Joseph DiGrado Writes: "With Sony introducing 3D to the PS3 this generation for their BluRay movies and games, they still had some slightly big setbacks as far as being perfect. The PS3 uses HDMI 1.3 which limited the...
Didnt Sony say that the PS4 will only use 4K TVs for movies not games
no you can even play games on the PS3 on a 4k TV but it dosent support it so it will be upscaled. the PS4 will most likely be upscaled games too bc i dont think any game will be 4k native resolution from what i understand.
The more important question is how many games will the PS4 support in 3D? PS3 had 3D support as a marketing check mark. It hardly supported more than 30 3D games. Meanwhile PC on the other hand supports more than 600 3D games. Once again console makers promise more and deliver less. Ill wait and see how many games the PS4 supports in 3D, until then this is all hype.
@reynod Read the article first, it's not about how many games, it's about technological comparison between ps3 and ps4. Where ever pc fanboys read ps3 or ps4 they just disagree.
Why did PoSTedUP waste his time saying obvious stuff?
The PS4 will not support 4K game rendering output. Only movies.
hey homie, link? p.s. the article never says ps4 has 4k games lol , its an article about 3d.
All it took was a simple Google search. http://www.joystiq.com/2013...
@Hitman, at the risk of sounding like a teenager... Pwned.
That has to do with off the bat at launch. The 360 couldn't support 1080p at launch.
They have not confirm anything but most likely only PSN and PS3 remakes will be 4K native. but is still a possible.. something is for sure, the 4K tvs do a great job at upscaling native 2k..
@AraK They did confirm it "The official answer is that the PS4 supports 4K output but for personal contents, like photos or videos. Not games," Yoshida said. "PS4 games do not work on 4K."
The system will not support 4k gaming. Period. Nothing game related. The power is just not there.
4k needs to be cheaper! It's 25K at my sony store
Well of course. It's Sony, you can find cheaper 4K TV's, but not by much. They're still overpirced, and will be for a while. Just like 1080p HDMI TV's were so grossly expensive upon release. Even Sony overpirces current 1080p TV's, and the competition prices them better. I find this hilarious: http://www.amazon.com/Sony-... You save $1.99 with Prime!!! don't miss a deal of a life time...
@Krew_92 The reason why Sony have more expansive items then the competition is because the quality materials they use are high quality and quality labor. But now they are making things from china.
@chaos-lockheart. Sony always made their products in China. The only time I remember it being made in Japan was the early radio that was invented.
Though you can get 1600p for about $400. It's 26 or so inches and not the massive size those $25k are. But just remember people the price (aside from potential hyperinflation) will drop. HDTV's were going for similar prices in 1999-2000 but by 2004 they dropped in price enough so you could by a 30" 1080i HDTV for $499. I know, because I bought one, and it still works. Thus it shouldn't be too long before we similar 4ktv's get much lower, but probably not for a few years. Probably within five you'll see them start going for sub $999. (unless hyperinflation hits, which is a real possibility before then).
$5.5k 32" sharp igzo 4k monitor display
I Just want them to add support for checkerboard 3D so we can play [email protected] in 3D
Dont forget you need active 3D for 1080p, passive only supports 720p @60hz. Passive is capable of 1080p but only at 24hz which is no good for gaming.
I would probably get a 3DTV if they were cheaper and you didn't have to wear those glasses.
i wouldn't mind wearing the glasses just as long as they dont mess with your eyes. i heard your best bet for games are the non-sutter frame glasses, the tv's are cheaper and for the PS3 it's more convenient because the PS3 only does 720p 3D anyways. the shurrt frame tv's are 1080p, unless you watch movies as well, im just in it for the games mostly.
LG's passive 3d is easier on the eyes, no crosstalk or flickering, picture is brighter, glasses are light and cheap, you can see 3d from all angles even laying down...much better overall quality when I compared to active 3d where it's dim and flickery and you can't see off angles. Other companies are starting to adopt passive 3d and incorporate it into their sets...I've heard some people say active is better but I can't help but to think they just say that because that's what they spent their money on.. Idk maybe it depends on the person though.
The problem with passive 3D is that it's only half the vertical or horizontal resolution depending on the manufacturer. But with a 4k Tv you can do passive 3D and still have 1080 lines of resolution since you've got 2160 to start with.
@kneon 1 eye seeing 1/2 image + 1 eye seeing 1/2 image = 1 eye seeing full image 1/2 the time + 1 eye seeing full image 1/2 the time In the end, your brain still receives the full 1080p image.
I have a vizio passive 3d tv and 3d movies look great (the ones made for 3d at least) and the glasses are light so you forget you are wearing them.
@C-Thunder Sorry but your math makes no sense, time != space. The only way your statement works is if higher fps is the same as higher resolution, and that's just not true. Passive 3D uses every other line all the time so it really is half the resolution. Active 3D uses all the resolution but at a high enough frequency that you don't notice.
