Digital Foundry vs. 3D Gaming

By Richard Leadbetter Published 9 January, 2010

The techniques and challenges of stereo 3D, and the significance of PS3's firmware upgrade.

Page 1 of 2

It's party time at this year's CES in Las Vegas. The colossal success of James Cameron's Avatar movie has propelled true stereoscopic 3D into the mainstream: manufacturers are pumped about the potential of the new 3DTV technology and reckon they're onto a winner that will revive their market after a moribund 2009. More pertinently for gamers, PlayStation 3 has an important and exciting role to play in this living room revolution. If you think Avatar looked cool at the cinema, the potential within gaming is even more dynamic and exciting.

The range of displays that premiered at CES is interesting as for the first time we see a convergence in technology. All of the major consumer electronic brands have opted for active shutter glasses that refresh at 60Hz for each eye, with an IR beam or Bluetooth connection serving as the channel for synchronisation between glasses and screen. 60Hz may appear rather low when 240Hz displays are the current state-of-the-art, and the subtle flickering may cause tired eyes. However, it's important to note that the 3D content itself runs at fairly conventional frame-rates. Movies themselves remain mired in the ages-old 24FPS standard, while it is games that will provide the smoothest and most immersive experience, based on what has been seen of Sony's CES 3D demos.

These demos appear to show that Sony has overcome one of the key technical hurdles in rendering stereoscopic 3D - the fact that the PS3 is required to render an individual frame for each eye. True stereo 3D games seen to date have been few and far between, but there have been a couple of notable exceptions.

First up, there’s Blitz Games' Invincible Tiger: Legend of Han Tao. While the final product does not match up to Blitz’s initial claims of full 1080p (it's native 720p), it is 60 frames per second, and it supports a massive array of different 3D technologies. It is an example of a game especially tailored to show off the advantages of stereoscopic 3D: the gameplay, the viewpoint, the graphical style chosen - everything about it is designed to make 3D look cool, without it being too "in your face". Blitz wisely discerned that throwing objects out of the screen for little reason made no actual sense: Invincible Tiger instead concentrates on adding an impressive-looking depth to the screen. Its main shortcoming is that it is essentially designed around 3D, as opposed to being an optional addition. Few games will follow the same approach while 3DTVs are so few and far between.

The pre-Christmas release of Avatar from Ubisoft appears to be an altogether more ambitious attempt at stereo 3D. Unlike Invincible Tiger, the game is not designed around the notion of showcasing 3D - it has been added to the existing Dunia tech that underpinned Far Cry 2. Dunia happens to be one of the most technologically advanced cross-platform engines around, and the notion of rendering discrete scenes for each eye is not exactly easy. Similar to Invincible Tiger, the 720p frame consists of two 640x720 or 1280x360 images - one for each eye. A total of four different 3D methods are available for selection.

'Digital Foundry vs. 3D Gaming' Screenshot 2d
'Digital Foundry vs. 3D Gaming' Screenshot 3d1
'Digital Foundry vs. 3D Gaming' Screenshot 3d2
'Digital Foundry vs. 3D Gaming' Screenshot 3d3
'Digital Foundry vs. 3D Gaming' Screenshot 3d4
'Digital Foundry vs. 3D Gaming' Screenshot 3d5

The top-left image is conventional 2D... the other five show the various stereo 3D implementations within Avatar. Proprietary systems like Sensio and RealD are supported, as are side-by-side and interlace modes. All are based on the concept of two low-resolution images being packaged into one 720p framebuffer.

So, how is the performance level? Here's where things get interesting. Avatar is a 30FPS game, but it can drop frames even in 2D mode, plus in common with Far Cry 2 there is a fair amount of screen tear to boot. The Dunia engine has a proven performance advantage on Xbox 360, so for a best-case scenario of the impact of stereo 3D performance, we ran a selection of engine-driven cut-scenes through our frame-rate analysis tools. The results showed an undeniable drop in performance in the shift to 3D in many situations, but the game remains solid and playable.

Here's 2D performance vs. 3D on the Xbox 360 version of Avatar. The 2D game runs fairly smoothly at 30FPS, while the stereo 3D version, measured from side-by-side mode, shows a drop in performance in various circumstances.

Dunia's performance advantage on the Xbox 360 gives it a clear edge over the PS3 version even in 2D mode, so it's not surprising to see that the transition to stereo 3D really hits the Sony version hard. While the 360 game copes fairly well in the move to 3D, the PS3 version of the game can see a huge reduction in frame-rate.

An in-game clip of Avatar measured on both PS3 and Xbox 360, in both 2D and side-by-side 3D modes. The 360 code runs considerably smoother.

So, with stereoscopic 3D in its infancy, is this the best we can expect on the current generation of consoles: half resolution games with frame-rate issues, or else technically undemanding titles designed especially for 3D support few people will actually use? There's a very real possibility that the 3DTV phenomenon simply won't catch the imagination at all of course, and if so, it is unlikely that developers will spend the time optimising their engines for smoother 3D performance. However, the new format has the backing of Sony, and this should result in a fairly massive boost for the format, and an appropriate increase in coding effort developer-side.

