So how is this 3D gaming going to work on PS3???

[Mr Latte]

Nothing official, Just sites like this one, on the forums people keep saying "Full 3D" Just wondered what their definition of Full 3D is.

120hz TVs with HDMI 1.3a and above with the ability to full sync with glasses. In resolutions of 720p and above.

Would anything less than that miss the official standard, and so be considered not "Full 3D"

Any 3DTV should be a 1080p panel capable of displaying 1080p native in 2D.
I dont believe we will see 720p native displays with 3D functionality, not certain though.

Some older 3D projectors are 720p native but many of those released before the standard was finalised.

 

[james.miller]

You were right in what way?
I think you have a problem admitting when you are wrong more to the point.

I recall you going to great lengths trying to point out PS3 wouldnt be able to do the 3D as it only had HDMI 1.2 BW with some 1.3 features. Even when presented with official press announcements stating 1.3 you still argued a load of techno blab. To be a 1.3 device it didnt have to support ALL 1.3 features. Just like now the upcoming update is announced as making the PS3 HDMI 1.4 spec, yet it wont offer ALL the features of 1.4

Yet as Sony have proved with the DTS update and now with the 3D packeting capability the PS3 HDMI feature set is upgradable to a certain point but always had 1.3 BW. PS3 is probably the one device that is key to 3D's early success or failure with such an already established userbase. I dont see it not supporting Dual 1080p for movies or it being too badly limited compared to standalone 3D players.

It has to support the 3D specifications.

what are you blathering about? i was talking about the ps3 supporting 1080p 3d in most titles (edit: games)

 

[iamtheoneneo]

what are you blathering about? i was talking about the ps3 supporting 1080p 3d in most titles (edit: games)

which it doesnt , already the two '3d launch games' wipeout - 720p 30fps and motorstorm is sub 720p..... both way off 1080p

it doesnt have the grunt, its going to take some special coders to get a game up to 3D 1080p and if devs like studioliverpool cant do it then theres not much hope out there - maybe naughtydog can pull something out of the bag but we will have to wait and see. the ps3 really needs some more vram to do 3D 1080p i suspect.

 

[Streeteh]

which it doesnt , already the two '3d launch games' wipeout - 720p 30fps and motorstorm is sub 720p..... both way off 1080p

Which is exactly what james.miller said would happen

You are right, most titles aren't 1080p, but i feel i must mention that Wipeout HD is 1080p. Or at least it is 90% of the time, when the action gets thick it downscales the horizontal resolution a bit on the fly in order to keep the framerate at 60fps. They have claimed in the past if they went for 30fps it could have been 1080p 100% of the time but they did not want to sacrifice speed for the occasional loss in eye candy (and pretty much unnoticable too as it only happens when there's loads of explosions on screen etc).

 

[antijoke]

So what's the deal with 3D and gaming? Are going to get conned by all this 3D talk and then get sub par games?

 

[Streeteh]

So what's the deal with 3D and gaming? Are going to get conned by all this 3D talk and then get sub par games?

I doubt 3D will result in sub-par games as the technology to play and interact with the game will still be the same, developers will have no reason to let it ruin a game. All it will do is enhance games for those that have the technology, assuming it works.

 

[iamtheoneneo]

Which is exactly what james.miller said would happen
You are right, most titles aren't 1080p, but i feel i must mention that Wipeout HD is 1080p. O

I was just going from the 3d angle, your right its 1080p 60fps normal play but 720p 30fps 3d....

So what's the deal with 3D and gaming? Are going to get conned by all this 3D talk and then get sub par games?

well not sub par games , just sub par resolutions and frame rates.
its all sony hype - and the proof is in the pudding and their pudding is a mini egg at the moment but their trying to tell you its something bigger.

 

[Streeteh]

Ah i see, i thought you meant 1080p in general as i thought that's what James was referring to (misread his post)

To be honest, if i could afford the technology (which i can't) i'd probably rather play wipeout HD in 3d @ 720p than 2d @ 1080p. With that said without seeing it 'in the flesh' i can't be certain. If it works i imagine it'll be great and feedback so far is good but as you say, the proof is in the pudding, we're just yet to know whether we're getting a black forest gateaux or a blancmange

 

[Mr Latte]

what are you blathering about? i was talking about the ps3 supporting 1080p 3d in most titles (edit: games)

Considering you didnt make clear what you were referring too. I was wondering hence why I actually asked what you were going on about. Although you know fine well you were wrong about the whole previous HDMI thing. It was fair to question what you right about...


Regards anyone thinking PS3 could somehow offer dual 1080p in 3D games when it cant do full HD in 2D properly. Therefore should anyone be surprised the HDMI 3D gaming standard is 720p?

Its also 720p for PCs over HDMI too. As yet 3D gaming on HDMI has not been confirmed to support higher than 720p on PCs, perhaps it can though. Of course dual link or display port will allow PC users greater resolutions and even multiple displays if they want to use Nvidia's glasses on their monitors.

 

[james.miller]

Considering you didnt make clear what you were referring too....

i made it perfectly clear lol

I was wondering hence why I actually asked what you were going on about. Although you know fine well you were wrong about the whole previous HDMI thing. It was fair to question what you right about...

Look, once and for all, just it to bed. I'd explained all that in the last thread (and the reasons why your 'proof' was twaddle) and you choose to ignore my post because it was too long and contained too many big words. In the kindest, nicest possible way - if you want to carry on that argument, go look up the last thread, read post #70, and bring it up there

Regards anyone thinking PS3 could somehow offer dual 1080p in 3D games when it cant do full HD in 2D properly. Therefore should anyone be surprised the HDMI 3D gaming standard is 720p?

I am surprised actually. I'm surprised it's that good, because that would suggest it requires very little in the way of additional bandwidth and processing power to run in 3d @ 720p over your standard 2d malarkey. so if 720p is still the standard for 3d, that is impressive. we will have to see just how honest sony are

Its also 720p for PCs over HDMI too. As yet 3D gaming on HDMI has not been confirmed to support higher than 720p on PCs, perhaps it can though. Of course dual link or display port will allow PC users greater resolutions and even multiple displays if they want to use Nvidia's glasses on their monitors.

That's for a different reason though isnt it? that's bandwidth limited (or hardware like the glasses, as you mentioned), though I dont know why 3d 1080p/60 couldnt be achieved, unless ive got my numbers wrong.

 

[Streeteh]

Bandwidth wise surely it's more than possible to do 3d @ 720p on HDMI 1.3? Stop me if i'm being thick but i was under the impression 3d was simply two images, shot from a slightly different angle, overlaid onto the same screen. If that holds true then all that it should need enough bandwidth for is 2x720p. 720p iirc is less than half the resolution than 1080p thus leaving enough spare bandwidth for it and a bit of error checking for good measure. Processing power wise, well yes on the PS3 that could prove a problem as it doesn't work the same way, but i was under the impression that the connectivity was more than up to the job. In fact, a comparison article i read a while back stated HDMI 1.3 and 1.4 had exactly the same amount of bandwidth, 1.4 just had built in ethernet and a few other very cool features, is bandwidth all that matters for playback of 1080p 3d films?

I've done no research to back up this assumption so do feel free to correct away, i'm here to learn

 

[james.miller]

i was thinking of the monitors but actually that's absolute trash lol. hdmi 1.3 has oodles of bandwidth, more than enough for 1080p24/30 in 3d at least. im not actually sure about 1080p60

 

[Mr Latte]

like i said, i'd love to be wrong. looks like i was pretty much on the money about the ps3's 3d capabilities though, doesnt it?

Sorry but that isnt clear to me what your referring to at all.
Heh if you say its perfectly clear who am I to argue.

 

[Mr Latte]

I am surprised actually. I'm surprised it's that good, because that would suggest it requires very little in the way of additional bandwidth and processing power to run in 3d @ 720p over your standard 2d malarkey. so if 720p is still the standard for 3d, that is impressive. we will have to see just how honest sony are


That's for a different reason though isnt it? that's bandwidth limited (or hardware like the glasses, as you mentioned), though I dont know why 3d 1080p/60 couldnt be achieved, unless ive got my numbers wrong.

We cant assume PS3 3D will require a 2x hit on processing power as its different hardware and probably works different than 3D on PC. Dropping from 1080p - 720p or below 720p for 3D gives them quite a bit of scope.

Optomisation!
An example would be how did PD get 1080i 60fps out of GT4 on a PS2. How 16 cars 60 fps and 1080p on GT5P. For the same reason Id expect GT5 will be 3D @60 fps. Thats double then the framerate performance Wipeout 3D will offer. If GT5 has been selected as one of the AAA 3D release games then whatever it runs at Id reckon PD will be pretty close to the max possible on the system.

Developers will of had lots of time to work on 3D now as well.
CryEngine 3 will no doubt really raise a few eyebrows as that is being designed to utilise stereoscopic 3D from the beginning.
E3 is likely to give us a good idea....


3D on PC
Best maybe to assume HDMI 3D is 720p for compatibility creating a larger possible market. Last thing they want is difficult setup issues. HDMI 1.4 devices are aparently going to auto detect with the display the 3D setup. Unlike AVATAR and previous games they all required manual setup for various forms of 3D hardware. Of course graphical settings will still be changable in game but no doubt games will come with preset defaults.

If Dual 1080p Blu Ray is possible over HDMI1.4 then why wouldnt it be possible in PC gaming. Of course this will require the appropiate new cards too. No explanation has been given yet regards this but technically it shouldnt be an issue. Chances are if its not offered someone will find a way to make it work.

Dont forget though that when gaming in 3D from a PC or Laptop and using a 3DTV you wont be using the Nvidia glasses but the glasses the TV works with. This again simplifies 3D gaming on PCs to a single Hi-Speed HDMI cable no different to a console really.

 

[Yungstar 2006]

Id expect GT5 will be 3D @60 fps. Thats double then the framerate performance Wipeout 3D will offer. If GT5 has been selected as one of the AAA 3D release games then whatever it runs at Id reckon PD will be pretty close to the max possible on the system.

Sony has now confirmed that the 3D versions of WipEout HD and MotorStorm: Pacific Rift which are to be given away free with Sony's 3D Bravia TVs, will suffer texture and resolution drops.

Senior development manager Simon Benson told Digital Foundry, "WipEout HD was originally 1080p at 60Hz - obviously a good foundation to start from but in making the 3D build of this we had to go for two 720p images."

"Because it was 60Hz we could just drop to 30Hz and in actual fact that was it. There was no more work to do. That worked. It took very little time getting the game into 3D; there were very few problems with WipEout."

Motorstorm: Pacific Rift runs at a resolution and frame rate of 720p and 30Hz respectively, however, meaning no overhead in pixel-throughput and no compromises possible in the frame-rate.

Developers had to rework the split-screen two player mode, reducing the graphical detail in order to accommodate it.

Single player 3D MotorStorm will suffer the same graphical compromises found in the two-player version in the original.

[ Source: Digital Foundry ]

Developers will of had lots of time to work on 3D now as well.
CryEngine 3 will no doubt really raise a few eyebrows as that is being designed to utilise stereoscopic 3D from the beginning.
E3 is likely to give us a good idea....

Ninja Theory's co-founder Tameem Antoniades' claim that the current generation of consoles will be limited in their ability to produce stereoscopic 3D effects.

In an interview with CVG at the beginning of April, Antoniades said, ""The problem is that to do 3D properly you need to render 60 frames per second, per eye. And at least a 720p resolution [per eye]."

"So in essence that's 1080p rendering at 120 frames per second, and the current generation can only process very rudimentary graphics at that spec," he explained, and that makes sense if you consider very few games run at 60fps, and even fewer at true 1080p due to processing restrictions."

 

[Kenai]

The simple fact is 3D is far more intensive than 2D, on the PC often to the tune of almost twice as demanding. With a PC this can be mitigated for if you have money, just buy bigger better graphics cards and so on.

Consoles can't do this, so when you have a console designed several years back for 2D gaming and where everyone is used to the quality given in 2D and you try and run 3D you hit problems, the main one being the fixed and limited processing power.

To run 3D on a console is going to require either severe resolution drops or severe quality drops. On a game like Wipeout that managed 1080p60 that's fine, 720p30 is not a huge deal to drop to, many games run at that anyway. Take a game like COD4 though, which afaik barely managed 720p30 in 2D and you have issues, you either make it look like COD2 or you run at 360p, but either way it's not going to be pretty.

I'm not convinced the current generation of consoles are cut out for 3D yet.

 

[antijoke]

I'm not convinced the PS3 is going to offer anything amazing in 3D.

 

[iamtheoneneo]

We cant assume PS3 3D will require a 2x hit on processing power as its different hardware and probably works different than 3D on PC.

yes we can, considering the first two releases have pretty much a 2x negative hit on their translation to 3d. i retain my point above, the ps3 needs more vram to minimise this performance hit.

Optomisation!
An example would be how did PD get 1080i 60fps out of GT4 on a PS2. How 16 cars 60 fps and 1080p on GT5P. For the same reason Id expect GT5 will be 3D @60 fps.

theres a big difference between 1080i and p.
i think the fact that studioliverpool cant pull out 1080p 3d on wipeout (considering they practically invented the new tech to get it at 1080p at 60fps) is a clear sign that gt5p will not be 1080p 3d. PD are sloppy devs

 

[Mr Latte]

I read the digital foundry article when it was linked earlier in the thread.
It has always been aparent resolution would have to drop in graphically impressive games with effects to maintain framerate.

What Im saying is....
To get a full idea of just what the PS3 can do in 3D games.
Then people should at least wait till the games designed to cater for this are available.
If you want to judge the systems 3D performance based on games that had 3D modifed onto them, then go ahead but thats not the true potential.

yes we can, considering the first two releases have pretty much a 2x negative hit on their translation to 3d. i retain my point above, the ps3 needs more vram to minimise this performance hit.

theres a big difference between 1080i and p.
i think the fact that studioliverpool cant pull out 1080p 3d on wipeout (considering they practically invented the new tech to get it at 1080p at 60fps) is a clear sign that gt5p will not be 1080p 3d. PD are sloppy devs

Im fully aware of the difference in "i" and "p" just as there was a big difference from standard NTSC resolution to 1080i. That was the point being made, at the time it was a big gap.
PD who you call sloppy devs which is an unbelievable statement were able to make it possible and still maintain 60fps. Just like now in this generation of consoles to date GT5P has been the only console racing game (except wipeout) to offer upto 1080 with 16 cars and 60fps which Ive said many times before, not bad for sloppy developers, .....

Who said GT5 would be 1080p @ 60fps, certainly wasnt me?
I assume its likely to be sub 720p and with 2xAA @60fps per eye or 120HZ 3D
Kotaku reported that it looked a little more jaggied at CES in Jan. I dont recall people commenting saying the framerate felt different though.

If GT5 is to be one of the first games to use the 3D then for me I would expect as I said before that whatever it runs at will be close to the max potential PS3 can offer based on what PD usually achieve technically.

*Gran Turismo 5: Prologue = 1080p mode is 1280x1080 (2xAA) in-game while the garage/pit/showrooms are 1920x1080 with no AA. 720p mode is 1280x720 (4xAA)
Lets assume its very possible they increased the performance of the graphics engine since GT5P approx two and a half years ago.


The question Id like answered is games that only offer 30fps per eye or 3D 60Hz will the glasses add a further element of blur reducing the need for 4xAA in games?
Sky 3D is likely to have 25fps per eye or 3D 50HZ and with only the same full resolution of 2D.
So 3D except from Blu Ray seems resolution is dropped for the 3D effect. The glasses are aparently capable of 100HZ & 120HZ for interlaced broadcasts and progressive content.
Id assume then if most 3D games have to operate at 25-30fps it still shouldnt be a problem but devs will cut corners to get the framerate like they always have done...

Game Devs have been cheating the whole "HD" thing for ages anyways, example
Call of Duty 3 (screenshot) ~1088x624 (2xAA)
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare = 1024x600 (2xAA)
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 = 1024x600 (2xAA)
Call of Duty: World at War = 1024x600 (2x AA)

Avatar = 1280x692 (QAA, black borders)
Killzone 2 = 1280x720 (QAA)
Assassin's Creed 2 = 1280x720 (QAA), 960x720 (QAA) -> 1080 mode.
Batman: Arkham Asylum = 1280x720 (no AA)
Battlefield: Bad Company = 1280x720 (no AA)
Battlefield: Bad Company 2 = 1280x720 (no AA)

 

[iamtheoneneo]

i agree with that but considering this is Sony's big 3D push ,its launch lineup does give much hope for the future.