Thanks for posting. Found this nice looking Sony 3D site on GAF:
http://www.sonystyle.ca/3D/?gclid=CLyWtcvu458CFRwUawodBCDyHQ
It has a huge problem: Doesn't work on Mac. Haven't tried it on Windows yet.
3D Gaming*
- Thread starter Arwin
- Start date
Thanks for posting. Found this nice looking Sony 3D site on GAF:
http://www.sonystyle.ca/3D/?gclid=CLyWtcvu458CFRwUawodBCDyHQ
It has a huge problem: Doesn't work on Mac. Haven't tried it on Windows yet.
jeff_rigby
Banned
I stand corrected. It is possible to do graphics with AA turned off and to use main system ram (tiling) but then you take hits with GPU efficiency and functions. The picture has jagged lines for objects not aligned horiz or vert. Resolution looks low too compared to my memory of a PS3 1080P picture. I'd have to compare side by side to be sure.
The XBOX at 720P easily produces a superior picture due to the 10 Meg ram in the GPU and AA. The PS3 takes a hit in efficiency due to it's using the slower gddr3 memory but can make up for that with the added performance the cell provides for graphics processing provided the developer takes the time.
With 3-D the slower speed of the HDMI 1.2 port as well as the lowering of GPU efficiency when moving video out of the GPU compounded by having to produce two images would make full res 720P 3-D very difficult for the Xbox. The PS3 does not have any decrease in efficiency when displaying 3-D beyond having to produce the second image.
As stated, half res 720P 3-D is possible for the Xbox and again, it should be equal or better than the PS3 at lower res 3-D unless the developer speeds the time to properly use the cell. I still think from everything I have read that the Xbox can not do 1080P 3-D as well as full res 720P 3-D.
This is incorrect information. Xbox can render games at 1080p at full 60 fps by utilizing tiling (or without tiling if you do not need depth buffer - when you combine two half 1080p images to one 1080p image for example). Half 1080p (960x1080) is more than 720p (1280x720). The EDRAM is just for the backbuffer, it's not for the front buffer (the front buffer can be bigger). This point pretty much ruins all the other points you made in your post.
And for the 1080p at 60 fps bandwidth limitation claims. They are incorrect as well. Most gamers put their Xbox 360 scaler to output at 1080p to reduce lag (TV scalers add some lag). All the 60 fps vsynched games I have tried so far output at steady 60 fps pace tough HDMI at scaled 1080p. According to our Trials HD analysis (a 60 fps vsynch locked Xbox 360 game made by us), the 1080p scaled Xbox 360 output is also 60 fps (fully vsynch locked like the 720p unscaled).
Last edited by a moderator:
The original point was to understand if HDMI 1.2 can be used for 3D gaming. We had similar doubt/confusion whether HDMI 1.3 has sufficient bandwidth to support 3D Blu-ray earlier on.
grandmaster's article brought up a possible HANA limitation. Then again, it should not be a bottleneck since the game may choose other lesser output.
All these seem to imply that we cannot autoscale the 3D output anymore since the left and right images have to be "pixel matched" ? We would have to rely on the 3DTV to understand how the frames are stored and scale them appropriately. Am I right ?
grandmaster's article brought up a possible HANA limitation. Then again, it should not be a bottleneck since the game may choose other lesser output.
All these seem to imply that we cannot autoscale the 3D output anymore since the left and right images have to be "pixel matched" ? We would have to rely on the 3DTV to understand how the frames are stored and scale them appropriately. Am I right ?
Depends on the 3d-mode. Side-by-side modes (both full and half) can be scaled without problems.
grandmaster
Veteran
My point about HANA seems to have been misconstrued. It is capable of 1920x1080 but it seems that one flavour of PS3 3D is effectively 1280x1440. I speculated that the obvious omission of 1920x1200 on 360 (when many other 16:10 resolutions are supported) might suggest a limitation in vertical frequency.
The point is moot however because as sebbbi has said, 1920x1080 could be repurposed in 960x1080 or 1920x540 per eye. Both of these exceed 720p resolution, though obviously you would then have rectangular pixels.
Being that Stardust is using native 720p per eye, obviously there is some scaling going on there.
grandmaster
Veteran
As Stardust is native 720p per eye and the Sony screens are 1080p native, it's surely self-evident where the scaling is happening. Which might explain the really poor lag I had playing it.
Scaling is going to have to be done on the TV, as the output from the consoles is more-often-than-not going to be a non-native resolution thanks to the supported partial-frame 3d formats. Unless you're rendering dual 720p fields (what are we going to call each eye frame BTW? Are they two fields, one per eye, commandeering the term now that displays are done with scanline-field rendering?) to a 720p display. Otherwise, on a 1080p set, each 720p field will need to be upscaled to 1080p. The 3D formats don't support 2x1080p images a frame as I understand it, such that upscaling to 1080p could be performed on the consoles.
