It's not a straight up rebuttal, but apparently Sony corporate is singing a different tune than
what we heard from a Sony rep on the floor of IFA (multiple times) the other day: that all existing PS3 games would be playable in 3D after the software update next year. According to Sony, it's "conducting a technological investigation" as to the possibility of this, but claims there's "no plan for the market launch of this at this time." It makes sense that many titles -- especially ones designed with widely divergent game engines -- would be incompatible with a simple software update, but details are slim on how Sony is adding this function to its own games in the first place, so we'll have to wait to find out more. We
do know the
PS3 is going 3D in 2010, but as for available titles it looks like we're going to be in the dark for the time being -- though Ubisoft's upcoming
Avatar game, along with a couple of Sony racing titles, are already shoe-ins for 3D presentation of some form.
posted September 5th 2009 2:16PM
I'm not wearing glasses over my glasses.
I don't get it. Didn't you guys watched any of the 3D films showing on the cinema? How can you go back to watch filmed in 2D after watching the 3D version?
I got no headache from it no nothing just pure enjoyment, Its nothing like the old 3D.
and I believe they will find away to get our TV to be Stereo Visual without needing a glasses soon enough.
from what I heard there is already a theater screen for 3D without glasses.
Thats great! What I want to know is when will we get bitstream support for are fat ps3s?
The glasses are what really turned me off to 3-D so far, but I think it's a wonderful concept to heighten entertainment, and I hope we can see the day when 3D goes glassesless and then into real 3D holograms.
In the meantime, I'll go watch my black and white tube TV. LCD screens are gimmicks!
first and failed miserably.
3D is not going to work for one eye blind person. Just realized that. Even for those w/ blurry either left or right eye.
3D isnt going to succeed. Hologram pl0x.
Normal depth perception doesn't work for them either...
Seriously, what moron would buy a PS3 in the first place?
What's all this new 3d stuff anyway? In my day we had squint at a flickering CRT at a character comprised of no more pixels than fingers on my hand. Why do you need all this new technology? Whats wrong with black and white? Wah wah wah!
Honestley people. You call yourselves geeks? Ever heard of technological evolution. 3D Gaming is about immersing yourself into another world and any bitching about technologies that help take us users closer to these worlds are basically flatearthers (pun intended). Most of the critisisms stem from peoples experiences from lack luster yet nessesary 3D delivery systems in the past. If they had half a brain they would be aware of the recent technological advances that can place a reasonably priced (in my opinion) full color stereoscopic display system infront of a consumer audience. Yet they still whine. Sure there will allways be these idiots that yern for their gaming and films on their bloated ugly 4:3 CRT's just because that's what they know and dont want their little world to change. But I for one .....
welcome our flat yet deep, couch enducing, polarizing glasses wearing, stereocopic delivering - overlords!
+1....People like to complain about everything. I haven't seem a current generation 3D movie, but I am sure its better than crap they did 20 years ago. Also the guy below this comment is saying how the graphics have to be half as good, with half as a good a resolution...blah blah. Yet the original posting of this was an engadget editor PLAYING wipeout HD and saying its awesome. He didn't say it was awesome, but....He just said awesome. The only caveat was Wipeout's visuals and racing lends itself well to this type of experience. But of course it does, its a racing game.
I look forward to the technilogical flops of the future that lead to better stuff for us. I am a proud PS3 owner that hopes NATAL gets its bugs worked out, so next generation we can really start using it.
This won't make for a good experience on current hardware, no matter how good the TV/monitor is.
Rendering 3D video basically requires twice as much data to be processed; separate views for left and right eye, or the amount of data processed for each eye being cut in half. This means that one of three things has to give:
(1) Graphic quality has to be cut in half for the GPU to be able to render a scene (assuming it is already running at 100%, which is a pretty likely scenario), as it has to create two entirely distinct views.
(2) Graphic resolution has to be cut in half to output video over a nonstandard HDMI data stream (something only supported TVs [i.e. Sony-branded and 3D-enabled] could support) through interlacing left/right views in one video frame.
