"But we got it working and we think it looks pretty good," says president
There was a digital foundry article on the subject of 3d on 360, which stated... "However, there is a possibility that the 360 will be unable to match the true 720p per eye introduced by HDMI 1.4 and supported on PS3. The move to a 1080p framebuffer to accommodate full resolution seems like a step too far, and questions remain about whether the 1080p side-by-side format is actually fully supported in the HDMI 1.4 spec." http://www.eurogamer.net/ar... ...so while we know Xbox is incapable of playing 3D content from blu-ray (obviously), it looks as though the games will take more of a hit as well, either in resolution or framerate. Hopefully a decent software workaround will present itself and future Xbox games will be more on par with PS3 in the future.
No software update will allow the 360 to display two true 720p images. The 360 is limited by HDMI bandwidth as well as eDRAM.
"However, despite these titles, there are many others which operate with resolution handicaps - Killzone 3 for example operates at half-res in its E3 guise, so while the 3D framebuffer is used, it makes no effective difference compared to a side-by-side Xbox 360 game." "In theory, the Xbox 360 should be able to match PlayStation 3's 3D performance - when taken as a whole, the two systems are capable of remarkably similar results. However, the 360's Xenos GPU is markedly superior to the RSX in terms of both fill-rate throughput and geometry processing. While PS3 can draw upon the performance of the SPUs to make up the deficit, the question is whether developers - particular on multi-platform titles - will make use efficient of them." "PS3's exact standards compliant 720p HDMI 1.4 implementation gives the Sony platform the advantage in terms of resolution, but how much of an advantage remains to be seen - the performance limitations of current gen architecture have seen that virtually all of the PS3 3D titles released to date (Super Stardust HD being the exception) have performance issues of some description, be they resolution or frame-rate based in nature." "On Xbox 360 the game copes well processing those additional vertices, but it's clear to see that the same game on PS3 - already running at a performance disadvantage in 2D mode - has trouble keeping up. Bearing in mind how many game engines on cross-platform titles run smoother on Xbox 360, there is the very possibility that as 3D gains traction on multi-platform games, the 360 may well end up providing the smoother 3D experience on these titles while PS3 leads from the front with its first party output." So in practice, Xbox 360 outperforms PS3 in 3D. Theoretical versus reality. What a turn around.
They're talking about multi platform games in 3D probably running better on the 360.
It's a very small feature that very few people will be able to enjoy (if at all), but it is clear that to get 3D there will be cutbacks in other areas. Is it worth it? Personally, I don't think so. There are certainly features on the PS3 that would be nice to have on the Xbox 360, but "better" 3D would be among the last of them.
It has to do with the fact that they used the EDRAM as it's frame buffer. While the 10mb EDRAM is lightning fast, allowing for "free" AA in many cases as well as HDR, it bottlenecks the system from being able to store a 1080p frame (13mb). This is why 360 cannot do true 720p 3D, and instead must split one 720p frame in half to squeeze each eye's frame into it. So, you get half 720p resolution at max. PS3 also has to take shortcuts due to memory constraints, as neither console was designed for 3D, however it has more room to work with since it uses it's VRAM as it's frame buffer, which allows for up to 256MB of frame buffer (it'll never be that high though, as you have to still leave room for the textures and other stuff that is stored in VRAM). HDMI 1.3 and 1.4 both have all the bandwidth needed to handle 1080p in 3D. It can support resolutions well above 1080p even. When they made the jump from 1.2 to 1.3, they doubled the bandwidth HDMI could handle. @gamingdroid I just picked up a 50 inch 3D set, and I totally disagree with you. It is worth it, and the more games that support it, the better IMO. Some do it better than others, but when they get it right it really does add a lot to the immersion factor. @idle "In practice" must mean for rushed multiplat games then, right? As even your quote acknowledges that first party games (or multiplat games where the dev actually takes the time to do it right) have the advantage on PS3. When a developer says a feature in the game they are trying to sell you has "room for improvement", that says something.
So, this is taking a hit because they went with a lower grade of HDMI, which they again added to later models while saying it wasn't really necessary in the first place. Really don't get why they don't understand the limitations of relying on software updates. Not prepping their hardware. @WrAiTh Sp3cTr3: When the 360 first came out, it didn't have HDMI and MS said that it didn't need it. Later, they put the bare minimum version on - 1.2? - but from other post I guess they've again quietly upgraded further. They believe that all technical issues can be solved with software upgrades, but its exactly that kind of thinking that caused the RRoD and a number of other issues. Because they gave little to no consideration to hardware
Because their software updates work more than others. But besides this, I don't no what you're talking about.
The technique Epic uses can be seen without a 3DTV , you just need a pair of glasses and a HDTV.
This isn't true. The 3D glasses will not be able to sync to a TV that does not have a sync emitter built in, and passive glasses only work on polarized screens.
I personally play NBA2K11 in 3d on the 360 and it looks good in motion. However when there are intros or closeups, there is some ghosting. There certainly is room for improvement.
you should be able to adjust the 3D slider (if the game supports it) until the ghosting disappears. Having it cranked too high will result in objects "closer" to the screen ghosting.
I am not sure when Xbox 360 even started using HDMI 1.3 or 1.4 since I remember it using 1.1 and maybe 1.2? However the PS3 apparently does not do 1080p 3D either since it uses HDMI 1.3 not the faster 1.4 either. 'When it comes to 3D Blu-ray playing from your PS3, you won’t be getting 1080p signals to each eye, you’ll only be getting 1080i. Without HDMI 1.4′s speed, version 1.3 just can’t push dual 1080p images through the pipes. Still, it can push dual 1080i signals, and that’s still pretty decent. You’ll still need to upgrade your TV, but at least you can stick with the PS3 as your Blu-ray player of choice…' http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2...
epic is talking about integrating darkworks TRIOVIZ 3d into unreal engine, and it DOES NOT WORK THAT GOOD. in a lot of cases the image looks MORE 3-dimensional in 2d mode simply due to added clarity. there may be a SLIGHT separation in 3d mode, but it does not look as separated as the faux separation concocted from the z-buffer method it uses, it is NOT true stereoscopic 3d but simply a trick that leave almost everything in the background flat, but say the gun in a FPS closer to your face. this IS NOT the same as a true stereo game like gran turismo 5 or super stardust where the image is rendered twice and the every inch of depth can be seen. for the most part sony 3d games get it right and render the image twice even if it results in dropping the resolution or frame-rate in half, but at LEAST it looks the way it should. epic's render ONCE and simple shift pixel technique simply does not work well and feel free to compare the results from games like green lantern, thor, captain america, enslaved, and even batman AA which use it. then look up TRUE stereo 3d pc version of batman AA on youtube and be AMAZED at the difference.
N4G is a community of gamers posting and discussing the latest game news. It’s part of NewsBoiler, a network of social news sites covering today’s pop culture.