ShadowRunner
Veteran
Yep HDMI 1.4 supports 3840×2160p at 30Hz or 4096×2160p at 24Hz as a maximum. Though 3840×2160p at 30Hz would be enough for 30fps games in theory HDMI 1.4 only specifies that displays support the frame packing 3D formats at either 720p60/50 or 1080p24. If you want a game with no scaling on a 1080p set its going to have to run at 24fps!
Last edited by a moderator:
grandmaster
Veteran
Yikes, no 1080p60?
frame packing 720p60 and 1080p/24 is the mandatory 3D format for 1.4 device (it's the minimum support for a 3D 1.4 device, like actual mandatory 2D format is 720p and 1080i not 1080p) but HDMI 1.4 support frame packing in full 1080p 60hz (120 images/s), side by side 3840x1080 60hz and others...
Last edited by a moderator:
Thats so game unfriendly. So essentially that makes the so called HDMI 1.4 TVs not very useful for a computer game display if I want to push 60 FPS per eye @ 1080P? Or even 30FPS per eye @ 1080P?
It feels like a bit of a cop/out. Its like they want an excuse to sell us the HDMI 1.5 sets because they 'add' a feature they ought to have had with HDMI 1.4!
It feels like a bit of a cop/out. Its like they want an excuse to sell us the HDMI 1.5 sets because they 'add' a feature they ought to have had with HDMI 1.4!
Thats the way of the market, just look at the Wii...
Thats so game unfriendly. So essentially that makes the so called HDMI 1.4 TVs not very useful for a computer game display if I want to push 60 FPS per eye @ 1080P? Or even 30FPS per eye @ 1080P?
It feels like a bit of a cop/out. Its like they want an excuse to sell us the HDMI 1.5 sets because they 'add' a feature they ought to have had with HDMI 1.4!
no, 1.4 is enough
Quaz51, ShadowRunner's numbers (e.g., 1080p 24fps for 3D video) are for a 48-bit color or 24-bit color space ?
Some new 3D devices announced as recently as today:
Panasonic 3D Blu-ray player: http://www.engadget.com/2010/02/09/panasonic-announces-new-3d-blu-ray-recorders-players/
(April 23rd, price unknown)
Sony 3D Blu-ray player: http://www.engadget.com/2010/02/10/sonys-200-bdp-s470-is-companys-first-3d-ready-blu-ray-player/
(As early as Feb, firmware upgradable to 3D; low end is only $200)
Premium 3D glasses: http://www.engadget.com/2010/01/07/gunnar-optiks-swank-and-stylish-3d-specs-get-the-hands-on-treat/
(Q2 2010 @ $90 for not looking like a spaceman at home. Hopefully demand will drive down the price like BR player last year !)
EDIT:
Vizio 3DTV: http://www.engadget.com/2010/01/05/vizios-2010-xvt-lcds-go-up-to-72-inches-with-3d-led-wifi-and-wi/
(Starting at $2K)
Panasonic 3D Plasma TV: http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php?p=1392480
Some new 3D devices announced as recently as today:
Panasonic 3D Blu-ray player: http://www.engadget.com/2010/02/09/panasonic-announces-new-3d-blu-ray-recorders-players/
(April 23rd, price unknown)
Sony 3D Blu-ray player: http://www.engadget.com/2010/02/10/sonys-200-bdp-s470-is-companys-first-3d-ready-blu-ray-player/
(As early as Feb, firmware upgradable to 3D; low end is only $200)
Premium 3D glasses: http://www.engadget.com/2010/01/07/gunnar-optiks-swank-and-stylish-3d-specs-get-the-hands-on-treat/
(Q2 2010 @ $90 for not looking like a spaceman at home. Hopefully demand will drive down the price like BR player last year !)
EDIT:
Vizio 3DTV: http://www.engadget.com/2010/01/05/vizios-2010-xvt-lcds-go-up-to-72-inches-with-3d-led-wifi-and-wi/
(Starting at $2K)
Panasonic 3D Plasma TV: http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php?p=1392480
Deep color modes can probably be enable as long as the combination with the video format not exceed the max TMDS clock (not possible with 4k or 3D 1080p 60fps but possible with 3D 1080p 24fps or 3D 720p 60fps)
ShadowRunner
Veteran
Sorry, i was doubling up virtically and horizontally rather than just virticaly lol, i calculated 2x 1080p frames as 3840×2160p rather than 1920×2160p. HDMI 1.4 should be able to handle 1920×2160p at 60hz. Though 2x1080p/60 support isnt a required for HDMI 1.4 certification still so is not guaranteed to work on every set (probably will be supported on most though), unlike 2x720p/60 or 2x1080/24 which is mandatory. Additional top/bottom formats to be added in version 1.4a apparently.
I am basing this on info from wiki:
I am basing this on info from wiki:
Last edited by a moderator:
there are no true Top/Bottom 1080p 3D format in 1.4.
"Frame packing" look like a Top/Bottom format but it's a 1920x2205 format with empty pixel zone in the middle for keep the synchro between data rate and display (in page flipping) like a true 120hz mode
or you can simply use side by side mode (3840x1080)
Last edited by a moderator:
