It's been known since the dawn of 3D accelerators that the higher the resolution, the lower the FPS. And the more detailed your graphics are (more polygons, more visual effects, etc.), the lower the FPS. Lowering the resolution in this case to 720p may be a way for developers to claim back some FPS they lose by using many graphical effects and polygons.
- Status
The Xbox 360 has a major advantage here. It uses Direct X - Which means that all the information required for 3D display of existing games is already present and all Microsoft need to do is turn it on.
There will probably be a framerate hit, but as the Xbox 360 has more power graphics hardware than the PS3, and the 3D support was native from the start it will likely cope much better.
There will probably be a framerate hit, but as the Xbox 360 has more power graphics hardware than the PS3, and the 3D support was native from the start it will likely cope much better.
[citation][nom]zaxonr34[/nom]This may be true but there are other issues at play such as the HDMI standards themselves which have a problem producing the data bandwidth requirements to do 3d 1080p @ 60fps with high color bit depth.[/citation]
I hope HDMI has something to do with it. Rendering twice, about 50% performance loss can be expected, depending on whether the game was GPU bound to begin with. But 1080p@60fps > 720p@30fps is a 75% dip, that's pretty horrible.
I hope HDMI has something to do with it. Rendering twice, about 50% performance loss can be expected, depending on whether the game was GPU bound to begin with. But 1080p@60fps > 720p@30fps is a 75% dip, that's pretty horrible.
"hixbot
HDMI 1.4 does not support 1080p framepacking"
i thought it did support framepacking @ 1080p24...........
HDMI 1.4 does not support 1080p framepacking"
i thought it did support framepacking @ 1080p24...........
[citation][nom]builderbobftw[/nom]Didn"t we all know this from the PC 1/2 frames in 3D?[/citation]
Well, this is more so. Look at the resolution as well: 720p vs 1080p. That effectively means 1/2 of the frams @ 1/2 the res (which means effectively 1/4 of the frames). Which is ridiculous. Glad I game mostly on Win7 64
Well, this is more so. Look at the resolution as well: 720p vs 1080p. That effectively means 1/2 of the frams @ 1/2 the res (which means effectively 1/4 of the frames). Which is ridiculous. Glad I game mostly on Win7 64
[citation][nom]santfu[/nom]the sky looks blue to me...but IF you're going to be a pedant, then sun istn't actually hot either. There is no such thing as temperature (it's just an average of all the energies of the molecules in a given area)[/citation]
Even though this has nothing to do with the story, I feel I should give you an explanation to this.
The sky is not blue, it is clear. This is evident if you get in a plane at 25,000 ft. and look down. You don't see all blue, because the sky is clear. What you see as blue is sunlight refracting off the top of our atmosphere. Therefore, what you see as blue is the top of our atmosphere, not the sky.
As for you temperature argument, what you described is the textbook definition of temperature.
From Webster: a :degree of hotness or coldness measured on a definite scale b : the degree of heat that is natural to the body of a living being.
You were trying to sound smart, but came off not knowing what you are talking about. A lot like many of the other people in this thread. Never pass up an opportunity to keep your mouth shut.
Even though this has nothing to do with the story, I feel I should give you an explanation to this.
The sky is not blue, it is clear. This is evident if you get in a plane at 25,000 ft. and look down. You don't see all blue, because the sky is clear. What you see as blue is sunlight refracting off the top of our atmosphere. Therefore, what you see as blue is the top of our atmosphere, not the sky.
As for you temperature argument, what you described is the textbook definition of temperature.
From Webster: a :degree of hotness or coldness measured on a definite scale b : the degree of heat that is natural to the body of a living being.
You were trying to sound smart, but came off not knowing what you are talking about. A lot like many of the other people in this thread. Never pass up an opportunity to keep your mouth shut.
segio526
Distinguished
- Apr 21, 2010
- 63
- 0
- 18,580
Some people are spending small fortunes to get 3D into their homes this year. These people have a good amount of disposable income. I'm sure Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo could release 3D ready versions of their existing consoles that have faster CPUs, GPUs, and a bit more RAM that only kick in when a 3D capable game is inserted and it is hooked up to a 3D capable screen.
This could be a great stop gap as well. Developers could throw in more complex geometry or turn on AA when the game is run in these new revisions and just disable the advanced features on old models. These features would probably also be turned off when run in 3D, but the vast majority of us won't be able to run 3D anyway.
Would you buy a $400 PS3 today if it pretty much guaranteed no frame rate drops or screen tearing, potentially better effects, and capable of running games in 3D if you ever buy a 3D TV in the future?
This could be a great stop gap as well. Developers could throw in more complex geometry or turn on AA when the game is run in these new revisions and just disable the advanced features on old models. These features would probably also be turned off when run in 3D, but the vast majority of us won't be able to run 3D anyway.
