Why Sony mandates 720p for PS3 3D

By Richard Leadbetter Published 19 July, 2010

1080p best suited for Blu-Ray movies.

Interesting reports from Develop last week say that Sony is mandating 720p for all 3D titles, even though Blu-ray 3D movies will all use the full 1080p capabilities of the spec. The question is, why? Are gamers being short-changed by a heavy-handed dictate from Sony High Command?

The answer, perhaps unsurprisingly, is no: it's simply the case that the new stereo 3D support built into the HDMI 1.4 spec is specifically designed for Blu-Ray movie playback at a standard 24 frames per second, making the full HD mode a poor fit for gaming. In a world where games are created to run either at 30 or 60 frames per second, dropping down to 24FPS means a jerkier image and a more muted response from the controls.

In the original news story, Sony's Simon Benson talks about the 720p mandate perhaps being relaxed for more cinematic titles, so for games heavily reliant on filmed material shot at 24FPS, or for a slower-paced adventure title along the lines of Myst, the 1080p mode may well be more appropriate. The door's clearly open there if the game requires it. There's certainly no lack of support from the PS3 itself either, as even in the current 3.40 firmware - which doesn't support Blu-Ray 3D movies - the mode is clearly recognised and available for use by the console.

As for whether we're really missing anything with the omission of the 1080p24 3D mode, this is something that we hope to have a look at in the near future. NVIDIA has announced that its 3D Vision driver for its range of PC graphics cards has been tweaked and improved, and is set for full compatibility with the new range of 3DTVs. Instead of buying the firm's 3D glasses, instead you'll shell out $40 for the upcoming 3DTV Play package which supports both the 720p60 and 1080p24 3D modes for all 3D Vision titles.

While PS3 developers have to contend with the fixed architecture of the console in producing its 3D games, sometimes paring back resolution and frame-rate, NVIDIA can simply brute-force its way through as even its entry-level enthusiast GPUs at the £80 mark far outstrip the capabilities of the RSX. The performance level of the 3D Vision titles via 3DTV Play is something we'll be looking at in a future DF feature.

Picture of Richard.

About Richard Leadbetter

Rich has been a games journalist since the days of 16-bit and specialises in technical analysis. Commonly known around Eurogamer as the Blacksmith of the Future.

Read more articles from Richard by visiting the Richard Leadbetter archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (26) Latest comment 2 years ago

Comments for this article are now closed, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • CaptainQuint #1 2 years ago

    Waste of time having the mandate at all really, since most games on PS3 come in well under 720p in the first place. Especially the mutiformat stuff.

  • ignatiusjreilly #2 2 years ago

    That's a blow for all those 1080p 60FPS game out there.

  • insincere_dave #3 2 years ago

    In other news, my Moon Tea Shop has a strict no dogs policy.

  • Dolly #4 2 years ago

    We'll all be feeling queasy & seeing double anyway, after working 2-3 jobs to be able to afford this tech.

  • reelbigkris #5 2 years ago

    3D is old hat... I'm waiting for 4D to become a viable home entertainment package. Televisions that spray water at you, yes please!... Just, stay away from any 4D pornographic films... The spraying feature could be revolting!
    Edited by reelbigkris at 19/07/10 @ 10:55

  • callum9999 #6 2 years ago

    Earlbassett: Why not? HDTVs were really expensive when they launched, now they are relatively cheap. The PS3 was really expensive when it launched, now it is relatively cheap. Theres no reason to expect the same won't happen with 3DTVs.

  • menage #7 2 years ago

    I really don't give a crap about this whole 3D stuff. By the time I can actually afford this or plan to buy a new tv even (min is 2 years old, not replacing it in the next 3 years that's for sure) I'll be on PS4.

    @Callum

    Many of us just made the investments 1-2 years ago, people don't buy new tv's every 2-3 years. There's more important stuff to do, like painting my house and buying a new car and stuff.

    Once again the industry is moving faster than is probably good for them. People just started adapting to HD and now all of a sudden we need to go 3d, but you need a BR player as well?


    Edited by menage at 19/07/10 @ 11:05

  • edhe #8 2 years ago

    @8 - callum,

    I just got myself a dandy new set less than 2 years ago, it's uber, only just put blu-ray on it and that's remarkable. It took me years to get a good HDTV set, 3D will be the same - i won't be getting it for years.

    Also there's no way in hell i'm getting a set that forces me to put glasses on the family.. nuhuh.

  • Retroid #9 2 years ago

    Here's me thinking that it's to do with the amount of RAM & processing 1080p would require - you know, also the reason why there are still so few 1080p console games out there and almost everything aims for 720p anyway.

  • thewool #10 2 years ago

    Did anyone read about the new Goonies game that's just been released on the MSX ?

  • Sunyavadin #11 2 years ago

    TBH I'm impressed at them going for full 720. The games we've seen this gen which use multiple framebuffers have often been sub-720 anyway, so it's not an unachievable goal to go for 720, whereas the framerate on 1080 3D games would be unplayable with the current gen of consoles.

