or has a hard time handeling 1080p games, its the cost, developers don't want to spend the extra money, thats all it is.



Slimebeast said:
Squilliam 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.

It depends on what HDMI spec the Xbox 360 S uses as well. Noone has commented on that as far as im aware.

Hey Squill, can u chime in on the discussion between Disolitude and myself about 3-D and how much computing power it requires? Especially about this split 30fps twice into 15 then to only 8 frames per second which Disloitude claims.

I find it very hard to understand despite his lengthy explanations so maybe it's no point for you to waste time on trying to explain it to met either lol, but maybe u can at least confirm or deny the bolded part?

Well there are many different ways to achieve 3D in games. Some are easy, some are cheap to implement, some are perfect and therefore cost a lot more performance to implement and some are crude and cost even more performance whilst not delivering the best image quality.

The Nvidia method is the crudest and requires the most performance. It can yield 3D on games not originally designed to output like that but it also has quite a few artifaces. Its simply forcing the game to render at a different camera angle at its most basic.

The Killzone 3 method renders the best 3D effect however it costs almost as much performance as the Nvidia method. It requires a scene to be rendered twice as often so the compromise is that they lower the rendering resolution by 1/2 along the horizontal axis. So 1280 by 720 becomes 640 by 720 which makes it the lowest rendering 'HD' console game im aware of in this mode.

The Crysis 2 method is an anaglyph method. It uses the depth buffer and its more efficient in that it costs ~1.4% performance to implement as the game is simply reusing the original 2D image. However it suffers the greatest number of artifacts as one eye can see parts of the scene which are not needed to be rendered in the original 2D version. For example you might only be able to see one side of a fence in 2D however in 3D you might be able to see the other side of the fence so the game must be designed to minimise these artifacts.



Tease.