Not completely.  Im pretty sure the Xbox 360S still has a HDMI 1.2 port (correct me if I am wrong) but even if not they will still need to worry about the older models.  

"HDMI Version 1.3 has brought about significant enhancements to the original HDMI specifications - with the most important being increasing the single-link bandwidth to 340 MHz or 10.2 Gbit/s data stream."  Souce.  That is a little more than double the 4.95 Gbit/s of 1.2 (on the 360)

The ease of 3D porting is based on HOW they are doing the 3D.  If they are already using frampackets @ > 3.95 gb/sec (max video bandw allowed on HDMI 1.2) it CANNOT be an easy port from one to another. It is all based on how they are implementing the 3D.  Any third part dev looking to do this will obviously choose a way that will support both easily.

Added: This has nothing to do with the internal hardware of the Xbox, nor am I bashing it in any way. This is simply a limitation bandw wise of HDMI 1.2 (which I think a good deal of people skip over)

HDMI 1.2 supports a max video bandwith of 1080p@60 hz...

Check the spec for gaming in 3D on the new 3D TVs. Its 720p@60 hz frame packing... Which is essentially 720p X 2 (2 720p images on top of each other) and is exactly the same amount of pixels as 1080p@60hz.

If it had a bluray drive, 360 wouldn't be able to play Bluray at 1080p@24p using HDMI 1.2 but it has enough bandwith to do 3D gaming according to their specs. Avatar did this exact 3D implementation last year on both PS3 and 360 last year (it has over/under option in the 3D select menu). It just didn't do it with the HDMI 1.4 lock out handshake.

Why the new TV's don't support 1080p@60 per eye jsut baffles me as the HDMI 1.4 cable supports the bandwith... I think it was jsut cheaper not to implement a pannel that can do 60 fps @ 1080p so the TV manufacturers said "fuck it" 720p for gaming it is it is.

Its pretty clear that the HDMI 1.4 "standards" which were introduced last year were made to lock out existing technology in order to maximize revenue, rather than improve 3D for everyone...

After working out the equation, they can both support the exact same 1280x720 @60x2 for all color depths (I was almost sure before doing the actual math that 32bit would be to much bandw for HDMI 1.2, but it isnt...barely)

1280x720 (pixels) x 60 (fps) x 2 (both eyes) x 32bit (color) = 3,538,944,000 gigabites/s  (HDMI 1.2 can support 3.95gigabites/s)

Just to be complete: 

1920x1080 (pixels) x 24 (fps) x 2 (both eyes) x 32bit (color) = 3,185,049,600 gigabites/s (HDMI 1.2 COULD support this...atleast it has the bandw to do so)  

1920x1080 (pixels) x 60 (fps) x 2 (both eyes) x 32bit (color) = 7,962,624,000 gigabites/s (HDMI 1.2 COULD not support this...but neither do todays supposed 1.4a HDMI tvs.... tho they do have the bandw)

1920x1080 (pixels) x 60 (fps) x 1 (regular 2D) x 32bit (color) = 3,981,312,000 gigabites/s (HDMI 1.2 COULD not support this, probably why most 1080p games are 24bit anyway)

1080@60x 32bit 2D > 720@60x 32bit 3D.  Interesting isnt it?

just for shits and giggles: Bandw here = TOTAL number of pixels x how many are drawn per second (frames) x how much space each takes up (16-32 bits per pixel based on color depth) 1080p@60 hz is NOT bandwidth

Damn, well put.

Yeah I figured that 1080p @ 60 is greater than 2X 720p @ 60 as 720p isn't an accurate half of 1080p.

I think that if you took 1360X768 resolution X 2...that should be as close to 1 X 1080p as humanly possible (while keeping the same aspect ratio. Hence why I think a lot of HDTVs have that as their resolution, over true 720p.

Almost makes you wonder if they did this on purpose (limiting 3D gaming to 720p, as that is as high as 1.2 can support)..... it cannot be that simple can it?  

Sony has almost NOTHING to do with HDMI 1.4a specs (they are part of the council but not enough to control it by any means).  Since the PS3 has the bandwidth to do  2 x 1080@60 at 32bit, but NOT the processing power (lets be honest here, no way in hell it is doing a real game at this level with 32bit color), you think it is possible they did this on purpose?  Why go higher when you A) cannot handle it, and B) more adopters because of the 1.2spec on the 360.

CONSPIRACY! hehe (EDIT)  

and here ya go :)

1360 x 768 x 2 x 60 x 32bit color = 4,010,803,200 (barely over 1.2 HDMI bandwidth) tho it would obviously work at any color depth below 32bit.

