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

Forums - Microsoft Discussion - The Truth About 3D On Xbox 360

Twistedpixel on 21 January 2010
JHawkNH said:


I was actually talking about movie theaters where it is 24 frames per second.  Not video signals where 24 fps has been converted to 60 fps.

If lower fps can cause headaches, then 24 fps (or watching a movie at a theater should cause more headaches then a 30 fps video picture.

They have double or tripple flashed the movies for quite a while now. Theatres used to flicker, but not anymore. Effectively you're seeling 24 unique frames but 48 or 72 (I think this is the most common now) effective frames.



Do you know what its like to live on the far side of Uranus?

Around the Network
disolitude on 21 January 2010
Twistedpixel said:

Theres only a single major title that Sony has which will give them a good implementation of 3D at present. That title is Gran Turismo 5. Currently the game renders at 1280 by 1080 with 2x MSAA so if it can render at 1280 by 720 with 4x MSAA then they can probably also render at 1280 by 1440 to give an effective 1280 by 720 @ 60 FPS 3D. It can also be scaled to 2 or 4 consoles to yield a faster framerate and higher resolution output. People who don't like racing games will not get much benefit from PS3 3D because outside of this one title the games run at 720P and 30FPS which isn't sufficient to really do a good 3D implementation. I believe this is the reason for GT5's delay.

There we go...someone that know what they are talking about.

If they do 3D on GT5 on a single console, they would have to cut down the framerate per eye down to 30. I don't know if that would go over too well with the core GT gamers. I don't believe they can do 120 frames per second to pull off the 60 that is needed per eye to keep the same experience as when playing in 2D. I don't think they will bother with the checkerbaord pattern to make the res 1280x720@60 fps x2  like you said unless the game has native 3D support.

Scaling it to 2 consoles is probably the way they will go since they are supporting mutiple display support with multiple ps3s. In either case, there will be a trde-off.



disolitude on 21 January 2010
Icyedge said:
 

Oh well then I might install a new computer on that 3DTV, if Sony dont offer enough content, thx for the tip.


yeah there is a lot of trade offs to get this going.

ATI videocard > Nvidia at same price point.

Nvidia glasses cost a fortune.

You can't use any other non-nvidia software like google earth 3D and Cooliris (3D photo/video viewer)

But for 3D games, its the best right now.



dirkd2323 on 21 January 2010

Dude I agree with everything up till you knocking PSN, I own both PS3 and 360, PSN has come a very very long way, It performs better then XBL, The friends list may be a little better on XBL but PSN friends community is pritty dam good, Larger matches online play is much smoother on PSN because they use servers to host the game instead of a console like 360. Please understand XBL is great, but don't underestimate PSN is runs fast no lag, everything easy to find and work with, also best part its free, After playing on PSN and XBL I prefer PSN



Twistedpixel on 21 January 2010
disolitude said:
Twistedpixel said:

Theres only a single major title that Sony has which will give them a good implementation of 3D at present. That title is Gran Turismo 5. Currently the game renders at 1280 by 1080 with 2x MSAA so if it can render at 1280 by 720 with 4x MSAA then they can probably also render at 1280 by 1440 to give an effective 1280 by 720 @ 60 FPS 3D. It can also be scaled to 2 or 4 consoles to yield a faster framerate and higher resolution output. People who don't like racing games will not get much benefit from PS3 3D because outside of this one title the games run at 720P and 30FPS which isn't sufficient to really do a good 3D implementation. I believe this is the reason for GT5's delay.

There we go...someone that know what they are talking about.

If they do 3D on GT5 on a single console, they would have to cut down the framerate per eye down to 30. I don't know if that would go over too well with the core GT gamers. I don't believe they can do 120 frames per second to pull off the 60 that is needed per eye to keep the same experience as when playing in 2D. I don't think they will bother with the checkerbaord pattern to make the res 1280x720@60 fps x2  like you said unless the game has native 3D support.

Scaling it to 2 consoles is probably the way they will go since they are supporting mutiple display support with multiple ps3s. In either case, there will be a trde-off.

Real racing fans demand 60FPS. Theres a reason why all major racing games run at this frame-rate and the people who would get 3D are the people who would notice 30FPS. Its the only reasonable explanation given the delays and the naturally higher resolution and frame-rate this game enjoys that they are making this title a 3D native. Theres no point in doing less than that as with this game in 3D the audience still demands 60FPS per eye!

The PS3 is notoriously fillrate limited, so taking it back from 2xMSAA to 0xMSAA or implementing some other AA method would give them back the fillrate they need to run the game with a checkboard pattern or similar implementation. The trade off is resolution/AA instead of frame-rate.

 



Do you know what its like to live on the far side of Uranus?

Around the Network
AlkamistStar on 21 January 2010

I'm not excited for 3D, but if it's implemented correctly, and slowly over the course of time, i could grow to appreciate it.