Page 1 of 2

Comments (66) Latest comment 8 months ago

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

  • Vortex808 #1 2 years ago

    You know, maybe i'm becoming a bit of a luddite in my old age, but 3D TV or gaming just doesn't appeal to me. The bulk of the TV manufacturers seem to be hailing this as the next big thing, but i just wonder if it'll go the same way as virtual reality and not really deliver what it promised.

  • IronGiant #2 2 years ago

    Can't wait, 3D games like Wipeout and Burnout will look spectacular. MS will probably ignore this for now and just focus on Natal.

  • patchbox360 #3 2 years ago

    after watching Avatar in 3d, i can't wait for 3d in games, especially horror games and for some reason being on a battle field in a halo game.

  • TRUTH #4 2 years ago

    I watched Avatar in 3D and 2D, the 3D version confused me with the fast images, also the resolution and color depth was less then the 2D version - probably due to the glasses. I also felt though there was an extra depth (not a major wow factor to be honest) in the movie in 3d, in just felt more of a gimmick. Once you seen one or two movies/games with 3D you really don't get impressed.

    The problem also with 3D images on the homes - is the distance and angle that will make 3D viewable!...Tv's high on the wall, or a an angle in the room, or lower then eye level will effect the 3D. Also it will seem more of a gimmick esp if your tv is less then 60" screen. This gen will sort of support it a more of a simplistic fun gimmick sort of way - it will take another 5 years(if it takes off) for so I wouldn't bother jumping on the bandwagon right now.

    Once the resolution, color, dizziness that does cause to some, color depth, view angle and some proper games that can be handled with the hardware (PS3 & XB360 are just not capable of this to a full degree quiet yet!), with cost of all hardware (glasses, tv's. consoles) this comes down to mass consumer market pricing...maybe then it wil pick up - has failed many times before, probably because it's consider a gimmick and those glasses always needed!

  • _LarZen_ #5 2 years ago

    Have been posponing to buy a new tv just becaus I knew that 3D was coming in 2010. So there is no doubt if im gonna buy a top of the line 3D tv this year.

    Doing otherwise would just be dumb.

  • Jayke #6 2 years ago

    Great Article. The biggest Hurdle is definitely tv's that fully support it, but you don;t necessarily need a special HD tv to present a 3d image. Avatars max was 30fps meaning it should work fine with a 60 fps television which is what most people gave. Im sure they will have a solution that can work on any 1080p screen not just 120-240hz screens

  • Zanuah #7 2 years ago

    Great new tech, and I'm sure a lot of people will enjoy it... Just not me, I am one of the "lucky" ones where stereoscopic 3D does not work on. :( Well to be fair it works a little bit (in movies) although I get headaches really quickly and most of the 3D effect is lost except for a certain "range" in depth, the rest just breaks apart in layers.

  • local_celebrity #8 2 years ago

    Saw the NVIDIA 3D presentation at the Expo, and it was all incredibly underwhelming. There was no sense of immersion at all. The characters and objects on the screen didn’t actually have any depth to them. They were simply 2D cut-outs, placed at strategic points away from you. It was like looking at a (very expensive) pop-up book.

    Emperor’s new clothes? Bag o’ shite, more like.

  • StooMonster #9 2 years ago

    Sky are are launching an HD 3D channel this year and apparently it's going to work without updating the HDMI 1.1 set-top-boxes.

    The new '3D capable' displays will have to work with this standard too, so it's either (a) interlaced where each alternate 1080i field of 1920x540 pixels is for the left and right eye, or (b) the image is 2x 960 pixels wide per field, so left and right image in same field.

    I suspect that (b) will be the choice because (a) loses vertical resolution and resulting 3D would be 1920x540 whereas (b) would be 960x1080 when deinterlaced and the drop in horizontal resolution is far less noticeable; secondly (a) has lower temporal resolution of 25fps which is fine for film and 25p content (quality drama) but not good for sports, so the 50fps of (b) works well especially for Sky and DirectTV and ESPN who are all focusing on 3D sports, moreover the 50i interlaced system can also carry 25p content that can be deinterlaced with 2:2 pulldown.

    So, side-by-side, that's how I reckon PS3 could easily do 3D ... and Xbox 360 ... so long as there's horsepower to render two images.
    Edited by 1 at 09/01/10 @ 13:56

  • Psychotext #10 2 years ago

    That's an informative post StooMonster. Nice one. :)

  • StooMonster #11 2 years ago

    Zanuah: I was reading in the press this week that if "3D movies" give you headaches or don't work one should go and see an optician as it's likely an indicator that one's eyes are not operating at equally well or could be some kind of health problem.

    Maybe Avatar etc was partially funded by the eye-doctors (that's for any Americans reading).

  • Zanuah #12 2 years ago

    StooMonster : Oh my eyes are shit. :) I wear glasses for a reason. Thanks for reminding me though, I need to get some new glasses.

  • SpaceMidget75 Verified Senior Software Developer, Minerva Computer Services #13 2 years ago

    I'm pretty sure the PS3 cannot be upgraded to 1.4 so I'm a bit confused as to why RL mentioned it in that way with regards to 3D. Both consoles will be able to do 3D just fine (horsepower allowing) for the reasons Stoomonster mentioned.

    I get the feeling that whilst MS are showing no interest whatsoever in 3D, Sony are adding their own special brand of hype again! I've already had two people cite the PS3's supposed 3D capabilities over the 360 as part of their reason for a future purchase.

    I've read through the article twice and i'm still not clear what exactly this firmware upgrade will do and what component it affects?

  • Sunyavadin #14 2 years ago

    So, side-by-side, that's how I reckon PS3 could easily do 3D ... and Xbox 360 ... so long as there's horsepower to render two images.

    Said it before and I'll say it again - 360 can do it no problem. That's why everyone was bitching about Halo 3 not being HD. It uses two sub-HD framebuffers.

    Still waiting for the goggles to be betamaxed though. And it may happen sooner that we thought now Apple are apparently also patenting a goggle-free 3D display tech. Once it's in enough phones, nobody'll buy a TV that requires extra crap. I also wouldn't underestimate the power of sports in killing the goggles too.
    How many people go down to the pub to watch a football match? How much do those pub chains spend nationwide on their cable and satellite? How many are going to dish out a hundred sets of goggles every match day? Sport'll be one of the first things to transition to 3D, and definitely one of the biggest. They'll want something simpler and more effective.

  • bad09 #15 2 years ago

    "Saw the NVIDIA 3D presentation at the Expo, and it was all incredibly underwhelming. There was no sense of immersion at all. The characters and objects on the screen didn’t actually have any depth to them. They were simply 2D cut-outs, placed at strategic points away from you. It was like looking at a (very expensive) pop-up book.

    Emperor’s new clothes? Bag o’ shite, more like. "

    Hmmm, yet I tried the Shift demo at the Expo and thought it was amazing. Sure I'm not gonna rush out and spend hundreds on the tech, but when it's cheaper I'll bite. I just hope it dies in film, I have zero interest in 3D movies.
    Edited by 2 at 09/01/10 @ 15:15

  • Kaminari #16 2 years ago

    I'm sick already of this "new" marketing train hype.

    Stereoscopy has been in its "infancy" for more than 150 years... yes, a century and a half! In video games as well, it will be a passing fad. In the meantime, we'll have to endure "Avatar this" and "3D games that" for a couple of months before most of the people rightfully get bored with it.

    The point with stereoscopy is that it's fun to look at for 5 minutes, but it seriously *degrades* picture quality. And you don't have to be a movie ayatollah to notice it. Even Joe Average will come back to the lavish 2D version of his movies when he'll suddenly realize after a while that the "3D" effect doesn't have any effect on him anymore.

    Are manufacturers naive enough to believe that consumers who just reluctantly joined the TVHD bandwagon are going to shell out again so soon for a new techno gizmo which visual impact is marginal at best?

  • yegon #17 2 years ago

    >>Have been posponing to buy a new tv just becaus I knew that 3D was coming in 2010. So there is no doubt if im gonna buy a top of the line 3D tv this year.

    Doing otherwise would just be dumb.
    ---

    I'd contest buying a 3Dtv anytime in the next couple of years is utter madness. Until there's a definitive standard, without the need for glasses, and a viewing angle to match current tv's, it's a lame duck.

    Great for the occasional event movie at the cinema, great for the home 2015+ I reckon.
    Edited by 3 at 09/01/10 @ 15:26

  • Retroid #18 2 years ago

    Given that most people who have HDTVs in the home probably haven't bothered hooking anything HD up to them, and just bought them as smaller, flatter replacements for their old CRTs when those finally gave up the ghost...

    Well.

    Let's just say that I think 3DTV will end up as a CDi, Betamax, HD-DVD, 3DO-level success with most users.

  • photoboy #19 2 years ago

    @SpaceMidget75

    "I've read through the article twice and i'm still not clear what exactly this firmware upgrade will do and what component it affects?"

    I think it's because there needs to be some information accompanying each frame generated to tell the TV what sort of 3D format it's being sent. This would need to be stuff like whether the image generated is two frames compressed in one image, two images side by side or each frame alternating left and right. Some sort of two-way synchronisation signal for active shutter glasses might also be needed.

  • ybfelix #20 2 years ago

    I think it's a mistake for the industry to push 3D before practical glasses-less technology. Get the hype up too early may let you miss the real opportunity

  • ybfelix #21 2 years ago

    off-topic: I'd like to see a 3D HUD glasses though. Screens basically take up the majority of physical frame and battery consumption of today's portable devices. I hope one day we can jack them all into an universal portable display.

  • Chufty #22 2 years ago

    I can't believe how many people are skeptical about 3D. Mark my words right here and now, the next generation will be ALL about 3D, like it or not. The main reason is that the average man in the street can immediately see the benefits. Most people wouldn't even be able to tell you if a video is in high definition or not.

    I take issue with the hatred for the glasses. Refresh-rate related headaches only occur with shutter glasses - many 3D systems use polarisation rather than shutters. In any case this is not the same as the 3D gshutter glasses of 10 years ago. Guess what? Technology has moved on since. Shutters running at 60hz do not give most people headaches - I could not use my old CRTs at 60hz, but I have no issue with 60hz glasses. Pretty soon we'll have 100hz active shutter glasses and noone at all will complain of headaches then.

    The glasses are lightweight, comfortable to wear, and you soon forget you are wearing them.

    And you do not need twice the horsepower to render a stereoscopic image. I hope this article drives this home for people. Overheads are actually fairly minor.

    If the PS3 can give early adopters a way to play 3D video in their living room, it will shift a LOT of units to new people.

  • Johnsters #23 2 years ago

    As a previous poster stated, watching 3D can be a little confusing on the eye and the colours are not as vibrant.
    If they fix that, then maybe.............
    The experience works at the cinema as the screen is big and you can immerse yourself in it.
    At home on a potential 46"" TV, the 9 o'clock news will not look any better.

    I like the idea, then again, I liked the idea of VR headsets back in the 90's. But at least there is an industry push for it.

  • kangarootoo #24 2 years ago

    I really am baffled that people consider the wearing of glasses to be a big problem for 3D. All the other stuff about viewing distances and picture quality is fine and good and great substance for discussion. But glasses? Really?

    I wore glasses from the moment I woke to the moment I went to bed for most of the last 20 years or so. I don't wear them anymore but I'm pretty sure I can handle putting on a pair again to watch a film or play a video game for an hour or so.

    I have to wonder if those making such a big deal about the wearing of glasses aren't really just people who have already made up their minds, adding another string to their critical bow (the same people that write "/cancels preorder" for games they had no intention of buying).

  • Miths #25 2 years ago

    So when exactly can I expect to be able to buy a 50" OLED 3DTV for €2,000 or less? :)

  • djed #26 2 years ago

    and this in turn will give way to self-contained 3D displays where no glasses will be required at all.

    Wake me up for this.

  • ps3owner #27 2 years ago

    3D ??

    I am still waiting for the HD revolution to take place... stuff is just happening too fast! start something, get it right, make it cheap, then continue... not, develop new stuff every other year and expect ppl to run out and spend 2 grand to keep up... bollocks to that.

  • stooeh #28 2 years ago

    I bought a Geforce2 Ultra nearly 10 years ago and when I opened the package it contained some shutter glasses. They were pretty cool and the 3D effect was good using my then 19" CRT. They died in a house move and I got some others. Effect was good and was tried in CS:S, Q3 and even WoW but to be honest I just rarely used them (Buying an LCD was the final nail).
    Mild flicker at 120Hz (60 per eye) is bearable but I'd much prefer a home system that used the passive glasses like in a RealD system etc.

    Can't see it taking off, despite Avatar's success :)

  • FenderMaster #29 2 years ago

    I'm confused...

    so normal HD TV's aren't capable of outputting in 3D??

    So what about that Channel 4 3d film week? Did that only work for people with 3d tv's

  • SpaceMidget75 Verified Senior Software Developer, Minerva Computer Services #30 2 years ago

    @Photoboy

    "I think it's because there needs to be some information accompanying each frame generated to tell the TV what sort of 3D format it's being sent. This would need to be stuff like whether the image generated is two frames compressed in one image, two images side by side or each frame alternating left and right. Some sort of two-way synchronisation signal for active shutter glasses might also be needed."

    Well yeah, but as the article shows Avatar uses a number of techniques and already works with both consoles? Also the extra techniques specific HDMI 1.4 for 3D wont be available as I don't think HDMI is upgradeable by firmware.

    I just don't think there has been anything clear in this article or any others that shows the PS3 will be the better 3D console other than what Sony are trying to market it as.

  • callum9999 #31 2 years ago

    I thought Avatar in 3D was great. I wish people who aren't impressed with 3D would just shut up about it instead of moaning about how because they don't like it, it must be a gimmick.

  • Miths #32 2 years ago

    I think I might actually be in the same boat as FenderMaster - I'm not entirely sure I've correctly understood either whether one of the new or upcoming 3D TVs is required for all types of 3D games/movies?

    What about the Avatar game for instance? Two of the screenshots in the article look more or less like the movie did when if I took of my RealD glasses, so since this technology uses "simple" polarized glasses rather than shutter glasses that actively need to communicate with the display, does that mean I would be able to play the game in 3D on my regular HDTV if I had kept (or got hold of) those RealD glasses from the cinema?

    I'm sort of expecting the answer is no, but I'm not really sure.

  • penfold_007 #33 2 years ago

    I can't see 3D images. Therefore I hope it fails so no one else can enjoy something I can't.

  • TRUTH #34 2 years ago

    Seen a few 3D films now and the 3D effects get less impressive - the movies actually looks more fake each time, as it feels like a gimmick rather then immersion.

  • jambo74 #35 2 years ago

    @penfold_007

    With attitude like that I hope further failures arrive for you in other aspects of your gaming.

  • Dizzy #36 2 years ago

    It is the new hype from the electronics manufacturers in the hope of convincing people to buy new hardware and movies. They can come back in 10 years, 3d will be an epic fail on a commercial level.

  • Murton #37 2 years ago

    3d gaming is something that I'm definitely interested in seeing but there are a couple of issues with it that are putting me off slightly. The first is those glasses, I need to wear regular glasses while gaming and thusfar no company has manufactured a pair of 3d glasses that can be worn in addition to regular glasses and feel comfortable.

