soniqstylz Posted January 21, 2010 Share Posted January 21, 2010 http://xboxevolved.e-mpire.com/article/No_Title/5988.html 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. First of all, we'll get to the fact that yes, there are 3D games on Xbox 360. That said, these games suffer from one big drawback. In order to create the 3D effect, it renders 2 sub-HD images which your eyes then combine into one 3D image. It cannot do full HD in 3D. In addition, the Xbox 360 only outputs video at a maximum of 60 frames per second, so only getting 30 frames per eye per second can lead to a headache after a while. I noticed this when trying 3D for the first time at E3 2006, and many reviewers who have tried Invincible Tiger at this year's E3 agree. I personally only got about 4-5 minutes to play Invincible Tiger, so I didn't have time for any headache to set in. That said, the lack of resolution was definitely noticable. So what does it take to get real 3D that does not give you a headache? Well, having tried LCD shutter glasses running at frame rates above 60fps, I'm pretty well convinced that we have finally figured out a way to produce full color, HD, 3D images in the home that won't make your eyes bleed. In order to create this, you must be outputting your video at no less than 120fps. Being that HDMI 1.2 (which is found in Xbox 360) tops out at 1920?1200p at 60fps, the Xbox 360 finds itself very limited as to how fast it can send frames to the TV. Then you also have framebuffer issues. The Xbox 360 uses EDRAM as it's frame buffer, which it has 10Mb's of. A single 1080p frame occupies about 16mb's of space for both the front and back buffers, which requires some trickery just to get 360 to output in native 1080p at all. Even then, it's limited as to what it can do at that 1080p resolution. This is likely the reason we've seen more native 1080p games on the PS3. For those of you wondering, PS3 uses it's main video RAM as it's framebuffer, giving it 256mb's to work with. This presents disadvantages vs. EDRAM (the slower RAM speed makes effects like anti-aliasing much more costly from a performance point of view), but as you can see, also allows advantages like 3D and easier native 1080p. How does the framebuffer effect 3D? Well, even at 720p with no anti-aliasing at all, you need at least 7mb of data to store one 720p frame. When you're only working with 10mb's for your frame buffer, you can see how difficult it can be to try to cram 2 720p frames (14mb) into a 10mb framebuffer to be processed in the exact same amount of time. It's like cramming the circular block into the square hole... don't even bother. So, without even taking into account that Xbox 360's HDMI 1.2 port just doesn't have the bandwidth, nor is it compatible with the new 3D TV's coming this summer, we can see that native 120fps 3D simply is not going to happen on Xbox 360. Not over HDMI 1.4 (the connection required for 3D on these new 3DTV's, and which PS3's HDMI 1.3 can be upgraded to with a firmware update), and not in HD even if hooked up to a specialized display over say, a VGA connection due to framebuffer bottlenecks. OH NOEZ! 360 is teh doom3d!!!1! Not exactly. While you won't be getting the 100% native HD 3D picture that the PS3 will offer, there are a number of 3D TV's out there which will upscale ANY game connected over ANY HDMI cable/port to 3D. While this only really works on certain games, most notably racing games which feature a fixed center character/object (the car) on a 3D plane that doesn't move much (the horizon), when used with those types of games, many who have tried it report that the 3D effect works well. The effect is essentially the 3D version of DVD upscaling. Just like with upscaling, you won't get Blu-Ray quality (or in this case, cinema 3D quality), but it definitely adds a sense of depth to the games it works best with. Also, you have the motionflow TV's that upscale frame rates. This tech could be applied to a 60fps 3D image coming from the 360 (30fps per eye), and then upscaled to a frame rate that won't induce headaches. Again, not the real deal, but for many, close enough. Considering it came out a full year ahead of the PS3, it's a wonder that it has pretty much been able to come close to the PS3's available features the entire time, with the omission of Blu-Ray (though they did do HD-DVD). While few will disagree that PS3 has more raw power, the Xbox 360 has done a very good job of adapting itself to keeping up with, and in the case of online, exceeding the PS3. That said, we finally just now, 3 years into PS3's lifespan, are seeing features that the 360 simply cannot match. But in the end, it isn't all bad. 360 does have some 3D support, so you 360 only owners out there won't be left out in the cold when these 3DTV's start coming. 