(3) Frame rates must be cut in half to send separate left/right views over a single HDMI data stream. This would limit effective refresh rate to 30 FPS maximum, though few games are rendering at 60 FPS now, making 30 FPS an ideal maximum that would only rarely be reached.
Since HDMI 1.3 doesn't support 3D and only supports a few select refresh rates, with 60p being the highest, not even 120 Hz or higher refresh rate TVs would be of any benefit with current HDMI 1.3 hardware. Data going to the TV would ALWAYS be limited to 60 Hz (half of that for 3D!) at most with current PS3 hardware. HDMI 1.4 has support for 3D, but that doesn't do any good for the current PS3 (or any other) console; 1.4 requires a hardware upgrade.
Making previously released games work in 3D would be a difficult challenge, at best. Games don't really specify to the graphic rendering engine anything about parallax, or even real-world distance information from which to derive parallax (distances are arbitrary), which in the end means that the PS3 would be totally guessing about where left and right eye cameras would be placed in any given scene. This doesn't include the difficultly of making sure that the left eye view be flagged as the left eye view and having that flag remain in place all the way through the entire rendering pipeline, part of which being the non-3D-aware game itself. This would be very difficult to pull off. It also means that any cheats done by programmers simulating a 3D environment to improve performance would break. I don't see it happening.
But with all of that said, I'm not sure how much more I'd enjoy Guitar Hero or Rock band with the runway coming at me in 3D. Sounds like more headache than benefit.
Technically speaking you're wrong. Sorry! In the past, only CRT's could do good 3D and that could only be done on a monitor designed to hit at least 120hz. But CRT's with their heavy weight and limited analog signal are now out of their league in 3D. Enter the newest Digital Technology, where extended refresh rate or frequency can now be produced with little effort, because the reality is that the speed response of the refresh rate is down to 3ms. Which CRT's simply could never do and refresh rates will now routinely be capable of hitting 300 or greater, because there are none of the analog problems holding it back.
You are flat out wrong about HDMI 1.3 specs. It is very capable of carrying the signal of roughly two 1080P screens and that with enhanced color as well. Originally Sony was to have two HDMI 1.2 connections, but with the enhancements to the spec, one would be sufficient. Compression and decompression of the signal is therefore not needed. The ability of Cell BE and RSX to put out signals up to even 4k has been demonstrated on their compute boards that are basically simply PS3 motherboards with an added HDMI output. Whatever the RSX is and I'm still doubting that it's a straight 7800 GPU, it is capable of delivering (rendering) up to 4K and that there can be no doubt, as it's now being done on these computer rack boards!!!
We were told that there were some surprises coming in the proposed 10 life cycle of the PS3 platform and 3D is just one of them. Little do people know that the PS3 was also prepared to upgrade it's memory via a firmware update. That is being worked on by both Sony and Rambus. Rambus, in case you don't know owns the technology that puts the speed into not just FLEXPHASE (memory), FLEXiO (connection to RSX and Super Companion chips), but the bus to the HDMI as well as co-operating with Sony and IBM on Ringbus (on chip communications (on both RSX and Cell BE). That's why it's called the first Broadband system on a chip and motherboard.
If you read through the literature on Rambus own site on the exact part number that is in the PS3, you will find that it is capable of two frequencies and can actually match the onboard speed of the Cell BE. I'm no genius, but when you have the ability to push data at various rates where the all speeds match, you have no bottlenecks and this is a major reason that 4K is indeed possible to render on the PS3 compute boards via two dual linked HDMI 1.3 connections. On a PS3, greater than right now, on an HDMI cable it's capable of passing a signal up to 340 MHz, which allows for resolution (such as WQXGA, 2560×1600) across a single digital link cable. With a new firmware update (remember due to Transmeta's technology Cell and RSX can both be upgraded with firmware to any new spec) to 1.4, PS3 will be easily capable of passing two 1080p pixel rate uncompressed video signals on the same wiring!
