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

disolitude said:
Twistedpixel said:

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

Unfortunately display technology is advancing so rapidly that pretty much every year you'll get a news article saying "They've 'solved' the 3D problem with modern displays" and then say that people who have been holding off from 3D ought to buy now. They'll do this every year until they actually 'solve' the problem.

Until modern games come out which render double but only require the game engine to update at half the rate of display I think you'll have problems with wasted performance. You're not really wasting 3D performance so much as CPU performance and thats the area which simply does not scale nearly as well. You can easily double your 3D performance but doubling your CPU performance is a multi-billion dollar question.

My ideal setup I was considering migrating to in the mid term (1-2 years) is a dual projector display system for both gaming and movies. Since the projector essentially blanks when not in use, you only have to display the relevant frame data with no interlacing and at full resolution.



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

Around the Network
DirtyP2002 said:

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.



The 3d in the 80s is not comparable to the 3d today. have you seen Avatar in 3d ? I am glad to see this development it is the beginnig of 3d and will end with full HD 3d without glasses in 15 years.
I will buy a 3d TV even if it wont be used too much this gen but 3d blurays some experimental games on the PS3 and I know I am future proof and can use the full potential of the next gen right from the start is enough to justifiy this purchase. I will wait for a plasma 3d Tv 42 Inch and I wont have to buy another TV for the next 10 years. Until the real 3d without glasses starts.

1: they look stupid ? I dont care Wii playing can look stupid too, a lot of things can look stupid and you are in your living room and not in a club so I really dont care if it looks stupid. Yes you need 8 pairs of glasses if you want to watch it with 8 persons.
2. Yes you have to wear 2 pairs at once. 
3. Most people havent bought a HDTV yet. 35% of them have one. So there are million potential customers out there. Plus some Million early adopters across the world. And it is not that hard to sell a TV on ebay and buy a new one.
4. Yes it is. Analglyph 3d is old but this technology is newer and the thing is the movie/game makers start to produce games in 3d its definetly another experience go watch avatar. And then watch some analglyph 80 movie this is like monochrome TV vs HDTV.

It will be like always some people which dont mind the costs will buy it the others will follow if its more affordable. 
The 3d advantage of the PS3 is small and I dont think it will have a big impact this gen but maybe 3d Blurays will take off and if prices for 3d Tvs will be affordabe it could make an impact the effect on games will be minor. But I dont care 3d is a good thing and I want to be prepared for the future.



disolitude said:
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.

If its ok with you and if I decide to do so Ill PM you so can recommend me the hardware. Ive been using 3D movies for about 5 years on the CRT, I cant wait to also game in 3D. The 2D to 3D converter I have isnt working too great for image quality.



Icyedge said:
disolitude said:
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.

If its ok with you and if I decide to do so Ill PM you so can recommend me the hardware. Ive been using 3D movies for about 5 years on the CRT, I cant wait to also game in 3D. The 2D to 3D converter I have isnt working too great for image quality.

Yeah man, sounds good. I went through a lot of trial an error to get things going on the PC and will gladly help anyone that is setting this up.

They say on the 3d vision box that you need a Nvidia 8800 or higher video card. Well they are fucking liars! :)

I haven't been able to get a good 2D to 3d converter myself. Tridef has one but it works so-so...



disolitude said:
Icyedge said:
disolitude said:
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.

If its ok with you and if I decide to do so Ill PM you so can recommend me the hardware. Ive been using 3D movies for about 5 years on the CRT, I cant wait to also game in 3D. The 2D to 3D converter I have isnt working too great for image quality.

Yeah man, sounds good. I went through a lot of trial an error to get things going on the PC and will gladly help anyone that is setting this up.

They say on the 3d vision box that you need a Nvidia 8800 or higher video card. Well they are fucking liars! :)

I haven't been able to get a good 2D to 3d converter myself. Tridef has one but it works so-so...

Thats great, thx, it will save me all the trial and error ;). Hope you still here in about a year lol.



Around the Network
JHawkNH said:
ctalkeb said:
JHawkNH said:
Does anyone know the answer to this question?
I keep hearing about people getting headaches from 30 FPS in games, but nobody complains about getting headaches at a 24 FPS movie. Why is that?

Well, you'll get a headache if those 30 or 24 frames were just thrown out there at that speed, but that isn't what's happening. Rather, a single image is displayed several times making sure that you don't get a "flickery" effect. For 3D though, if you can only display @60 hz, those are divided between your eyes and you'll actually notice that flickering.


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.

And I quote wikipedia for your pleasure:

"A commonly-held misconception is that film projection is simply a series of individual frames dragged very quickly past the projector's intense light source; this is not the case. If a roll of film were merely passed between the light source and the lens of the projector, all that would be visible on screen would be a continuous blurred series of images sliding from one edge to the other. It is the shutter that gives the illusion of one full frame being replaced exactly on top of another full frame. A rotating petal or gated cylindrical shutter interrupts the emitted light during the time the film is advanced to the next frame. The viewer does not see the transition, thus tricking the brain into believing a moving image is on screen. Modern shutters are designed with a flicker-rate of two times (48 Hz) or even sometimes three times (72 Hz) the frame rate of the film, so as to reduce the perception of screen flickering. (See Frame rate and Flicker fusion threshold.) Higher rate shutters are less light efficient, requiring more powerful light sources for the same light on screen."



I agree, the glasses are great but impractical.

It's like you have to charge it everytime and it doesn't do anything else but 3D

Imagine yourself playing Cod 3D with all your friends and they all needed glasses. lol



                                  

                                       That's Gordon Freeman in "Real-Life"