The Nuts and Bolts of PlayStation 3D 154
The Digital Foundry blog took an in-depth look at how Sony is introducing 3D technology to PlayStation 3 games. They give a step-by-step description of how the system generates a 3D frame (or rather, a pair of frames), and the graphical hurdles that need be to overcome to ensure the games look good. The article also discusses some of the subtle effects 3D technology can have on gameplay:
"'One interesting thing came through in the immersion aspect was that in the first-person camera view, it felt so much more like being there. Typically when most people play MotorStorm, something like 90 per cent play in the third-person view,' Benson explains. 'As soon as we put the 3D settings in place, the first-person view became a lot more popular, a lot more people were using that view. This could indicate that 3D could perhaps change the standards, if you like.' ... 'We found that in the first-person view the game is giving you all the sorts of cues that you're used to in normal driving: speed perception, the ability to judge distances, things like that. It's far easier to avoid track objects.' The insertion of true stereoscopic 3D into MotorStorm also brings about a new sense of appreciation of the scale and size of the game world and the objects within it."
Re:first post! (Score:3, Insightful)
The new Samsung TVs are 240Hz, too.
As for the rendering, it's not 20% of the processing time. It's a lot more than that, especially when you work in all the reflections and other eye-candy that PS3 games are expected to have. I would guess it's pretty close to 90% of the time is spent rendering. (And that's an educated guess, as I've fooled around with 3d game programming on the PC for a while now.)
Of course, it also depends on that game. A game with thousands of AI opponents takes a lot more CPU between renders than a game with just 5.
Re:Goofy glasses (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, people like you said the same thing about the theatres as well.
Turns out that all you need to do is convince people it's good enough. Avatar was the 'killer app' for theatre 3d for many, many people. (I was hooked long ago.)
And now that there are TVs that support it natively, home adoption will spread as well. The cheapest Samsung 3D LCD TV is $1800 MSRP and it's 46". I bought a Samsung 46" 2 years ago for $2500. (MRSP was $2800, I believe.) So anyone who could afford a 46" TV 2 years ago can now afford a 46" 3D TV and a few pairs of glasses.
And the 'killer app' for home 3D TV seems not to even be movies or games. Everyone I've talked to about it says something like 'I don't care much about the movies, but have you seen football in 3D? It's just like being there! I don't want to buy stadium tickets anymore, I'll just watch from my house!' I'm not a sports fan, but the video I saw of volleyball in 3D made it pretty clear how cool sports look in 3D.
Re:first post! (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, technically, Wipeout's creators couldn't make the PS3 do it. That doesn't mean it's impossible.
Also, Wipeout went from 60FPS at 1080p to 30FPS at 720p for the 3D upgrade. From the article, it sounds like they did it because they were lazy and didn't want to spend time optimizing their code any further to keep the FPS up.
All the hype I heard about Wipeout mentioned the 60FPS specifically, so I think that's a mistake.
Re:Goofy glasses (Score:2, Insightful)
Gerardo made a song had one really catchy lyric. Even today, just saying the word "Rico" will get people to at least think "Suave", even if they don't know *any* of the other song lyrics.
Avatar is the Rico Suave of 3D technology.
Re:Goofy glasses (Score:3, Insightful)
I disagree. I think the time for 3D glasses are now. I wear a comfortable over the ear high quality headset with a mic while i play Modern Warfare 2 on the PC... So why not throw 3D glasses into the mix? Hell make it a nice headset where the glasses slide up and down like a visor. I dont care.
I'm alreadyd wearing a headset.
So headgear really isnt a problem. Many of us are already wearing headphones and mics.