Please get it into your heads, the PS3 is NOT the only console capable of 3D

[QUOTE="Heirren"]

[QUOTE="HuusAsking"]The reason is the rendering resolution. WARNING TO ALL COWS. If you expect the PS3 to be able to pump out graphics of the expected level of Gran Turismo 5 at 1920x1080@120Hz (for the shutter glasses), fuhgedaboutit! Most of the sources and articles, especially those recently out of E3, say the 3D mode of most PS3 games have to make significant compromises to pull off the effect. This usually means downgrading to (gasp!) sub-HD resolutions.HuusAsking

Yeah, I wasn't being very serious. I'm aware that the visuals will take a hit. I'm still curious how the xbox will handle 3D with the limited space of dvd, considering the Playstation 3D games will contain 2 versions of the same game on one blu ray.

But I thought it was more complex than that, no? I remember reading that geometry and texture detail is dropped, or that there were rather drastic changes that required two versions of the game.

Everybody round these parts knows that the PC and the 3DS both are also capable of stereoscopic 3D. However, most people here seem to mistakenly believe that the PS3 is the first and only console capable of 3D gaming.

Understand this: this is wrong.
The PS3 is not the first games console to do 3D, nor is it the only one.

The first game console that could display stereoscopic 3D was the NES, with several Square published games that could display stereoscopic 3D.

Games such as Rad Racer and 3-D World Runner, both on the NES, were stereoscopic 3D.

Last generation, the Gamecube was fully 3D compatible. However, it never had a 3D game release, so the 3D compatibility was never exploited.

This generation, all three home consoles are 3D compatible. The Wii retains the Gamecube's 3D compatibility, the Xbox 360 is stereoscopic 3D compatible. It's already gotten the first stereoscopic 3D console game this generation, James Cameron's Avatar, and it's getting another one: Saint's Row Drive By. Finally, the PS3 is, as everybody knows, 3D compatible.

Hopefully, this knowledge shall stop PS3 fanboys from insinuating that the PS3 is the first console that can do 3D, or the only one, and that the future of gaming, in the form of 3D, can only be enjoyed on the PS3, because all of that is utter bullcrap. All three home consoles are 3D compatible, and the only reason we hear so much about the PS3's 3D compatibility is because Sony is giving 3D gaming a huge push, if only to sell their 3DTV's.

charizard1605

Hyping console 3-D now is like hyping HD last generation-The-G-Man-

[QUOTE="-The-G-Man-"]Hyping console 3-D now is like hyping HD last generationcharizard1605

[QUOTE="charizard1605"][QUOTE="-The-G-Man-"]Hyping console 3-D now is like hyping HD last generationTintedEyes

[QUOTE="-The-G-Man-"]Hyping console 3-D now is like hyping HD last generationcharizard1605

The added cost of, say, lenticular glasses-free displays or circularly polarized TVs, is significant and offer little advantage over other TVs when in 2D mode. On the other hand active shutter 3D compatability can be integrated into a normal TV at little cost. I personally find it hard to imagine the supposedly superior 3D solutions ("glasses free 3D!!!") will ever be as inexpensive as 2D televisions.

As far as I can see, there is simply no reason why all TVs in the future should not be 120Hz, 3D ready displays...

You forgot Sega's contribution:

The above are in fact 3D shutter glasses for the Master System. I'm not entirely sure when this accessory itself was first available, but I do know of compatible games being released during the same year as those NES titles.

I whole heartedly agree with you TC. Too bad that I only prefer the 3DS's stereoscopic 3D since it eliminates my arch nemesis: 3D glasses.

Zanoh

The 3DS is the only one that matters. Unless the price sucks.

[QUOTE="TintedEyes"][QUOTE="charizard1605"] Except for the fact that HD ALWAYS stood a chance. 3D stands no chance in hell. There's too many impediments- price, 3D glasses, the fact that many can't even see 3D, lack of 3D content...charizard1605

There are standards. All games will eventually be sent using a standardized format (frame packing), over a standardized connection (HDMI 1.4+). The only incompatability that remains is between the syncronization of glasses and the TV. Once standardized IR signal protocols are developed, it will be a big step forward...

Naturally, 3D content will increase over time. The number of 3D movies constantly increases, as will the number of 3D games. I don't see how enjoyment of 3D content is directly linked to the number of 3D glasses you own; your own enjoyment requires only one pair of glasses. The expense of new glasses will someday be little more than the cost of adding new controllers for your favorite gaming system...

[QUOTE="Zanoh"]

I whole heartedly agree with you TC. Too bad that I only prefer the 3DS's stereoscopic 3D since it eliminates my arch nemesis: 3D glasses.

windsquid9000

Nintendo isn't the only one to use this technology. Several autostereographic cell phones and laptops are have been available in the Asian markets for some time now.

[QUOTE="charizard1605"][QUOTE="-The-G-Man-"]Hyping console 3-D now is like hyping HD last generationSakusEnvoy

The added cost of, say, lenticular glasses-free displays or circularly polarized TVs, is significant and offer little advantage over other TVs when in 2D mode. On the other hand active shutter 3D compatability can be integrated into a normal TV at little cost. I personally find it hard to imagine the supposedly superior 3D solutions ("glasses free 3D!!!") will ever be as inexpensive as 2D televisions.

As far as I can see, there is simply no reason why all TVs in the future should not be 120Hz, 3D ready displays...

[QUOTE="charizard1605"][QUOTE="TintedEyes"] please, just like there was lack of HD content, the price of HD was too high etc and it still took off.SakusEnvoy

There are standards. All games will eventually be sent using a standardized format (frame packing), over a standardized connection (HDMI 1.4+). The only incompatability that remains is between the syncronization of glasses and the TV. Once standardized IR signal protocols are developed, it will be a big step forward...

Naturally, 3D content will increase over time. The number of 3D movies constantly increases, as will the number of 3D games. I don't see how enjoyment of 3D content is directly linked to the number of 3D glasses you own; your own enjoyment requires only one pair of glasses. The expense of new glasses will someday be little more than the cost of adding new controllers for your favorite gaming system...

I whole heartedly agree with you TC. Too bad that I only prefer the 3DS's stereoscopic 3D since it eliminates my arch nemesis: 3D glasses.

[QUOTE="SakusEnvoy"]

[QUOTE="charizard1605"] How would you justify spending in excess of $100 for a pair of 3D glasses, which, incidentally, are not even cross manufacturer compatible? How would you justify the current fragmentation of the market and the absolute lack of standards? How do you justify the fact that the enjoyment of 3D content is directly linked by the number of 3D glasses you own? That if there are more people than 3D glasses, you're out of luck?charizard1605

There are standards. All games will eventually be sent using a standardized format (frame packing), over a standardized connection (HDMI 1.4+). The only incompatability that remains is between the syncronization of glasses and the TV. Once standardized IR signal protocols are developed, it will be a big step forward...

Naturally, 3D content will increase over time. The number of 3D movies constantly increases, as will the number of 3D games. I don't see how enjoyment of 3D content is directly linked to the number of 3D glasses you own; your own enjoyment requires only one pair of glasses. The expense of new glasses will someday be little more than the cost of adding new controllers for your favorite gaming system...

I agree it will be slow burn, but I think eventually... maybe by 2017 or so most movie enthusiasts and hardcore gamers will probably own a 120Hz 3D Ready display, and by then 60Hz monitors will of course be discontinued. The question people who own these displays will ask themselves is, "do I want to get a pair of 3D glasses?", and I think the answer will be yes. Because the initial $100 will be a small investment to get the full use out of the display they bought. At the very least, to see what all the 3D fuss is about. By then there will be a lot of 3D content, and the 3DS -- even though it uses autostereoscopic technology -- is going to add to that excitement. People will play 3D games on the handhelds, and when they go back to their home consoles all their games will seem too flat. They'll yearn for 3D games on the consoles but the only cheap option will be the 120Hz displays.

So I think until we get glasses-free televisions that are capable of tracking multiple users from all viewing angles (and this is going to be a heckuva challenge, because right now lentiicular display makers are working their butts off just figuring out how to handle multiple viewing angles from one or two pairs of eyes), this active shutter solution is the best we've got. People will only go into 3D mode on 'special occasions'. When they buy a game that's specially made and best played in 3D, or they buy a movie that's just best watched in 3D. And as long as people own just a single pair of glasses, developers will be able to get that content into the living rooms. That's the first step.