I got a 42inch Vizio LED last year for 599. It works pretty good for 3d. It has built in Netflix which was a plus also. I have not noticed any issues. I do want a bigger screen though. My next Television will probably the Vizio 21:9 58inch led.
I have a SamsunG PN51E8000 cant wait!!!
Nice Tv I got a Sony XBR55HX929 and a KDL46HX800 (previous Tv) for friends to play on. 3d is nice now for most games that have it and even simulated 3d can be nice for some games but if we get 1080p 3d at 60fps I will be glued to my TV till my head hurts. Don't know how Samsungs 3d glasses are as I have never tried them but Sony has nice lightweight titanium framed active shutter glasses that actually look decent and work great. (Just looked them up called TDGBR750) Don't see why people are hatin on 3d unless they don't have a 3d tv that is. I didn't use it much at first but the more content out there the more often I mess around with it. My friends always love playing games in 3d when they are over.
Nice TV, the Sony HX925 has awesome 12bit colour when you plug in the PS3. Simply insane colour pop.
Just stop with the 3D shit, Sony.
@Gus Nice avatar. Terms of Rampagement. I do think Sony should support 3D however. It really adds to the experience. We just need cheaper and better 3D TV's. I don't want to buy one if I am the only person able to watch it, as those glasses are expenisve (no, not those cheap shitty ones from the cinema lol).
My 55 Plasma3DTV is ready ;)
I have a 47" LED LG. Can't wait to use the 3D more.
This article is ill-infomed. HDMI 1.4 only allows 3D 720p/50-60 and 3D 1080p/24-25 max. However, PS4 is currently rumored to utilize HDMI 2.0, which may support 3D 1080p/60 or more...
you're right, but the article never mentioned the frames per second, so it's not "ill-informed" at all.
It's assuming that PS4 will easily support 1080p in 3D when the PS3 can do so to through HDMI, the console just doesn't have the power to do so for larger games than, say, Echocrome...
I thought 3D was a flop?
Only until the price drops.
Price dictates EVERYTHING in this industry. IMO it's the sole reason the 360 has been as successful as it's been, it is the cheapest way into HD gaming. Most 360 only fanboys defend MS because they are defending their cheap purchase, plain and simple. Funny thing is if you bought a 360/live at launch and it's been your main gaming console you surpassed that $600 price tag long ago with all the add ons (wifi,hdmi,etc) and each year the price continues to rise while support continues to wane.
@bluetoto- that's some silly stuff you just typed. Could it be possible that people just prefer to like the Xbox and prefer to game on it more than the PS3? It's not ALWAYS about the price. But the PS3 was just too damn expensive at launch. Even Sony supporters would agree with that. Why do you think Sony is going with familiar pc parts, no BC in order to make it as cost friendly as possible. The Xbox brand is not some gimmick. Get off it.
bluetoto made some very good points, anyone buying the PS3 was buying the complete package, Blu-Ray, HDMI,Wireless,Harddrive,bulit in and lets not forget the free online. Initially anyone looking at the xbox might seem like a good deal but by the time you have factored in bringing it up to anything like the PS3 (you can't add Blu-Ray) you are spending a lot more, (how much was M$ selling their harddrive and wifi adapter for which you had to use instead of being able to buy a standard hard drive) then you include the online tax and it really is nowhere near the bargain it first appears. M$ got away with it this gen, maybe xbox owners will be smart enough to see through it next gen, but I'm not holding my breath.
@wb27 I have no doubt many enjoy gaming on the 360, myself included, but unless you are living off of someone else's dime it's ALWAYS about the price.
A flop? no, thats just something consoles fans said because no consoles could do a decent job of it. 3D gaming is best on PC for now, been playing most games in [email protected] for a couple of years now. Got bored of it and moved on now though :) I sold my 3D setup and got a 2560 x 1440 2D setup instead.
It probably will flop once the occulus rift takes off.
I have a 3d tv and I would rather have a game that runs at 60 frames at 1080p. If Sony can manage adding 3d without having to take away from any of these features than I'm okay with that.
the HDMI ports on my 3D tv were fried in a lightning storm so its useless :(
Will people please click the link before they approve, that's the third "story" I've seen from this terrible excuse for a website, seriously, what is this barely readable crap?
I thought Sony's TV division had already started moving away from the 3D schtick?
Meh! I don't like 3D it gives me a headache ill be getting a 65 inch tv but minus the 3D! It's not for everyone!
Obviously the author doesn't have a clue. Forget about the HDMI format of the device and the cable. The current Slim and Super Slim versions of the PS3 is totally capable of putting out 3D in 1080/24p and lossless audio at the same time. I have a movie on Blu-Ray that is in 3D and uses DTS HD Master Audio (at a 3.8 Mbps bitrate) and it works totally fine. I won't go into detail about all the technical stuff here, but you can easily google it and be better informed than the author of this piece-of-junk article.
This, I have a 3DTV and the PS3 is already capable of outputting 1080p at 24Hz which is perfect for 3D Blu-ray. The Playstation Memories App also outputs in 1080p 3D @ 24Hz for 3D photo viewing. Obviously 60Hz 1080p 3D will be an upgrade but we might not see native 1080p 3D games that often next-gen as the PS3 wasn't able to handle most games in 720p @ 3D, as rendering in 3D not only increases the number of pixels that need to be rendered, but all geometry has to be rendered twice.
Marketing at its best! TRUE 3D! I thought my sony 3d monitor WAS real 3D! Gimme my money back!
didnt sony say the ps4 would not be able to output 3d?
I think later down the line, Sony will have some 4k games. But until they see people buying 4k TV's, theirs really no point in doing it yet. I'm betting the system will be ready to support 4k games but their won't be any until half way in to its life cycle.
Doesn't have enough power. Now if it was 5-10x more powerful, it MIGHT get 4k at 30 fps in a rudimentary fashion with some settings lowered than they would be otherwise at 1080p. An uber PC would be hard pressed to game at 4k, and a late 2013 uber PC will have 8-9x the raw power of a PS4. Those are facts. Because an uber PC will be pushing 12-15 TFlops, perhaps even more, whereas the PS4 will be pushing 1.8 TFlOPS. That's really what you need to start gaming at 4k resolution, and the PS4 simply doesn't have that power. The PS5 will be the 4ktv machine, which by that time, it'll be comparable to 2008-2009 when most people by then had migrated to 4ktv, by 2020, most people should have migrated to 4ktv and that console should push close to 100 TFlops. Which should be enough for 120fps, which will really make things look much smoother.
Truth of the matter is I'm quite sure most or all game developers might/will not utilize 4K resolution on their games for these next-gen consoles. It's going to be the film industry that we'll be able to see what 4K will look like. With those images of the 1.3 and 1.4 HDMI cables, I really believe *a lot out there would'nt know or even can't tell the difference.. most would just rely on what cable is supplied in the box that goes with their Blu-Ray players/equipments and if they would buy from any retail outlet certainly a lot ( I'm not saying all.. but a lot ) of sales reps will usually mislead them into buying the most expensive brands which might not even be a specific 1.4 HDMI cable. Honestly it's just simple research and a whole heap of 1.4 HDMI cables now retail for a lot less money.
Most movies have been shot in 4k for close to a decade, which means yes, you will have to re-buy your blu-rays because the newer movies were shot in 4ktv. Now old stuff is already mostly maxed out at 1080p, but some of the newer old film stuff might see some improvement, but not that much. But the stuff from the 70's and even 80's are tapped out unless they find a way digitally to improve them. Meanwhile the film industry is transitioning once again to 16k cameras, so be prepared to buy the movies you buy in 4k from later this decade again when they are released at 16k. Now once you understand this, you probably can understand how it will go beyond this as you see the pattern developing. Though with holographic tv coming out in a few years, we have a chance at something different, which would be an upwards display of 3d from like a tabletop. That's what I really want to watch and play games on, but that's probably more for something two console generations after the PS4 (thus like the PS6).
Or PS9... http://youtu.be/Vdh4TqWFfX4
I just hope Sony launches the HDMI cable they decide to use with the PS4
Just give us different modes of 3D to choose from! I was pleasantly surprised by the quality of checkerboard. Tomb Raider especially looks amazing on my TV, no visible ghosting, exept on the really bright scenes with a lot of sky. Awsome game also.. But the bad support from nvidia (and AMD)on 3D is dissapointing. I can't update my driver because of it, the in will lose checkerboeard. Will get the red VESA emitter warning. They say they can't just remove it because they have to find where the error lies. That is just BS because they could have it dissapear after 10sec. Now they have added it to be displayed were it was not before! And istalling Helix mod fixes should not be nessesary. I know many people think it's a flop and a gimmick, but 3D games and movies can't be compared. I love how the world comes more to life in 3D. Movies can't even compare. They feel more like 2d layers in different depths. Hope the developers focus on real 3D support. Whenit's implemented you don't need to slice your fps in halv. For example Crysis 3 and Tomb Raider don't have that big fps loss. Was really surprised i could max them out in 3D.
Some people here are desperate for fanboy war that they create one for ps4 vs pc :)) When xbox announce here is the ultimate classic war for fanboy everywhere
I would love to see a 1080 signal for all 3D content, including multiplayer.
3d sucks seriously abandon it !
HDMI 1.4 is not the holy grail of 3D gaming, far from it when it can only output at 24hz max which is a stutter fest and unplayable with most games that pan the camera. seeing as most HD TVs only accept HDMI and some VGA, then gamers are stuck with 1.4 which is great for movies and shit for games. Unless the PS4 uses a new form of HDMI output then forget full 1080p that's actually playable. So much uniformed nonsense being posted here, with only a few people really understanding it.
I dont like 3D myself. It's kind of cool and novel for a couple hours and then it gets boring. As a human being, I am perfectly content gaming on a 2D screen. Its way unnatural on the eyes to split the vision that way. Anything that hurts your eyes is bad.