Follow Me: twitter.com/alkamiststar

Watch Me: youtube.com/alkamiststar

Play Along: XBL & SEN : AlkamistStar

disolitude on 21 January 2010
Twistedpixel said:
disolitude said:
Twistedpixel said:

Theres only a single major title that Sony has which will give them a good implementation of 3D at present. That title is Gran Turismo 5. Currently the game renders at 1280 by 1080 with 2x MSAA so if it can render at 1280 by 720 with 4x MSAA then they can probably also render at 1280 by 1440 to give an effective 1280 by 720 @ 60 FPS 3D. It can also be scaled to 2 or 4 consoles to yield a faster framerate and higher resolution output. People who don't like racing games will not get much benefit from PS3 3D because outside of this one title the games run at 720P and 30FPS which isn't sufficient to really do a good 3D implementation. I believe this is the reason for GT5's delay.

There we go...someone that know what they are talking about.

If they do 3D on GT5 on a single console, they would have to cut down the framerate per eye down to 30. I don't know if that would go over too well with the core GT gamers. I don't believe they can do 120 frames per second to pull off the 60 that is needed per eye to keep the same experience as when playing in 2D. I don't think they will bother with the checkerbaord pattern to make the res 1280x720@60 fps x2  like you said unless the game has native 3D support.

Scaling it to 2 consoles is probably the way they will go since they are supporting mutiple display support with multiple ps3s. In either case, there will be a trde-off.

Real racing fans demand 60FPS. Theres a reason why all major racing games run at this frame-rate and the people who would get 3D are the people who would notice 30FPS. Its the only reasonable explanation given the delays and the naturally higher resolution and frame-rate this game enjoys that they are making this title a 3D native. Theres no point in doing less than that as with this game in 3D the audience still demands 60FPS per eye!

The PS3 is notoriously fillrate limited, so taking it back from 2xMSAA to 0xMSAA or implementing some other AA method would give them back the fillrate they need to run the game with a checkboard pattern or similar implementation. The trade off is resolution/AA instead of frame-rate.

 

You could be right. I don't have the scope of what PS3 can do with the Nvidia 7800 videocard lol. I can barely run 3D games at max settings with a GTX295 on the PC lol. To be honest, I think its remakrable that they were able to get Super Stardust HD to run at 720p@120 hz for 3D.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/super-stardust-3d-720p120-confirmed-article

It will be interesting to see what this new sony firmware update does. Apparently its supposed to like an API which allows all kinds of 3D to work with their games...so DLP3D checkerboard pattern, shutter glasses with full resolution images, passive polarized setup or whatever else they choose to support. Games will still need native 3D support but it may be something worth the money if it has that kind of flexibility.



DirtyP2002 on 21 January 2010

Why are people excited for 3D anyway? It is not a new technology. There was 3D stuff back in the late 80s.

3D won't matter this gen for sure, maybe next. Here are a few reasons why:

  1. glasses. They look stupid, I need 4 of them to play with 4 friends on one console. When I watch a soccer match with my friends, we do need like 8 pair of glasses then?
  2. I am wearing glasses every day in order to see things far away sharp. How can I watch 3D with my regular pair of glasses? Do I need to wear 2 pair at once?
  3. TVs. millions of people just bought a HDTV in the past 3 years. A lot of hoiseholds don't even have one yet. You might have a problem to tell those people their relatively big investment last year is putdated and they need something new.
  4. As I said, this stuff isn't new at all.


Imagine not having GamePass on your console...

Twistedpixel on 21 January 2010
disolitude said:
Twistedpixel said:

Real racing fans demand 60FPS. Theres a reason why all major racing games run at this frame-rate and the people who would get 3D are the people who would notice 30FPS. Its the only reasonable explanation given the delays and the naturally higher resolution and frame-rate this game enjoys that they are making this title a 3D native. Theres no point in doing less than that as with this game in 3D the audience still demands 60FPS per eye!

The PS3 is notoriously fillrate limited, so taking it back from 2xMSAA to 0xMSAA or implementing some other AA method would give them back the fillrate they need to run the game with a checkboard pattern or similar implementation. The trade off is resolution/AA instead of frame-rate.

 

You could be right. I don't have the scope of what PS3 can do with the Nvidia 7800 videocard lol. I can barely run 3D games at max settings with a GTX295 on the PC lol. To be honest, I think its remakrable that they were able to get Super Stardust HD to run at 720p@120 hz for 3D.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/super-stardust-3d-720p120-confirmed-article

It will be interesting to see what this new sony firmware update does. Apparently its supposed to like an API which allows all kinds of 3D to work with their games...so DLP3D checkerboard pattern, shutter glasses with full resolution images, passive polarized setup or whatever else they choose to support. Games will still need native 3D support but it may be something worth the money if it has that kind of flexibility.