PS: math is good :)

"4. I didn't say anything about price being too high"

Then what's this: "there are many other resons such as price, "

Actually I wasn't just responding to the op, but others as well. By mentioning a tv I assumed you were talking about a console hooked up to a tv. Hooking a pc to the same tv and using pc 3d hardware may or may not work, depending on the refresh rate of the  tv, right? I used a pair of shutters with a crt years ago, we're talking Half life 1, and it was only a 60hz crt. Can't you use the vga port on the tv instead of the Hdmi to bypass the Hdmi limits? Doe's your pc monitor actaully do 120hz refresh? I didn't realize they could these days, mine can't. Something to keep in mind, 1080 3d at 24 fps is per eye, the ps3 is sending 1080 at 48hz, and games that play at 720p in 3d are 120hz, 60 hz per eye, as with StardustHD:

72D split-screen mode has been updated from 30fps to 60fps and 4x antialiasing has been added to to the 2D mode at 720p and 1080p resolutions. So summarize, the 3D patch includes the following changes:

• 3D mode of the game running 720p at 120fps (60fps per eye)
• 2D mode of split screen co-op mode updated from 30fps to 60fps
• 4x antialiasing support in 720p and native 1920×1080p support in 2D mode

Hehe, I did the math after you posted the equation. Slightly over HDMI 1.2

But yeah, to be honest I don't think its a consipracy from a gaming perspective. I'm quite active on all 3D boards and forums out there and the sources indicate that the issue was the TV manufacturers.

While HDMI 1.4 supports 1080p gaming in 3D (its listed as one of the "sub-formats" but not included as the main format on the HDMI 1.4 spec document) I don't think the TV manufacturers have the technology needed to provide a pannel which can do 1080p @ 60 hz. They figured 3D will be expensive already and didn't want to add a 1000s of dollars more to the units. The 1080p 3D LCD pannel may not cost $1000 more to produce but it does to mass produce.

They already have these 2-3 ms response time pannels ready and are pretty much selling us the same tech they've been doing since 120hz systems were available.

As far as plasmas, Samsung had 3D plasmas available in 2008. I have one in my bedroom... they had slight issues where thosporous would leave a greenish tint...and these new ones use phosporous which is faster to fade on screen. Other than that and the HDMI 1.4 plug...the Samsung plasma TVs are not much different this year.

lol...I like this post of yours a lot better. :)

First of all, believe it or not, those OLD CRT monitors had a minimum of 85hz refresh rate. Thats why they worked in 3D. The good ones had up to 120 hz. Infact, they are still being used and fully supported by Nvidia 3D vision today. All Nvidia 3D vision monitors are true 120 hz as is the signal being sent. (unless you're using the DLP 3D TVs which still work at 60 but use the 1080p resolution and checkerboard pattern to show you both images at 720p each) That is why its not working with the new TVs yet. They have to reformat the signal to be 60hz, but contain 2x the video data.

When you mentioned the wired glasses you prolly mean a pair of edimensional glasses or elsa revelatos(http://www.stereo3d.com/revelator.htm)...those are classic and what started this 3D craze int he first place.

As far s PS3 games (stardust HD) and 3D TVs doing 120 hz...they do and they don't at the same time. The game was probably programmed to work at 120 hz, 60 per eye...but the TVs work in a different manner. They only work at 60 hz, but each signal contains images for both eyes. The pannel is probably 120 hz pannel...however signal sent by the PS3 is 60 hz, with 2 X 720p images(one on top of the other). ITs kind of complex...

Its not the HZ which is making me not buy a TV, its the resolution while gaming. I still can't figure out why its locked at 720p in 3D...but oh well.

I honestly would just wait before spending my money on a brand new 3D TV. I mean, if you are picking up something for under 2000 dollars (like those Mitsubishi DLPs...I'd buy one of those in a heartbeat being an owner of a similar Samsung 3D DLP TV).

But I have a feeling that all these 3D TVs will be slightly behind spec once next generation of TVs rolls around. Even the higher end ones like 5000 dollar panasoinc and Sony ones.

Look in to that Mitsubishi Laser TV if you are a great 2D picture fan and want 3D as well. It supposed to be the best TV money can buy until OLED comes around. And it will do 3D and PS3 gaming (with help from the 100 mitsubishi adapter)

Ill take your word for it, just very interesting that the numbers match up THAT closely with what 1.2 can do (basically any "real" 16/9 aspect ratio above 720p cannot be supported @ all color depths on HDMI 1.2) just a funny coincidence I guess.

Oh well.  In the end Ill be enjoying this stuff on my Mitsu DLP.  Just waiting for the damn bundle w/ glasses to come out.  

I think Im going to go dig into the HDMI doc specs to find out just what else is transfered with raw video data (the number I gave are of course just straight uncompressed raw data).  Id have to imagine whatever else is xfered is smaller than 3.95gig/s - 3.54gig/s = 41megabits/s.   (this is of course after I took out the bandwidth allotted for Audio)

I was trying to be discrete.  I really was, but fuck if this page wants me to do things discretely.

HERE are the official white docs for 3D via HDMI 1.4a (with all supporting resolutions and how they are displayed.  Top/Bottom, Framepacking, sidebyside, etc etc etc)

http://www.hdmi.org/manufacturer/specificationdownload.aspx?t=e1bcfddf-de4b-4bcc-ba78-96f50c86f565&f=3