My 65" DLP is already prepared for this new spec as is every HDMI cable. HDMI is only different by the SPEC. It's not physically any different and an HDMI cable is an HDMI cable. It's hardware capability that normally is fixed on most consumer goods. But as we already found out, the PS3 is fully firmware upgradeable. It carries as I said some secrets that have not yet been released. For Broadband signaling both onboard and off the chips and board, the PS3 is fully capable of delivering what's called Jumbograms in IPv6. It's already encoded on the PS3 chips and network and one of the main reasons PS3 is referred to as a fully Broadband enabled device.
Next year (like PS3's firmware BluRay upgrade-ability), PS3's HDMI 1.3 will become 1.4 and increasing the single link speed to 680mhz capable of over 4K! :D
Wow... you can keep living in your fantasy world. Because no firmware upgrade is going to double your memory, or magically convert the HDMI 1.3 chip to 1.4. v1.4 requires a hardware upgrade in the form of a new driver chip. Look it up... it is well documented.
Even if we assume that for a minute that through some trickery Sony comes up with a way to send enough data out of the HDMI port for full resolution 3D graphics (using the bandwidth normally reserved for a higher resolution and/or color depth). (1) It is going to have to be in some sort of non-standard format that nobody else is going to adopt because HDMI 1.4 already supports 3D. No company is going to go to the expense of developing a new implementation of HDMI 1.3 just for 3D on the PS3 (excepting Sony...), and (2) you still have the limitations of the RSX to deal with. Any game that is rendering at less than 60fps is already pushing the RSX as hard as it can go (negating software optimization). Do you seriously expect that somehow Sony is going to figure out a way to double the chip's performance? It isn't going to happen, because (1) the RSX just doesn't have enough horsepower to do it to start with (remember, it is based on the 7800, which is very old now), and (2) why would Sony retrofit existing consoles when they can sell you a new one with new capabilities, if they decide to go down the road to 3D? Companies that intend to make a profit don't go around upgrading capabilities of older hardware to make it compete with newer hardware.
Even if the RSX can render graphics at 4K resolution (any graphics chip with enough RAM can do that, theoretically), it doesn't mean that it can do at acceptable frame rates. 4K has 4 times as many pixels to fill as 1080p, so it is going to take roughly four times as long to render each frame, which means 1/4 the performance. Considering that most games are being rendered at 720p or lower now in order to get good frame rates, the prospect of getting 4K, or even 1080p in 3D is outlandish (at best). Very few games can do 1080p in a monaural view, and you expect me to believe that somehow they're going to start magically doubling their performance to render in 3D? To say that I'm skeptical would be the understatement of the millenium.
As I said before, 3D is not good, it decreases the quality. I played FarCry2 in 3D, hurt my head. I see nothing wrong with current displays, and I sure as hell do not want to have to buy and wear additional glasses for it. For the most part games are already 3D, they dont have to jump off the screen to be that, sure its not real 3D but does that matter?
As for 3D movies, I watched a few and honestly, the difference is very minimal, improve the current tech, dont go jumping for stuff we do not need.
and if this gets low rated again I will shoot you.
Was FarCry2 specifically designed to be viewed in 3D or did you just use one of the systems (like Nvidia's) that converts the games into something you can view in 3D? I have a feeling it is the latter (if I am wrong then apologies in advance). If so then, you can expect the effect to be fairly poor and probably expect your head to hurt.
(I'm going to refer to games that have been developed with 3D in mind as True 3D and those which have been converted by hardware as Forced 3D).
For games to work at the best in 3D they need to be developed with 3D viewing in mind. Here are a few of the issues that 3D games will hit and that Forced3D games will not be able to get around.
- Multiple changes to focus depth causing eye-strain - A camera shows a character doing something in the distance, then it cuts to a close up view of the face. Now what would happen here is that when the camera cuts your eyes will have to adjust from looking at an object in the distance to looking at one close up. Now imaging a game cutscene with lots of cuts all with different focus depths. Your eyes are going to be forced to refocus lots which is going to tire them out and work towards that eye-strain lot's of people complain about.
- Particle effects can no longer be in 2D - Many effects are actually done in 2D (why not as it's computationally cheaper), now how is a 2D effect going to look in 3D? Pretty awful to tell you the truth as it will not look like is in the correct place in the 3D world and will be really jarring
- Making the mos of 3D - Ok, it's not an issue, but any games that are using Forced 3D, are obviously not going to make the most out of the 3D.
To me, I don't think you can compare the experience of a game developed for 3D to one that wasn't but is shown in 3D (via the Forced 3D methods). This is like comparing a full colour film, to a black and white ones that had been colourised (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_colorization). It's just not the same, and if anything is going to be damaging to true 3D gaming.
Seems like it'd be pretty damn easy... just add some code into a game via an update that has two cameras and alternates between the two per frame? Bust out the proper glasses and voila?
It's actually pseudo 3D, but hey as long as it looks good. It certainly doesn't help to make a you a better gamer.
Having to buy the new monitor thing and glasses, i'm not going to do that. My flatscreen is new, and i'd like to have some money left.
It's going to be horrible to look at captured footage (Wipeout HD 3D video).
It's either going to split the market or be a huge succes, and i don't think people are going to be glad about the fact that their "new" FULL HD flatscreen is now dated. In fact i'm not, i'll only buy a new tv if it's OLED and doens't need DORKGLASSES.
But it all depends on the developers, if they don't embrace it we won't buy it.
Wow... playing GTA 4 would be insane... :D
I figured it would work on "all games" the same way those new nvidia 3D glasses do, at the video driver level. And completely fail on anything with a HUD.
Imagine what the game developers could do with 3D technology combined with this new motion detection that is also coming out! Driving games - turn your head and see a car in 3D beside you and then look ahead and it is no longer there. Same with sports games. Looking around the ice as you control the puck. Tons of amazing applications. I wonder what their plans on combining these 2 technologies together are and if the PS3 can handle it.
I went to IFA yesterday and was able to get in front of this demo. It was the racing game hooked up to a wheel controller with some tethered 3d glasses. I will say first that the controller was broken. The gas and brake worked, but I couldn't steer... so my impression of it was limited by that.
Once you put the glasses on and start playing the game, though... the fact that it is 3d really just fades into the background. You can take this as a good or bad thing--I may have been thrown off as well being annoyed that the damn thing wasn't working. Compared to the other 3d set-ups they had at the show, the 3d in the game was decidedly underwhelming. I walked away feeling that it barely added anything to a gaming experience, while it took away things at the same time (I am sorry, but 3d glasses do distract me).
I also walked away feeling a bit like I had just stepped off a treadmill and my legs were wondering why the floor wasn't still moving; except my eyes were doing the wondering. This may be a unique problem that I have with the new 3d (and I found this with all of the 3d demonstrations set up, as well as 3d movies I have seen)--the new 3d makes me feel a trifle queasy. I mean a very small trifle. The glasses don't seem to filter things out as well as my eyes could wish, as I do see small shadows of the second image (more likely is that my eyes simply have trouble focusing on something that I know should be flat). Having seen many new movies in the 3d I can't help but wonder if I actually prefer things that aren't 3d.
I would be interested to see how well this pans out, but my overall opinion was that 3d gaming is not something that we should strive for.
pfft "3D ready" TVs are probably a lie. By the time the finalized spec is released, they probably will not be to spec.
Do any of you remember buying "hdcp ready" video cards only to find they were supposedly 'capable' but not actually 'able'?
Most of you are looking for a perfect World and that doesn't exist on a screen. Most all graphics are mental trickery anyway. But the higher the frequency and the faster the response time, the effect becomes more life like and any strain is reduced. The only people that will always have problems, are those with a disability or epilepsy.
I've been playing 3D games and watching movies on my 65" Mitsubishi DLP for 2yrs on a PC with an Nvidia card. But the best experience is always on games designed for 3D from the start. The experience now beats out my 3D (twin LCD) VR HD Head Mounted Display (720p) at this size and all you wear are wireless shutter glasses that you're barely aware of. I have 6 pairs and this home theater includes 4 Buttkickers (rumble transducers) in the lounge chairs. Yeah... they kick your butt! :D Topped off with a game chair setup that has 7 rumble motors and a Porsche Wheel w/ clutch setup. Turn a fan on and the 7.1 channel surround up and you'd swear you were really driving. The only problem is..... my neighbors don't like it much! haha :P