Would you buy a $400 PS3 today if it pretty much guaranteed no frame rate drops or screen tearing, potentially better effects, and capable of running games in 3D if you ever buy a 3D TV in the future?
LOL...I thought they were going to talk about how my PS3 will crap it's pants with Crysis 2 rendering... Who needs 3D for it? I just get sloched on fridays with some good Jack and Coke and not only do images appear to be 3D on the tv but walking feels like its in 4D.
steiner666
Distinguished
- Jul 30, 2008
- 117
- 0
- 18,630
yeah 3d isnt going to work for any of the current gen consoles without them sacrificing some graphics quality, simple as that. The ps3/360 could run games with wii-quality graphics in 3d just fine though. lol. my gtx260 needs upgraded so bad since i got 3dvision. before, i was totally happy with the performance, and probably wouldnt have been thinking about upgrading for another year maybe.
sidran32
Distinguished
- Sep 29, 2009
- 72
- 0
- 18,580
[citation][nom]senlis[/nom]Even though this has nothing to do with the story, I feel I should give you an explanation to this.The sky is not blue, it is clear. This is evident if you get in a plane at 25,000 ft. and look down. You don't see all blue, because the sky is clear. What you see as blue is sunlight refracting off the top of our atmosphere. Therefore, what you see as blue is the top of our atmosphere, not the sky.As for you temperature argument, what you described is the textbook definition of temperature.From Webster: a egree of hotness or coldness measured on a definite scale b : the degree of heat that is natural to the body of a living being.You were trying to sound smart, but came off not knowing what you are talking about. A lot like many of the other people in this thread. Never pass up an opportunity to keep your mouth shut.[/citation]
Look up. The sky is blue. No one claimed the sky was colored with blue dye. There is no "element blue". Color is only perceived by objects reflecting certain wavelengths of light. If the object (in this case, the sky) is reflecting blue wavelengths of light to our eyes, then it is effectively blue.
Any attempt at saying otherwise is just spinning scientific facts and the claim outside of the context it was intended for in order to sound smart. You may be right, but it's moot, because nothing has been contradicted.
Look up. The sky is blue. No one claimed the sky was colored with blue dye. There is no "element blue". Color is only perceived by objects reflecting certain wavelengths of light. If the object (in this case, the sky) is reflecting blue wavelengths of light to our eyes, then it is effectively blue.
Any attempt at saying otherwise is just spinning scientific facts and the claim outside of the context it was intended for in order to sound smart. You may be right, but it's moot, because nothing has been contradicted.
razor512
Distinguished
- Jun 16, 2007
- 501
- 0
- 18,940
[citation][nom]sidran32[/nom]Look up. The sky is blue. No one claimed the sky was colored with blue dye. There is no "element blue". Color is only perceived by objects reflecting certain wavelengths of light. If the object (in this case, the sky) is reflecting blue wavelengths of light to our eyes, then it is effectively blue.Any attempt at saying otherwise is just spinning scientific facts and the claim outside of the context it was intended for in order to sound smart. You may be right, but it's moot, because nothing has been contradicted.[/citation]
Yep, color only exist in the human mind. it is 100% perception
Color is created by the 3 types of cone cell in the eye. A short wavelength code type (blue), a medium wavelength cone (green), and A long wavelength cone (Red)
green is the most visible color because or eyes have more medium wavelength cones than any other type of cone (this is why green laser pointers look brighter than red or blue ones)
We determine color by taking input from all 3 cone types (trichromacy)
the brain calculates the firing rate of each cone type then it compares them to each other then that determines the mixture of red blue and green
If you are born partially color blind, then you only have 2 cone types, if you are fully color blind then you only have 1 cone type and since theres nothing to compare firing rates to, you see in gray scale.
Though 100% illegal, if you were toscrape cone cells from a live human, then mix it in distilled water and do a spectrum analysis and look for the chemicals
cyanolabe
chlorolabe
erythrolabe
if there milling one of then then they are partially color blind, if there missing 2 then they are fully color blind and if there missing all 3 then they are blind
Color is a perception only
it is impossible to explain color, for example, describe the color green to a person who is born blind in enough detail for them to visualize it or under stand it, you will not be able to.
so scientifically proven, the sky is blue
Yep, color only exist in the human mind. it is 100% perception
Color is created by the 3 types of cone cell in the eye. A short wavelength code type (blue), a medium wavelength cone (green), and A long wavelength cone (Red)
green is the most visible color because or eyes have more medium wavelength cones than any other type of cone (this is why green laser pointers look brighter than red or blue ones)
We determine color by taking input from all 3 cone types (trichromacy)
the brain calculates the firing rate of each cone type then it compares them to each other then that determines the mixture of red blue and green
If you are born partially color blind, then you only have 2 cone types, if you are fully color blind then you only have 1 cone type and since theres nothing to compare firing rates to, you see in gray scale.
