The Making of PlayStation 3D

By Richard Leadbetter Published 19 April, 2010

How WipEout HD and MotorStorm gained an extra dimension.

Page 1 of 3

Last week Sony revealed that it is due to launch its new range of 3DTVs with a small range of stereoscopic-enabled PlayStation 3 titles. PAIN, Super Stardust HD and WipEout HD get the full treatment, while a single-level demo of MotorStorm: Pacific Rift is also in the offing. All will be downloadable from the PlayStation Store.

Regular readers of Digital Foundry will know that we're strong advocates of the technology, and that we reckon that sooner or later it's going to become an integral part of the gaming experience, most likely in latter-generation consoles when the displays themselves have matured. In a sense, what we're seeing at the moment is "baby steps" - a slow, faltering beginning for what well be one of the most important advances in screen technology since progressive scan.

At GDC 2010, we caught up with SCEE's stereoscopic team to hear their presentation on the implementation of 3D within current generation video games. The brief given to senior programmer Ian Bickerstaff and senior development manager Simon Benson was simple: to introduce the tech to games developers, explain the basics, reveal the advantages to gameplay and also to address the technical challenges inherent in effectively doubling your pixel throughput in order to provide discrete images for each eye.

"We have a simple three-step implementation process for making games in 3D," says Ian Bickerstaff. "Step one is to create two images. The PS3 has two 1280x720 buffers, in a top/bottom arrangement, with a 30-pixel gap between them using for video timing purposes. It's the left eye image at the top and the right at the bottom."

"The images are automatically converted to HDMI 3D output at 59.94Hz but you can use any frame-rate you want as long as you synchronise to the vertical refresh. That's really important because frame-tearing looks really bad in 3D; the tear will be in one image and not the other, so it's much worse than normal frame tearing."

The current-generation consoles mostly operate at 30FPS already, often with v-sync disengaging when frame-rate drops below that in order to retain the most crisp response and the most fluid visual experience. The Sony team advocates that the game should be v-synced at all times - a stiff challenge bearing in mind that two images need to be created.

"Inevitably there are problems in achieving that performance, hardware upscaling is available and actually the good news is that upscaled 3D images look a lot better than upscaled 2D images," explains Bickerstaff.

"It's the way the brain perceives the world. But if you're going to do that, you need really good anti-aliasing. If in doubt, it's better to have low-resolution images with great anti-aliasing than higher-resolution images with a lot of scintillating pixels going on." With the setup in place for generating the two discrete images, it's time to begin the process of generating the stereoscopic 3D effect, and that begins with the introduction of depth to the scene.

"Step two is to apply the convergence to define the maximum depth of the image, the maximum positive parallax," Bickerstaff says. "It's a 2D X-axis translation in screen-space and we move the left image to the left and the right image to the right. For our games we've used a 1/30th screen width as the default parallax. You need to take care that all of this is applied to every element of your rendering pipeline. If you've got reflections in water - things like that - make sure the shift happens to all the elements. Reflections will need to be calculated for both eyes."

The final step is fairly straightforward.

"What we've got now is an image that is flat but has depth into the screen. Now we're ready for step three which is to apply the inter-axial, to move the cameras apart, to create the final 3D image."

This is a significant amount of additional computational work to add to a game. The impact on performance can be mitigated if the base engine itself is designed for 3D, but clearly all of the launch titles for the new range of displays are adapted from existed code. The question is, how did they do that? It's perhaps no mistake that two of the titles for the 3D launch originally ran with 1080p support, suggesting some pixel-processing overhead for the generation of two 720p images.

'The Making of PlayStation 3D' Screenshot wipeout1
'The Making of PlayStation 3D' Screenshot wipeout2

The 3D version of WipEout HD is locked to 720p, but due to geometry issues, frame-rate is halved to 30FPS. Note that all screenshots in this feature are derived from the 2D versions of the games.

"WipEout HD was originally 1080p at 60Hz: obviously a good foundation to start from. Making the 3D build of this we had to go for two 720p images," says Simon Benson.

"The advantage there is that that's less than 1080p, so we're all right there pixel-count wise: we've got some to spare, we're asking less in terms of pixel processing. But we were fairly geometry bound on WipEout HD. Because it was 60Hz we could just drop to 30Hz and in actual fact, that was it. There was no more work to do. That worked. It took very little time getting the game into 3D; there were very few problems with WipEout."

