In Theory: How PS3 can own 3D gaming

By Richard Leadbetter Published 10 September, 2009

Much more than a quirky side project.

Page 1 of 2

Rumours are gathering pace, technological demonstrations have been made, statements have been issued... and then retracted. Sony is planning something massive for stereoscopic 3D gaming, and the potential is hugely exciting. While true 3D was thought to have been a possibility only for next-gen consoles, Sony will introduce a fully working system for PlayStation 3 in 2010, years ahead of its rivals. And there's nothing they can do to compete.

Make no mistake: stereo 3D, after motion control, will be the next battleground for the major console platform holders. Movies are being made in 3D (you know it's serious when James Cameron gets involved, as he is with his new film, Avatar), an enhanced Blu-ray standard is in the offing, Sky is gearing up to transmit sports events in 3D, and yup, inevitably, George Lucas has said that 3D versions of the Star Wars films are in development. It's textbook convergence, and gaming is set to play a hugely important role in the establishment of 3DTV in the mainstream.

The PlayStation 3 side of the story starts at the Las Vegas CES show in January of this year: a Sony 3DTV demo shows three games running in full stereoscopic 3D and visitors to the trade show, including, amongst others - IGN - are deeply impressed with what they see. But annoyingly, few people ask anything like the right questions about the technology, making it yet another one of those seemingly unimportant events I don't visit, but end up wishing that I had. [Such as my birthday party. - Ed]

Stereoscopic 3D relies on faster refresh rates and demands that the console produces individual images for each eye. Namco-Bandai made a 3D version of Ridge Racer 7 for the arcades in Japan, but its 1080p output is divided between each eye, turning a 60FPS game into an effective 30FPS experience. No such complaints about the WipEout HD or GT5 demos at CES, and indeed, Motorstorm: Pacific Rift is also demoed. If that was running at an effective 15FPS, down from the game's standard 30FPS, the experience would be ruined. The inclusion of MotorStorm is evidence enough that Sony has got something special cooking. The first, obvious conclusion was that, similar to Polyphony Digital's 4K and 240FPS tech demos, networked PS3s were being used to create the discrete images for each eye.

Fast forward to CEDEC 2009, and the WipEout HD demo is back along with claims (quickly denied by Sony) that the technology can be enabled with a firmware update, and that all PS3 games can benefit. Not only that, but check out the picture in the Engadget link there - that's a single PS3 Slim in operation with a normal HDMI link. The 3D glasses are confirmed to be using shutter technology similar to the current NVIDIA 3D vision specs. And now, further news emerges, saying that the processing technology is located within the Bravia 3DTV, but Sony may plan on porting it over to the PS3 itself so that it'll work on any 3DTV, not just the firm's own displays.

The "easy" solution would be for Sony to come up with a bespoke algorithm that translates computer imagery into a 3D picture. You plug in your games console and away you go: 3D from any source and it should look great if the existing demos are an indication. But in actuality, that's got to be one hell of a good algorithm to work consistently on all games. A lot of 120Hz HDTVs out there at the moment have algorithms for interpolating HD content into smoother 120FPS images. When it looks good, it can be wonderful... but when the algorithm fails, it can look pretty awful. The process of generating a 3D stereoscopic image would be inordinately more complex.

Of course, Sony could probably get this right and deploy it in its new displays, but it wouldn't be PS3 exclusive, and one badly interpolated experience could put off any number of potential buyers. Plus there's talk of a PS3 firmware update introducing the new mode. If the processing was entirely down to the display, no update would be needed. I contacted SCEE to ask about the demos, but was told that the "the team managing the 3D gaming aren't ready to talk about tech specifics at the moment" - illuminating, in that a TV-specific algorithm probably wouldn't require a dedicated team within Sony. The plot thickens.

Internet legend Quaz51, responsible for outing sub-HD gaming on PS3 and Xbox 360, and creator of a fully working mechanical calculator within LittleBigPlanet's level editor (!) came up with a far more intriguing suggestion. What if the PS3 and the display were communicating on a proprietary protocol over the HDMI port? He put forward the notion that the PS3 generates the usual 720p or 1080p image and beams that over the HDMI cable as usual, but along with each frame is "depth map" data that the Bravia screen, in concert with the 2D image, can use to generate the stereo images required for true 3D.

Page 1 of 2

Comments (119) Latest comment 2 years ago

Comments threads automatically close after 30 days, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • Xerx3s #1 2 years ago

    "And there's nothing they can do to compete. "

    Say what? I've seen & used equal to vastly superior 3D screen techs years ago from just about every company. In fact, there already is a game on XBLa that implements 3D vision compatibility.

    EDIT: As in screens that gave a true 3D sensation without head tracking, glasses or other aids.
    Edited by 1 at 10/09/09 @ 12:41

  • insincere_dave #2 2 years ago

    I refer you back to your article on market penetration of HD displays for why this is irrelevant in the current generation. It's the equivalent of XBLA on the original Xbox, an interesting experiment but nowhere near mainstream even with the "hardcore".

    The next generation (whenever it comes) will be the time for 1080p / 60fps / 3D displays as standard for all games, before then it's going to be a nice bonus for people who happen to own the tech but that's it.

  • makeamazing #3 2 years ago

    This type of tech is years from being mainstream. I was lucky enough to see Nvidias 3D screen (with glasses) at an education show in January... though it was impressive, I just dont think it made enough of a difference, in fact it made things worse. So do i think this will be a mega success if Sony bring it out next year... the answer is NO. Will this type of tech be big in the future, maybe, but i dont think it will for at least another 10 years. I think this could be this generations VR... sounds great, but nothing really good comes of it.

  • Der_tolle_Emil #4 2 years ago

    Very interesting article. I didn't expect 3d gaming to become a topic so early.

    I'm not entirely convinved by that whole 3d stuff when it requires special glasses. It's not that much of a problem when playing games but when I watch a DVD I am usually not sitting straight up but lying on the couch. I'm not sure if I want to miss that comfort just to enjoy a 3d movie - I've seen the 3d stuff in action and as impressive as it is at the moment I think it will take quite a while until we will see this in people's homes. At the moment it seems much more useful for gaming than anything else.

  • Mooglepies #5 2 years ago

    The problem: Anyone that's bought a HDTV (particularly a 1080p one) within the last 2 years won't be best impressed with the prospect of buying another one. The reason that motion control is the battlefield it is now is because it's become so much cheaper and it's integrated into the controller(s). Unless you can make it work with current technology your uptake is going to be low and thus the amount of developers using it will be limited.

    I bought a 40" 1080p Samsung in January 2008 and I love it, especially when I'm playing WipeOutHD, but if you told me that I needed to spend that £700 again I'd tell you right where to stick your new technology.

    Or do I have it completely wrong and it works fine with current displays?

  • IneptPercy #6 2 years ago

    So if you look how many people have HDTV's anf then how many are capable of this, then how many of them own PS3's and then how many of them are bothered about this?

    Great that people are starting to push this but it is probably too soon to go mainstream, HD isn't even mainstream yet.

  • Eraser #7 2 years ago

    Waving a Wii remote around like an idiot is one thing. Doing that while wearing special 3D glasses that hurt your head is taking this three steps further. No, I don't want to wear glasses while playing a game. And what about people that already wear glasses?

  • TheRealBadabing #8 2 years ago

    I have to admit that when I heard about Natal, I was sure MS would unveil some (3D) VR goggles to complete the experience.

    Would be a bit gutting if Sony ended up with the better 3D solution and MS with the (IMO) more versatile motion sensing technology.

    I don't care who does it, I just want the best of both in one machine. And the moon. On a stick.

  • El-Dev #9 2 years ago

    I'd say HDTVs are pretty mainstream now, I don't know anyone who doesn't own one. But, HD media definately isn't mainstream. For instance I know hardly anyone with Sky HD and only about 50% of my mates use a HDMI cable. Perfecting HD might be a better idea than moving on to 3D gaming for the near future.

  • EvilBob_leeds #10 2 years ago

    It depends really. If done well I think this has a "Woah! WTF!" factor far greater than the leap in quality from SD tv to HD tv (and SD quality films and games to HD quality films and games) which could really drive it forward.

