PlayStation 3D

By Richard Leadbetter Published 23 January, 2010

Today MotorStorm, tomorrow the Holodeck?

Page 1 of 3

This is it. It's happening. Having had a strong interest in stereoscopic 3D pretty much since the Digital Foundry blog launched, today is the day I'm finally going to be able to try my hand at the first mainstream adoption of the technology: Sony's fledgling stereoscopic system for PlayStation 3.

I'm under no illusions that this is going to become a mass-market game-changer for the Sony console or anything, but I am intrigued by the potential of the technology. While its short-term impact is going to be limited, in the long term I'm convinced that proper stereoscopic vision is the future of the television set.

Just as HDTVs are replacing the old CRT and are slowly becoming the norm, so - in the fullness of time - will 3D TVs replace them. In these early days the glasses are something of a hindrance, but solutions are already in progress to refine this element of the technology and eventually remove it entirely.

Of course, right now it is early days, but one thing is clear: it is videogaming that will be at the forefront of this technology, and our favourite pastime is arguably best-placed to get the most out of the new displays. Immersion can only benefit immensely from a strong interactive element, and the various technologies surrounding today's games consoles, when combined with stereo 3D, make for some mouth-watering possibilities. Head-tracking, motion control, 3D...

It's all happening for PlayStation 3 this year.

Few know this better than Simon Benson, senior development manager at Sony Europe, and Ian Bickerstaff, senior programmer. Both are located at Evolution Studios in the northwest of England, and have been quietly working on the new technology for over two years. Hailing from British Aerospace, these gentlemen were implementing full stereo 3D a full 12 years ago on hugely expensive bespoke solutions.

"There's a terrible picture of us from 1997 wearing liquid crystal shutter glasses, viewing a 120Hz 3D image," Bickerstaff tells Digital Foundry. "It was done using a projector costing £50,000 to £60,000, maybe more. The point is that all this technology has been around for ages but cost millions and millions of pounds in the simulation industry. It is interesting that the simulation industry was prepared to pay that to have 3D because of the benefits but it's just amazing to me that suddenly this is going to be available as a consumer item in people's living rooms."

Lights are dimmed and the requisite 3D glasses are handed out. Sony recently revealed that it has worked with 3D specialists RealD on the core tech, and there are RealD logos on the specs, so I suspect that these prototype glasses aren't a million miles away from the final product.

Active shutter glasses like these are a fairly basic but quite effective technology. The screen refreshes at 120 frames per second, but the glasses turn this into a 3D image by obscuring one eye and only letting the image on the display hit the other. The frame on-screen changes, and the effect on the glasses reverses, allowing the subsequent frame through to the other eye.

This can cause flicker in certain cases, but in most of the demonstrations it proved to be remarkably effective. What it does mean however is that the glasses are battery-powered, and sync with the display via an IR link. The glasses feel solid and substantial, but still relatively lightweight and easily wearable. Already sporting prescription specs myself, the goggles sat in front of my lenses: a bit cumbersome but I soon got used to it.

In terms of the actual video demonstations, I was a little concerned about the faithfulness of the captures here to the actual gameplay: PS3's abilities to play back bandwidth-sapping video at dense pixel formats is something I have to tackle periodically when working on PS3-specific video projects and dropped frames and general jerkiness are difficult to eliminate.

This was borne out by the performance of some of the videos I saw: some looked rather choppy - even Super Stardust HD, which was super-smooth during actual gameplay. It's worth pointing out that these vids were running off the XMB, and were in no way indicative of final Blu-ray 3D performance which is set for implementation via its own specific firmware update.

Regardless, a large selection of wares are on display here: namely MotorStorm: Pacific Rift, WipEout HD/Fury, Killzone 2, Super Stardust HD and Gran Turismo 5 Prologue. Showing for the first time (to the best of my knowledge) are LittleBigPlanet and MLB: The Show. Impressions are mostly positive, although WipEout appears to be running at a lower frame-rate than the original game (almost certainly down to the video encoding, I expect the actual code to be 60FPS), whereas GT5 Prologue is silky smooth and absolutely stunning: cars feel like 3D objects, scenery looking crisp and real.

While Polyphony has a propensity to output rendered videos derived from game assets in the GT engine, this is assuredly in-game and from a technical sense the standout video of the bunch, featuring plenty of gameplay from both internal and external views plus some replay footage. Probably the most impressive sense of immersion is gleaned from the cockpit view - your on-screen hands on the wheel are clearly realised 3D objects right in front of you, the A-pillars are set further back, exactly as you would expect. The view outside has a subtle, real depth.

"Driving really is a massive area of interest for 3D and you can really see it giving you an 'in-car feeling' owing to the immersion," Benson says. "It makes sense really and GT really shows what's possible."

Next up, a hugely welcome return for LittleBigPlanet. Initial comments on the presentation were published on Eurogamer earlier in the week. But to reiterate the point, this is an intriguing example of how stereoscopic viewpoints have an obvious advantage over the traditional 2D look in certain game styles.

"This shows that across all sorts of genres, 3D can work," says Benson. "Apart from the fact that you get this nice image with a lovely bit of depth, the game itself has a depth mechanic... If you've played LittleBigPlanet and you're anything like me, you've probably fallen off a cliff every now and again thinking, 'well I thought I was on the bridge there'.

"Obviously the depth perception lets you understand far better which layer you're actually on. So you can judge that far better, plus some of the other benefits... when you're dressing the avatar it's more interesting to see it in 3D."

Benson also puts forth another interesting use for the technology - an enhanced view of the content-creation interface.

"Building something with stereoscopic vision... you're putting the thing together in front of you," he says enthusiastically. "Traditionally you have to rely a lot more on grids and revolving cameras to help people understand where they've actually put something.

"In the same way, when we're making 3D models for games, making a building or something... our artists need to spin it around, manipulate it on-screen to know how to build it properly. When you've got stereoscopic vision, that becomes far easier - you just see it before you. You can see how big something is relative to something else. It's not a little thing really close, or a big thing far away. I can understand where it is spatially because I can perceive that with stereoscopic vision. It helps the creation process.

Page 1 of 3

Comments (69) Latest comment 2 years ago

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

  • Benno #1 2 years ago

    shits just got 3d yo

  • El-Dev #2 2 years ago

    Sounds awesome.

  • Mr.DNA #3 2 years ago

    Fascinating stuff, Richie boy, but how long before I get to strap on my VR helmet and actually hump imaginary ladies, in much the same way as Lister gets to in that episode of Red Dwarf?

    *sigh* I was definitely born a couple of centuries too early. I'm going back to my cryogenic chamber.
    Edited by 1 at 23/01/10 @ 00:50

  • deathdealer619 #4 2 years ago

    so you need tv that does 120 hz nichols?

  • Slipstream #5 2 years ago

    Sony aren't wasting any time are they...
    Still it's an interesting prospect and if done right can only yeild positive results, like it or not, gamers just may be playing in 3D in the near future.

    Edited by 1 at 23/01/10 @ 01:34

  • Mashum #6 2 years ago

    Great article - I can't wait for the standards and products to be sorted out. I wonder how the shutter glasses compare to the polarised lenses you get in the cinema? They can be a bit hard going after an hour or so.

  • Peew971 #7 2 years ago

    Most people aren't even up to HDTV and you want to drop it already for 3D? WTF?!

  • Bander #8 2 years ago

    "Just as HDTVs are replacing the old CRT and are slowly becoming the norm, so - in the fullness of time - will 3D TVs replace them."

    And after that, maybe, just maybe, screens that offer a decent contrast and don't look rubbish when not viewed from the front (like when several people have to gather around it) will be sorted out.

    Given that eyewear is needed and the flickering dual images of this technology will make going without less than ideal, wouldn't screens in a headset be a better way to do this? It'd certainly be cheaper and more immersive.

  • Shakey_Jake33 #9 2 years ago

    I don't understand the negativity surrounding this. Sure, it's a bit early for the vast majority of people to use this technology, but this is more of a proof-of-concept, to pioneer and experiment with the ideas. Think of it as like HD on the original XBox. If the oft-cited lifespan for the current generation of consoles is accurate, 3D could be established in many homes by the time the inevitable Playstation 4 comes out. It'll be a bit like HD, where it'll soon become impossible to buy a set which isn't capable.

  • freakzilla #10 2 years ago

    I would be all over this but I don't see myself being able to actually afford one of those 3D TV.

  • oerhoert #11 2 years ago

    Sounds interesting for a tech nerd like me. However, I believe that it will still be several years before they'll be able to sell people at large on this. I don't believe people are interested in wearing 3D glasses everywhere to use their computers and television sets and so on. The benefit is marginal for anybody but tech heads and content creators, at least as long as the screen will be a 2D slate.

  • IronGiant #12 2 years ago

    GT5 sounds awesome, can't wait to try it out in 3D.. hopefully Sony will have the sense to equip all their stores with demo equipment.

  • Red-Moose #13 2 years ago

    Not princess leia talking to obi-wan, but the next step indeed :)

  • TitusCrow #14 2 years ago

    Mass market saturation 10 years away i think, there are so many tech's that need to converge in peoples homes, for the "perfect storm" of 3D to happen in any meaningful way. Price point for the 3d'tv's etc etc needs to come way down. And of course I think they need the ps4 with a reasonable amount of extra horsepower to make this smooth, especially on games that push the graphic envelope.
    Lets face it this needs to sell to the "average / casual" gamer for it to be a profitable worthwhile thing, and dev houses wont waste their time with it beyond the initial leaps of faith if it doesn't saturate the user base. Let me suggest a solution, ship all the stuff you need for this with the next console. You then create a 100% user base, like the 360 did with microphone usage this gen.
    You know when I feel this might really catch on? when they can do the 3d without glasses, it is possible I have read, just at the moment crazy expensive. Interesting times!

  • Zappa #15 2 years ago

    poor 360

  • insincere_dave #16 2 years ago

    Personally, I'm not really interested in 3D until you don't need to wear glasses but if this ensures that all games next generation are running at 60hz then I consider it a good thing.

  • Roccus #17 2 years ago

    One of the main problems with the shutter technology atm is that current LCD tech can barely do 120hz refresh with alternating frames that are visually offset from one another (so each eye gets a slightly different viewpoint). The unfortunate effect you get is that in high contrast scenes you see a shadow of the other eye's image creeping through because the LCD cant switch fast enough, its really distracting.

    Plasmas can properly refresh at high enough rates without causing distracting ghosting, however there only going to be available for high screen sizes. AMOLEDs should refresh fast and cleanly enough and are slowly becoming cheaper, but it will be a few years before you can get a 22" AMOLED screen for a few hundred quid.

  • davisorle #18 2 years ago

    Erm... Richard you are aware of the fact that the tech and glasses are being in the PC market for a while now from Nvidia? Or you just consolegame yourself? o.O

    here a quick link cause i gotta run -.-

    http://ww w.nvidia.com/object/3D_Vision_M...

  • Drpwnage #19 2 years ago

    Lucky git Richard! getting to see the mainstream adaption of 3D technology right at it's birth.

    Surely motion control + 3D glasses is a lethal combination for increasing domestic injuries!

  • Scimarad #20 2 years ago

    I'd take silky-smooth WipeoutHD over 3D WipeoutHD anyday. Of course, having both is clearly better but the current consoles often struggle with 1080p, let alone 3D!

  • Vroom #21 2 years ago

    Great article. This is becoming a Saturday morning routine.

    Favourite articles of the week.

  • kipper #22 2 years ago

    I don't see 3D TV broadcasts becoming mainstream for 10 years, if ever.
    SD TVs are no longer on sale, but SD TV broadcasts are still the mainstream. I have a basic cable tv package and out of 30 or 40 channels only 4 are HD. And of course SD DVDs continue to be sold in much larger numbers than HD Blu-ray discs. HD is not 'mainstream' currently. 3D early adopters are going to take a very big gamble I think.

  • AphoticCosmos #23 2 years ago

    3D is pretty awesome.

    I'm aiming to get the NVIDIA kit for my PC soon enough, have just been waiting for a decent 1080p 3D monitor to be released [which it has, gotta love Acer!]

    Doubt that it will be very effective on this generation of consoles, however.
    Edited by 1 at 23/01/10 @ 10:13

  • peterfll #24 2 years ago

    I got a demo of Sky 3D recently and I was a little more impressed then many 3d movies I've seen, but I wasn't convinced still; half the footage looked like 3d cutouts. Then I saw Avatar in 3d, and I know many people think its 'awesome!' etc but..... again, the lasting memory I took from it was I was damned pleased to be taking those glasses off after 3 hours.

    Which neatly brings me on to the absolute main barrier with this technology. A lot of people acknowledge the glasses are the elephant in the room. Comparisons to Colour TV or HD as relevant to a point, but neither required the consumer to wear a second peripheral to make the technology work. A peripheral that is cumbersome and clumsy for people who already wear glasses and I would speculate uncomfortable to wear for many others (like myself).

    I'm an early adopter, I've had HD for years and a flat screen since 2001. But I can't see myself buying a 3d television until the glasses are done away with.

  • brainbird #25 2 years ago

    I like new gimmicks, but that's exactly what they are: Gimmicks. I think 3D, just like motion control, will follow the way of the VR helmets. The core market will remain "TV, console, joypad" for a few more years.

  • miiiguel #26 2 years ago

    Poor PS3 being used to sell TVs, after being used to sell BD's. Pimp that brand mr. Sony.
    Edited by 1 at 23/01/10 @ 11:11

  • Chufty #27 2 years ago

    Most people manage to watch normal TV wearing glasses just fine. If they're hurting your eyes it's because of either the refresh rate, which will improve WAY beyond 120Hz before the technology matures, or because of the 3D effect itself. If that's the case, then your eyes are going to hurt, glasses or no, until the display becomes more solid-looking.

  • ziggy_played_guitar #28 2 years ago

    "Most people manage to watch normal TV wearing glasses just fine.

    I take you don't wear glasses, otherwise you wouldn't be making this silly statement.

    My prescribed expensive glasses != cinema plastic glasses (on top of the former... not cool).

  • andijames #29 2 years ago

    I know some people moan about it replacing HDTV already but i know a lot of people who haven't even got a HDTV yet. In this case it's a good thing it's out sooner as they don't buy a HDTV then a 3DTV they can just make the jump straight to 3DTV (which is HD anyways) and avoid an additional cost. I personally think it will be a good thing and adds another factor to games where some of the really good imaginative developers can turn out even more unique products and games.

  • FogHeart #30 2 years ago

    It looks like we won't quite reach gaming Nirvana - where people play games in 1080, 60Hz, 3D, which are motion-controlled without lag - on consoles for a few years yet, but it's coming.

    I'm optimistic that I'll play my first game like this on a 40 inch OLED TV before we all run out of oil or fresh water or climate change floods Britain or we all die of flu or the zombie apocalypse finally happens.

  • ParanoidZombie #31 2 years ago

    It won't take off unless they get rid of the glasses and they know it.
    Normal people watch TV while doing some other real-life stuff at the same time (eating, cooking, ironing their clothes, having sex, raising their children, and so on ), meaning they won't use the glasses because they simply don't really care about what's on TV, they just watch it.
    They didn't care about HD, it took off because people see it as an opportunity to buy a bigger screen at an affordable price.

  • Chufty #32 2 years ago

    My prescribed expensive glasses != cinema plastic glasses
    Well built, consumer-grade active glasses != cinema plastic glasses

  • StooMonster #33 2 years ago

    deathdealer619: so you need tv that does 120 hz nichols?

    frod_: you need a TV that accepts a 120hz input

    Your 120Hz or 240Hz or 480Hz television that accepts 120Hz input also need to do 3D processing; for example Sky HD 3D uses a different system to transmit 3D images.

  • Distributor #34 2 years ago

    A rubbish game will still be rubbish, it 3d, 4d or 5d :)
    Like someone said, its just a gimmick something which is not "really" needed for great games.
    Good game design always wins over additional game enhancements.

    I like this from a technological standpoint, but Im sceptical as to the real value for Carl The Consumer.

  • TRUTH #35 2 years ago

    Glasses, need to sit in front of screen, it's more of a gimmick that wears thin after a while, a drop in clarity esp the color and slight tint when wearing glasses, problem with people who don't have 20/20 version that need corrected vision, people do get headaches inc dizzy spells (I did at about after 1hr 20mins watching Avater in 3D), cost of all this early adaption inc batteries and several glasses (family viewing), not everything will look great in 3D esp films that a on serious side etc etc.

    Also I can't imagine gathering family/friends to watch a movie or play a game then telling them to sit at a distance from the tv at the right angle all sitting infront to get the perspective of 3D, and put these glasses on - you might experience some dizzy spells or headaches or eye strain!...sort of kills the mood doing all this.

    It's waaaaaaaaaaaay to early and not quite as sharp or colorful (these seem to be lost once the 3D glasses go on!), this is only 1st gen and would highly recommend waiting for at least 10yrs for getting the technology (reseloutions,framerates, color, view angles, improved quality from all areas) working better and cheaper.

    Also I don't think 3D will work unless you have at least 60" tv's. Also I think the next to next gen consoles will really have the ability to do 3D to a standard where it will be more then just a gimmick!

  • IronGiant #36 2 years ago

    LOL 10 years from the TRUTH.. this tech is here now and it works, did you not read the article? Whether it will sell enough is another matter altogether. Now is the best time for companies to really try with 3D, does anyone believe that Avatar has made getting on for $2 Billion at the cinema because of its story line? People are flocking to see the film because of the 3D technology and word of mouth is making people that don't normally go to the cinema get off their butt and go. The PS3 and Blu Ray will be updated for 3D so it's another feature that we can choose to use or not bother with. As soon as i read a review of a HDTV which does both 3D and HD well then i'll get one, i've been looking at 50" HD sets anyway to replace my 42" so i'm happy to wait a while and get a 3D capable set.

    I think for a while anyway the main uptake of 3D will be with gamers, millions of us sit by the tv wearing a headset so hardly a big deal wearing glasses as well.. in fact the official Sony headset and 3D glasses combined as one bit of kit would be nice ;)

  • knightmt #37 2 years ago

    Transparent OLED screens solve a lot of the shutter problems.
    It is just the cost.

  • DigitalDelay #38 2 years ago

    I've got a headache just thinking about wearin those specs.

  • TRUTH #39 2 years ago

    Alot of people who watched Avatar also took there glasses off several times in the movie, and rubbed there eyes; inc myself - the point is not everyone can handle watching/playing 3D as normal 2D viewing esp long periods!

    10 years!

  • FutureDave #40 2 years ago

    @TRUTH - You don't need to sit right in front of the screen, the colour is not affected and the image is pixel clear as each refresh is the same as a 2D image. You may be projecting your experience of polarized cinema 3D (excuse the pun) onto LCD shutter 3D technology.

    The fact is 120mhz input TVs will be in the shops this year whether people use them for 3D or not. Consoles and BD players will be 3D capable, with films and video games also 3D capable whether or not every consumer utilises this feature. Take it or leave it.

  • Bander #41 2 years ago

    This is still 2.5D anyway. Stereoscopic, but not convincingly 3D because your eyes are still focusing on a flat screen. The lenses in your eyes have nothing to do, because backgrounds and foregrounds are both physically the same distance away. Hence headaches.

  • Dizzy #42 2 years ago

    Reminds me of the 90s and VR.

    This will stay niche for at least 5-10 years.

  • Vin #43 2 years ago

    Thank fuck. Avatar just succeeded in providing me with a bastard behind the eyes for three hours.

  • MeBrains #44 2 years ago

    miiiguel: funny you out of all should make that comment, given your post in the reach thread. much like you said there: we do not care what you think about Sony. much like you don't care that my opinion is MS sells 360 to sell live accounts, to sell micropays, to sell wifi adaptors, hdd's and "backup consoles". is ms "pimping" as well then?!

    on-topic: what a positive article. i'll buy it in a year or 5. bring it on. and bring on laser-tv as well when you're at it.

  • man.the.king #45 2 years ago

    @MeBrains

    My opinion is that, behind of all his posturing, all he is is a petty little brand fanboy, which is why I guess he thinks "practice what you preach" does not apply to him.

    EDIT: I hope you understand I'm NOT referring to you in this post, but to miiiguel.
    Edited by 1 at 25/01/10 @ 20:15

  • ant72 #46 2 years ago

    As a side note, didn't the sega master system have a few active shutter 3d titles?

  • Sunyavadin #47 2 years ago

    SD TVs are no longer on sale, but SD TV broadcasts are still the mainstream. I have a basic cable tv package and out of 30 or 40 channels only 4 are HD. And of course SD DVDs continue to be sold in much larger numbers than HD Blu-ray discs. HD is not 'mainstream' currently. 3D early adopters are going to take a very big gamble I think.

    You hit the nail on the head.
    Everyone who bought HDDVD players could probably afford the slightly under £100 to replace them with BD players. How many people who buy shutter/polarised/goggleless 3D TVs before a standard has a few years to become established would be willing to buy a new TV if/when support for their particular 3D delivery method is abandoned? How many people are willing to take that gamble? I'd say the number of people who stick with DVD gives an inkling of where the majority of the population will stand on 3D TV for the next few years at least.
    Edited by 1 at 24/01/10 @ 06:16

  • Ginger #48 2 years ago

    Looking forward to seeing this in action before I upgrade the telly

  • Kaminari #49 2 years ago

    'wow, I didn't realise the planet was round'

    Seriously... Those gamers wouldn't need a pair of shutter glasses, but a pair of new eyes.

  • smelly #50 2 years ago

    @TRUTH:

    3D in cinema where you lose contrast thanks to the tinted glasses is NOT the same as the tech being talked about here.

    You didnt read the article did you?

    But yeah.. displays which display 3d without glasses ALREADY exist. There just needs to be enough source material to make them valid proposition. Which is why this step is needed. People buy 120hz tvs with glasses for games, movies/sporting events/etc follow.. etc etc. Once there's enough 3d stuff out there, the "mainstream" move to 3d will happen and the sets with 3d in the screen will be shipped out.

    Same as happened to hi-def, didnt really get many people interested until the tv companies started broadcasting it.

  • smelly #51 2 years ago

    "SD TVs are no longer on sale, but SD TV broadcasts are still the mainstream. I have a basic cable tv package and out of 30 or 40 channels only 4 are HD. And of course SD DVDs continue to be sold in much larger numbers than HD Blu-ray discs. HD is not 'mainstream' currently. 3D early adopters are going to take a very big gamble I think. "


    That's because REALLY there's no real noticable difference between SD and HD for television. It makes a much bigger difference for games - thanks to the rendering technology not being "there" yet. But for movies and tv, it rarely makes a difference unless you're watching the SD/HD versions side by side.

    Now.. 3D is an instant recognisable difference which even the average joe on the street can get.

  • penhalion #52 2 years ago

    @Smelly

    If you've bought a HD TV in the last few years then it makes a bloody huge difference over a standard SD tv. LCD TVs are effectively huge monitors so an SD image will look blury on such screens. The internal electronics try their best to spread the image across all of the pixels on the screen but, just don't have enough information to do so effectively. Just watching 5 minutes of Planet earth on BBC HD will show you what you're missing. Planet Earth in 3D would probably blow your socks clean off on a good Samsung or Sony 40 inch screen.

    Most sets now use an extra enhancement mode to sharpen the edges of SD images. It's usually called some nonsense like an X-Engine or Meg-o-vision or some such but, they all serve the same purpose i.e. to enhance the image through digital processing and edge detection algorithms. Without this additional processing people would simply complain that they can't see the point of HD screens and never buy them.

    My only worry with the Sony PS3 3D is that it's going to require a new TV and other gubbings like 3D shutter glasses. All of this adds up to a rediculous extra cost that most sane people will simply not go for. I think in reality 3D will be the domain of the next generation of consoles like the PS4 or the XBox 720. The Wii 2 will probably just have reached the 720p stage by them though.....Go Team Nintendo! Go! ;)

  • Widge #53 2 years ago

    HD really does make a difference to TV. I can flick between the SD feed and the HD feed on the FA Cup that is on now and it is literally like introducing clarity into the world of blur.

    I'm not sold on 3D TV until you can have it with passive glasses because I don't like the idea of having something flickering away on your nogging!

    I would love to see this in action though, the idea of seeing the Stardust asteroids flying down onto the field of play, seeing the LBP depth of planes in action and the way the GT5 dashboards of cars come alive with depth.

  • smelly #54 2 years ago

    @penhalion & Wedge:

    No, what you are experiencing here ISNT that HD is considerably better than SD. But that your HD LCD Tv doesnt display SD properly. Depends on it's native resolution and whether it upscales properly. i.e. You could have a 42" LCD SD tv which had a native resolution of SD and you wouldnt notice the blur, pixelation, etc you're speaking of.

    But as long as your tv is a descent one which upscales the difference between SD and HD is hardly noticable.

    Im guessing you have Sony Bravias? Which are tvs which are incredibly bad at displaying SD images. The cynic in me says sony does that on purpose so when you switch between the HD/SD broadcast you can go "oooh.. see, look at the HUGE imporvement it makes". When in reality Sony Bravia tv's are just over expensive crap.

  • smelly #55 2 years ago

    But regardless of whether or not you believe me on that. 3D is DEFINATELY more noticable for the "average joe" than HD is. Especially if (as you say) you're being shown a nature program.

    Which is kinda my point.

    But then early adopters will be gamers... Followed by bars paying 10k (or whatever) for screens which show 3d sports in bars without glasses.. followed by that becomming the mainstream solution - around 5 years time, imho.

  • Widge #56 2 years ago

    I shopped around for my HDTV, one criteria was to have really good SD performance because, to be frank, that was what was going to be on TV mostly as I was without Sky HD. (Philips 9632 if you're trainspotting)

    It really is excellent though, its the details and vividness that I love. SD isn't helped very much thanks to things like ITV's horrific signal. Absolutely terrible. DVDs fare much much better of course.

    I've seen some stuff on BBC that has been near HD in quality, but flicking between one and the other, you can really tell the difference.

  • StooMonster #57 2 years ago

    smelly: But as long as your tv is a descent one which upscales the difference between SD and HD is hardly noticable.

    Rubbish, I've got a four grand dedicated external video processor to "upscale" SD in my AV setup -- which is far superior to any OEM chipset in any television -- and the results are still noticeably inferior to HD.

    However, one key point is the size you are comparing upscaled SD vs HD; if it's on a 42-inch television then you might not see much difference but on 120-inch high quality projector then it's starkly apparent.

    Moreover, some televisions are rubbish at displaying HD and can't even properly detect 2:2 pulldown and then weave 1080i back into 1080p25; and HD won't look it's best.

    Furthermore, if your television is anything less than 1080p then HD is being downscaled too; which would again reduce picture quality.

  • StooMonster #58 2 years ago

    Widge: ITV's horrific signal

    Yep, not only do ITV use the lowest bandwidth possible but they also broadcast in a lower resolution than anyone else ... in SD they broadcast 544x576i instead of 720x576i and in HD they use 960x1080i rather than 1920x1080i (or even 1440x1080i that BBC and others are fond of to save a bit of bandwidth).

  • hesido #59 2 years ago

    PC's will have the upperhand in providing 3d game content. Sure, current implementations may be simple driver hacks, but it is very easy to retro-fit the games for different viewports (like motorstorms behind-the-car vs in-car view). PC's also have this on their side: scalability. Console devs will have to jump through hoops to get two frames per eye, while PC's can always have a gfx card that is twice as fast.

  • aphexstwin #60 2 years ago

    i'm sorry smelly, im watching inter v ac on espn hd, and theres a difference. if i were to watch the standard, theres a huge difference and watching nhl in hd is astounding (depending on the parent feed). if i were to hook up my portable sd telly there'd be a huge difference too between the hdtv (an LG) and that, from a sd feed...

  • kangarootoo #61 2 years ago

    @smelly

    You seem to have ground two of your points into one, undermining the whole kit and kaboodle.

    This...
    "But as long as your tv is a descent one which upscales the difference between SD and HD is hardly noticable."

    is nonsense if your telly is anything over 32" (unless you sit right in front of it on a cushion).


    However, this...
    "3D is DEFINATELY more noticable for the "average joe" than HD is."

    is very true.

    If you say something bonkers, and then follow it with something sensible, people will just use the bonkers thing you said to discredit the sensible thing you (they should seperate the two of course, but that is the internet for you)..

  • Machetazo #62 2 years ago

    /dons free 3d glasses, stares at screen
    huh? I gots te fink this 'ere new tech's all broken and that! ;)

  • swissorc #63 2 years ago

    Couldn't careless about 3D only bought myself to mother of all Plasma's just over a year ago and I wont be changing it again until near the end of this decade say 2017 so in the meant time all you early adopters can pay to be on the wave infront of the cutting edge. I sit back a wait for to tv's to not only drop in price but increase in quality. For example anyone ever ownedone of the first wave's of plasma tv's ? The difference is staggering. PS although I love my wii there is way too much development needed to perfect motion before developers start messing around with 3D.

  • Cafuddled #64 2 years ago

    SONY:
    "And that's the thing you don't have if you just sledgehammer it like a hardware-type solution [like NVIDIA 3D Vision], where you 'switch on' 3D and it's not being created with 3D in mind."

    Eurogamer:
    "In the here and now though, stereo 3D for PlayStation 3 games is the focus, with the emphasis on retrofitting 3D to the Sony games that would most benefit from it."

    You just contradicted SONY’s own statement. All this entire article amounts to, is SONY saying ‘Nvidia got to it first but our exact same technology on an inferior hardware graphics unit is better because we will make sure games are developed with 3D in mind…’ Well so will Nvidia so really what’s the difference… apart from SONY’s version will work with a handful of games while NVIDIA’s works with many hundreds of games?

    I hate marketing spin.

  • kangarootoo #65 2 years ago

    "You just contradicted SONY’s own statement"

    If one person contradicts another, its not so much a contradiction as a disgreement. Eurogamer and Sony don't HAVE to agree do they?

    Regardless, I think you are creating something that isn't really there. Sony are talking about making new games with 3D in mind. All well and good. They are also focussing on allowing 3D support to be added to their back catalogue. Also well and good. Where is the drama?

  • robg #66 2 years ago

    but they are entirely unlike gameplay experiences

    That is entirely unlike English. Do we mean:

    o dissimilar?
    o different?
    o ?

  • ronuds #67 2 years ago

    3D is sort of like a bad acid trip, innit? You're happy and excited about the prospect, but in time you can't wait for it to end.

    In the same way a 3D movie starts out wonderful, but about an hour in your eyes hurt and you can't wait to leave the theater.

    I'll take 3D w/o glasses, please. Until then, I'm not sitting around my house watching movies with a set of goofy goggles on my face. I remember 3D from the 80s and it wasn't all that great then either.

  • Cafuddled #68 2 years ago

    Beg my pardon I did not intend on creating an atmosphere of drama. I was merely a bit taken by SONY stating that there hardware was any different to that of NVIDIA’s when the two devises seem to be almost identical in function and theory. The only difference is the software support… or so they claim.

    Funny how Nvidia also claimed the same thing:

    [link url=http://3dvision-blog.com/new-games-with-o fficial-3d-support-are-coming/
    ]http://3d vision-blog.com/new-games-with-...[/link]
    [link url= http://www.nvidia.com/object/3D_Vision_3D_Games.html
    ]http://ww w.nvidia.com/object/3D_Vision_3...[/link]

    Resident Evil 5 is very good in 3D by the way :)

  • darc #69 2 years ago

    Love the potential for racing titles. I might actually turn off the braking line, finally!