Page 1 of 3

Comments (66) Latest comment 2 years ago

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

  • technotica #1 2 years ago

    Yay now I just need to buy another 2k€ TV to play my PS3 games in 3d, I guess I'll just trash my 2d HD TV :p

  • GamesConnoisseur #2 2 years ago

    Again I think its great for Sony to invest in this tech and for people who gotta themselves 3DTV, but I still cannot imagine that 3DTV would be mainstream anytime soon. Rather likely its would stay niche for the haves and the havenots just to look over the fence wishing they could get 3DTV.

    All is speculations re how long it will take before virtually more people have 3D enabled TV than not and IF ever during this current HD gen?

    For me PS Move had far more chance of making a greater tangible difference to gamers and consumers and for less outlay.

    Still doesnt mean I dont want!

  • Jonathan_Fakenham #3 2 years ago

    Yeah, I figure 3D gaming won't be worth its while for some time yet, due to the extra hardware push and framerate restrictions they impose. It's still a test phase as far as I'm concerned.

  • woodnotes #4 2 years ago

    Wipeout HD in 3D is 30fps though. Which is a bit pants.

  • rhinoxious #5 2 years ago

    Even with cheaper second-gen 3D TVs and nextgen consoles, I still think that 3D will require compromises.

    Games developers will always push the envelope in terms of graphics, and that will at best leave us with a choice between 60fps in 2D and 30fps in 3D.

  • mashk #6 2 years ago

    I haven't got a 3d TV. Or even a PS3. But if I did own a PS3, could I play it with those red and green glasses you used to get in cereal packets?

  • Beano #7 2 years ago

    No

  • KayJay #8 2 years ago

    @ mashk
    Well yeah you could. See the GOTY B:AA. Thats 3D, not steroscopic but still 3D.

  • sneetch #9 2 years ago

    @rhinoxious
    Even with cheaper second-gen 3D TVs and nextgen consoles, I still think that 3D will require compromises.

    Games developers will always push the envelope in terms of graphics, and that will at best leave us with a choice between 60fps in 2D and 30fps in 3D.

    Yeah, and given that more current gen titles tend to run at 30 FPS than 60 FPS on consoles it may require a further drop in either graphical effects quality or resolution to achieve that. I think that next gen consoles (PS4/720) will be required to really get the most out of 3D.

  • StooMonster #10 2 years ago

    "2D plus depth system" is a bit crap IMO and results in cardboard cutout in pop-up book like 3D, unrealistic 3D effect and flat looking objects abound.

    Anyone seen Clash of the Titans 3D? That film was "upscaled" from 2D to 3D in post-production, albeit with a more sophisticated process, and I think it was the worst 3D I've yet seen (as well as being dull, dull, dull).

    Unless the 3D is created with two stereoscopic images (either shot with two lenses, or rendered as two fields) I don't think it works well, Z-depth map stuff is meh!
    Edited by 1 at 19/04/10 @ 14:41

  • peterfll #11 2 years ago

    Are you really strong advocates of the technology in its current guise? That surprises me. I accept its a "baby step" towards a proper mainstream 3D solution. This current implementation is not that.

  • Retroid #12 2 years ago

    "The 3D version of WipEout HD is locked to 720p, but due to geometry issues, frame-rate is halved to 30FPS. Note that all screenshots in this feature are derived from the 2D versions of the games."

    Oh.

    I find it hard to imagine playing Wipeout HD / Fury at half the framerate and in a lower resolution :/

  • TRUTH #13 2 years ago

    A new report that has highlighted that people who wear glasses, are pregnant, suffer epilepsy, drunk, over 40, color blind, along whith other illnesses etc...3D viewing is highly not recommended as it can cause damage!

    By the way Clash Of The Titans movie has the shitist 3D use ever. You hardly even notice it.
    Edited by 3 at 19/04/10 @ 15:30

  • Mkwone #14 2 years ago

    If it's going to follow the HD route it'll probably take about 4/5 years before it's nearly impossible to buy a new tv that doesn't support 3D and then it's up to the individual to choose whether or not to have 3D content.

    Much like i know a lot of people who have HD tv's but not HD source.

    Personally i can't wait, the idea of wearing glasses doesn't bother me, it's just a matter of cost at the moment.

  • FireMonkey #15 2 years ago

    TV manufacturers are jumping on the 3D bandwagon left, right and center. A technology standard has now been agreed upon by the big players and it won't cost too much to integrate into the new TV's so I'd bet that it won't be too long until it is a fairly standard feature of new HD TV's.