But who knows, eh? The future's not ours to see... it will be interesting to watch.

the absolute lack of standards?charizard1605

3ds and pc arent consoles. So no your wrong ps3 is the only compatibly console

3ds and pc arent consoles. So no your wrong ps3 is the only compatibly console

Respawn-d

"Handheld" is shorthand for "Handheld console". Which is bit irrelevant because the Master System and Famicom both had 3D shutter glasses.

no.

and Sony invented videogames, FYI.

[QUOTE="Miroku32"]I don't see why is this important anyways, 3D televisions are quite expensive. I doubt that even the 5% of the population of SW have that kind of TV. delta3074

Yes but they are still very expensive. Nobody will buy into 3D until it becomes cheeper

3ds and pc arent consoles. So no your wrong ps3 is the only compatibly console

Respawn-d

[QUOTE="charizard1605"][QUOTE="-The-G-Man-"]Hyping console 3-D now is like hyping HD last generationTintedEyes

[QUOTE="charizard1605"]the absolute lack of standards?Teufelhuhn

no.

and Sony invented videogames, FYI.

HavocV3

sega used 3D before nintendo or any other console.sega game 1000.

this place is near vacant when it comes to gaming history.

sega used 3D before nintendo or any other console.sega game 1000.

this place is near vacant when it comes to gaming history.

xromad01

[QUOTE="charizard1605"]the absolute lack of standards?Teufelhuhn

The PS3 actually uses HDMI 1.3, and as a result, nobody really knows how they are getting the bandwidth for 3D gaming and movies.

The PS3 actually uses HDMI 1.3, and as a result, nobody really knows how they are getting the bandwidth for 3D gaming and movies.

donalbane

I read they're doing it through firmware update.

[QUOTE="TintedEyes"][QUOTE="charizard1605"] Except for the fact that HD ALWAYS stood a chance. 3D stands no chance in hell. There's too many impediments- price, 3D glasses, the fact that many can't even see 3D, lack of 3D content...HuusAsking

If we limited technological advancement to only what everyone could appreciate or utilize, we'd never get anywhere. There are people with no hands, so maybe games shouldn't exist since they can't play them.

Microsoft says that the 360 COULD do 3D, but because of the HDMI standards on the Xbox (1.2?) it doesn't have the bandwidth to handle 60 frames per second in 720p. I read an article on this once. Google it if you dare.donalbane

Well... let me clarify that a bit by saying, unfortunately, Category 1 certification only means that an HDMI cable is capable of displaying "at minimum" speeds of 75Mhz; or up to 2.25Gbps. If you buy a standard HDMI cable, your only guarantee is that it can display 720p/60, not 1080p/60. But HDMI 1.0-1.2 does support up to 4.95Gbps. So as long as you have a good HDMI cable, all is well for 720p/60 3D on the 360.

[QUOTE="HuusAsking"]

[QUOTE="TintedEyes"] please, just like there was lack of HD content, the price of HD was too high etc and it still took off.Pug-Nasty

If we limited technological advancement to only what everyone could appreciate or utilize, we'd never get anywhere. There are people with no hands, so maybe games shouldn't exist since they can't play them.

[QUOTE="donalbane"]

The PS3 actually uses HDMI 1.3, and as a result, nobody really knows how they are getting the bandwidth for 3D gaming and movies.

catfishmoon23

I read they're doing it through firmware update.

[QUOTE="catfishmoon23"]

[QUOTE="donalbane"]

The PS3 actually uses HDMI 1.3, and as a result, nobody really knows how they are getting the bandwidth for 3D gaming and movies.

HuusAsking

I read they're doing it through firmware update.

[QUOTE="donalbane"]

The PS3 actually uses HDMI 1.3, and as a result, nobody really knows how they are getting the bandwidth for 3D gaming and movies.

catfishmoon23

I read they're doing it through firmware update.

But how do you boost the HDMI bandwidth with a firmware update? Especially to a standard that wasn't exactly well-defined when the console first came out in 2006. It's almost like trying to to 802.11n with only one antenna (thus why many PS3s can't do N without a dongle--it's a hardware limitation).HuusAsking

I guess since it's sending a 1080i signal rather than 1.4's 1080p signal, the bandwith boost isn't needed. At least that's what the previous article and this article leads me to believe.

[QUOTE="catfishmoon23"]

[QUOTE="donalbane"]

The PS3 actually uses HDMI 1.3, and as a result, nobody really knows how they are getting the bandwidth for 3D gaming and movies.

donalbane

I read they're doing it through firmware update.

[QUOTE="HuusAsking"]But how do you boost the HDMI bandwidth with a firmware update? Especially to a standard that wasn't exactly well-defined when the console first came out in 2006. It's almost like trying to to 802.11n with only one antenna (thus why many PS3s can't do N without a dongle--it's a hardware limitation).catfishmoon23

I guess since it's sending a 1080i signal rather than 1.4's 1080p signal, the bandwith boost isn't needed. At least that's what the previous article and this article leads me to believe.

There's no bandwidth difference between 1.3 and 1.4...

[QUOTE="Zanoh"]

I whole heartedly agree with you TC. Too bad that I only prefer the 3DS's stereoscopic 3D since it eliminates my arch nemesis: 3D glasses.

charizard1605

[QUOTE="catfishmoon23"]

[QUOTE="HuusAsking"]But how do you boost the HDMI bandwidth with a firmware update? Especially to a standard that wasn't exactly well-defined when the console first came out in 2006. It's almost like trying to to 802.11n with only one antenna (thus why many PS3s can't do N without a dongle--it's a hardware limitation).SakusEnvoy

I guess since it's sending a 1080i signal rather than 1.4's 1080p signal, the bandwith boost isn't needed. At least that's what the previous article and this article leads me to believe.

There's no bandwidth difference between 1.3 and 1.4...

Yeah, that's what I read originally (that all the 3D support in 1.4 was mainly just 3D protocols, and that the PS3 just needed to be updated to support those protocols), but then read other articles that contradicted that information. Heck, even Sony themselves said that 1080p 3D was possible.

[QUOTE="donalbane"]Microsoft says that the 360 COULD do 3D, but because of the HDMI standards on the Xbox (1.2?) it doesn't have the bandwidth to handle 60 frames per second in 720p. I read an article on this once. Google it if you dare.SakusEnvoy

Well... let me clarify that a bit by saying, unfortunately, Category 1 certification only means that an HDMI cable is capable of displaying "at minimum" speeds of 75Mhz; or up to 2.25Gbps. If you buy a standard HDMI cable, your only guarantee is that it can display 720p/60, not 1080p/60. But HDMI 1.0-1.2 does support up to 4.95Gbps. So as long as you have a good HDMI cable, all is well for 720p/60 3D on the 360.

[QUOTE="Pug-Nasty"]

[QUOTE="HuusAsking"]But at least you can appreciate HDTV with one eye (or one good eye and one bad eye).

HuusAsking

If we limited technological advancement to only what everyone could appreciate or utilize, we'd never get anywhere. There are people with no hands, so maybe games shouldn't exist since they can't play them.

Oh, I'd dig some thought based controls in heart beat. I agree with you there. As for eyesight issues being a common problem, sure it is. But, a company like Sony would just factor that into their market research, and they've obviously found that it doesn't affect the market enough to not push the 3d. Everyone else just needs to suck it up.

Ps3 has HDMI 1.3a.

Its basically the same as 1.4 however except it cant do ethernet over HDMI

Ps3 is the only console capable of 3D.

Ps3 has HDMI 1.3a.

Its basically the same as 1.4 however except it cant do ethernet over HDMI

Ps3 is the only console capable of 3D.

Respawn-d

[QUOTE="Respawn-d"]

Ps3 has HDMI 1.3a.

Its basically the same as 1.4 however except it cant do ethernet over HDMI

Ps3 is the only console capable of 3D.

donalbane

I don't think I could care any less when it means I have to buy another two grand television and wear glasses to experience it, maybe on system wars this is a big deal but from a real world perspective this is just a gimmick for those with very expendable incomes.