Advertised? Dunno, but posted a list of TVs which are 3D ready before :
http://www.3dmovielist.com/3dhdtvs.html
http://www.3dmovielist.com/3dhdtvs.html
3D Gaming*
- Thread starter Arwin
- Start date
Got it. I'm curious to know how that works. Do you render the left/right images individually, or do you render a single 720p image and then create left or right image from that? Neither of these consoles have the resources to render a 1440p image .... Well, I guess it isn't 16:9. It would be 1280x1440.
oopsNo, all the stereo encoding modes I listed include image data for both eyes in each frame. The stereo 3d does not halve the frame rate. The television set decodes the stereo images, and produces two images for each frame (one for each eye).
In the interleaved mode, the even scanlines contain the left eye pixels, and odd scanlines contain the right eye pixels. This encoding halves the vertical resolution of the image. In the side by side mode, the image is split in two half resolution (left and right eye) images. This encoding halves the horizontal resolution of the image. In the checkerboard mode, each other pixel belongs to left and right eye (starting eye alternating on each scanline, making a raster checkerboard pattern). This mode halves the total (x*y) resolution, but the image can be reconstructed to full resolution pretty well (inside the TV set).
None of these 3d modes require any vsynch or a specific frame rate. The game can render at any frame rate, as every image produced includes both eyes. There is no tight synchronization required, as the TV has always image data available for both eyes (it shows the correct eye part of the stereo encoded frame at 120 hz usually).
HDMI 1.3 should be more than enough for current generation games as 1920x1080p at 60 frames is supported. Side by side encoding to this resolution means 960x1080 resolution for both eyes (at fluid 60 fps). This is slightly more pixels than 1280x720x2 and scales better to Full HD TVs than 720p, as only horizontal scaling is required. Similarly 1920x1080 in interleaved stereo encoding is 1920x540 for both eyes, and has also slightly more resolution than 720px2 and better scaling to Full HD. So we can have better resolution than 720p x 2 in stereo at 60 fps already. HDMI 1.3 is not the limiting factor here.
Yeah, bad wording on my part. I was thinking of the communication link which has capacity for higher resolutions. The standard looks pretty flexible, the Ehternet part seems to be optional.
OK, then it´s something more than what the HDMI 1.3 protocol contain, judging from some HDMI 1.3 googling, more like something running ontop of HDMI 1.3. Does it have a name?
Every stereo 3d encoding has it's own brand name, such as Sensio, RealD, 3d DLP, iz3D, etc. All these encodings pack both eyes to the same frame, and are completely transparent to the console hardware and the transport. HDMI is not even required for all the encodings, but it seems that most HDTVs/projectors supporting a stereo 3d encoding only support it from a source connected to their first HDMI input. The TV/projector unpacks the encoded frame if its 3d mode is set active, and shows left eye pixels to left eye and right eye pixels to right eye (by using either polarized glasses and odd/even scanline polarization or 120hz/240hz/480hz internal image refresh and shutter glasses).
For all 3d HDTV sets, the television set provides the shutter signal for the glasses. The console or the data transport (HDMI, etc) does not need to be aware of the 3d rendering or support any additional hardware. Only the game needs to support the stereo rendering itself. By encoding both eye pixels to one frame, no changes to image source hardware and data transport are needed. 120hz image output from console would need additional flag included to each image telling the television set to which eye the image belongs to. This would require additional graphics API support, and transport support too (flags along the image data need to be sent).
Native 120hz "3d" monitors connected to your PC take full 120hz image (using dual link DVI), and the graphics card manages the shutter synchronization instead of the monitor. This kind of synchronization is not possible on current consoles, as the console itself would need to give the glasses the synchronization signal (infrared emitter in front of console for example), and the latency of all TV sets and projectors are different. The console would have to be aware of the TV/projector latency in order to synchronize the glasses properly.
HDMI 1.4 is supposed to have support to 120hz 3d full resolution image transport. However the specs open to public do not specify how the left/right images are marked. The easiest way would be just to use side by side encoding and send a double width image of each stereoscopic frame (left part if left eye, right part is right eye). Hopefully HDMI 1.4 will mark an end to the proprietary stereo encoding 3d formats, and we game programmers can support a single encoding in the future. At the end of the year 2010 we will start to see how this new standard was received, as majority of the big players are entering the stereoscopic 3d market this year.
Last edited by a moderator:
60 Hz per eye though (just like all the currently available sequential solutions, at best, the plasmas are probably only 30 Hz per eye).
Very informative, thanks for taking the time!
The information of Sony licensing various 3D technologies that was spread some year ago makes sense in the context you provide.
Looks like we have an exciting year ahead of us, the consoles will evolve in many ways this year. Next gen feels far away.
(except Wii HD),
grandmaster
Veteran
Looks like a good 6,000 word interview with the PS3 3D guys so far. And I've not yet transcribed the actual gameplay session yet.
In all though, a fascinating day up at Evolution Studios yesterday.
Super Stardust was magnificent, GT5 was beautiful and I was really happy with the quality of Little Big Planet (which I'm not sure has been seen before) - a pleasant surprise and an example of how stereo 3D can really help the game.
I had no issues whatsoever with the 3D glasses by the way, even though I was wearing my own specs too... however, the Sony team only had pre-production kit so while the glasses I used worked on the same principle as the release model, it was impossible to gauge stuff like weight etc. Although no complaints even on the pre-production kit.
In all though, a fascinating day up at Evolution Studios yesterday.
Super Stardust was magnificent, GT5 was beautiful and I was really happy with the quality of Little Big Planet (which I'm not sure has been seen before) - a pleasant surprise and an example of how stereo 3D can really help the game.
I had no issues whatsoever with the 3D glasses by the way, even though I was wearing my own specs too... however, the Sony team only had pre-production kit so while the glasses I used worked on the same principle as the release model, it was impossible to gauge stuff like weight etc. Although no complaints even on the pre-production kit.
Viewsonic has been making 3D monitors for years. I'm not sure which formats they support.
ShadowRunner
Veteran
Did you get a look at Motorstorm in 3d? Reason i ask is that its a 30fps game that is already taxing the hardware, would be interesting to know what sacrifices needed to be made in that case. How did GT5 fare? Was it still 60fps, and if so what sorts of changes to the graphics were there?
Well, I know it works with Nvidia. I'm just not clear if it will work with PS3, or whatever direction 360 goes, if it goes 3D.
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/littlebigplanet-joins-ps3-3d-line-up
grandmaster said:
Good news. I disliked the heavy Dolby glasses in the cinema.