  • Dizzy #11 2 years ago

    3D games? A big lol... maybe in 5 years, but even then the fact that you require glasses will make this a niche product. H Y P E
    Edited by 1 at 10/09/09 @ 13:04

  • Valver #12 2 years ago

    So I have to wear shutter glasses on top of my regular specs? Technology insta-fail. No sale.

  • M_of_the_sys #13 2 years ago

    Queue the "Wah wah wah I don't want to wear glasses" posts.

  • kangarootoo #14 2 years ago

    @GhenghisNaan

    "This will be like Eyetoy on PS2. Just a thing which most people ignored."

    EyeToy sold millions.

  • kangarootoo #15 2 years ago

    @Eraser

    Why would the glasses hurt your head? Do normal glasses hurt your head?

  • photoboy #16 2 years ago

    It's great to see a more technical look at how this might work. I'm intrigued to know how Sony plan to do this myself. The z-buffer depth information could certainly be a potential method by splitting each part of the image up based on its depth and then distorting it slightly to convey depth to the other eye. I suspect though it would take a lot of processing power to do a very complex scene properly.

    E.g. rendering a barrel in 3D by distorting the image over two cylinders at different angles is essentially rendering the scene again in 3D. Maybe this is the use of the Cell in TVs Sony has talked about? Alternately, the depth could be more crude and just concentrate on displaying large depth differences, but then the scene could look a bit like Doom, e.g. a barrel would be rendered flat but still at different angles to the background to provide some 3D depth to an image.

    The problem with both these methods though is that if a soldier is standing slightly to your right in front of a wall with a poster. Your left eye should be able to see more of the poster behind him than your right eye. With just the z-depth method there would be no image information that could be put in this blind spot behind him. Instead you would likely see a slightly distorted/warped left side of the soldier there or a smear of the poster.

    If this is what Sony is doing then that would explain the use of Wipeout in demos, the speed of the game and the rapid screen updates means that any artefacts like this would be almost impossible to spot. Even with these drawbacks it's still an incredibly clever thing to attempt, and I can't wait to find out more.

  • Cronan #17 2 years ago

    The elephant in the room here is that 3-D films are unpleasant to watch. Although the latest efforts are digital, the technology has not changed much since the 1980s. When I was a child I had a View-Master, and the basic idea is the same; you record and project a separate pair of image-tracks for each eye, slightly off-set from each other. This gives what is called a "binocular disparity cue", which produces the illusion of depth. During a screening, the footage for each eye is projected through differently-polarised lenses, while the audience wear polarized glasses with matching filters. Nothing has changed.

    Scientists have been studying this for years. If you're interested, search the Intertubes for "3-D fatigue" or "simulator sickness". Common symptoms include fatigue, headache, eyestrain, nausea, blurred vision, sweating, and increased salivation. There's a very good article on Slate about this:

    One potential explanation for the discomfort lies with the unnatural eye movements stereoscopy elicits from viewers. Outside of the 3-D movie theater, our eyes move in two distinct ways when we see something move toward us: First, our eyeballs rotate inward towards the nose (the closer the target comes, the more cross-eyed we get); second, we squeeze the lenses in our eyes to change their shape and keep the target in focus (as you would with a camera). Those two eye movements—called "vergence" and "accommodation"—are automatic in everyday life, and they go hand-in-hand.

    Something different happens when you're viewing three-dimensional motion projected onto a flat surface. When a helicopter flies off the screen in Monsters vs. Aliens, our eyeballs rotate inward to follow it, as they would in the real world. Reflexively, our eyes want to make a corresponding change in shape, to shift their plane of focus. If that happened, though, we'd be focusing our eyes somewhere in front of the screen, and the movie itself (which is, after all, projected on the screen) would go a little blurry. So we end up making one eye movement but not the other; the illusion forces our eyes to converge without accommodating. (In fact, our eye movements seem to oscillate between their natural inclination and the artificial state demanded by the film.) This inevitable decoupling, spread over 90 minutes in the theater, may well be the cause of 3-D eyestrain.

    Add to this a few other little problems. Mrs. Cronan is stereoblind and finds 3-D films impossible to watch. Not only does she not see the effect, she gets blinding headaches and vomits. Five to eight percent of the population suffers from this, with a similar percentage having less severe symtoms.

    The 2009/2010 3-D bubble will burst, just like the one in the 1980s and the original one in the 1950s. And Sony will waste more money on a technology no-one wants.

  • mingster #18 2 years ago

    Nooo ive only just bought a 1080p TV .. now i need to get a 3DTV?
    godammn .. please don't announce anything else i can't afford more.

  • groovychainsaw #19 2 years ago

    I thought microsoft might be using head tracking with the natal camera to give you a 3d effect without glasses on a normal tv (look up that chap who was on youtube a while back doing just this with the wiimote of all things - he's been hired by microsoft's natal team). This seems to be writing off microsoft fairly comprehensively here, and if anything has been seen in the past, its that microsoft can copy a trend very effectively!

  • El-Dev #20 2 years ago

    People won't wear 3D specs but they will happily dance around their living rooms holding plates to control their racing car, bit odd really.

    I didn't expect 3D gaming until 2 generations ahead and as I'm considering getting a new TV now which is not 3DTV I don't think I'd be able to get a 3DTV for another 4-5 years at least.

  • Spekingur #21 2 years ago

    Sony: "We has stereo 3D displays!"
    MS: "Err, sadly we only have holorooms..."
    Sony: "..."
    MS: "..."

  • cianchristopher #22 2 years ago

    Sounds very exciting! I'm looking forward to seeing how Sony manage to fuck it all up!!! ;)
    Edited by 1 at 10/09/09 @ 13:20

  • drxym #23 2 years ago

    I thought BraviaLink was just Sony's brandname for HDMI-CEC which most TVs implement but stick their own names on for some reason.

    On the subject of 3D in general I think it would be disastrous if Sony released a proprietary 3D hack to make the effect work. I hope that whatever 3D standard is going through the works includes support for image+depth field and this is what Sony has in mind. Once its part of the standard, any TV manufacturer can implement it. I'd add that depth maps will suck for games with transparent objects, or indeed games that post-process the image in ways that do not use depth maps.

    I also think that 3D as a format is a long way from convergence. All the standards are circling each other in draft form but there is no cohesion yet and obviously no hardware either. Worse, far worse is that 3D display technology is awful. Making people wear glasses to watch 3D is just stupid no matter how you cut it. It induces headaches, and just makes people feel like dorks. If 3D TV takes off, it will be because 3D is a freebie feature in modern televisions rather than commanding some premium. And at some point some display is going to have to offer proper 3D with no special viewing conditions. THAT is the point 3D will launch and I'm sure people will never want to go back.
    Edited by 2 at 10/09/09 @ 13:23

  • TripSkyway #24 2 years ago

    Exciting article. I'd like to see it in action.

  • agparrot #25 2 years ago

    Well, I still don't have stereoscopic vision, so I am secretly hoping gaming remains 2D for at least, say, 30 years, until I'm about ready to die.

  • Calgon #26 2 years ago

    Yeah I think Richard is forgetting what he said himself, most of the hardcore aren't ready for 3DTV(they wont be for years), the majority of gamers have still yet to make the jump to HDTV.

    By the time 3DTV even matters we will be well into next gen never mind this gen(think of the take up of Blu-ray and then slow it down x3), PS3 doesnt even come into it... it will be a nice boasting point for E3 speeches next gen atleast(where Sony will no doubt claim they invented it or some other absurdity).

    Or do I have it completely wrong and it works fine with current displays?

    No you are correct, its all to do with new 3DTV sets, if it were anything to do with 3D tech that works on current displays they could "do plenty about it" to compete on 360. I think there needs to be a subheading that says "In a very small number of homes with TV sets that support it, which will be the case for years to come!".
    Edited by 1 at 10/09/09 @ 13:22

  • FogHeart #27 2 years ago

    In order for HD to progress any further, companies will have to grit their teeth and prepare for a barrage of complaints from Luddites. New DVD players, Blu Ray players, set top boxes and satellite boxes would need to come with an HDMI port, an HDMI cable, and nothing else - if the recipient wants to plug in to a different port they have to work it out for themselves.