    The other issue I have is with the games developers themselves. A lot still only develop properly on the 360 and then port to the PS3 as opposed to actually developing for both platforms from the ground up,this is the main offender in the performance gap between the consoles rather than the hardware. This means that in order for 3d gaming to really take off the 360 and PS3 would have to both support and use the same 3d technique, well that or developers would have put in the extra effort to make it work.

  • KayTannee #38 2 years ago

    3D Gaming has been around on PC for ages. Used to play Farcry and Battlefield in 3D. Was pretty good too. nvidias new 3D glasses look impressive too. Can definitly see 3D gaming take off sooner or later.

    But not so sure about 3D TV, if need shutter frame glasses, would have to buy a set for every single person who wants to watch. Where as gaming is more of a solo activity, especially with less and less split screen games coming out.

  • White_Westie #39 2 years ago

    3d will probably become "popular" probably in the next 3 to 4 years....

    I know alot of manufacturers are now putting 3d tech in their TV's and are seeing it as the saviour of new tv's, and with Sky's new 3d service, it is certainly going to push it in the right direction (I guess sky can charge an extra £10 per month for that too, making the bill £80 per month!).

    The problem is the consumer - we have all been buying these lovely new flat screen HD tv's, to get the best possible picture.

    Then as soon as we bought it, we heard that to get freeview HD channels over the aerial, we are going to need a new tv (hd uses dvb-t2)....most tv's currently do not have this built in (most have dvb-t), or at least another set top box....

    Now someone is saying, "remember that £900 you spent last year on your new tv, its out dated now so go get a new 3d one"

    The consumers (at least mine!) pockets are not a bottomless pit. You also have to factor in affordability, whether we all will "manage" with what we have until it REALLY takes off and becomes affordable to the mainstream.

    You also have to consider whether the consumer is ready to sit there with some 3d glasses on, as I wear glasses already, I find sitcking these 3d glasses on top of my glasses a bit uncomfortable.

    Then add the cost of glasses per family member, consider how you going to get a 4 year old to sit there and not break them or smear chocolate all over them?!

    Add in How much will they cost PER additional set?

    Finally, I cant really see the mrs sat watching tv with some 3d glasses on! (what a passion killer!).

    Its a great idea, just like those VR headsets that they where bringing out years ago (perhaps motion sensor 3d glasses will be the next thing! look around a corner!)... its just going to take a long time for/if it to take off.

    Unfortunately, I will wait like the masses will this time and give it 5 or 6 years, see what the price is then.... Because I already upgraded my tv last year, (one of the lucky ones), and I cannot afford to upgrade to a new tv to see 3d tv again when I just have done.....

  • Greebo #40 2 years ago

    @ Miths and Fendermaster

    There are several different techniques for 3D, I think Ch4 used something called Colorcode 3D:

    [link url=http://www.color code3d.com/What.html
    ]http://www.color code3d.com/What.html
    [/link]

    But the TV manufacturers have gathered around an active shutter system, which is apparently more advanced and will need a special '3D Capable' system, which current TVs cannot do.

    The fact of the matter is that there is no profit margin in making HD TVs anymore, you can go out and buy a 50" screen for under £500 these days and the manufacturer will be getting a tiny fraction of this. They almost have no choice but to find a new 'hook' to convince people that the 'latest' is worth the extra money.

  • Chufty #41 2 years ago

    The problem with polarisation glasses is that it's very difficult to polarise the entire image, and for the glasses to filter the entire signal. This means that, for the moment at least, there will always be some bleed between each eye's image. This gives the 3D images that slightly blurry-edged effect you see, especially on fast moving objects, with passive polarised 3D glasses. It's still a nice effect though, iZ3D do one of the most successful polarised 3D systems for PCs.

    With active shutter glasses, if people still find the 60hz refresh rate too low, they can quite easiily implement a 100Hz or 120Hz solution if the market demands it, it will just be a little more expensive at first.

  • BadBoyBonner #42 2 years ago

    EUROGAMER EXPO NVIDIA STAND

    What most people do/did not realise is that the infra-red sender for the glasses has 3D depth control (looks like a mouse scroll wheel) on it.

    This can drastically affect image quality against sense of depth. The best way to line it up is to set it to minimum (WHERE IT LOOKS LIKE A CHEAP POP UP BOOK), then focus on something in the distance (like the edges of a door in Batman at the end of a long corridor) then ramp up the depth until the point just before the door starts to loose focus.

    The 3D effect is nothing short of amazing - spent about 60 seconds just rotating the camera around the Batman avatar.
    Batman looks amazing as it uses the UE3 engine which most graphics cards can churn out at ridiculous framrates likewise with Burnout.

    I played on it for over half an hour and you get used to it so quickly that when I first started looking at other screens you think that they are broken then realise, ah, that's what all screen look like apart from the 3d ones.

    There are also several DLP projectors that support the glasses (cheapest only at 1024 x 768) which CoD has shown with heavy anti-aliasing is more than passable in the 3D image department (as my projector is XGA and at 96" CoD games still look great on it).

    IS 3D A GIMMICK?