Though 100% illegal, if you were toscrape cone cells from a live human, then mix it in distilled water and do a spectrum analysis and look for the chemicals
cyanolabe
chlorolabe
erythrolabe
if there milling one of then then they are partially color blind, if there missing 2 then they are fully color blind and if there missing all 3 then they are blind
Color is a perception only
it is impossible to explain color, for example, describe the color green to a person who is born blind in enough detail for them to visualize it or under stand it, you will not be able to.
so scientifically proven, the sky is blue
[citation][nom]sidran32[/nom]Look up. The sky is blue. No one claimed the sky was colored with blue dye. There is no "element blue". Color is only perceived by objects reflecting certain wavelengths of light. If the object (in this case, the sky) is reflecting blue wavelengths of light to our eyes, then it is effectively blue.Any attempt at saying otherwise is just spinning scientific facts and the claim outside of the context it was intended for in order to sound smart. You may be right, but it's moot, because nothing has been contradicted.[/citation]
lol, it is actually you who is trying to overcomplicate things to miss the point completely. I will respond to you and razor512 at the same time, mainly cause this is funny. I have no real hope you will see anything as scientific fact.
First off, color. It is true that color is perceived. Look at this definition.
1 a : a phenomenon of light (as red, brown, pink, or gray) or visual perception that enables one to differentiate otherwise identical objects b (1) : the aspect of the appearance of objects and light sources that may be described in terms of hue, lightness, and saturation for objects and hue, brightness, and saturation for light sources ; also : a specific combination of hue, saturation, and lightness or brightness (2) : a color other than and as contrasted with black, white, or gray
The fact that it is perceived does not mean it does not exist (at least not unless it is in a philosophical sense that has nothing to do with this argument). Also, Color is quantifiable. In other words, a red object is red. If two healthy human eyes look at this object, they will both see red. Just because a blind man cannot see the object does not mean that it is not red.
If you like to think of color as certain forms of electromagnetic energy perceived by our eyes, that works too. Doesn't change the fact it exists.
Yes, if you look up, the sky looks blue. However it is clear. Let me give you an example: If you hold a clear piece of glass up against a blue wall, the glass would appear blue. It is not, however; The glass is clear, letting the color pass through. The sky is the same way, clear in letting the blue light pass through. The sun's light is bent at the top of our atmosphere (making it blue), not in the sky as it passed through. Therefore, the sky is clear. The easy way to prove this is how I explained before. Even if you get in a U-2 that flies at 65,000 ft, you will still be able to look down and not see blue. Instead, you will see (or actually not see) the clear sky.
lol, it is actually you who is trying to overcomplicate things to miss the point completely. I will respond to you and razor512 at the same time, mainly cause this is funny. I have no real hope you will see anything as scientific fact.
First off, color. It is true that color is perceived. Look at this definition.
1 a : a phenomenon of light (as red, brown, pink, or gray) or visual perception that enables one to differentiate otherwise identical objects b (1) : the aspect of the appearance of objects and light sources that may be described in terms of hue, lightness, and saturation for objects and hue, brightness, and saturation for light sources ; also : a specific combination of hue, saturation, and lightness or brightness (2) : a color other than and as contrasted with black, white, or gray
The fact that it is perceived does not mean it does not exist (at least not unless it is in a philosophical sense that has nothing to do with this argument). Also, Color is quantifiable. In other words, a red object is red. If two healthy human eyes look at this object, they will both see red. Just because a blind man cannot see the object does not mean that it is not red.
If you like to think of color as certain forms of electromagnetic energy perceived by our eyes, that works too. Doesn't change the fact it exists.
Yes, if you look up, the sky looks blue. However it is clear. Let me give you an example: If you hold a clear piece of glass up against a blue wall, the glass would appear blue. It is not, however; The glass is clear, letting the color pass through. The sky is the same way, clear in letting the blue light pass through. The sun's light is bent at the top of our atmosphere (making it blue), not in the sky as it passed through. Therefore, the sky is clear. The easy way to prove this is how I explained before. Even if you get in a U-2 that flies at 65,000 ft, you will still be able to look down and not see blue. Instead, you will see (or actually not see) the clear sky.
- Status
Similar threads
TRENDING THREADS
-
Question best portable bluetooth speaker for travel, which one is worth it?- Started by khairia784
- Replies: 1
-
-
Question Noticing I use my laptop less since ChatGPT… anyone else?- Started by boogiebeckman
- Replies: 15
-
Question How do I run old laptop faster?!
- Started by Mason Howard
- Replies: 23
-
Question Upgrading from Redmi Note 9 Pro — Xiaomi 15 vs 15 Ultra vs iPhone 16 Pro?
- Started by slavi_asenov2002
- Replies: 1
-
Question Looking for remote access software with file transfer and chat
- Started by Mark28
- Replies: 0
Facebook
Twitter