    Also, given the fact that HD TV sales have been fairly poor up to this point, that means there are a lot of people still who once there SD TVs die or they decide to finally upgrade they will have the choice of 3D or non-3D. Given 3D has quite a large wow-factor and all the stores are going to be pushing it, I'd also like to bet that most of the upgrades are going to be to the 3D option.

    Personally, I think given 5 years, 3D tv's will either be pulling up to or have over taken non-3D HDTVs in total sales.

  • jambo74 #16 2 years ago

    So, can real 1080p HD be displayed in 3D? If not them all the games in 3D will be non HD taking consoles back a step in the process.

  • FireMonkey #17 2 years ago

    @ Von_Adder - "Its not needed... "

    HD tv is not needed, Surrond sound is not needed, rumble is not needed... It's all nice though isn't it!

    "... its not wanted..."

    Not by you perhaps, but I want it and know many more who do.

    "...and it certainly does'nt improve your "gaming experience" or film experience for that matter"

    Have you tried it? To me even the old 3D methods improved some types of games and made them feel much more immerse and surely that's the point of it.

  • Bloke1182 #18 2 years ago

    I was at GDC this year and the Sony booth was right next to the Crytek one. Both were showcasing their 3D technology, and I must admit that the Sony stuff looked way more convincing then the Crytek stuff. It really looked crisp, and three dimensional. The game that I played was Super Stardust HD, and the asteroids really appeared "above" the planet's surface. It did make me think though, and I quickly game to the conclusion that I wouldn't pay a whole lot of money for a gimmick like this, unless some game developer comes up with extremely cool content that caters to 3D only.

  • CaptainQuint #19 2 years ago

    Bloody usual Eurogamer biased towards Xbox 360, always doing special features on that system but never anything for the PS3 -- oh wait...

  • lukaz #20 2 years ago

    First give me "2D" in real 1080p @60fps as standard. Then start thinking about gimmicks like 3D.

  • FireMonkey #21 2 years ago

    @teh9182 - "3D gaming has been possible on the PC for ages"

    It's not really been pushed though has it?
    I actually can't think of any games that I know for certain use proper stereoscopic 3D on PC.

    I'm taking it you are not meaning using the "2D plus Depth" method are you? If not I have a few questions about that (which may also explain why it hasn't got bigger)

    - Is it mentioned in obvious print on the front of the box that it has 3D support?
    - Is it obvious when you run the game that you could play it in 3D (rather than a setting in an advanced graphics page)
    - Is there a single standard that these games work for?
    - What glasses / monitors are there for PC do they all work on the same games?
    Edited by 1 at 20/04/10 @ 09:23

  • DFawkes #22 2 years ago

    If anyone is interested in 3D PC gaming, there are drivers called iZ3D that'll run pretty much any DirectX game in 3D, with a little performance hit. Works quite well in anaglyph mode too, though it still has the same colour distortion problems you'd expect from that tech. Still, it'll work on any monitor on almost any PC game, should you fancy it.

    I quite like 3D, and this method on PS3 seems like it's the best way to keep colours as they should be, which in nice vibrant games like WipEout seems like a good idea.

  • Stepharneo #23 2 years ago

    Please please please get some of these set up for the Eurogamer Expo.

  • DoctorFouad #24 2 years ago

    thanks DF, an interesting article !

    I am sure that 3D TV are the next revolution of TVs after the HD revolution.

    The mai problem is glasses...how they will solve this problem ?!!!

  • Pirotic #25 2 years ago

    If it's anything like the movies, you'll stop noticing it after 5 minutes and most likely revert back to full fat graphics at the original resolution. I think we really need a new generation of hardware for this to take off, 3D and new shiny graphics please, don't make me pick between one or the other.

  • IneptPercy #26 2 years ago

    I just don't think that the current generation of consoles can pull this off well.

    With that its good its getting pushed as it will mean a better implementation on the next gen consoles may happen.

  • Pablo2k5 #27 2 years ago

    Gimmick.

  • lukaz #28 2 years ago

    @KingAntoine
    The 30fps split screen is horrible to play if you're used to the 60fps single player.

  • Widge #29 2 years ago

    I have to agree there

  • devilmyarse #30 2 years ago

    Why should plasma owners have to buy a new TV? My Viera runs at 600Hz, most other plasma displays run at higher refresh rates than 120Hz... Why don't they just release a pair of 3D shutter glasses that sync over bluetooth, and then have a couple of software controls to calibrate the system (like on PCs)? Requiring people to upgrade their TV just seems dumb to me, especially when there's thousands of TVs already capable of this type of 3D tech.

    Not that I'm particularly fussed either way, 2D+depth makes me feel ill so I won't be 'upgrading' regardless.

  • knightmt #31 2 years ago

    I would prefer to by a 3D projector with two polarized lenses, though I cannot tell what the sony 3d tvs will be like until I try one.

  • Slipstream #32 2 years ago

    As much as I am all for innovative capitalism, 3 things run through my mind whenever I read articles related to 3D gaming.

    omg I wonder how much electricity this will use!?
    Can our eyes even handles this? sounds strenuous!
    lol expensive T.V.

    ...shit, I'm only 25...

  • busboy33 #33 2 years ago

    Y'know, this isn't a bad idea for Sony.

    I absolutely agree that the "new tv" requirement is a huge impediment to large-scare acceptance, but this does give Sony a firm claim to "the absolute cutting edge bestest supafly pimp shit" title. Right now, the software that looks "better" on PS3 as compared to 360 software don't look THAT much better, as in they're still in the same league. A true 3D driving game would be some real "next-gen", top-of-the-line awesome.
    It hurts the mass market branding sure, but that "ultimate hip alpha dog" image does guarantee a certain level of buisness. Plus it would be a HUGE cock to waggle in the PR pissing wars between MS and Sony. Oh you got a timed exclusive Microsoft? I guess I'll just have to wait for it . . . in 3D, muthafuckas! How you like them apples?
    It'll be interesting to see where this goes.

  • StooMonster #34 2 years ago

    devilmyarse: Why should plasma owners have to buy a new TV?

    That's easy, because your television's HDMI Receiver chips will only accept "standard" resolution signals up to 60Hz so even the display is 120Hz or above it's got no means of acquiring a signal.

    You'll need a display with HDMI 1.4 to take proper advantage of 3D (or 4K resolution), and even then it probably won't work properly until the second iteration if previous HDMI spec bumps are anything to go by.

    Consumer electronics manufacturers have been racking in cash from incremental upgrades for decades, don't be surprised if your slightly older kit does not work with brand new tech.

  • IneptPercy #35 2 years ago

    How bad is the colour distortion using anaglyph with iz3d.

    Basically is it worth the £1.50 for the 3d glasses to test or is it a complete waste of time?

  • Dizzy #36 2 years ago

    >It'll be interesting to see where this goes.

    Sony will probably run themselves in the ground when nobody buys all those 3D junk.. err... TVs.

  • smelly #37 2 years ago

    >I guess I'll just trash my 2d HD TV

    Or wait for a few years when there will be 3d tv's which dont need glasses.

  • Kaminari #38 2 years ago

    "[...] what will be one of the most important advances in screen technology since progressive scan."

    To quote Ninja Ninja, I can't believe I'm reading this bullshit.

    Seriously, come back to your common sense, Richard. You make it sound like stereoscopic "3D" is the best thing to happen to humanity since the Big Bang and peanut butter. The stereoscopic fad has been around for a century and a half. It's making a comeback every 30 years, and each time it has come and gone for one single reason: it's a fad. People get bored with it very quickly. It brings nothing to the table, nothing to the viewer's experience in the long term. It's a neat feat for 5 minutes, and that's all there is to it.

    What did you say? Oh yes, you're right. The marketing department begs to differ...

  • Ryze #39 2 years ago

    Not read the other comments, but this is looking FANTASTIC for the next gen of consoles in terms of GPU spec, regardless of whether you have a 3DTV to take advantage.

    Here's why:

    - They need to eliminate tearing in the next gen consoles (100% v sync'd 3D games) to provide for a quality 3D experience

    - 1080p 120fps 2D w/ v-sync should actually be feasible if they invest in the hardware as required for optimal 3D

    - Little chance of a Wii-style sidestep coming from either MS or Sony, if they're planning on pushing 3D support as mandatory on the next systems

    - HD (2D) 50"+ panels should plummet in price as the 3D sets enter mass production

    So less of the 3D hate, eh kids?

    /waits...

  • BritishBlue1 #40 2 years ago

    I hope you're right, Ryze.

  • [STARS]TyranT #41 2 years ago

    Though WipEout dropping to 30fps is hardly the deal breaker, i'd sooner have it running in it's full glory and just use a surround system to immerse me far more than an image standing out from the screen can.

