Super Stardust 3D: 720p120 confirmed

By Richard Leadbetter Published 11 January, 2010

Digital Foundry and Housemarque on 3D.

Last Saturday, Digital Foundry took a look at the 3D gaming potential soon to be unlocked by a new system upgrade for the PlayStation 3. We talked about what was out there already, discussed Ubisoft's Avatar and the performance levels of current 3D titles, and suggested that Sony was planning something more technologically advanced than what we've seen in the current implementations of 3D games - something that justified the upcoming firmware upgrade.

Our theory? It made sense that the PS3 upgrade would facilitate support for the new 3D protocols in the HDMI 1.4 standard, specifically the provision for full resolution 3D - basically a double-height, or double-width framebuffer. Thanks to an assist from SCEE, Digital Foundry had the chance to pose a few questions to the Housemarque Super Stardust HD tech team: engine lead Seppo Halonen and creative director Harri Tikkanen.

The answers are hugely enlightening, revealing that Sony's stereoscopic 3D system is indeed based on the notion of full 720p resolution, unlike the current 3D games released to date. This is hugely significant, confirming that the new version of Super Stardust HD is effectively running at a native resolution of full 720p at a staggering 120 frames per second (60 for each eye). We're talking about something not just based on low-resolution buffers as in Invincible Tiger and Avatar, but something new, exciting and a whole lot more challenging to achieve: a true technical leap, and a definite unique selling point for the Sony platform.

Digital Foundry: Can you give us some idea of the re-engineering you had to do to Super Stardust HD in order to support 3D?

Seppo Halonen: For the first thing, we took SSHD and made it use the current revision of our game engine with over a year of additional development. As the engine is highly modular it was mainly a matter of adding stereoscopic cameras and configuring the engine to render everything twice. That was of course just the beginning: after that we had to optimise a lot, as we now had 8.3ms instead of 16.7ms to render a frame. Luckily we had 50 per cent of the SPU power left, so we tapped into that. The current version of the game heavily pre-processes the data that goes to RSX to make sure it can chew through it as quickly as possible.

Digital Foundry: What's the general principle behind your interpretation of 3D? Two lower-resolution frames incorporated into the PS3's 60Hz playback, or something more advanced? Is there support for 1080p?

Seppo Halonen: We render two full-resolution 720p frames with identical content compared to standard mode. Doubling the rendering is quite a challenge in itself to begin with, and we are happy with current 720p 60FPS stereo mode.

Digital Foundry: What are the main challenges of stereoscopic 3D - are you bound by pixel shaders, vertex shaders, drawcalls?

Seppo Halonen: It depends entirely on the game, and even different parts of a game are going to be bound by different things. For SSHD it was mainly drawcalls and polygons - we have lots of objects with lots of polygons and massive particle effects. I solved the issue by moving vertex processing from GPU to SPU and merging as many objects as possible to one drawcall. Previously every asteroid chunk and every enemy was in a separate drawcall; in the stereo version they go out in a few fell swoops.

Digital Foundry: Is support for 3D going to be a consideration for all your future PS3 games?

Harri Tikkanen: Some games lend themselves better to 3D than others, so we will make the decision on a game by game basis.

Want to know more about the origins of Housemarque's Super Stardust HD? Check out the Digital Foundry tech retrospective for an in-depth account on the development of what remains one of the best shooters of the current console generation.

Picture of Richard.

About Richard Leadbetter

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

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

You may also like...

Comments (39) 2 years ago

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

  • tobsen #1 2 years ago

    SSHD is probably still my favorite PS3 game and so amazingly close to perfection for what it is designed to be. I CAN'T WAIT to play this in stereoscopic 3D. Beautiful.
    Edited by 2 at 11/01/10 @ 14:51

  • TopKatt #2 2 years ago

    Uncharted 3D, bring it on!

  • Beano #3 2 years ago

    720p 120 fps... damn!
    Edited by 1 at 11/01/10 @ 15:02

  • Eraser #4 2 years ago

    "Uncharted 3D, bring it on!"

    Unless they find the holy grail that lets them render a game like Uncharted at 120fps in decent resolutions, that simply won't happen.

  • JohnnyWashnGo #5 2 years ago

    It sounds visually and technically amazing.

    Especially the reduction of drawcalls for each asteroid down to as few as possible and doing them all at once. Also, moving stuff from the GPU to SPU seems to be the way forward with the PS3 to get as much bang for your buck as you possibly can.

    I am actually quite excited to see this in action. I assume it will be an update to the existing game and not another purchase from PSN?

  • Doctor_What #6 2 years ago

    Sounds great, and what a superb game too.

  • hesido #7 2 years ago

    I am a bit dissappointed. Games can barely keep up with 30fps these days. If they can make a 30fps stereo 3d game, they should be able to make the game run at 60fps at non-stereo resoultions, which I'd prefer.

  • cianchristopher #8 2 years ago

    if you need a 120hz screen for 3D gaming (60fps for each eye), then theoretically, could you have 3D gaming on a 60hz screen (30fps for each eye)?

  • Lee_Morris #9 2 years ago

    hesido, the game is running at 720, 120fps. There are 2 60fps frames running at the same time. You are right that it is disappointing that some games can't hit a constant 30fps though. These guys are tech wizards though!
    Edited by 1 at 11/01/10 @ 16:44

  • afray #10 2 years ago

    You can make anything render at 120fps if the scene isn't complex. Let's wait and see what the game actually looks like in 3D, eh?

  • Beano #11 2 years ago

    Apparently the same game allready available... just in 3D and a lower resolution.

  • jerrymanu #12 2 years ago

    afray Wrote:

    You can make anything render at 120fps if the scene isn't complex. Let's wait and see what the game actually looks like in 3D, eh?

    Not to be a dick or anything but I think it'll <a href="http://www .youtube.com/watch?v=sB1_buPp8eI">look like this</a href="">, but in 3D, ya know?
    Edited by 2 at 11/01/10 @ 17:32

  • captain_Carl #13 2 years ago

    Krazy Ken may have been on to something afterall.

    Where's the 4D, Sony?

  • hesido #14 2 years ago

    @Lee_Morris: Yes, but I can't imagine Uncharted 2 running 30fps stereo (which means 60fps), with those visuals. RSX simply isn't that powerful. Of course they don't have to make everything run at twice speed, like AI, physics and so on, but the GPU basically has to do twice the work, and I don't think we'll enjoy much 3d content before PS4.

  • GamesConnoisseur #15 2 years ago

    Interesting, but dont ever hope for 3d at 120 hz at 720p for games like Uncharted, MW2 but we could see exciting application for loads of game that doesnt use PS3 hardware at such a high ceiling. Question is how many people can take full advantage of 3D on their TV? I know stated as the future of TV, but hopes that its not a niche thing, as the majority of gamers doesnt play on hdtv.

  • FutureDave #16 2 years ago

    @cianchristopher

    60hz (30fps/eye) 3D with shutter specs just doesn't work out. It isn't fast enough to 'fool' the brain it's seeing a continuous and 3-dimensional image. The affect causes motion sickness, headaches and even seizures.

  • Emmit_Assassin #17 2 years ago

    Before we all get carried away with720p120fps 3D, can we please get to the 'standard 1080p60fps' we were all promised at launch? Its all get a little too much like politics to me. Promise the earth and deliver half and promise the rest will come in time. Most people are just coming round to HDTV, let alone 3DTV.

  • Beano #18 2 years ago

    @Emmit_Assassin : Super Stardust HD runs in 1080p 60fps.

  • Beano #19 2 years ago

    "60hz (30fps/eye) 3D with shutter specs just doesn't work out. It isn't fast enough to 'fool' the brain it's seeing a continuous and 3-dimensional image. The affect causes motion sickness, headaches and even seizures. "

    But isn't it enough that the screen just shows the image in 60/120 hz while the source is just 30fps (showing each rendered frame twice on the screen)?

    I'm pretty sure that the Avatar movie isn't running in 60fps...

  • belziah #20 2 years ago

    See how easy that was?

    Actual facts will set you freeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee............................

  • Frandroid #21 2 years ago

    @Beano Arguably, the underlying game logic could be running at 30fps, but each of those thirty frames has to be rendered for both eyes. It is two different views of the same image that produce the 3d effect.
    Can't claim to know why 60fps stereoscopic vision doesn't work, but I'd guess it's to do with each eye seeing an image for 1/60th of a second and then nothing for the next 1/60th that causes the problem.

  • Les #22 2 years ago

    "You are right that it is disappointing that some games can't hit a constant 30fps though. These guys are tech wizards though!"

    True. Though the limited scope of the chosen gameplay model plays a big role in that. I wish more developers would think that way rather than just trying to one-up each other with games that try to include all gameplay types, jet master none and stuttering graphics engines.

  • hesido #23 2 years ago

    "60hz (30fps/eye) 3D with shutter specs just doesn't work out. It isn't fast enough to 'fool' the brain it's seeing a continuous and 3-dimensional image. The affect causes motion sickness, headaches and even seizures."

    Yes, but that doesn't mean you cannot have slow games running in 3d. You can have a still image and have it displayed 120hz (60frames per eye). The shutter speed does not directly correlate to content speed, same frames can be served until the next frame is ready, high speed shutter surely helps get rid of such bad effects. Still, I think they wouldn't be able to get uncharted to run at 30fps per both eyes, ever, without seriously dumbing down the visuals.

  • Chufty #24 2 years ago

    120hz is not the same as 120fps. They are rendering at 120fps presumably to sync the two, to stop tearing. If you're rendering almost exactly the same frame twice per tick, as in stereoscopic rendering, then is not the same as rendering the full scene twice and is much easier to do.

  • FutureDave #25 2 years ago

    @hesido

    Ok, I see what was being asked. Sure, you can have slow frames/fast refresh, but 30fps 3D games still exhibit noticeable stuttering and cause motion sickness in many people. If you're going to trick your brain, you have to do it right or it makes you pay!

  • JahB #26 2 years ago

    If you're going to trick your brain, you have to do it right or it makes you pay!

    best sentence i've read on the interweb all week. i shall apply this to my drinking habits

  • TRUTH #27 2 years ago

    I got the odd headache watching Avatar 3D, esp when fast scenes or camera swings - this gave a blur/confused image when compared th 2D (which i also saw). I believe too the image n 2D did look sharper and easier to follow!

  • Bigglesworth #28 2 years ago

    Where does the extra memory for a second HD framebuffer come from?

  • penhalion #29 2 years ago

    a true technical leap, and a definite unique selling point for the Sony platform.

    Is this just the most misleading statement in recent history or what?

    Harri Tikkanen explains that they had to optimise the game to run at 720p in 120 frames and generate the sterioscopic views etc. etc. This has zero to do with Sony or the PS3 in terms of technical achievement. It's the same thing the bloomin' Nvidia 3D vision drivers do and requires a 120hz monitor or TV. So unless the unique selling point for the PS3 is going to be that people need to now upgrade their TVs to a 120hz screen and get active shutter glasses and an infrared Wii style sensor bar add on, then good luck selling that one!

  • Beano #30 2 years ago

    "Where does the extra memory for a second HD framebuffer come from? "

    The lower resolution... the original game ran in 1080p native.

  • chukcyQ #31 2 years ago

    Some games have so few moving parts that they can render the output 1080p @ 200Hz no problem. Some games don't.

  • chessboxer #32 2 years ago

    Technically SSHD runs native at 1280x1080 at 60fps and is upscaled to 1920x1080. Still it's an impressive game.

  • TopKatt #33 2 years ago

    Noby Noby Boy in 3D would be good. I could spend hours eating people and farting them out of the TV screen.

  • Ryze #34 2 years ago

    For those talking about Uncharted, I'd expect they'd have to use 2 x 640x720 frames side by side as in some of the other 3D games available now, halving the resolution.

    I'm happy to wait for PS4 for 720p/1080p 3D in complex games, however.

  • Bigglesworth #35 2 years ago

    @disc
    With no double/triple buffering? Beano's explanation rings truer - I'd forgotten about the game's original res.

  • SpaceMidget75 Verified Senior Software Developer, Minerva Computer Services #36 2 years ago

    a true technical leap, and a definite unique selling point for the Sony platform

    Please Richard or someone here explain this to me? I'm genuinely interested. Rather than negging penhelion couldn't someone have just explained why it's unique?

    The way I see it this is mostly about pumping out enough FPS, either 1080p/120fps or 720p/120fps. As evoga just mentioned, you can't firmware upgrade to HDMI 1.4 so they are just outputting the frames in the standards set out by 1.4.

    So whats to stop Gravity Wars 2 being rejigged to 720/120fps on the 360? There isn't any fanboyism going on here, I'm just technically inquisitive.

    If it's a bandwidth thing then I'm pretty sure that at the very least the 360 could handle 720p/120fps (not that MS give a crap at the moment.)

    It just sounds like they're promoting this firmware as some magical switch when it doesn't sound like its doing that much at all.

  • hesido #37 2 years ago

    @brod: The fact that they can make it run 60fps for both eyes doesn't guarantee 120hz for single sequential performance, because that means their physics engine also has to run double the speed, and probably some other stuff I'm probably missing.

  • SpaceMidget75 Verified Senior Software Developer, Minerva Computer Services #38 2 years ago

    As I said in my post, I'm sure i's possible that the 3D standards set out by 1.4 could be added to the PS3's 1.3 port, but me point is that I'm still not clear what the exact relevence is.

    Avatar the game works with a number of those 3D schemes already using 1.1. 3D TVs are happy to accept that and dish out a 3D signal. So as I said before, whats to stop GW2 from outputting 720p/120fps in a 3D format. I'm pretty sure hdmi 1.4, firmware upgrades, or a PS3 are necessary??

  • craziii #39 2 years ago

    this was the only console game out of everything my friend got that I liked. I am an avid pc gamer. that says alot. I played till my hands cramped!

    good times.