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. I doubt the XBox 360 will do anything much with 3D, since obviously 1st-gen component 360's won't be able to do it at all, no? Might also be why Gears 2 looked kinda weak in 3D, but Natal games in 3D might have some innovation, if done specifically to support it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HSoft Posted January 21, 2010 Share Posted January 21, 2010 the Xbox 360 only outputs video at a maximum of 60 frames per second, so only getting 30 frames per eye per second can lead to a headache after a while Not too sure about the above statement, especially considering blu ray is only 24 fps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anarkhy Posted January 21, 2010 Share Posted January 21, 2010 Just wait for xbox 720 and ps4. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Audioboxer Subscriber² Posted January 21, 2010 Subscriber² Share Posted January 21, 2010 Not too sure about the above statement, especially considering blu ray is only 24 fps. That's to do with how movies are shot.... :blink: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Decryptor Veteran Posted January 21, 2010 Veteran Share Posted January 21, 2010 Not too sure about the above statement, especially considering blu ray is only 24 fps. Movies and such have blurring "between" the frames, so it looks more fluid. Of course, I still don't see how you can get a headache from slowly updating pictures, I've played games for hours at around 10fps and the only physical effect I have, is getting annoyed that the game feels laggy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Mystic MVC Posted January 21, 2010 MVC Share Posted January 21, 2010 By the time 3D finally hits the mainstream I expect we can maybe see it in the next generation of consoles. Great for those PS3 owners now who want to be early adopters (more bonus to them) but I can't expect a lot of 3D content. I think I'll be able to survive with just HD for this generation anyway since most gamers still are playing in SD! :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SMELTN Posted January 21, 2010 Share Posted January 21, 2010 You know I don't forsee the 360 focusing on it, heck they wouldn't even add a blue ray player for the xbox as we hoped. Microsoft is a smart company and will wait to see if the hype with 3D stays around. If it does then I think they will add it with the next xbox. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argote Posted January 21, 2010 Share Posted January 21, 2010 I still think 3D is a worthless gimmick, besides, I don't think the PS3 has the power to actually render 120 fullHD images per second since it is only marginally more powerful than the 360. Sure, you can select that option, but the framerate would crawl. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XerXis Posted January 21, 2010 Share Posted January 21, 2010 Not too sure about the above statement, especially considering blu ray is only 24 fps. yeah right, 24fps would make your head burst after half an hour. There is a big difference between how stills per second and frames per second. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George P Global Moderator Posted January 21, 2010 Global Moderator Share Posted January 21, 2010 The fact any 3D tV can take the imput and upscale it to match what it needs to makes this whole topic pretty meaningless. That said, 3D is, at this point, a new gimick. The vast majority of people don't care about it and won't go spend YET AGAIN for a new TV just to get 3D. When adaption rates for 3D TV's stay niche, then the fact the 360 can't give you full HD 3D on it's own means nothing. Devs won't use it, well, ofc Sony's 1st party games will probably push it like crazy so they can drag along new TV sales in the process, but that's another subject. I don't see the larger 3rd party game devs jumping head first into this 3D bit like they did with the normal move to higher res and photorealistic textures etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AbandonedTrolley Posted January 21, 2010 Share Posted January 21, 2010 I agree that I can't really see 3D games becoming mainstream anytime soon, but it does make a few of those comments about the graphics card in the PS3 and the way it handles the RAM being a bottleneck for performance seem a little misguided lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AgentGray Posted January 21, 2010 Share Posted January 21, 2010 aren't the same people who whined about motion control being a useless addition to immersion the same ones who talk about how awesome it's going to be to wear goggles for 10-20 hours while playing a game? WHOOO! never mind the fact that 3d is still and likely will always be a fad as long as it requires additional hardware... the fact is if there's an option to turn it off, and you're gaming seriously, you will because it doubles the frame rate you perceive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bob_c_b Posted January 21, 2010 Share Posted January 21, 2010 Gimmick, won't catch on as long as you need those lame glasses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Audioboxer