  • cheekyjay #42 2 years ago

    This starts to make the following generation of consoles finally make sense. Making the wildly hypothetical assumption that in 4 or so years time 3D will be gaining significant traction with mass-market consumers, I can see far higher-specced consoles being released that offer PS3 or Xbox 360 quality graphics... in 3D!.

    Given the success of 'casual' retrograded technology this gen with the Wii, I was beginning to question how the likes of Sony or Microsoft could communicate to a mass-market why any kind of technological leap forward was required... with 3D, it suddenly makes sense, and seems marketable. All based on ifs and buts of course.

    I suspect in the meantime, true 60fps 3D experiences will fall into the exclusive domain of a very very small niche of top tier PC owners.

  • ralph_lipshitz #43 2 years ago

    Is somebody making a movie player for the PS3 so you can watch videos in 3D?

  • devilmyarse #44 2 years ago

    @StooMonster

    Most (if not all) of these games are running at vsync 30fps. Meaning they would be running at 60Hz stereoscopic. Still well within the capabilities of most (if not all) HDTVs on the market. Sony would achieve much deeper market penetration if they could provide a (relatively) low cost solution to stereoscopic 3D. Most people have only just upgraded to a HDTV, they're not going to upgrade again. TVs are still expensive for most users to just flippantly upgrade willy nilly. It's not like a £10 DVD player. Most consumers are going to be sticking with their current TV until it wears out. Just like they stuck with their CRT TV until inevitably conked out.

    They could quite easily lock frame rates to 3D 720p30 and release glasses that sync wirelessly to the PS3 and just update the drivers on the PS3. They don't need a new HDMI standard for that. The current one will cope with a 720p60 stream just fine (and then some).

    Requiring a brand new TV will ensure that 3D remains a fad and will be forgotten. People will just wait until 4K screens come down in price and then consider upgrading, but only when there is sufficient content to be played on one. That is still quite a way off just yet. Wasn't Avatar the first film to be shot entirely with 2 Red Ones in 4K? If it's only just come to cinema it's a long way off before it hits consumer land!

  • 3william56 #45 2 years ago

    @Ralph: it's already there in the Blu-Ray, but needs a firmware upgrade (and the new 3d telly obviously).

    Supposedly, 3D games will be enabled via firmware this year as in the article, then 3D blu-ray playback will be released in a second firmware uptick next year. If you have a 3d telly (hello "accidental damage" insurance claims!) , a stock PS3 will do 3d movies fine.

    Not a big fan of 3d movies, but if SSHD3D and WOHD3D are really that good, it's a horrible temptation.

  • Dave52 #46 2 years ago

    I'm besotted with 3DTV at the moment.... Unfortunately I'm also rather taken by the new 7.1, HDMI 4.1 ready AV Receiver that Sony's just about to bring out. Damn.... so much tech, so little money....

    The World Cup is coming in 3D and Sky are already broadcasting in 3D. Niche right now, but a big thing for 2011 I reckon.

  • memeroot #47 2 years ago

    NVIDIA vision works great and is about 350 with monitor. But it is. A toy more than anything
    However +1 to the projector route if you have one already . Given the short term use of 3d its cheaper and makes more sense

  • FireMonkey #48 2 years ago

    @trebell - I'm sorry to hear you won't be able to benefit from the 3D tech, but there will always be 2D alternatives anyway so just use them instead. No one will forcing you to run the games or watch films in 3D (well some 'may' be 3D only but that will be a very small exception as to give the option is very simple, but removing it would mean lost sales to anyone who has not upgraded their systems or who can not see 3D properly).

    You can't 'really' want technology to hold back because a minority of people won't be able to use it do you? That's like saying we should not have all moved onto stereo or surround sound as there are quite a lot of people with hearing difficulties that wouldn't benefit. I bet you prefer your films and games in stereo or surround sound don't you?

  • StooMonster #49 2 years ago

    devilmyarse:

    1. 30Hz per eye is too flickery for 3D. Concept fail.

    2. Even if consoles could output such a signal your television would still not recognise it. Firmware fail.

    3. Your television does not have either polarised output for RealD type or support Bluetooth to drive active shutter glasses. Hardware fail.

    "They could quite easily ..." speaking as someone who has personally spent much of this year flogging around an idea to get 3D working on existing televisions (3D without the need to buy new displays, great for Sky 3D launch I thought), and who has Silicon Valley based partners whose chips are in many DVDs, Blu-rays, televisions, receivers, etc. who took said ideas and technology to Far Eastern famous brands and other consumer electronics OEMs ... I can tell you that not one of them has any interest at all in making 3D work with legacy technology.

    Requiring a brand new TV will ensure that 3D remains a fad and will be forgotten.
    From what I understand, 3D will be in every new television within the next couple of years; you could choose to ignore it, but it will be priced into all sets. You will have to go out of your way to buy a television without 3D.

  • vizzini #50 2 years ago

    If I recall correctly, Tomy's Tomytronic handheld games from the 80's were stereoscopic 3D; good, but not much different to other games of the time.

    If mainstream 3DTV is going to happen in less than 10years, I don't think it is going to happen through normal TV screen sales alone.

    Putting to one side, future screens that don't need stereoscopic glasses, you are basically asking people to wear glasses, Jarvis Corker style and spend 3 times as much on a screen as their fine HD solution.

    If wearing glasses is mandatory, why not just produce OLED/LCD glasses that use a long hdmi lead, and cost £250 per pair, and then sell cheap hdmi 1.4 hubs to enable multi person viewing at incremental pricing.

    The OLED glasses could also become the screen for the next PSP, and there by give an opportunity to get production costs of the glasses down quickly; while also reducing the size requirements of the next PSP, by separating screen from console.

  • FireMonkey #51 2 years ago

    @ Paddy29 - "The PS3 doesn't have HDMI 1.4 so there is no way it's needed for 3d. That means there are workarounds."

    Unfortunately that isn't the case.

    PS3's are only HDMI 1.3, but the only thing the PS3 needs to pass out is data formed correctly. With software updates it can form data as it likes. The only limitation would have been if the bandwidth of 1.3 hardware was not big enough to carry the data, but luckily for Sony it is.

    However, if you have a HDMI 1.3 TV it will not understand the format of this data and so not be able to deal with it. It 'may' potentially be possible for TV manufacturers to patch the TV's so that it could understand this format and display it but that is completely dependant on if the TV has a way of accepting software patches and has the correct refresh rate.

    It is very unlikely to happen though as most TV's that do allow software patches would need a physical device attached to it and so the manufacturers would need an engineer to visit. This is not beneficial to the manufacturers as it means extra costs for them and no extra sales. By not doing this they will be hoping that you will spend more money on there next TV.

    It would be nice if they did it for us, but they want to make money more than make friends.

  • vizzini #52 2 years ago

    “It is very unlikely to happen though as most TV's that do allow software patches would need a physical device attached to it and so the manufacturers would need an engineer to visit.”

    Sony's set up for patching TV's seems to have changed over the 18 months.

    We recently bought a Sony KDL-22E5300 and it has the ps3 styled XMB (with a software update option), so I assume all XMB models have it; I've already did a firmware upgrade via USB on the this new TV, so 3D data support is looking more promising.

    However my main Sony KDL-46X3000 doesn't have the XMB, even though it has USB/pcmcia connectivity. I hope they will do an Over the Air update for 3D data for capable flagship screens like this, or provide a usb/pcmcia firmware file, but sadly my firmware experience from my Sony KD-32X200 tells me it would be another engineer visit, if at all.

  • StooMonster #53 2 years ago

    FireMonkey: "That means there are workarounds." Unfortunately that isn't the case.

    Sky HD is HDMI 1.1 and that works with 3D, so there is a work around to the requirement of HDMI 1.4 for 3D formats.

    AFAIK Sky are using a format called half-horizontal side-by-side where each 1080i field has the two stereoscopic fields at half horizontal resolution next to each other. So on a regular HD television you see left and right eye pictures next to each other in one frame.

    On the new Samsung 3D television (and others I am sure) for legacy (i.e. non HDMI 1.4) 3D one manually selects '3D' on the remote control; the display then puts up a dialog box which shows two icons to select (two pictures side-by-side or two picture one above the other) and asks you to manually select what you see on the screen. Once you select side-by-side the screen turns the half-horizontal anamorphic fields into full resolution frame alternatively sequenced for use with 3D glasses.

    Easy.

  • PatTheMav #54 2 years ago

    Am I the only one completely uninterested in 3D at all? I wasn't even wooed by watching Avatar in 3D, more or less I hate 3D! It's uncomfortable for the eye as you're still getting flat images - it's just cheating your eyes and it's exhausting, it's basically not real 3D. And that's what makes it a fad IMO.