I'll put it this way, they have 'ancient' 8 ROP units clocked at 500mhz. They ARE fillrate limited especially when considering any application of MSAA which cuts their Z-rate quite considerably. Your GTX 295 has 8* the theoretical fill rate and probably 10-20* the fillrate in practice.

Your issue is that you're running games optimised for 30-60FPS and trying to get them up to 120FPS with numerous bottlenecks. You're CPU limited and GPU limited at different points of the frame and the higher you attempt to push your frame-rate the more time your cards spend idle waiting for the CPU.

I would not have personally attempted 3D on anything less than DX11 hardware with the DX11 driver model. The biggest change DX11 gives us is the same multi-threaded just in time rendering that the Xbox 360 has enjoyed up until now. Since you're most likely CPU limited in some fashion, splitting the load over multiple cores should give your PC the ability to feed the graphics card a lot more efficiently.

The Sony update is interesting but im waiting for Fermi to come out to try 3D on the PC. I don't like the idea of paying so much money for a half assed setup when I can get better 3D for cheaper on the PC, with a 24" 3D monitor, and graphics card which will cost less than upgrading the TV and give a better return in terms of experience. If the implementation isn't half assed on the PS3? Well I already own the console and the glasses and by the time I figure that out the TVs will be both better and cheaper to display 3D, win/win.



Do you know what its like to live on the far side of Uranus?

disolitude on 21 January 2010
Twistedpixel said:
disolitude said:
Twistedpixel said:

Real racing fans demand 60FPS. Theres a reason why all major racing games run at this frame-rate and the people who would get 3D are the people who would notice 30FPS. Its the only reasonable explanation given the delays and the naturally higher resolution and frame-rate this game enjoys that they are making this title a 3D native. Theres no point in doing less than that as with this game in 3D the audience still demands 60FPS per eye!

The PS3 is notoriously fillrate limited, so taking it back from 2xMSAA to 0xMSAA or implementing some other AA method would give them back the fillrate they need to run the game with a checkboard pattern or similar implementation. The trade off is resolution/AA instead of frame-rate.

 

You could be right. I don't have the scope of what PS3 can do with the Nvidia 7800 videocard lol. I can barely run 3D games at max settings with a GTX295 on the PC lol. To be honest, I think its remakrable that they were able to get Super Stardust HD to run at 720p@120 hz for 3D.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/super-stardust-3d-720p120-confirmed-article

It will be interesting to see what this new sony firmware update does. Apparently its supposed to like an API which allows all kinds of 3D to work with their games...so DLP3D checkerboard pattern, shutter glasses with full resolution images, passive polarized setup or whatever else they choose to support. Games will still need native 3D support but it may be something worth the money if it has that kind of flexibility.

I'll put it this way, they have 'ancient' 8 ROP units clocked at 500mhz. They ARE fillrate limited especially when considering any application of MSAA which cuts their Z-rate quite considerably. Your GTX 295 has 8* the theoretical fill rate and probably 10-20* the fillrate in practice.

Your issue is that you're running games optimised for 30-60FPS and trying to get them up to 120FPS with numerous bottlenecks. You're CPU limited and GPU limited at different points of the frame and the higher you attempt to push your frame-rate the more time your cards spend idle waiting for the CPU.

I would not have personally attempted 3D on anything less than DX11 hardware with the DX11 driver model. The biggest change DX11 gives us is the same multi-threaded just in time rendering that the Xbox 360 has enjoyed up until now. Since you're most likely CPU limited in some fashion, splitting the load over multiple cores should give your PC the ability to feed the graphics card a lot more efficiently.

The Sony update is interesting but im waiting for Fermi to come out to try 3D on the PC. I don't like the idea of paying so much money for a half assed setup when I can get better 3D for cheaper on the PC, with a 24" 3D monitor, and graphics card which will cost less than upgrading the TV and give a better return in terms of experience. If the implementation isn't half assed on the PS3? Well I already own the console and the glasses and by the time I figure that out the TVs will be both better and cheaper to display 3D, win/win.


Yeah I figured as much about the Ps3 video chip. And you're right about 3D not being optimized for 120hz on the PC. The funny thing is that I use a Samsung 67 inch DLP for 3d gaming which uses checkerboard. I have a Viewsonic 3D monitor as well but I like the DLP 3D much better (no ghosting).

So essentially I am running 1080p checkerboard which is 720p@ 60 hz x 2. However the 3D vision drivers and the videocard are pushing 1080p@60 hz X 2 and only then do they interlace the signal to appear in the checkerbaord pattern. Essentially wasting 1/2 of the performance...

But yeah, the Nvidia CES 2010 was quite impressive with the GF100 and mustiple display 3D...so that seems to be the way to go. I don't think you will look back on the console 3d once you get that going... Not even for a second...lol