    There's always some point where you have to cut off the people who haven't moved on and there's always the beating of chests and gnashing of teeth by the people who say they're inconvenienced and want to know why things have to change and that the new ways are rubbish (see digital switchover, DAB radio, light bulbs).

    Once there's significant HD penetration AND a reasonably solid industry standard for transmission of 3D signals, companies can get serious about making HD TVs capable of 120Hz which accept and process such transmissions. But we might see competing technologies here like we did with HD Disks and Blu-Ray. We'll probably see some early adopters suffer as their choice falls by the wayside. It's gonna be a long haul.

    It's only right that people who have only just moved on from SD to HD are indignant about being asked to change again, but the speed of change is dictated by the consumer (at least until the aforementioned cutoff events to give the Luddites a shove). And with a change in technology that's THIS expensive to adopt, no company will be foolish enough to concentrate too heavily on 3D television to the detriment of HD (or maybe even SD...)
    Edited by 1 at 10/09/09 @ 13:22

  • Azazel #28 2 years ago

    George Lucas has said that 3D versions of the Star Wars films are in development.

    George Lucas must be stopped. No matter the cost.

  • kangarootoo #29 2 years ago

    @ Cronan

    "The elephant in the room here is that 3-D films are unpleasant to watch"

    What nonsense. This thread (as could have been predicted) is starting to fill up with ludicrous comments that are devoid of any factual basis. I don't much care whether 3D is the future or not, but I do care when people start being obtuse on purpose because of fanboy agendas.


    First off its not an elephant in the room. An "elephant in the room" refers to something that affects everybody but nobody is mentioning. This on the other hand is a side effect that affects a minority of viewers (you referred yourself to a 5-8% suffering stereoblind symptoms). Simulation sickness is another example of a side effect that affects a minority. Travel sickness is another example, again affecting a minority and not really affecting the use of related technology.

    Has simulator sickness harmed the evolution of the first person shooter (the game genre most likely to create symptoms in suffers)? When discussing the invention of the motor car, did people say "the elephant in the room here is travel sickness"? No is the answer on both counts, and the same applies here.

    I agree there are plenty of studies relating to these subjects, and the discomforting effects can be debilitating in some cases (and don't think I am lacking in sympathy for your wife on this one). But none of that is relevant to anybody who is NOT a sufferer, and the vast majority of people aren't.


    The bigger question in all of this, as has already been raised, is market forces (such as users needing to buy a new TV). But this is new technology being investigated at a technology concept stage, and that in principal should be welcomed as it lays the tracks for all of us to enjoy 3D gaming in 10 years on whatever platform we want.

  • MENTAL1ST Verified Senior Software Engineer, Picsel UK Ltd. #30 2 years ago

    How could you possibly generate a proper stereoscopic viewpoint with only a render and a Z buffer from a single viewpoint?

    By the nature of different viewpoints, even eye-widths apart, different things will be occluded. Even if you could make it work, you'd end up with some sort of interpolated blur around the edges of foreground objects.

  • kangarootoo #31 2 years ago

    I wonder, if the focus of the article hadn't been specific to one of the console companies, whether the nature of this thread would have been different.

    Actually no, I don't wonder, I know it would be. Shame.

  • Kenshin001 #32 2 years ago

    The movie Avatar will be huge and will be a lot of people's first taste of 3D. A good time to introduce 3D to consoles.

  • kangarootoo #33 2 years ago

    @Mentalist(air)

    What this article needs is diagrams :)

  • des #34 2 years ago

    zzz...platforms that dominate today are based on 10+ years tech and cant even output 720p
    Another gimmick to be written on a box...

  • Cronan #35 2 years ago

    @kangarootoo

    So my posting is a "ludicrous comment", "devoid of any factual basis", and I am a "fan-boy"?

    You sir, are an ass, and a cad, and you smell of hamsters.

    If discussion here is to consist of personal attacks, I may as well join in.
    Edited by 1 at 10/09/09 @ 13:29

  • andijames #36 2 years ago

    Before i judge whether this is good or not i'd like to see an example of it. I think Avatar will be a good benchmark at the back end of this year. Maybe people's view on it will change for the better/worse once they've seen it in action.

  • peterfll #37 2 years ago

    I'm an earlier adopter, you know, one of those people who buys the console when first released... got Sky HD in the first month, etc etc. But if the home 3d experience is anything like what you can get in the cinema, count me out. The quality (i.e. picture) and convience (wearing glasses) just aren't up to scratch.

    And I don't get motion sickness, but find watching 3d with glasses uncomfortable after about 30 minutes.

  • kangarootoo #38 2 years ago

    @Cronan

    I got a bit carried away. Sorry about that.

    What you wrote about the variation motion sickness variants was all well and good, but it was your elephant in the room comment that pushed me over the edge (though it was several preciding comments that wheeled my chair close to the precipice).

    Stereoblindness and its associated conditions will not be a barrier to the development of this sort of technology, any more than an occasional bad sense of balance hald back development of the bicycle.

    Hmmm, I suppose I could have just said that instead of going off on one at you.

  • penhalion #39 2 years ago

    Putting my Dev cap on. This article is nothing but ill informed nonsense. Neither console i.e PS3 or 360 is capable of running a 120hz display. Neither console has an upgradable graphics chip and neither console has the processing grunt to do something like Gears or Killzone 2 at 120 frames a second. running these games at 60 is fine but, would result in a 30hz refresh rate and people often complain about headaches at that speed.

    I have no doubt that Sony have 3D tV technology in the works. I've seen a few sets that do 120hz already and NVidia have their 3d vision system. The problem is that it's simply not realistic to have anyone upgrade to these sets in the next 2 years.

    This will purely be an experiment in practicality for the next generation, when both Sony and Microsoft will have consoles capable of 120hz sustained output and HDMI intigration with 3D TVs from the likes of Philips, Sony, Samsung etc. etc. Even then there will be zero true 3D only games out there for at least another 10 years.

  • TopKatt #40 2 years ago

    Wow, that viewmaster pic has brought back some memories!

  • Jelly_Head #41 2 years ago

    Meh... I'm almost blind in my right eye, so not really interested in pseudo-3D.

  • Stormflood #42 2 years ago

    Sod 3D, I want VR.

  • Cronan #43 2 years ago

    @kangarootoo

    And then of course I went and got carried away too.

    Accepted, and please accept mine. ;-)

    I love the idea of 3-D, I'm an Xbox gamer, but right on the point of buying a PS3 (the Slim has pushed me over the purchase decision point, I think). I'm also a technophile.

    But I don't think stereo blindness is the problem; that is only the edge case. Everything I've read indicates that the majority of people find 3-D films "tiring" to watch, due mainly to the problems of vergence and accomodation I cited in my article. This comes up in many of the studies. The "new" tech is not all that new - it's still using the same basic mechanism, and I believe it will fail for the same reason; while it's a good enough trick to fool our brains and visual system for a short time without problems, it doesn't last in the long-term.

    I'm holding out for a better 3-D solution in the future, but as long as companies continue to use the same basic mechanism to give us 3-D film, the technology will not be adopted.

  • bodypopper #44 2 years ago

    I've seen several types of 3D running on Blu Ray and at the cinema and watching 3D for a long period of time is wearying as many of my friends and colleagues agree. It is not down to a minority of people.
    Trying to follow the plot of a film and take in the 3D does tend to mangle the brain especially if it's IMAX sized.
    I can't imagine feeling too comfy after playing CoD 3D for more than an hour.
    Edited by 2 at 10/09/09 @ 13:41

  • Cronan #45 2 years ago

    I want a holo-deck, a rocket car, and an attractive, female, biddable replicant house-keeper.

    Then I'll want for nothing.

  • Darren #46 2 years ago

    3D stereoscopic vision is a gimmick and nothing more. We had 3D movies in the 1950s then the 1980s and now it's made a come back in the 21st century. I can't see it taking off in a big way in the home, especially if it requires a new kind of HDTV to use it and the need to wear special glasses.

    I've enjoyed the odd 3D movie in my time even if most of them amount to just having an object waved in front of your eyes from time to time but until we get proper 3D holovision where you can view an image from ANY angle then I'll continue to wait. I have no interest in this at all as this kind of 3D technology is basic at best and not wholly convincing anyway.

  • Sunyavadin #47 2 years ago

    The stupid, impractical goggles killed 3D last decade, and they'll do it again. That's why Sony's RIVALS have AREADY brought to market 3D TV systems which do NOT rely on them. Sony are using outdated, proven failed technoloy to try and catch up in a market that has moved on. I don't doubt 3D TV sets will be a big thing within the next 15 years, but Sony are going to be playing catchup for a long time if they don't get out of this dead end soon...
    Edited by 1 at 10/09/09 @ 13:45

  • EvilBob_leeds #48 2 years ago

    @Penhalion

    running these games at 60 is fine but, would result in a 30hz refresh rate and people often complain about headaches at that speed.

    Eh? Maybe people do, but that's a hell of a lot of gamers that it hasn't stopped. Loads of games run at 30 fps - not least Halo 3, Gears 2 and Killzone 2.

  • Spooke #49 2 years ago

    I went to see the 15 min preview of Avatar and what was patently obvious was that 24 frames a second, even on the Imax, don't cut it when you are trying to do fast action scenes in 3D. I sat there watching the jungle scenes and the effect was choppy and confusing. So I would be very impressed to see Sony leverage the extra power we've been told the PS3 has for this.

    And as far as Gamers not jumping on the HDTV wagon, I bought a cheap HDTV just over a year ago and now I'm ready to spunk £700 on a Bravia, especially if they announced this kind of functionality.

    2010 is going to be an exciting year for gaming, that's for sure.

  • peterfll #50 2 years ago

    It doesn't help the argument when the content providers use it just as a gimmick. I watched some of "Jounrey To The Centre Of The Earth" (the new one) on Sky and within the first 5 minutes some petulant teenager kept throwing a yo-yo into the screen every other second.

  • HermitArcader #51 2 years ago

    Post deleted at 09:17:39 22-12-2011

  • Sunyavadin #52 2 years ago

    3D tearing will rip open a black hole and destroy mankind, you have been warned.

    OMG 3D Screen tearing! Comes out of the screen and actually BREAKS YOUR EYES IN HALF

  • Skurmedel #53 2 years ago

    I'm not sure I want this for a long while. I'm myopic and have spectacles, which I sometimes find quite annoying. I can imagine that this 3D stuff wont get along with my eyes, as there is already a bunch of things that don't.

    Especially if I need to wear special glasses on top of my regular ones (because you can pretty much assume they won't have dioptric correction on them)
    Edited by 1 at 10/09/09 @ 13:54

  • Johnsters #54 2 years ago

    @kangarootoo

    I get simulator sickness, but can play FPS, but that's cause I am driving :-)

    @ everyone else that is saying "wasting money now" on a 1080p display
    Well, you are not. If you are not happy that you could be watching you medium of choice whether it be TV, Movies or gaming with the best possible results, then get a 1080 display. If it doesnt bother you, then don't. I can't see 3DTV being an accepted medium in the home for some time (finger in the air 6yrs+).

    If within the next 4yrs 3DTV is awsome (though unlikley), sets are sub £800, media/medium is cheap and plentiful and widely adopted by the consumer market, then I may be a bit miffed that I bought a new 1080 panel this yr. But as it's hughly unlikey, I will be enjoying 1080p movies with lossless audio now.
    Edited by 2 at 10/09/09 @ 14:31

  • kangarootoo #55 2 years ago

    @Cronan

    I think you were going rather easier on me than I was on your (unless being told you smell like a hamster is a really bad insult in your part of the world) :)

    I read your article link again, properly this time as I was a bit cursory in my earlier rage. The stuff about vergence and accomodation is interesting. I wrote on a previous thread about how 3D cinema (to my eyes at any rate) was different to just looking at the real world, but not knowing what I was on about I supposed that it might be the way the brain interprets the image (knowing it is flat, but observing 3D behaviour). I guess I was sort ofd on the right track, but didn't know why.

    Personally I love 3D cinema. I don't think I've ever had a problem with it, but maybe I just got used to it. I've only seen a handful of films, and over the course of as many years I would think, so maybe I'm just not that susceptible to the effects you describe. For me (at a guess) I would say the effects of actually create the feeling of "unrealness" that heightens the experience. I've always loved rollercoasters and getting chucked about, and I've never suffered from motion sickness of disorientation discomfort (this may be irrelevant though, you sound like you know more than me about the subject).


    @Sunyavadin

    "The stupid, impractical goggles killed 3D last decade, and they'll do it again. That's why Sony's RIVALS have AREADY brought to market 3D TV systems which do NOT rely on them. Sony are using outdated, proven failed technoloy to try and catch up in a market that has moved on"

    Well really, "the market" as you put it hasn't experienced any of this technology in significant numbers. None of the previous 3D implementations have had mainstream penetration due to their cost and niche application. So I don't think we are really anywhere near deciding whether "the market" accepts of declines any particular type of 3D technology. We might as well talk about whether one particular form of uni-cycle is more or less popular with the mainstream than another.

  • JonFE #56 2 years ago

    In my own experience the necessity for any kind of special glasses on top of my myopic ones is a killjoy. I've tried -time and time again- to watch movies through them and frankly I cannot stand them. IMHO image is seriously lacking color and clarity for me to be enjoyable.

    Funny thing is that I'm honestly longing for a believable 3D experience; just that it must not depend on glasses.
    Edited by 1 at 10/09/09 @ 13:58

  • kangarootoo #57 2 years ago

    @Johnsters

    Do you play cockpit view or external view? Either way, you have a reference point that is relatively static to the view, and I believe that is what helps to keep symptoms at bay. I have actually heard of people sticking bits of paper on the screen to help give the eye an anchor (and I believe FPS shooters with a prominent aiming reticule present less of a problem than those with little or no reticule).

    I wonder if you tried playing a driving game using the bumper camera it would make you feel ill? You could try and report back if you want :)

  • Darren #58 2 years ago

    @EvilBob_leeds - "Eh? Maybe people do, but that's a hell of a lot of gamers that it hasn't stopped. Loads of games run at 30 fps - not least Halo 3, Gears 2 and Killzone 2."

    That's because those games are running at 30 fps on a display that refreshes at 60 Hz (i.e. 60 times per second). The framerate a game runs at is not the same thing as the refresh rate of a display. The refresh rate of a display remains constant regardless of whether the game is running at 15, 20 or 60 fps. ;)

  • Darren #59 2 years ago

    Ah... what lord says. ^^^ :)

  • kangarootoo #60 2 years ago

    @peterfll

    I saw that film recently too.

    I was of the opinion that clumsy 3D highjinks were the least of its worries ;)


    @trebell

    This won't become standard. For the exact reasons you give, I would expect every console vendor to have a requirements in that platform QA docs that requires an off button for this sort of thing. For the same reasons, I would be amazed if any 3D TV manufacturer didn't also allow the TV to operate in "normal" mode.

  • M_of_the_sys #61 2 years ago

    @trebell

    I would imagine that it would be optional rather than a standard. Especially if you need to wear glasses, would it not be a case of wear them for 3D or don't wear them for HD?

    +lots for Kangarootoo's comments from such an objectional viewpoint.

  • Sunyavadin #62 2 years ago

    @Kangarootoo

    My point was that in the 90s 3D failed to take off because the need for stereoscopic glasses was an inconvenience which people were not willing to accept. The market remained with 2D technology.
    Recently Philips began to market 3D television sets which do NOT rely on the glasses, and while uptake remains on a par with the uptake for the first HD or OLED displays, it is still better than the market penetration 3D systems achieved in the 90s.
    Given the option of Sony's 3D system, relying on me getting enough sets of glasses for everyone who wants to watch TV (Sometimes upwards of 20 people in my flat) or Philips' alternative which.... works the way I'm used to a TV working.... Well, I, and probably the majority of the mass market (You know, the ones who haven't bought HD sets yet) will be most likely to take the more comfortable, easier route.
    Edited by 1 at 10/09/09 @ 14:05

  • michaelangelo #63 2 years ago

    I really don't understad why most people are being so negative towards 3DTV. Yes we've only just got to grips with HDTV but we live in a world now where the latest gadget gets replaced by something else the next day. It is a bit much to ask people to wear those glasses at home and it probably won't replace HDTV, but if sony can implement this with a simple firmware update then let the have try!

    To all the people moaning that there not gunna fork out for a new TV...no ones holding a gun to you head im pretty sure standard tv won't gone for a while, just like how you could still buy black and white TV's in the late 80's!. Hey if you do buy into and get all the kit for 3D then it flops you'll still be left with a sweet ass TV and funky pair of glasses lol.
    The way i see it, it's an exciting time for home entertainment and these could be the first steps to 3DTV without glasses and be viewed at any angled... who knows. a few years ago 3D was a joke now major corporations are investing in it, give it a chance!

  • JonFE #64 2 years ago

    I'm much more interested to see how head tracking can be used in games, as I've noticed numerous times that I tend to turn my head in the direction I want my game character to look - most recently on Batman: AA :)

    It's not just silly me now, is it?
    Edited by 1 at 10/09/09 @ 14:09

  • Sunyavadin #65 2 years ago

    @michaelangelo

    I'm not negative. Hell, I'm POSITIVE.
    I know I won't be forking out for a HD set, I'll be giving it a couple of years and getting a decent 3D set when they drop in price a bit. My point is that Sony's system is an impractical one, and the 3D sets already on the market are better.

  • ps3owner #66 2 years ago

    sorry this maybe a bit OTT, but lunch break, what can I say... I saw something far more interesting on telly the other day. Porn 2.0 or something like that. basically a fake vagina with a USB cable. connect that to your PC and then watch a porn flick created for this device. Then whatever you see on TV happens between your legs. apparently it's quite good. haven't seen it anywhere yet, but sounds far more interesting then 3D gaming.

    oh yeah and interesting comments/article ;).

  • M_of_the_sys #67 2 years ago

    @GhenghisNaan

    I'm not on the motion controller bandwagon either but I've got nothing against it being developed. I'm all for pushing new technologies. Same with 3D whereas I'm more excited about seeing this than motion controllers. Even if it isn't going to take off, pushing the technology now means we're likely to see greater developments quicker.

  • EvilBob_leeds #68 2 years ago

    @Darren, Lord and Penhalion

    Apologies all round. Read properly first, then answer!

    Surely watching something at 30fps effectively means that the image may refresh, but you're looking at exactly the same image, each 1/30th of a second. Why would watching something at 30 hz be different to this?

  • Bremenacht #69 2 years ago

    You know, none of them have even got HD running as pervasively as they first claimed yet, and most people still don't have HD capable TVs. Certainly 1080p ones anyway.

    Maybe they should concentrate on getting HD (and quality) right next gen rather than letting the marketing people bombard us with HD3D gimmickery.

    (Or is this the 4D that Krazy Ken once boasted about :)

  • kangarootoo #70 2 years ago

    @M_of_the_sys

    I thought for a second there you had written that I had an "objectionable" viewpoint. I could hardly have blamed you :)

  • Johnsters #71 2 years ago

    @kangarootoo

    I am ok on driving games and prefere the "end of bonnet view" rather than cockpit view - choice really (I like to get the view from the car manufactures badge). But I think it really is a control issue. If I am not in control then I have a problem.

    I do remember playing Goldeneye on a friends N64 many yrs ago and I did have some motion sickness issues. Probably as it was a good motion engine. No problems since with FPS and Driving games.

  • obscured021 #72 2 years ago

    i have been using n vision for a while and it rocks some games work better than others (left 4 dead looks great in 3d) but i also have track IR that i use for head tracking in arma and the GTR car games, if they can bring the same tech to the consoles it will be great.

  • kangarootoo #73 2 years ago

    @Sunyavadin

    "My point was that in the 90s 3D failed to take off because the need for stereoscopic glasses was an inconvenience which people were not willing to accept."

    I'm going to have to wave a big "unsubstatiated supposiition" flag at you there.

    I think there were plenty of reasons why 3D specs didn't have great market penetration in the past. Cost being the main one (as always), the number of games that took advantage of the technology, the actual quality of the final result...

    I actually think that "I have to wear stupid glasses?" is a concern that people voice when they have not yet seen a compelling reason to buy into 3D technology. Its the same behaviour we see frequently on these pages, where someone will list out negatives as if objectively, but in fact it is all just ammunition for someone whose mind is already made up.

    In summary what I am saying is that if the tech is right, and the price is right, and the use of the tech is widespread... people will quickly stop complaining about having to wear a stupid pair of glasses (except those who already wear glasses, but for them the problem is real and valid, and a solution will have to be found).

  • ronuds #74 2 years ago

    I don't understand why this article sounds so excited about 3D. If it requires you buy a whole new TV to get it, this is never going to be big.

    Not only that, but try watching something in 3D for hours and hours. Your eyeballs will fall out.

    I'd think holographic imagery is more the future than this, anyway.

  • Sunyavadin #75 2 years ago

    @kangarootoo

    It's more that, as I said, when given two options, people will usually take the easiest.

    Given the option of two identical, equally performing cars, but one has no rear view mirror (No less performance, it's just a minor inconvenience - I have one without myself, it was just the only one of the two models available at the time) - people will tend to choose the one with a mirror. It's what they are familiar with, and if they have to look a bit more in the wing mirrors, they'll see it as an unnecessary inconvenience they don't want.

    Given the choice of two identical mp3 players, but one requires you go through several extra menus with no actual function before it lets you press the play button, people will usually, if presented with both, choose the simpler one.

    And given the choice of two televisions, both of which output a three dimensional display, but only one of them requires that you wear special glasses, which are people more likely to choose?

    Why start doing something in a more complicated way, when the option is there to keep doing it the way you always have done? Glasses are an unnecessary addition to 3D television, which works perfectly fine without them. It's like trying to persuade my Canadian friends to use bottles rather than bags of milk. They just see it as an additional, unrequired layer of complexity.

  • kangarootoo #76 2 years ago

    @Sunyavadin

    I understand your point, but it is the "if all else is equal" aspect that I think is flawed.

    Rarely is all else equal. In fact the legions of car TV shows, magazines, rest drives, product reports and so on exist purely because there has never been an instance where the choice between two otherwise identical equal cars came down to picking the one that had the comfier seat. If it were that clear cut, the choice would be obvious and no further critique would be necessary.

    IF there were a situation where the customer had the choice of two otherwise identical (in price, quality and breadth of application) 3D solutions, they would of course choose the one that didn't require the use of a pair of glasses. I agree completely with you on that.

    However, that situation is completely hyperthetical and certainly didn't exist in the previous generations of 3D solutions to which you referred.

  • LilithsCurves #77 2 years ago

    IN THEORY.... yes in theory and they like to run demos of existing games. Fair enough, good to think about future things but i am sure they don't consider implementing this before the next gen (and that only if the next gen comes not earlier then in 5 years). This may sound very conservative but i would like to see the PS3 and XBOX 360 come through several iterations, making them smaller and running cooler, resistant, quieter (silent actually at one point) and not push out new expensive tech where only software can be developed that requires a broad audience (less game divergence = lower chance for games to appeal to me) to get the development costs back in.

  • Retroid #78 2 years ago

    kangarootoo: "EyeToy sold millions."

    And made very little (if any) impact on PS2 gaming outside its minigame packs.

  • kangarootoo #79 2 years ago

    @lord

    I didn't think the same kind of flicker existed with LCD screens (not PC monitors at any rate - maybe TVs are different).