    Sure - the hardware vendors are getting crazy about this stuff, finally something they can sell at a premium again, now that HDTVs are slowly becoming affordable for average people. And that's why Sony is pushing this useless technology on PS3 - just to sell their own 3DTVs. I don't blame them, it's good business. Doesn't mean that it's the second coming of gaming-jesus.

    It's just like the waggle-controls of the Wii: I just want to sit on my couch, watch some flat image on my HDTV and play a game - I don't need that fancy stuff, especially as it's so damn expensive (and low-res).

    What we should focus on is enhancing our immersion without reducing image quality, framerate or resolution: Using Natal for head-tracking. To me, this would be a much bigger step forward than playing with that stupid PS Eye wand, the Wii Mote or anything else. Just play the game as you're used to, but you can change the perspective and "look around corners" by changing your position in relation to the screen, just like this guy did 2 years ago:

    [link url=http://www .youtube.com/watch?v=Jd3-eiid-Uw
    ]http://www .youtube.com/watch?v=Jd3-eiid-Uw
    [/link]

    Just look at the video, it appears 3D even though it's filmed in 2D. It's easy to implement (if this guy can do it on his own), is comparably low-cost, so why not embrace those simple things before going full 2.5D on us?

  • Darren #55 2 years ago

    Credit to Sony for adding 3D to the PS3 (even if does seem like they're including it as an incentive to buy one of their new, expensive 3D HDTVs) but, personally, I would find the image quality/framerate compromise hard to swallow on an ageing console that is already subject to certain compromises anyway (such as screen tearing, sub-720p resolutions and lack of AA) so this 3D technology is of little or no interest to me. Maybe in 10 years time when the hardware has caught up with the 3D technology then we can watch movies and play games (at 1080/60p) in 3D without having to wear glasses that make everything look duller then I'll consider it.

  • Darren #56 2 years ago

    @PatTheMav - No, you're not alone.

    Sadly for me, my eye sight is just not good enough for 3D to work. I've seen Avatar and Clash of the Titans in 3D and neither film convinced me that I was watching anything but a flat screen to be brutally honest. The floating plant things were the only thing that looked 3D-ish in the former and the latter movie was a headache inducing blurry mess such that I was glad to remove the glasses at the end. In both cases the glasses made the picture look annoyingly dull and I'm sure I'd have enjoyed both movies more in 2D. In the case of Avatar I'll know next week as the Blu-ray, which is thankfully non-3D, is out on 26th April.

  • aidey6 #57 2 years ago

    can we not just aim for 60fps 720p 4 timies MSAA or in Sonys case MLAA, with zero tearing (or minimum tearing) before we have to lower framerate and gaming resolution.

    Does this mean that we can expect Avatar later this year to be in 2D and 3D when they release the super duper extra special edition near christmas time too?

  • gjgjg #58 2 years ago

    hmm, HD adoption isnt even that high is it? When I was selling consoles many customers didnt care about getting HDMI cables etc I think all this might be a little too soon...

  • StooMonster #59 2 years ago

    aidey6: Does this mean that we can expect Avatar later this year to be in 2D and 3D when they release the super duper extra special edition near christmas time too?

    Yep, Fox's plans for Avatar Special Edition 2D for November and 3D version in 2011 have been leaked ... not double-dipping Blu-ray, but triple-dipping!

    PatTheMav: yep, would love to see some head-tracking 3D games on PC/Mac and consoles; don't know if Natal could do it, would be interesting if it could.

  • devilmyarse #60 2 years ago

    @stoomonster

    1. 30Hz per eye is too flickery for 3D. Concept fail.

    2. Even if consoles could output such a signal your television would still not recognise it. Firmware fail.

    3. Your television does not have either polarised output for RealD type or support Bluetooth to drive active shutter glasses. Hardware fail.


    1. The article clearly states that Wipeout and Motorstom are running 3D at 30fps...
    2. The signal is a 60hz signal running at 30fps with alternate frames. If TVs are limited to accepting a 60hz signal input then this would work.
    3. I wasn't talking about the bluetooth sync with the TV, I was talking about a bluetooth sync with the PS3 and then software controls to calibrate. Like the nVidia 3D system on the PC.

    I personally think that the glasses+TV 3D solution will be a fad, and at some point manufacturers will develop a satisfactory technology to replace the requirement of glasses. Then and only then will we see mass market adoption. The requirement for glasses is what has kept this tech from becoming ubiquitous.

    I feel that head tracking based 3D is a much more convincing technology anyway. Unfortunately only works for one person, but the effect is far more impressive and immersive. (search for Wii head tracking 3D on Youtube) Plus that doesn't make me feel sick either.