    Still surprised when people say 3D is gimmicky - is that so? Well, why not rip one of your eyeballs out then as you clearly fail to see any benefit from it.

    Sure wearing glasses isn't the most convenient thing in the world but millions of people seem to have managed it for over 200 hundred years.

    Using 5 speakers to create a 3D sound field is no doubt also not for the same people. Clearly they only have 2 ears so why on earth would they ever need more than one speaker? They can clearly hear sound from that one speaker in both ears and prevent the huge inconvenience of running another 4 cables ?

    NICAM stereo was no doubt a gimmick to make them buy a new TV, then Dolby Pro Logic, Dolby Digital etc.

    For me entertainment can be heightened by immersion. Sound went fully 3D years ago and I think it is nice to see the imaging technology starting to catchup. First in resolution and now in offering stereoscopic viewing.

    Well over 99% of the worlds entire population benefit from stereoscopic sight. The use of either polarisation or shuttering to gain 3D depth ensures that the much more common Colour Blindness has no impact on their enjoyment.

    In addition to 3D being great in FPS I would have to say that the best use will be driving games. It suddenly transforms the winding little triangle on screen to a road stretching out before you.

    How about GT5 on PS3 offering 3D from launch?

    P.S. personally I can't wait to play Wipeout in 3D [link url=http://ww w.viddler.com/explore/engadget/...
    ]http://ww w.viddler.com/explore/engadget/...[/link]

    SKY TV's 3D IS THE BIGGEST CONCERN....here's why.

    It would appear that sky are ready to roll out a passive interlace polarisation system. http://st uff.tv/blogs/future/archive/200...

    Obviously the concern is then

    A) ALL the shutter glasses systems mentioned above will not work with such a system (although a polarising system could incorporate a shutter compatible system itself).

    B) The resolution will obviously be halved either vertically or horizontally - net result being a sub HD resolution.

    The pro's are

    1) That you can use the incredibly cheap glasses that are used at the Cinema - hence when people pop round they can all wear the £2 a pop glasses rather than £100 a pop shutter specs.

    2) Your current Sky HD box would require bugger all to happen, as all it is doing is putting a picture on screen (the TV will be doing the "clever" stuff). The update will just be to create space and fence off the relevant channels.

    3) Obviously this would also mean that the train of thought of loosing all those "Down the Pub" would not be true. They will also all be able to watch in 3D if they can stop taking the piss out of each other wearing glasses for long enough.

    So my best tip for purchasing a new TV set would be one that can display both polarisation and support 120hz shutter glasses.
    Edited by 1 at 10/01/10 @ 11:07

  • gjgjg #43 2 years ago

    i wish they would develop a full 2020 vis helmet or something, 3d tv is nice but being limited to the tv screen is not where the future is at. and it could be done well with this gen i recons

  • StooMonster #44 2 years ago

    BadBoyBonner: SKY TV's 3D IS THE BIGGEST CONCERN....here's why.

    Actually the biggest concern with Sky HD 3D is the 50Hz refresh rate, you think 60Hz will give you a headache then try 50Hz!

    Also, It would appear that sky are ready to roll out a passive interlace polarisation system.

    No, shutter or polarisation depends on the 3D capable display that you buy; Sky HD 3D will work with either implementation. However, I reckon it's a fair bet that polarisation sets will be cheaper than shutter-glasses ones.

  • StooMonster #45 2 years ago

    djed: Wake me up for this.

    Intel show off glasses-free 3D flat-screen display at CES
    http://ww w.engadget.com/2010/01/10/intel...

  • belziah #46 2 years ago

    As noted previously Richard, there seems to be an excess of vague waffle relating to the PS3 firmware update. If you don't know what it does, please say so instead of the pseudo-techno guff you've populated this article with(updating HDMI to 1.4? Really?!?!?).

    The article seems to be a defence of MS's lack of a 3D plan ("the hardware can cope, honestly it can!";) which as far as I can see no-one is that fussed about mixed with a glaring lack of facts as to what Sony's plans actually are.

    You appear to have over-reached yourself this time, which is a shame because I was genuinely looking forward to learning something here.
    Edited by 1 at 10/01/10 @ 14:00

  • TRUTH #47 2 years ago

    FAMILY off five say 'put on a good movie, how about'...Urm 'I only have two sets of glasses + we all have to sit infront of the 50" at a certain distance from the tv, you may get a headache or strained vision and some confusion in keeping up with fast images in 3D, blur effects'

    It won't work for this or next gen maybe, just maybe after that!...Personally I never jump on the bandwagon early - just wit for the 3rd gen at least for far more friendly and improved and better advances- probably in 8yrs from now!

    Edited by 1 at 10/01/10 @ 15:36

  • des #48 2 years ago

    Hmm...another flop in the making
    Deliver cheap flat-panel TVs with CRT-like contrast,then we can talk.
    As for game publishers,release games that don't need patching on day one and improve developer working conditions.
    thx
    Edited by 1 at 10/01/10 @ 16:13

  • callum9999 #49 2 years ago

    trebell - what a stupid thing to say. Obviously the people with eye problems wouldn't be moaning about how its a gimmick, they would be saying its unsuitable for them as they aren't able to use it (unless they are moaning about both - in which case my point still stands).

    When you produce a movie in 3D - its very easy to make a 2D copy of it and as such, all 3D films are also released in 2D. I see no reason why they wouldn't do the same with games.

  • dfooster #50 2 years ago

    this week we have heard that natal will take vital processing power away from the actual game and now 3D will do the same. I think its time that Sony and Microsoft started planning a new console each. 6 months ago we couldnt see a need for a new console for years to come, but now technology is moving so fast that the gaming world has to keep up and its clear the current next gen consoles are quickly becoming last gen as they simply are not powerful enough.

    i have a feeling that microsoft have realised this which is why they havent followed sonys lead and announced they are going to patch up their existing console to work with 3D, i think they might announce a new one in the next 12 months or so to capitalise on this new tech and to incorporate natal into the machine also.

  • BadBoyBonner #51 2 years ago

    Sky will be using half resolution broadcasts regardless of 50/60hz giving the sub HD resolutions of above&below 1920*540 or side-by-side 960*1080

    Both of the above seem far more likely on the PS3's firmware update rather than some Z Buffer voodoo and this article has been a bit like the vague news in that department.

    Sky have never announced that 3D would use the twin-tuners in every HD box to offer 1920*1080p25 (and I do not know if the HD box has the capability to resolve 2 images simultaneously) but that would be a great way to offer films in 3D with the usual 4.16% speed increase from 24fps.

    I have just come back from seeing AVATAR in 3D at IMAX. Awesome. Only caveat I would add is that it can feel strange when depth of field focus is being used heavily by the director instead of your own eyes. I would also add that I am still more impressed with Batman AA in 3D with 120Hz shutter glasses for 3d effect (not by much though).

    Unsure about the price of the sets. I'd have thought Polarisation sets would cost more as the price of the glasses can't be offset against the TV? Then again perhaps producing the non-standard screens will see an increase in price? Only time will tell.

    I'd certainly prefer the 960*1080p res and strongly suspect/hope that's what the PS3 is doing on most of the demo's.

    Obviously passive interlacing would completely remove the 50Hz problem on modern progressive displays. Never used any active shutter glasses below 120Hz (60hz per eye); so couldn't comment on 50hz remodulated to 100Hz through image splitting.



  • Zaiz #52 2 years ago

    @BadBoyBonner

    Are you paid to sell this stuff? Jesus.

  • originaljohn #53 2 years ago

    I saw Avatar in 3D and did not like it. I thought it was going to have more depth coming out of the screen, which there was non of, but I did like the on screen depth. Overall disappointed though.

  • BadBoyBonner #54 2 years ago

    @Zaiz

    Erm which product is it that you think I have heavily promoted?

  • geololj #55 2 years ago

    I see that you don't comment on PC stereoscopic technology. I suppose that is because of the scalability of PC hardware and that is true. You are right not to mention it at this point. Great article, by the way. I enjoyed it alot and learned some things about this upcoming "technology". Thanks again :>

  • StooMonster #56 2 years ago

    BadBoyBonner : Sky will be using half resolution broadcasts regardless of 50/60hz giving the sub HD resolutions of above&below 1920*540 or side-by-side 960*1080

    60Hz isn't a problem for Sky, as they broadcast in the UK so everything they do is 50Hz.

    As I outlined above it's more like to be side-by-side at 960x1080 otherwise temporal resolution is lost, whereas loss of horizontal resolution is less noticed. Take for example BBC HD which frequently broadcasts in 1440x1080i and ITV HD who use 960x1080i for their current HD programming to save bandwidth (similar to them broadcasting 544x576i for SD rather than 720x576i that all the other channels use).

    The most popular use of ITV HD is football, and if football fans are already happy with 960x1080i then Sky HD should be absolutely fine with 3D version of this resolution.

    BadBoyBonner : Both of the above seem far more likely on the PS3's firmware update rather than some Z Buffer voodoo and this article has been a bit like the vague news in that department.

    Yep, side-by-side appears to be the emergent format that '3D ready' television use.

    BadBoyBonner : Sky have never announced that 3D would use the twin-tuners in every HD box to offer 1920*1080p25 (and I do not know if the HD box has the capability to resolve 2 images simultaneously) but that would be a great way to offer films in 3D with the usual 4.16% speed increase from 24fps.

    All film based material (i.e. movies, high quality drama, etc.) are either shot at 25p in Europe, or 24p in USA and sped up to 25p for 50Hz broadcast; 2:2 pull-down reconstructs the original progressive frames from the interlaced fields, so that for example Sky Movies are in effect 1920x1080p25. There is no need for any additional tuners.

    Sky's set-top-boxes use OEM chipsets that are off-the-shelf products, no the cannot do fancy things like resolving two streams into one. They are bog-standard set-top-box bits of kit, Google searches will give you the part numbers and you can go and look up the spec-sheets on the OEM sites ... if you're into your serious video geekery. ;)


    BadBoyBonner : I'd certainly prefer the 960*1080p res and strongly suspect/hope that's what the PS3 is doing on most of the demo's.

    I suspect this is the case too, as that's what the current '3D Ready' displays appear to handle.