    A CRT screen has to draw the image every cycle (30 times a second, 60 times a second, whatever. I know you understand all this). And it draws that screen by moving a single dot (put simply) across the screen at a very high speed. There is never a complete picture being displayed on a CRT screen, just a rapidly moving dot.

    It is the inability of brains to detect the difference between a complete picture and a very rapidly moving dot that creates the illusion of a complete picture. If the draw rate is too slow, the illusion starts to break down and hence we detect flicker (in essence we are starting to detect that the image is actually sort of "switching on and off" at high speed).


    Now, in the case of an LCD screen, an actual complete picture is being drawn on the screen. The screen only refreshes with the CHANGES to that complete image. That means that although a slower refresh rate will affect the perceived frame rate of what is being displayed (with a very slow refresh rate perhaps resulting in a strange tearing effects), there will never be the same flicker effect as seen on a CRT screen as there is never a state where any pixel of the screen does not contain actual picture information.


    /waits for the bit where someone explains that LCD TVs connected to consoles don't work that way anymore.

  • davisorle #80 2 years ago

    "networked PS3s were being used to create the discrete images for each eye. "

    Ok lets just focus here.. you say THEORY and yet so excited about this and getting your viewers all worked up talking about it as if its capable. Not only the one way is to network PS3s in order to run your game ALONE but also would have to buy yourself NEWER HDTV to suport the FPSat 1080p when the console of PS3 barely keeps a 30fps max in most games... This article is fully theory and nothing more as said in the title but shit, even i got a bit workedd up while reading it hoping for it to be possible but its just not apprently. Dont play with technews like that, Ill get high preasure and im "too" young for it. I get so excited with tech shit ffs...

    and btw dont tell me about innovations about Sony. Copied: Wiimote ( Wand ) , XBL ( PSN ) , Achievements ( Trophies ) , Motiontracking ( Right after Natal announcement they HAD to use tracking in their own IPs :p ) and now Stereoscopic ( Exact way as Nvidia does it like YOU said yourself ) within the last 2 years and is exactly whats the only good things in their console and helps their sales and product to be a bit more tempting. BR was the ONLY original thing they came up with which held them back due to overprising their product and having not enough support from developers as they would if working on the console wouldnt be so costly as many have stated from them.. Lets be serious please :p

  • El-Dev #81 2 years ago

    Copied: Playstation (XBox)

  • kangarootoo #82 2 years ago

    @Retroid [mod]

    "And made very little (if any) impact on PS2 gaming outside its minigame packs."

    At first I wasn't sure what you meant there. I guess you mean that EyeToy tech hasn't started becoming standard in all games, and I guess you would be right. I'm not sure I said that would be otherwise though.

    My comment was in response to the suggestion that "This will be like Eyetoy on PS2. Just a thing which most people ignored.". All I was saying is that selling millions of units is not the behaviour of an ignored product.

    Its also not quite a fair comparison in the context of the current discussion. To put it simply, a camera is an input device whereas a 3D TV is an variant of an existing output device. The difference that makes to gameplay and user adoption should be obvious.

  • kangarootoo #83 2 years ago

    @davisorle

    There is nothing wrong with "copying". The idea that this is inherrrently a bad thing is frankly childish.

    Everybody copies, they always have done, and that is just fine. There is no kudos in business in having an original idea simply for its own sake. And doing something better is FAR more important than doing it first.

    So can we put that angle to bed one and for all please.
    Edited by 1 at 10/09/09 @ 16:02

  • KayJay #84 2 years ago

    @ M_of_the_sys - "I'm not on the motion controller bandwagon either but I've got nothing against it being developed. I'm all for pushing new technologies. Same with 3D whereas I'm more excited about seeing this than motion controllers. Even if it isn't going to take off, pushing the technology now means we're likely to see greater developments quicker."

    Exactly... Its pushing the boundaries, moving things on giving people the option. Its great that things like these are being looked at and developed.
    Might not be for everyone, Might not even be for me (Probably will be, I love all this kind of stuff) but at least we have having things pushed on.

  • El-Dev #85 2 years ago

    kangarootoo, no way. It's only Sony who copy people.

  • FireMonkey #86 2 years ago

    Ok, I've said this before elsewhere, but I'm going to re-instate it here again. There are some big problems with converting a game designed to be displayed in 2D into 3D. Some of these points are:

    - What about the 2D HUD? What about 2D effects layered over 3D objects? What about precisely placed objects used for blocking your view? They will both be placed in the wrong place and look bad.

    - Camera cuts with focus change. In 2D this is fine, but if you have a cut from a near object to a far one you are forcing the characters to change focus. This gets tiring and 'will' give you eye strain if this happens lots.

    - Whatever method is used, there 'will' be a performance hit. Did anyone wonder why WipeOut was used as a demo? The fact it runs a 60fps would be the reason. When running 3D, you can pretty much guarantee that it is no longer at 60fps, and probably more like 40fps. Now if this were a game at 30fps which seems to be the standard, then the game will be getting smacked down to something 15 or 20fps. That'll be fun (sarcasm)!

    Now don't get me wrong, I love the idea of 3D gaming, but don't expect converted games to be that good. They will have graphically issues, and almost certainly give you a headache or eye strain. True 3D gamed can and should avoid all these issues and make for a much better experience.

    Also, about Invincible Tiger, "it's clearly a native 720p game scaled up to 1080p, using 640x720 or 1280x360 resolutions".
    Are you sure about that? Even in your own articles you refer to it as 1080p. Did you lie to us?
    Yeah, the style may make it look simple, but when I played the demo, it definitely looked more like 1080p than 640x720 or 1280x360 to me. More investigation need on that one before you make them claims I think.

  • Retroid #87 2 years ago

    @kangarootoo: Well, yes. That's pretty much my point. EyeToy was a success as a (series of) products but didn't influence much outside of that.

    As for "copying" stuff, pretty much every company has done that in one way or another. What's important is whether whatever it is gets improved, or gets a new & clever twist to it.

  • malmer #88 2 years ago

    Sounds very plausible. I do image processing in my work, and in a certain application I reconstruct based on a z-buffer, on a regular CPU, 160 720p images with many layers in roughly 30s. Thats around 190 ms per image. Now that's like 5 times as slow as 30 fps. Now give that to some custom silicon or a stream processor like the cell, and remove all that unessesary things I do that is specific for my application (like all those layers!) and I see that it could easily be done to reconstruct just two images at 60 Hz.

    The tricky part is the alpha blended HUD that is ontop of everything, but for games custom written to support the tech it shouldn't be a problem.
    Edited by 1 at 10/09/09 @ 16:41

  • JensonJet #89 2 years ago

    Industries and companies keep referring to this as '3D images'... hang on a sec. When I watch a movie, or play a game I'm watching 3D. As a camera pans around an actor, or moves through a movie set, I'm fully aware that what I'm watching is 3 dimensional, as is the case with games. The problem I have with so-called 3D films (or games when they appear) is that they're actually turning a 3 dimensional images to 2D! How? All 3D movies do for me is make cardboard cutouts of foreground images and have a 3 dimensional image projected onto the virtual cardboard cut-out which inevitably moves towards the viewer and off away to the side.

    The movie and eventually the games industries will try to convince us we need to spend money watching 3D in cinemas, or buying more electronic equipment, or choosing one brand over another. Fine, that's what they do, they're in business to entertain us, and in return take as much money from us as they can. I don't have a problem with this. But in my opinion there are more important and pressing areas that continually need improving and addressing to enhance the quality of the entertainment I'm purchasing.

    While James Cameron can 3D his latest movie, if the story is weak, and the script is poor or the acting is terrible, or the effects are distractingly bad, the film will fail for me, or will certainly be far less enjoyable than it could have been. So while I understand James Cameron is as much a business man, a money maker as he is an entertainer I appreciate his efforts to have his films, in fact, the whole industry make more money, watching moving 2D cardboard cut-out images will not enhance my enjoyment of a movie whatsoever. That's not to say that there's room for improvement with the image quality.

    As far as games are concerned, as previously mentioned, I already feel I'm playing in 3D. If there's anything that needs improving it's the old story of higher resolutions, faster framerates and generally better graphics. That's not to say I'm complaining with the state of gaming today, but of course in time things will improve and Halo 8 or Modern Warfare 6 or Gran Tourismo 7, etc will all give a better sense of depth perception and our judgement of the virtual space and distance we see in games will improve further. But do I need to see what appears to be a project moving image on a cardboard cutout moving towards me to enjoy games more? Absolutely not. What I believe is more important to improving the quality of gaming is improved AI for a start. First person shooter AI has little improved in the last 15 years. Admittedly the stories, scripts and acting in some games is of a very high quality, but it too still has room for improvement and needs to filter through to more than the AAA titles.

    There are two other issues with this so-called 3D gaming. For a start I'd never heard of the health problems 3D movies can cause people. If a small number of the population suffer obvious problems, then how is this going to effect the rest of us that aren't aware of immediate issues in the long term? While I'm sure the movie and games industry will have already covered themselves or at least thought of the legal implications should anything untoward happen due to the efffects of 3D viewing.

    And finally, I simply don't want to wear glasses when I game. I don't want to need to have several pairs waiting for when friends come over. I don't want to have to buy a new TV. I don't want cardboard cutout images flying towards me. That will never enhance the quality of movies or games for me. And anyone in the movie or games industry, including James Cameron as a director and Sony as an electronics company is utterly out of touch with me as a customer if they think that's how to get their hands on more of my money!
    Edited by 1 at 10/09/09 @ 17:12

  • ILOVEU #90 2 years ago

    Dissing 3D has nothing to do with being a Luddite as many people on here have already pointed out its all been done before and failed because its not really that good. The whole problem is the need to wear glasses-instant fail-they create all kinds of viewing problems. The real reason they are forcing 3D on us is that the TV manufactures need a new gimmick to raise sales again.

  • Calgon #91 2 years ago

    I think the copying comments are more to do with some Sony fans(because of people like Kaz Hirai) claiming Sony invented things they didn't or innovated where they didn't, as a means to say Sony are the "true leaders". Not even Nintendo or it's fans go that far to give them credit.

    Having said all that most of us know better than to beleive that kind of PR talk and hype during conferences, its just there are some who are slightly naive and dont see it as PR talk or chest beating... they all do it but I think some go a little further than others with it.

  • Skurmedel #92 2 years ago

    Calgon: Well, maybe, but davis is just a fanboy troll of the highest order. He's in every thread which mentions Sony in some way.
    Edited by 2 at 10/09/09 @ 17:17

  • kangarootoo #93 2 years ago

    @JensonJet

    You seem to be suggesting that the experience is "the same", as you are already watching a 3D picture.

    Firstly, it is simply not the same. If you see a 3D film, you will see the effect for yourself. It is nothing like watching a normal film.

    Secondly, and more importantly, what is being discussed here is a simulation of binocular vision. We can of course get bogged down in a semantic argument about the meaning of the term "3D" when applied to cinema and video games... but it would be completely irrelevant.

  • Calgon #94 2 years ago

    Skurmedel ah fair enough then.

  • Rodchenko #95 2 years ago

    I don't understand why this article sounds so excited about 3D. If it requires you buy a whole new TV to get it, this is never going to be big.

    HD required you to buy a new TV as well, at least in order to enjoy the better resolution and image quality. Last time I checked, it's rather big. Mass market 3D-technology is still years away. By the time it has reached enough gravity and affordable prices your current HD-TV will probably have ceased to function anyway due to the built-in wear.

    And something tells me had this article been about the 'right' company, you're opinion would have been 180 degrees reversed.

  • EvilBob_leeds #96 2 years ago

    Something tells me this thread getting trolled has more to do with nobend fan boys than anything Kaz Hirai, Steve Ballmer or anyone else might have said. Any article with the words "console X can own" in the title was always going to bring them crawling out of the woodwork.

    In fairness, whilst the Z-buffer idea is out for the 360, if you can punt out 60 fps, you should in theory be able to have a small box of tricks between the XBox (or Wii) and a 120Hz TV do the rest of the work; all the box of tricks would need to do would be to recieve images at 60fps, split them into left images and right images and interleave the left and right images at 120 Hz, putting each one one on screen twice in each 4 hz cycle, giving each eye 30fps @ 60Hz

    So there you go. It is to some extent possible on other consoles. Could all the butt hurt fanboys please now fuck off.
    Edited by 2 at 10/09/09 @ 20:06

  • darc #97 2 years ago

    I haven't had time to read all of the comments, so apologies if someone's already touched on this. I think the feasibility of 3D suffers when you try to achieve a one-size-fits all solution that's magically backward compatible with existing content, as per the Sony Z-buffer protocol speculation. (I did read comments to the effect that this would yield crappy results, and I agree.)

    The fact is that video games are uniquely well-suited to 3D presentation because they (most of them) render a scene in realtime based on the location and perspective of the viewer. The proper solution is dead simple, but merely requires more horsepower: you render the scene twice, once for the perspective of each eye. All of the content is available to make this possible, as evidenced by your ability to move around in the game world. The only question is, at what point are we willing to give up a considerable percentage of our graphics (and physics) processing power in order to achieve 3D? That's really a judgement call, but with so many games already drawing complaints over framerates, I don't think we're ready to make that sacrifice yet. So, maybe with the next generation of hardware, or the one after that, we can simply do this right. We'd still shuttered glasses, but it would be up to the console/computer to send a correctly formed image at the correct time.

    As for film, it's a whole different animal. The only way to "do it right", and the way I imagine it's being done with proper 3D releases right now, is to film with specialized stereoscopic cameras, forming proper images for each eye. Any kind of trickery employed to put a 3D effect on legacy 2D film or video, or on pre-stereoscopic games (3D game becomes a challenging term here) is going to look... well, not worth putting on a pair of thick glasses.

  • Alkeno #98 2 years ago

    This week Richard is truly amazed because Sony is working on a 3D technology. This new tech is meant to be a revolution which could, sooner than later, turn the table of the console wars against Microsoft (who can do nothing against such technology! no mentioning the Wii tough). This new tech is likely to require:

    * New TV sets that refresh at 120Hz, custom hardware to convert 2D images and a z-buffer into 3D images and some sort of sync mechanism with the...
    * Special 3D sort of glasses/helmet that will allow the user to perceive the effect together with...
    * A new, maybe proprietary, protocol to be used between the PS3 and the TV set through HDMI.

    I am astonished and blown away by Richard's rather mysterious and sudden change of heart. Last week the world wasn't ready for HD, we agreed that Nintendo was laughing very hard at Sony and Microsoft for playing the "next-gen HD-graphics" card too soon...

    I believe that Sony is thriving to look important and is trying a bold move. It's not a bad move at all, because the future is headed in that direction, but it is a hell of an early move. They can't expect any short-to-mid term commercial success from such a expensive setup, they are likely going for the "wow factor" and trying to make people connect "future" and "3D" with the Playstation brand earlier than the others (preparing the grounds for the next-gen surely).

    Edit: Minor changes, spelling.
    Edited by 1 at 10/09/09 @ 19:48

  • malmer #99 2 years ago

    darc:
    Actually it doesn't look that bad if you reconstruct it using the z-buffer. Been doing it myself (as mentioned earlier, with timing examples on a cpu) and it doesn't look that bad. There are some clever tricks one can employ to reconstruct hidden surfaces without too much "destruction". It is not very much you have to move your virtual camera for each eye, since they usually aren't that far apart (unless you are an alien)

    However, as soon as a game applies some post-processing, such as depth of field or hdr-bloom it will look like crap. Same thing goes for HUD that is transparent, and therefore not in the z-buffer. So it is not a one-size-fits-all thing, but very doable if games get a patch or are made for it.

  • Rens11 #100 2 years ago

    The next few years ahead are gonna be amazin for gamers, cant wait!!!

  • hiddenranbir #101 2 years ago

    Don't I need a 120hz monitor/tv to 3D ?