Subscriber² Posted January 21, 2010 Subscriber² Share Posted January 21, 2010 Gimmick, won't catch on as long as you need those lame glasses. As lame as standing about in a room waggling a remote or standing on a plastic board preteding your skiiing down a hill? When you're immersed in something you're enjoying in your own privacy most people don't really care what they look like. I couldn't give a **** what I look like sitting on my couch in my bedroom if something is cool or makes my experience more enjoyable, all my issue with is the pricing of the glasses themselves. As for the TV, my TV is going to be going to another room in the house late this year or early next, whilst I get paid partial for it and I pay the rest towards an upgraded TV so I'll have 3D support fine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hedon Posted January 21, 2010 Share Posted January 21, 2010 That is some interesting speculation in the article. I think we will wait to hear from MS on this. They have stated they can do 3D with their box. so I will await their details. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TAZMINATOR Posted January 21, 2010 Share Posted January 21, 2010 Just wait for xbox 720 and ps4. It would be funny if Microsoft named their xbox systems with "Xbox 420" The Evil Overlord 1 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spenser.d Posted January 21, 2010 Share Posted January 21, 2010 I doubt Microsoft is too worried about it this generation. It'll be a few years before 3D is mainstream anyways, if it catches on significantly at all. -Spenser Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Mystic MVC Posted January 21, 2010 MVC Share Posted January 21, 2010 As lame as standing about in a room waggling a remote or standing on a plastic board preteding your skiiing down a hill? When you're immersed in something you're enjoying in your own privacy most people don't really care what they look like.I couldn't give a **** what I look like sitting on my couch in my bedroom if something is cool or makes my experience more enjoyable, all my issue with is the pricing of the glasses themselves. As for the TV, my TV is going to be going to another room in the house late this year or early next, whilst I get paid partial for it and I pay the rest towards an upgraded TV so I'll have 3D support fine. Audio I would really wait on that TV purchase until a year or two at minimum. Yes it is fun to be an early adopter but with such a change in the technology (a whole other D :p) its best to let it mature and make sure it will last. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tharp Daddy Posted January 22, 2010 Share Posted January 22, 2010 I don't care if the 360 can support 3d, as i would almost never use it. 3D movies get annoying after a few hours, i imagine games would do the same. It's a gimick IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carmatic Posted January 22, 2010 Share Posted January 22, 2010 the '3d upscaling' method sounds like a last resort... why cant televisions interpolate between the 30fps video for each eye and make a smooth 60hz video out of them? you'd have 1/30th of a second for lag, but its still better than a headache.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DigitalE Posted January 22, 2010 Share Posted January 22, 2010 I'm in the camp that doesn't really give a rip about 3D games at this point in time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waylander Posted January 22, 2010 Share Posted January 22, 2010 i seriously doubt the ps3 can do 3d in the same way that new tv/bluray players will, you cant magically make a hdmi 1.3 port 1.4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brandon Live Veteran Posted January 22, 2010 Veteran Share Posted January 22, 2010 Not a super helpful article. The author's calculations around frame buffer usage are incorrect. The EDRAM is for the backbuffer only and can be used in a tile-rendering mode. It isn't the limitation he's made it out to be. The 360 is more likely to achieve a steady 60FPS (30 per eye) than the PS3 is, given the bandwidth constraints on the PS3. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carmatic Posted January 22, 2010 Share Posted January 22, 2010 Not a super helpful article. The author's calculations around frame buffer usage are incorrect. The EDRAM is for the backbuffer only and can be used in a tile-rendering mode. It isn't the limitation he's made it out to be. The 360 is more likely to achieve a steady 60FPS (30 per eye) than the PS3 is, given the bandwidth constraints on the PS3. i thought the article was about the PS3 being able to output 120hz, not 120fps? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brandon Live Veteran Posted January 22, 2010 Veteran Share Posted January 22, 2010 i thought the article was about the PS3 being able to output 120hz, not 120fps? How is that helpful if you can't render faster than 60FPS? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts