You know what's absolutely useless? A video of
Wipeout HD being played in 3D, with some schmuck wearing 3D glasses and babbling on about how much fun he's having. Well, that schmuck is this Engadget editor, the video can be found after the break, and we've gotta say: we loved it. Especially for something like
Wipeout HD, whose neon-infused tracks make for an almost too convenient example of rapidly approaching vanishing points, we'd say 3D could really be a quasi-"killer app" for consoles going forward -- especially if those fancy new motion controllers don't catch on for Microsoft and Sony. In many ways, 3D just seems to make more sense in a video game than for a movie, and the whole problem of finding content to deliver in the format has already been solved: a software update for the PS3
sometime in 2010 will enable it to provide a 3D viewing experience to "all" existing games on the system. We're sure there will be some exceptions, but it sounds very promising. The console itself pumps out a quite regular signal over HDMI, which the TV syncs up with your 3D glasses. A 200Hz TV, for instance, alternates 1080p frames, with 100Hz for each eye. Of course, you'll need a brand new TV, but at least it won't be restricted to just Sony televisions. Start saving those pennies!
posted September 4th 2009 7:47AM
do a little research, My rig plays pc games at about 45 fps in 3d, the refresh rate of the screen has to be faster than the human eye, bottom line.
Wow, I'll try to make this simple for you.
If a game runs in 2D at 30 fps on a console( like the article is talking about), it will only run at about 1/2 to 2/3 of that in 3D.
I don't want to play games at 15-20 FPS.
I'll use caps this time.
THE REFRESH RATE OF THE DISPLAY HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE FPS OF THE GAME.
I agree that FPS has nothing to do with the refresh rate, I said that fps is not hertz earlier. I had the same misunderstanding as you.
read this
http://forums.nvidia.com/lofiversion/index.php?t88757.html
it will clear up some questions. I'm with you, I want 60fps per eye, but it does not need it. I would rather play with the frame rate drop as apposed to no 3D.
Can anyone else help me out here?
I'm going to try this one last time, but you don't seem to be listening.
If a console can only draw 30 frames each second in 2D, then it only has the power to run at 15-20 FPS in 3D.
That is because it has to draw each frame twice. Once for the right eye, and once for the left eye.
If i hooked this console up to a monitor with a 240Hz refresh rate, it would look fine in 3D.
But the game would still only run at 15-20 FPS.
Maybe your explaining skills need a little work, jon.
Perhaps what you mean is that to create a true 3D image, the computer needs to do more work, since it has to effectively render two viewpoints, one per eye, instead of just the one that a 2D display uses. Correct to a degree, but the actual impact on performance when this tech is used will depend upon how quickly the hardware can render an extra image.
With each frame of the game (not the display) several things need to be calculated, and sometimes these operations are where the processor can spend most of its time, for example the physics. Even when using 3D tech, stuff like that still only needs to be calculated once per game frame. Yes, rendering two viewpoints instead of one will take extra time, but these days, especially on a platform like the PS3, adding an additional render operation per game frame isn't necessarily that big a hit.
Probably. I had an analogy with sheets of paper, but I had to leave.
Rendering extra frames for 3D is a bigger hit than you think.
It's not just rendering a second frame, you have to calculate the difference between the 2 frames for each object on screen before you render it.
Look at the Nvidia forums, going from 120+fps to less than 50 isn't uncommon.
Hell, the PS3 can't even maintain 1080p at 60fps in Wipeout HD.
Now we expect it to render a whole other frame.
The PS3 and the 360 are both GPU limited. Which is my whole point.
Sorry, but being told I don't know the difference FPS and refresh rate, by someone with a poor grasp of the technology, is a little galling.
The word."Schmuck" is German and it means both decoration and JEWEL as says my up-to-date dictionary and my good friend from Frankfurt a Main. Yiddish just borrowed it as it did with most of the German language.
The idiot was the one who used it.
Didn't some guy already do this on the Wii by reversing the use of a controller and the wii bar?
I agree, that was true 3D and interactive 3D... If you combine that with this technology, you could get convincing 3D i guess..
You're right about the word,"Schmuck." In Wien the word for "Jeweler" on some store fronts, not far from St. Stefan's Dom, is "Schmucker."
I think this is just the start. They are preparing themselves to implement the technology into PS4 which will be (IMO) completely 3D based, because it's coming in 2011.
I wonder if back in the 40's and 50's people were complaining (on CB radio or whatever) that they had to get get new TV's to watch color television... "The only way I'm gonna watch color tv shows is if they make it so I can see the color video on my existing black and white television."
@Matt - No, The Wii guy did simulated 3D. Reversing the controller allowed for head tracking. That allowed for the image to change based on where your head was positioned. It's like looking through a window, in the sense that if moved to the right, you can see farther to the left "through" the screen. Thus, simulated 3D.
The 3D in the article is regular 3D, adjusting the image to each eye with closer objects more separated. I'm guessing the simpler method would be to shift objects sideways based on the Z axis, rather than creating two separate camera views.
Does anyone know if this would work on all the autosteroscopic tvs that are suppose to be coming out next year. I don't really like wearing 3D glasses over my glasses.
This is OK, I guess...3-d with viewing aids is so 1950's. How bout real 3d with no viewing aids. Recently heard about this company that has break through 3d technology with no viewing aids. Think Star wars ("Help me Obi One, your my only hope"). Its in just one color as of now, but the goal is for High Def eventually. Check them out, 3d icon corporation.
see it in action.....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OaS028GN7ss
Sweet. I had 3d video games back in 1988! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3-D_WorldRunner
3d sux.
Actually guys, you won't need a new TV.
I've been following this intensively for about 6 months now and It's been widely publicized that with normal TV's you'll be able to wear a particular type of 3D glasses and still get a 3D effect, but for a *MUCH* better effect (like what you see at the cinema) you will need a 3D-Ready TV.
What happened to all the new TVs that were supposed to display 3D without glasses?
I for one an all for 3D gaming. and very impressed with the Digital 3D at the theatres. It sure as hell beats the old 3D glasses...they just gave me a headache. If only the game developers could get their heads right and come up with a sick 3D horror/suspense game.
I for one an all for 3D gaming. and very impressed with the Digital 3D at the theatres. It sure as hell beats the old 3D glasses...they just gave me a headache. If only the game developers could get their heads right and come up with a sick 3D horror/suspense game.
I'm just wondering, during the Superbowl, grocery stores were giving out 3D glasses for regular tv's, and it worked. Why can't this be done with the PS3?
A patch that will make all existing games play in 3D? Not likely. Remember Sony was supposed to have a patch that allowed all games to run at 1080p/i or whatever and to this day you still can't run Resistance- a first party game- in 1080i, so if you have an older HD
set that doesn't do 720p, you are SOL. Now Sony's saying they will make a patch that makes all existing games render an additional
viewpoint? The RSX is already fill-rate limited on most games because of its lack of EDRAM, so now it has to setup and render twice
as many frames and that won't be an issue? Un-bloody-likely. And if they actually could do that they would have shown it working on a third-party game (i.e. one Sony doesn't have the source code for). Add this to all the other patches like cross-game voice chat, Blu-ray
streaming to the PSP, universal upscaling, universal background music, etc. that Sony promised but hopes everyone will forget about
after they already have your money.
Somebody has to say it: pr0n.
Early adopters will be buying TVs so they can watch HD 3D pr0n. Mark my words.
Ok, enabling 3d on "all titles" sounds like it won't really work that well on a lot of titles that don't have proper depth.
The intriguing part here is, if this is true side by side 3d it would mean you need 2x the performance...
Also, notice how he mentions the PS3 slim, and not the regular PS3... (this is the only way this makes sense to me, i don't think the old PS3 would be able to do this with out cutting the frame rate in half in most games.)
So... i think the PS3 slim is a Trojan horse that has no problem doubling the performance of the current PS3 once the firmware comes out... this is actually awesome.
If this is the case, it'd be the first time we see those chip reduction size in consoles be anything more than just money savers for Sony and us (for us the power draw).
Very exciting.. i just hope they support other types of output and not just shutter glass.
Hi , i have Samsung S7 with 100Hz Motion Plus from UAE ... i cant play the 3D thing ?
200 hz? isn't that for PAL tv's?
what will be for US NTSC 120hz? 240hz?
120 hz or 240 hz motion flow is NOT 3D capable. That is TV trickery to make the image smoother. It is not an actual 240 hz signal. I have the Nvidia 3D vision and I needed a special monitor that supports TRUE 120 hz. For some reason DLP TVs seem to be able to take advantage of this. Even Mitsubishis that I don't think always have/had smooth motion trickery. Correct me if I am wrong.
Finally some mainstream support for high refresh rates, and that's actual frames, instead of interpolated high refresh rates seen on most TV's these days. I've been getting tired seeing these "fake" high refresh rates. I've been playing cs 1.6 with 150 real hz for quite a long time and it's a whole new experience(on a laptop mind you, t61p 4:3 ftw) h
that looks like ratchet and clank on crack!