  • ronuds #102 2 years ago

    @ Rodchenko

    Yes, HD is "becoming" big, but this is reliant on moving on from even that format - which hasn't even reach 50% saturation yet. I wasn't downplaying that 3D gaming could be cool - just bringing up the reality that there isn't much of a market for it at this time - and there probably won't be for years to come. The problem with waiting until my HD dies to buy another one, is that Sony is introducing this next year!

    I don't see why my opinion would be different if this were from "another company" because it wouldn't change the facts one bit.

  • darc #103 2 years ago

    malmer: "It is not very much you have to move your virtual camera for each eye, since they usually aren't that far apart (unless you are an alien)"

    Oh, did I forget to mention that I'm an alien? ;) I defer to your experience here. I just always thought it was a no-brainer to render based on different camera angles, since all the pieces are in place (and it's pretty academic to even have 2 independent GPUs crunching the numbers in parallel.) Not very efficient, though, I suppose, if a simple adjustment based on Z-buffer content will do the trick.

    As for the commercial relevance, I wouldn't play it down. It's true that very few people will run right out and get kitted up to play 3D games, BUT, if they're standing in a shop trying to decide between 2 platforms (e.g. PS3 vs 360) that are otherwise very similar, they may very likely be swayed by the impression that one will eventually support 3D when they're ready for it, and one will not. And that's an important marketing highlight. I didn't have an HDTV when I bought my XBox360, but it was very important to me then that the 360 was HDTV-ready. And similarly, I don't own any 3D sources at the moment, but I made a point of buying a 3D-ready TV when it was time for an HDTV, because, well the prices weren't significantly different and why not be prepared?

    Whether it's mainstream or not - in fact, whether the average consumer really wants it or not - a demonstrated lead in any technology can be leveraged as a simple bullet point on the sales floor.
    Edited by 1 at 10/09/09 @ 21:30

  • CHAZBIGPOTATO #104 2 years ago

    I will buy all of this equipment, on the day I can call Louis XIII de Rémy Martin "gulping whiskey".

  • zoweewowee #105 2 years ago

    @chazbigpotato
    oh don't get me thirsty now!

  • captain_monk #106 2 years ago

    Can someone help? I don't really get this article. It's titled 'How PS3 can own 3D gaming', yet after reading it I don't actually see 'How PS3 can own 3D gaming'. As far as I can see the 360 can do games in 3D, seeing as how Invincible Tiger is already on the system and Avatar is coming to it?

    Anyone care to explain or was this entire article just Digital Foundry trying to stir up a fight (and so more hits) in the forums? I hope not as I usually like the DF articles and think they are usually well written and fairly unbiased. This article just stands out as been a little fan-boyish, and hopefully isn't going to start a trend of poor article writing in DF..

  • smelly #107 2 years ago

    @captain_monk : Did you not actually read the words?

    I point you towards teh bit where it talks about the bandwidth needed in the hdmi to do 1080p at 120hz.

    That said, i'd be flabberghasted if most games could manage it. A lot of games would struggle to run at 1080p at 60hz without losing image quality (Which is why a lot of games dont run at 1080p, and some dont even run at 720p - like halo 3 for a famous example)

  • womble #108 2 years ago

    3D is a PS4, Xbox 720 thing. It makes no sense, commercially or technically, to try and shoehorn 3D technology into the current consoles as they are.

    The consoles (and displays) have to be designed from scratch. Next gen stuff. Everything else is wishful thinking.

  • BadBoyBonner #109 2 years ago

    Hang on a minute - surely the argument running along the lines of "50% of people don't even have a HDTV"etc means that there's a very large market of people who could purchase a 3D set that is also HD and skip buying a HD without 3D functionality altogether?

    And said same people probably bought DVD because the benefits are obvious over tape - but the upgrade to hi-def (Blu-Ray) is a little lost on them?

    An upgrade from a 2D to 3D is something the masses would find easier to understand and appreciate IMO.

    I find the fact that the 2 of the products shown (GT5 and WipEout) are both technical masterpieces of the PS3 hardware to begin with - so how SONY have seemingly also leveraged those same games to run in 3D must surely be Z-buffer trickery.

    Maybe SONY are getting a little funky with the OS's dedicated SPU core....

    Edited by 1 at 11/09/09 @ 03:06

  • HuggyAtHome #110 2 years ago

    3D is an overhyped device by media corps introduced to counter piracy. End of. It's the Laserdisc of the noughties.

    Plus it gives you a splitting headache in the cinema and you have to wer shit glasses over your own glasses. Bunch of arse.

    Anyway - and somebody has already pointed this out, most people are still using SD gear.

  • Zunz0 #111 2 years ago

    The theory concerning the z-axis depth must be true. Sony showed off Uncharted 2: Among Thieves at CEDIA EXPO in 2009

    http://ww w.sonyinsider.com/2009/09/10/so...

    "Here is one of the 3D displays they had going, where users could wear RealD CE4 glasses. They are basically 3D glasses, but with an active shutter system. We will be covering this in another post. Some of the demos included movie clips, and video game segments such as Uncharted: Drakes Fortune 2."
    Edited by 1 at 11/09/09 @ 08:54

  • kangarootoo #112 2 years ago

    "Hang on a minute - surely the argument running along the lines of "50% of people don't even have a HDTV"etc means that there's a very large market of people who could purchase a 3D set that is also HD and skip buying a HD without 3D functionality altogether?"

    A good and interesting point.


    "Plus it gives you a splitting headache in the cinema and you have to wer shit glasses over your own glasses. Bunch of arse. "

    /rolls eyes

  • Sunyavadin #113 2 years ago

    Indeed, the accelerated 3D transition may well be an industry response to poor HD uptake. It is something, as you quite rightly point out, which the average person DOES see as a major step worth taking, rather than SD->HD.
    As I've said, I'm certainly skipping the 2D HD generation (unless maybe they drop into the sub-£100 price range before 3D takes off.)

    As for the argument about shoehorning it into consoles - it's NOT AN ISSUE.
    Seriously, you could get a game to output in 3D on the C64. It's far easier than making a live action film in 3D, to animate in 3D. ANY console can output in 3D if you just make it render multiple angles at once and output that.
    No shoehorning required, just a little bit of extra code in new games, and possibly a patch for existing ones.

  • Skurmedel #114 2 years ago

    kangaroo: That is a valid concern if you have these problems. Nothing to roll your eyes about. 3D is probably übercool, but not if you get nausea from it.

    Not saying these are problems that can't be solved, but it'll be a long time before they are I think.

    Sunvayadin: Talk about missing the point they were trying to get across. If a game barely can output it at half the frequency needed for some 3D-solutions, then how is it gonna cope with double that? It's a huge issue. If your hardware can just muster rendering from one angle, how do you think it'll do with an extra full render step?
    Edited by 6 at 11/09/09 @ 10:17

  • kangarootoo #115 2 years ago

    @Skurmedel

    I realise that nausea is a rpoblem for those that suffer from it, but the majority of users simply don't. A statement like "Plus it gives you a splitting headache" suggests a widespread issue, which it is not. Lets face it, if it were a widespread issue it would have died on its ass. Instead the number of films and cinemas supporting this 3D tech is exploding. It doesn't take a scientist...

    And the eye rolling in particular was because all of this has already been discussed previously in this thread. It was a classic "coat getting" moment.

  • gammonbanter #116 2 years ago

    Edited by 2 at 11/09/09 @ 12:50

  • CHAZBIGPOTATO #117 2 years ago

    N@ I would like to belatedly third your Giga Meh from orbit simply because its the funniest thing I've read today.

  • Marshall2008 #118 2 years ago

    the Xbox 360 can do head tracking and can offer 3d perspective from your POV. This doesnt 'bend' your eyeballs so you don't get a sore head. The stereoscopic 3D displays are truely a gimmic and until they find a way of doing it without giving you a headache it will fail. About 1 1/2 to 1 3/4 hrs is about the comfortable viewing limit.

    Found the link for the guy who built a headtracking system using the Wii. He now works for Microsoft Applied Sciences.

    http://www .youtube.com/watch?v=Jd3-eiid-Uw
    Edited by 1 at 14/09/09 @ 16:30

  • bemaniac #119 2 years ago

    we're all gonna go blind!