  • DrDamn #12 2 years ago

    @menage
    "Many of us just made the investments 1-2 years ago, people don't buy new tv's every 2-3 years. There's more important stuff to do, like painting my house and buying a new car and stuff.

    Once again the industry is moving faster than is probably good for them. People just started adapting to HD and now all of a sudden we need to go 3d, but you need a BR player as well?"

    That's not the point though - EarlBassett said he'd never be able to afford it. If you've spent money on a HDTV in the last 5 years then you will likely be able to afford it at some point - that is aside from whether you want the tech or not.

    The industry isn't expecting everyone to get it straight away either - same as HDTV. If you bought a TV in the last 2 years why would you? By the time you are ready for a TV replacement you may well be hard pressed to get a TV which *isn't* 3D Ready though.

  • DrDamn #13 2 years ago

    @EarlBassett
    It's a bit chicken and egg though - if you never push it you don't get the early adoption and then you don't get the follow on. Sony recently said they expect uptake to be slow initially, they don't expect huge numbers yet.

  • byakuya83 #14 2 years ago

    Post deleted at 10:03:41 30-03-2012

  • Red_Bool #15 2 years ago

    Actually this has more to do with the capabilities of the current (3D)TV-s than with the PS3: AFAIK there are currently no TVs that are capable of handling 1920x1080p@120Hz input (HDMI 1.4 spec for 3D: frame sequential 3D means L+R at double 60Hz): the pixelclock is just too high. 1280x720p@120Hz is the limit for current generation (3D)TV-s.

    And how do I know that? Simple: we're currently developing IC-s and software for use in 3DTV-s :-)

  • androidave #16 2 years ago

    I bought my tv around 3yrs ago, and usually buy a new set when the next lot of consoles come out.. so won't be going 3D until at least 2yrs time, and even then, if I can get a much bigger or better set that isn't 3D for the same price, I think id rather have that.

  • darkmorgado #17 2 years ago

    Something's wrong... I actually find myself agreeing with EarlBasset recently. Has the world gone completely mad???

  • MattyB2007 #18 2 years ago

    I was under the impression it was basically impossible for the PS3 to do 60fps and 1080p in 3D via HDMI 1.4 due to the restrictions of 1.4 HDMI. I don't actually know but it was someone very informed that posted that somewhere.
    Edited by MattyB2007 at 19/07/10 @ 12:49

  • TheMitch #19 2 years ago

    In 5yrs you won't be buying a 3D TV, you'll be buying a TV that can support 3D.

    3D sets don't cost manufacturers much extra, for the most part their premium is simply because they're on high-end sets to start with and they're capitalising a little on the 3D branding.

    But 3D prices will drop dramatically in a few years, if you're buying a 32" + set in about 4yrs for eg. you'll be getting a 3D set because you'll have no choice, only you'll have to go and buy glasses and link 'em up if you want that experience.

    HDMI 1.4, 120Hz, transmitter...not exactly pushing the boat out for a manufacturer is it?

    If you don't like 3D, fine, but to wish it will go away when it's optional is just selfish because some people actually enjoy it.

  • Buran #20 2 years ago

    "Interesting reports from Develop last week say that Sony is mandating 720p for all 3D titles, even though Blu-ray 3D movies will all use the full 1080p capabilities of the spec. "

    Wrong, current Blu-Ray movies runs at only 720p due the lack of size in 49 GB Blu-Ray disc in order to display 3D Stereosopic movies at 1080p.

  • DrDamn #21 2 years ago

    @Buran
    Got any links to back that up? Everywhere says 1080p. The compression technique used means that the overhead is only an additional 50% whilst still supporting 2D Bluray players at the same time.

    In fact here is a link which says 1080p ... http://www.which.co.uk/advice/3d-tv-esse... ... you got one which says 720p?
    Edited by DrDamn at 19/07/10 @ 15:03

  • GooseUK #22 2 years ago

    Well 24fps is less than ideal for video games, but i have to say the real reason is clearly because the technology isnt quite there yet

  • Retroid #23 2 years ago

    TRUE FACT:

    I play my Commodore 64 games in 1080i, thanks to Mye Olde Xboxen.

  • messiahtj #24 2 years ago

    @android123

    "1280x720p low res gaming for the win

    Low res gaming? Do you even know what the fuck are you talking about, kid?. I'll answer that for you: No, you don't.

  • jamesworkshop #25 2 years ago

    @messiahtj

    android123 is correct I can't even remember how long it's been since a resolution like 1280x1024 (since pc monoitors are 4.3)
    was tested by hardware review sites the lowest resolution I ever see now is 1680x1050 and thats fairly rare most don't even bother with anything less than 1920x1200

    [link url=http://www.hardocp.com/images/articles/12788968667K0gVsvzTK_7_2.gif
    ]http://www.hardocp.com/images/articles/1...[/link]

    Notice the 16x Anti aliasing and 16x Anisotropic filtering on what is a £150 videocard which puts it firmly in the midrange


  • Gromit #26 2 years ago

    I'd like a PS4, Move & a 40" 3D TV to play on.

    Oh and enough money to pay for it all.