Top
550°

The Truth About 3D On Xbox 360

Xbox Evolved:

"CES 2010 brought a lot of 3D hype to both the movie and video game industries, as Sony and other TV manufacturers announced plans to release 3D TV's into our living rooms this summer. Sony also announced 2 firmware updates, one for 3D movies, one for 3D games, which will allow PS3 to be forward-compatible with all of this new 3D technology.

This left the nearly 38 million Xbox 360 owners wondering when or if they'd get such an update as well, because after all, real 3D in games is something we've all salivated over for ages (as well as those ugly VR helmets that would cost a fortune and are now pretty much obsolete). So, can the Xbox 360 do 3D? Let's take a look at the technical details."

Read Full Story >>
xboxevolved.e-mpire.com
The story is too old to be commented.
Blaze9293196d ago

Of course Microsoft won't admit the 3D is the same as PS3's capabilities but whatever. Thats M$ for ya.

fr0sty3196d ago

Well, Aaron Greenburg tried to slam 3D at CES this year, saying "i don't know how well 3d will work in the home, i mean, you have the glasses, you have the phone, the weather outside, all kinds of distractions going on. It's not like being in a theater"...

that's a pretty poorly orchestrated excuse... 3d won't work because you can't answer the phone or look outside while wearing glasses?

none the less, to be fair to the ms side of things, when sony couldn't do rumble, what did they do? they slammed it. it's typical pr behavior.

ProA0073196d ago

Isn't natal supposedly going to be able to render 3D without the glasses? This guy was hired for a reason:

http://www.youtube.com/watc...

I dunno. But yeah Microsoft will just play on words to misinform the masses

fr0sty3196d ago (Edited 3196d ago )

no, it still isn't quite "3D", as you only get the 3D effect when you move around (and you don't game while walking around your room often). while cool for a FPS, many game types just won't lend themselves well to it. Gran Turismo 5 actually already uses that tech when you hook up a pseye (no glasses required, just tracks your face). technically any camera based device could do it as long as the system were powerful enough. wii could even do it. it's a cool technology, but it isn't 3d. it only adjusts the 2d image's perspective based on where your head is. it can't tell how far apart your eyes are, and send each eye a separate image so that you actually see in 3d like these lcd shutter glasses do.

in other words, while sitting on your couch, you won't see an explosion send debris shooting off of your TV screen and into your face with that tech... you will with the 3d mentioned in this article.

Saaking3196d ago (Edited 3196d ago )

PS3 really is the only one that does everything. That's why it's the only TRUE next gen console.

Oh, and that comparison to PSN is lame. PSN is on par with XBL (a service that's been available for years since the original Xbox) and it's free. It does what XBL does and it works perfectly. 3D on the 360 does not. Therefore, it's a bad comparison imo.

commodore643196d ago (Edited 3196d ago )

@ saaking

does the ps3 slim that i bought do ps2 backwards compatibility?
No, Sir, it does not.

It only doesn't do everything.

Saaking3196d ago

You should have bought the 60 GB or 80GB model. Sony offered everything that fans wanted and they complained about price. Sony took out features to lower the price and you complain about loss of features. You can't have both so stop whining.

davekaos3196d ago

"So, to summarize, 3D on the Xbox 360 is like PSN on the PS3... It's there (somewhat), it works, ."

Oh you mean like the 360, it works (somewhat) but it's just not up to par with the competition

DSI3196d ago (Edited 3196d ago )

As of right now, the PS3 is barely able to product a 2D game at 60 fps if it has yet to. So I have to see it to believe it for a PS3 to do 120 fps in 3D.

With that being said, I feel this article is BS, and just another fanboy trying to create hit for his lame site.

I'm still open to it, I just won't believe it til I see it.

Edit, I also remember when the 360 wasn't suppose to be able to do 1080p also...I'm just saying.

Blaze9293196d ago

EDIT to my #1 comment. Where is is I meant isn't

3196d ago
bpac1234567893196d ago

Interesting. But I really don't think Microsoft are big supporters of 3d in the first place. It seems that they are more involved in natal and other casual gaming experiences, like gameroom. They probably don't feel like people will run out and buy a ps3 just because it supports 3d, and until that happens there not going to really support it imo.
One good thing I can say about Microsoft is that there always focused. Sometimes Sony seems like there all over the place. First Home, than 3d, then motion controllers, ext. Sony needs to unify all there platforms because they have a lot of great ideas but there too scattered. I want Home to get to the point that when I load up my ps3 its fully integrated. I shouldn't go into it once a month it should just be there as a natural part of the ps3. The same needs to happen for motion controlls and 3d it needs to fell like its a natural part of every game.

Anon19743196d ago (Edited 3196d ago )

For some reason Microsoft won't help me with, trying to do 1080p with the component cables won't yield 1080p on my new TV. They said it would, it doesn't. Microsoft helpfully told me to consider upgrading to a system with the HDMI - which I believe Microsoft themselves said at one point wasn't needed, much like they're downplaying 3D right now.

As for games at 60fps on the PS3, there's plenty of them and if you bothered to do any research instead of trolling, you could have found that out easy enough.

In terms of 3D, developers have already commented that the adjustment needed to offset the image for the 3D effect takes surprising little processing power as the image has already been rendered already, it just needs slight tweaks for 3D. We've already seen Gran Turismo, one of the most photo realistic games ever made, running in 3D.

Saying you doubt the PS3 can handle 3D is like sitting in an airport saying planes are too big to fly. It's happening already. Get over it.

Edit: Disagrees already? So, you don't believe that Gran Turismo has been shown off in 3D and think it's all a myth or is it just my disagree shadows again?

JasonXE3196d ago (Edited 3196d ago )

The 360 can do 1080p, but VERY limited. There's only like 2 games (virtua tennis is one, i think the old sonic game was the other) that actually are able to render at 1080p. 360 has bottlenecks that prevent it from doing so easily (the 10mb framebuffer, when one 1080p frame takes 16mb's to store in framebuffers). They get around it by tiling, but even then you take a performance hit so you won't be doing much with those 1080p visuals.

every other 360 game you've ever seen running at "1080p" was upscaled.

and ps3 runs at 60fps just fine. GT5 prologue, wipeout HD (60fps at 1080p no less!), the ratchet and clank games, dante's inferno, cod: waw, burnout paradise, virtua fighter 5, mlb the show, formula 1, ninja gaiden sigma and sigma 2, folklore, god of war 3...

ps3 has no issues with 60fps, when the developers actually take the time to code for it properly. you're regurgitating the same old rhetoric that used to be the case waaaaaaaaay back when ps3 first launched and the madden games ran at 30fps on ps3 vs 60 on 360. now that is no longer the case because the devs are more familiar with the hardware and see it as worthwhile to invest the time needed to pull of the results desired. back when ps3 only had 5-6 million on the market, not so much.

some games will output at native 120fps, others could use other methods(like outputting 60fps, but sending out 2 of every frame for 120fps, or only re-rendering the objects which have moved from the left eye's frame when rendering the right eye). either way, it works and it works well. everyone who has tried it agrees.

vhero3196d ago

MS are gonna slate 3D to crap because there console can't handle it aswell as the PS3. It's one of the sacrifices they made with rushing out their console over Sony's was that year lead over Sony worth it? Definitely as they wouldn't be such contenders right now but it still means they not gonna compare to the ps3 in the future in terms of technology.

FamilyGuy3196d ago (Edited 3196d ago )

They gave a very understandable explanation. Expect to see a lot more quotes of the "only possible on the PS3" nature after 3D gets released.

I really gotta go to an IMAX and check this stuff out cuz I am just not interested in 3D. Like many others weren't for the past 10 years or so and that leads me to believe this shutter glasses or whatever 3D must be a huge improvement over the days of olde 3D.

Guido3196d ago

To want to try and copy Sony in this area. Trust me when I say this, the 360 can barely stay alive for 6 months at a time let alone do 3D so don't get your hopes up. By the time 3D is mainstream, the 360 will be replaced with MS's new console so to even dream of the 360 being capable of what the PS3 is capable of is just silly fanboy thinking.

qwertyuiopasdfghjkl3196d ago (Edited 3196d ago )

A story was put up about Greenberg slamming the PS3 back when CES was going on.

I had this to say...

"12 days 19 hours ago
Yeah...
Greenberg is only saying this because all current 360 models will not be able to output in 3D.

Not because they don't want to, they simply CAN'T. Remember when the 360 got HDMI? Yeah, it got HDMI 1.2, which cannot do any 1.3 and 1.4 features.

Things like... Deep Color, xvYCC, Auto lip-sync, Dolby TrueHD, DTS-HD and 3D packets, etc.

The PS3 on the other hand, with 1.3, is compatible with everything but the Ethernet channel offered in 1.4, which gives Sony a big leg up whether Aaron wants to admit it or not.

Microsoft simply didn't plan ahead, whether they knew or not or whether 3D will take off or not. The point is, they made a budget cut, and its biting them in the ass right now.

Whether the weather is westerly weathered or withered?"

I am 100% right. This article is all a bunch of convoluted nonsense, tons of useless facts and numbers about the 360 and PS3s inner workings... the main thing is the 360 has HDMI 1.2, the PS3 has HDMI 1.3

Ju3195d ago

@DSI Better believe it. SuperStardust 3D runs 2x60fps (8.3ms per frame) in full 720p as shown at the CES10 ( http://www.eurogamer.net/ar... ).

ActionBastard3195d ago (Edited 3195d ago )

"So, to summarize, 3D on the Xbox 360 is like PSN on the PS3... It's there (somewhat), it works, but it's just not up to par with the competition."

The problem isn't can the 360 do "a type" of 3D, it's the HDMI it uses doesn't have the bandwidth to do "true native" 3D implemented in 1.4. 1.3 can be updated via fw. The games currently out have been rigged (for lack of a better word) on both consoles. The 360 is going to be a jerry-rigged 3D experience. If 3D takes off and MS starts producing 3D games, that is when I think consumers will see a difference.

And just so you know:

HDMI 1.2 maxes at 5gpbs
HDMI 1.3 maxes at 10gpbs
HDMI 1.4 maxes at 10gbps (that is why 1.3 can be upgraded to 1.4 minus the new bells. They have the same bandwidth.)

3195d ago
ThanatosDMC3195d ago

Nice article but the last paragraph was random.

darthv723195d ago

"It's like cramming the circular block into the square hole... don't even bother."

Generally it is the other way around as you CAN put a round peg in a square hole provided the diameter of the peg just matches the length/width of the square hole.

When viewed the other way (as the saying usually goes) you CAN'T fit a square peg in a round hole.

Just a matter of semantics.

Consoldtobots3195d ago (Edited 3195d ago )

this is kids stuff, there is one more thing they need to add to this technology to REALLY make it takeoff. I know what it is and when it's properly implemented it's going to change the face of gaming forever.
I would talk about it but I don't give out that kind of knowledge for free.

here's a hint though, it will completely annihilate and make obsolete what MS is trying to do with Natal.

The Lazy One3195d ago

They both have a hard enough time getting all their games to output at 60fps 1080p (yes I know PS3 has done it once or twice, but that doesn't make it easy) let alone 120.

I also fail to see the reason 30fps 3d would be bad. It's the same standard as TV, and it works fine.

That said, stereoscopic 3d is really only good for objects relatively close to the players eye (things appearing within roughly arms reach). For things further away, head tracking is much better. At further distances overlapping and relative motion play a much larger part than stereoscopy in the 3d effect.

All that said, I won't be satisfied with 3d till someone comes out with a lightweight mass-producible head mounted display.

Anon19743195d ago (Edited 3195d ago )

For a game to be considered smooth, you need 30 fps at a minimum. We've already had developers weigh in on the issue. The calculations necessary for 3D are easy for the processor because the main image has already been rendered, it just needs to be offset for the 3D effect, it doesn't have to be fully rendered again which is what the processor finds taxing. You don't need 60fps per eye for 3D anymore than we need it now, it's just nice to have and once you achieve 60fps, the leap to 120fps isn't hard on the processor either because the image is already rendered, it just needs to be shifted slightly.

The Lazy One3195d ago

For each eye it's not as bad because you can do all your sorting and stuff beforehand, but when you switch forward a frame in time in the game almost everything needs to be recalculated regardless of frame rate.

There are other things that only have to happen 10 times a second or every second, but most of it still has to happen all the time.

You're right about the shift from left to right eye though.

Anon19743195d ago

I don't know if it's right or not but he said once the render is what takes all the processor power. Once that's done to do a calculation to display in 3D and redraw that image isn't processor intensive at all.

I wish I remember who that was. It was cool to read a developers take on how the 3D would work.

The Lazy One3195d ago (Edited 3195d ago )

it's not at all CPU intensive to draw a left and right image. It should be pretty similar on the GPU side.

Increasing from 60-120 fps in general (not 2X60fps) would still be a significant increase in workload.

edit: if you think about the process like a painter asked to make 2 identical paintings. The first one takes a while because you have to think about what all you want in there then paint it. The second one has just as much painting time, but less thinking time.

+ Show (25) more repliesLast reply 3195d ago
Crazybone1263196d ago

Didn't the Wii already get a 3D game back over the summer? I heard the game sucked, but the 3D did in fact work.

I think Microsoft should stop with the gimmicks before they become Nintendo #2.

AridSpider3196d ago

Oh I think they want to become Nintendo #2. Seems to be where all the money is at with little to no effort needed.

fr0sty3196d ago

3d has been around in gaming in some form or another since the NES. however, only now (as the article states) are we reaching a point where we can have real 3D without the colored glasses that ruin image quality by killing all of the color (that, and you see a bit of blur from what the other eye is supposed to see, which can cause a headache trying to focus on things). then shutter glasses came along and worked OK for a bit, but still gave you a headache because it was only 60fps. only now with the new tv's and ps3 will you be able to get full 120fps HD 3D that won't give you a headache

DailyAddict3196d ago

Great article.

For those wondering, a big factor for why the 360 will be very limited on 3D if/when it ever supports it is the decision to go with HDMI 1.2 instead of 1.3 as found in the PS3. And no, 1.2 cannot be upgraded so you're stuck with it.

Then again, this will just sort of be one of those things that differentiates the consoles. On the PS3 side they will eventually start making a bigger push for 3D since that will be their obvious advantage over MS, whereas MS will push Natal as that will more than likely be their advantage over PS3. For gamers of both consoles you get two different play experiences, which I think will be pretty cool.

fr0sty3196d ago (Edited 3196d ago )

agreed, although natal still has a LOT of proving to do with me before i'll buy it. it was laggy with the on board CPU, and now that is gone with the load being dumped on the 360's cpu. we'll see though. i'm going to hold my tongue and give it a fair shot, because there are certain games (namely sports) that will RULE with natal.

that said, imagine playing baseball with psmotion controller in 3d... the pitcher pitches, you see the ball fly out of the TV towards you, and actually hit it when you see it come within range of your body. too cool of a concept. i hope they actually pull it off.

and thanks for the article compliment. I spent a good bit of time doing my homework on that one!

GiantEnemyCrab3196d ago (Edited 3196d ago )

Good article fr0sty. Are you sure the HDMI on the 360 cannot be upgraded to v1.3 or v1.4? They are all using the same cable/pin outs so just wondering why v1.3 to v1.4 is some magic switch Sony can flip but MS can't.

I can't wait to see what games on the PS3 look like running at 120fps. Going to be something like Pong going on.. The system chokes already at doing just 60fps. The pipe dream is alive and everyones huffin!

EDIT: Oh, I just realized you don't even own a 360.. Nevermind.

JasonXE3196d ago

to answer your question, when the HDMI people created the HDMI 1.3 standard, they doubled the amount of bandwidth that the protocol supported. this allowed for resolutions above 1080p, and also the HDMI 1.3 "deep color" which increases the color bit depth to enable the display of more colors than our eyes can even see. this eliminated the color banding you see sometimes on HDTV's (although many newer tv's actually correct for that without 1.3, 1.3 still gives better color though).

1.2 was built for 1080p only, with no room for anything on top of that other than audio. 1.3a (which is in ps3 slim) added a chip that enabled DTS master HD audio output as well. however, lpcm 8 channel surround (supported by all PS3s) is just as good.

1.4 enabled even more features, like 3d, and 100mbps ethernet connections over HDMI. while PS3 can't take advantage of the ethernet, it can be upgraded to support HD because it has the leftover bandwidth that it's 1.3 connection isn't using to support 3D.

JasonXE3196d ago (Edited 3196d ago )

GAC, take off the fanboy goggles and see for yourself. sony has been demoing ps3 running at 120fps 3d for a little while now. CES last year was the first time, now again this year, and IIRC it was at another show this year as well and will also be at E3. trust me, it looks and runs fine. even GT5 prologue can run in 3d, and that is one of the more visually impressive games this generation. They even showed Wipeout HD, a native 1080p 60fps game, running in 3d (i'm willing to bet at 720p though, as sony has already come out and said it will target 720p for 3d games).

And PS3 only chokes on framerates when multiplatform devs do not want to spend the time and money needed to code for it properly. go find a game where ps3 was the lead development platform that has framerate issues...

reaferfore203196d ago

PS3 chokes at 60fps? Lol right, say that after you play a Resistance 2 match with 60 players and there's no framerate drop.

fullmetal2973196d ago

@reaferfore20
Resistance 1 and 2 are locked at 30 frames and run a native 720 resolution. And no, the number of players does not equate to the numbers frames if that was what you were implying.

Ju3195d ago

R2 runs 60fps (same as R&C, which was the generation between R1 & 2 and pushed the engine to 60fps after 30 in R1).

And 60 players add load for the netcode, which can result in performance hick-ups in that case.

reaferfore203195d ago

Thank you Ju. Everybody seems to forget that R2 is 60fps for some reason.

fullmetal2973194d ago (Edited 3194d ago )

That's not true. Ted Price, the lead designer and one of the writers, the clearly stated that Resistance 2 is running 30 frames at 720 resolution in a live Q&A. The source link to the article is below for reference. Just type "framerate" in your browser's find feature to skip the rest.

http://www.eurogamer.net/ar...

+ Show (6) more repliesLast reply 3194d ago
Ninji3196d ago

If anything it will be that old anaglyph red & blue style of 3D which is just as outdated as the console itself.

4point7BillionLoss3195d ago

by by ninjpoo ... did you get your teeth whitened yet?

xaviertooth3195d ago

yeah its alwayz with the 360

RRoD!

ooooppss, was that 3D? i thought RRoD.

Bloodshoteyz3195d ago

All i managed to read in the article is blah, blah, blah.....I'm so jealous of the PS3 and all its great advancements over the 360..LOL

3196d ago Replies(3)