  • StooMonster #61 2 years ago

    devilmyarse: 30fps is okay for motion but not enough for refresh, as you say 60Hz is minimum with frame doubling, but how would tv know what signal was and not regular 60Hz signal, so no it wouldn't work with existing HDMI standards. You couldn't sync glasses with PS3 as you could not be sure timing would match screen, e.g. how many milliseconds does your screen take to process an incoming signal? how could you be sure that correct eye was being displayed or that even the timing wasn't halfway between a left and right eye? the screen would have to control timing of shutter glasses as it's the only device that knows which field/frame it is currently displaying.

    Even if one had the best solution in the world to make 3D working on existing televisions, it ain't gonna happen.

    I agree that "glasses required" 3D might be a fad, rumours of Philips and others developing "glasses free" 3D displays have been around for a while; perhaps it's a good thing that content (i.e. 3D movies) and services (i.e. PS3-3D) are being developed for the longer term.

    I also agree about head-tracking 3D, and think it ace -- albeit usable by only one person at a time, which I think makes it more appropriate for PC gaming (where typically one person is sat in front of a screen). I wonder about combining the two -- stereoscopic 3D and head-tracking 3D. :D

  • busboy33 #62 2 years ago

    @PatTheMav:

    I'm interested in the idea of 3D . . . not so much the implementation.

    In my mind's eye, 3D could really enhance gaming. I mentioned before that 3d would really add to racers (as the scenery actually "approaches" you and then goes past. It could really add to shooters too, and I could definitely see something like Flower really benefiting from 3d. . .

    . . . in THEORY . . .

    but if my fears are justified we're going to get alot of absolutely standard games with just alot more of the character pointing directly at you (so it looks like they are reaching right out of the screen toward you! kewl!!). That I am NOT excited about, and damn sure not excited enough to buy a new TV just for the awesome sensation of getting pointed at.

    Kind of like motion controls. I'm not opposed to the idea or concept, but a good concept combined with crap execution equals a crap product. And even if the execution is good, are the few good examples several thousand worth of good? I love me a good racing game, but I've never seen a game that was worth a few grand to me by itself . . . and a 3D tv is useless for anything else (obviously you can still watch regular shows on it) without the programming to take advantage of it. Hell, the vast majority of programming here in the States still isn't HD, so I don't know why I'd expect the adoption of 3d to move at at a less glacial pace.

  • jon_egg #63 2 years ago

    @stoomonster

    "1. 30Hz per eye is too flickery for 3D. Concept fail. "

    The games refresh at 30 frames per second; the flicker is a LOT faster than that. You don't notice it, or at least, I didn't.

  • IMD1_Pk #64 2 years ago

    Like Eurogamer said, it's nice we are seeing baby steps but like all console gaming technologies, most visual aspects originate on PC first. That being said, I'll continue to play on my Nvidia 3D Vision. Not trying to rant but price-wise it's practically the same. If you but the Glasses, compliant Monitor, and shell a little over a grand on your rig you have a more than capable PC that is playing games in 3D at 60 frames per second easily(even at a 1080p resolution). But in this case we need to see the TV adoption rate increase before it can go mainstream. We still see games being released so they can be play on SD TVs as well. That's extra work and we will continue to see that extra work even in a new more powerful console if 3D is introduced.

  • FireMonkey #65 2 years ago

    @StooMonster - "Sky HD is HDMI 1.1 and that works with 3D, so there is a work around to the requirement of HDMI 1.4 for 3D formats."

    As you say Sky use a side-by-side format and not the HDMI1.4 standard and as such you would work on a compatible "3D Ready" TV. These TV's are already out there, but do not except a HDMI 1.4 signal and so would not work with the PS3.

    The HDMI 1.4 standard however is actually backwards compatible with the "3D Ready" methods, so Sky will work on the new TV's.

    To play PS3 games, you will need a HDMI 1.4 TV.

    So your workaround to buying a HDMI 1.4 TV to play 3D PS3 games on, is to buy an older "3D Ready" TV that you can't play 3D PS3 games on (or Blu-Ray), but can watch Sky? I'm not sure that's actually the sort of work around he's after.
    Edited by 3 at 22/04/10 @ 13:05

  • des #66 2 years ago

    Just like i thought,already heavily gimped PS3 games will become even more gimped...3D lol

    Gimmick...like playing quake 3 at 900 fps...nobody cares