    BadBoyBonner : Obviously passive interlacing would completely remove the 50Hz problem on modern progressive displays. Never used any active shutter glasses below 120Hz (60hz per eye); so couldn't comment on 50hz remodulated to 100Hz through image splitting.

    I've yet to try 50Hz shutters, but I reckon they'll have 200Hz displays updating at 100Hz for each eye.

    One final thought though, and seeing as you bring it up, I'm interested to know what they're doing for Avatar et al in the cinema. The film is 24p so the Hz has to be some multiple of that, however, films have been played at 48Hz and 72Hz (repeating two or three frames) for years to reduce flicker ... so what is the refresh rate for 3D movies?

    Edit: typos.
    Edited by 1 at 11/01/10 @ 00:58

  • oreillymj #57 2 years ago

    Not sure about the PS3Slims, but the older models used a Silicon Image 9132 chip to do HDMI output and that chip was specced for HDMI1.3a. [link url=http://www.rage3d.com/board/showthread.php?t=33892941 ]http://ww w.rage3d.com/board/showthread.p...[/link]
    So a FW update won't change that.
    Based on the fact that the newer Slims, will do TrueHD/DTS, [link url=http://play station.joystiq.com/2009/08/21/ps3-slim-gains-ability-to-bit stream-dolby-truehd-dts-hd-ma/
    ]http://pl aystation.joystiq.com/2009/08/2...[/link]
    it would seem that a newer HDMI chip is used in the newer models.

    BTW Sharp do a flat panel, used in the latest Range Rovers, that display 2 different images based on viewing angle. In a Range Rover, it's used to display SatNav to the driver, while the passenger watches a DVD. So you could view a 3D image without glasses if you made the viewing angles narrow enough, but it would require the user to view the screen within a very small "sweet spot". So it wouldn't be suitable for families.
    Edited by 1 at 11/01/10 @ 10:47

  • BadBoyBonner #58 2 years ago

    AVATAR framerate

    [link url=http:/ /www.rollingstone.com/news/story/29344784/james_cameron_and_ peter_jackson_explore_the_future_of_film
    ]http://ww w.rollingstone.com/news/story/2...[/link]

    Cameron's hoping for film to become more realistic, he said; he'd like 3D movies' standard frame rate to move from 24 to 48 frames per second, "and then you're looking at something that's indistinguishable from reality. Even 2D films would look more sharp."

    I guess he'd like it at 48fps - but that interview was done when AVATAR must have been well into postproduction.

  • telboy007 #59 2 years ago

    They might as well just skip all this stuff and start directing the picture feed into our brains. Then we can all be drooly sofa monsters together.

  • SpaceMidget75 Verified Senior Software Developer, Minerva Computer Services #60 2 years ago

    "I have just come back from seeing AVATAR in 3D at IMAX. Awesome. Only caveat I would add is that it can feel strange when depth of field focus is being used heavily by the director instead of your own eyes."

    From what I've read on a number of sites that was more to do with the Imax 3D format than the film itself. I saw it using the RealD system and didn't notice any problems.

    Also, rather than just giving me negs, can someone please tell me what this firmware update does?

    Finally what is the point of HDMI 1.4 if you don't need it for 3D?

  • BadBoyBonner #61 2 years ago

    10 things you need to know about HDMI 1.4

    http://ww w.techradar.com/news/television...

  • TRUTH #62 2 years ago

    Most people don't give a shit about 3D, or even HD...It's just a sort of thing that only concerns the tech-heads must have gen!

  • brod #63 2 years ago

    "There's a definite momentum towards 3D technology going into 2010, with the success of James Cameron's Avatar propelling the profile of proper, stereoscopic 3D very much into the mainstream."

    Source? Evidence?

    3D is a gimmick and will only ever be mainstream in cinema. I'm sure Sony and the like would love for people to buy their expensive new 3D capable TVs but I think it's wishful thinking, especially considering how slow the HD transition has been.

    Also, this article failed to compare 3D at 60hz to 2D at 120hz. Everything that I've read so far from people that have tried both prefers playing games at 120fps on a 120hz display.
    Edited by 1 at 12/01/10 @ 01:17

  • smelly #64 2 years ago

    Change 3D to HD...

    "HD is a gimmick and will only ever be mainstream in cinema. I'm sure Sony and the like would love for people to buy their expensive new HD capable TVs but I think it's wishful thinking"


    Which was EXACTLY what people were saying about HD a few years back...




  • 43n1m4 #65 2 years ago

    @smelly

    You obviously haven't read the article on the (very) slow HD transition, with a lot of HD console owners still having SD screens.

    @topic

    I don't want, or need, 3D games/movies 'till it can be done without glasses. The hazzle of having enough glasses, and the practical problems with new 120 hz screens (and the investments needed for people like me, who already have perfectly fine 40" 60 Hz screens) is simply not worth it. Maybe 3-4 years from now, but not sooner imo.

  • annekingsy #66 8 months ago

    I really want to imagine that day when we will have brain extensions instead of <a rel="follow" href="http: //file-extension.paretologic.com/index.php">file extensions</a>. Playing a game where you control an avatar would be a great addition to the virtual environment. Hope that soon enough we will have that. I'm really anxious thinking about that.