See told you cyber it was gonna play back BD discs

Ok, sounds cool but do you have a link to the original article?

oops forgot

I found the article

http://www.homecinemachoice.com/blogs/t ... e+03+09+09

This goes to show how wrong the engadget and cnet guys were about how the PS3 post processing is done in the TV for the 3d effect and that it only works for games.

ah dang it... just brought the 360 last Saturday but not all that satisfied with it,
gonna try the old trick of 'a sales guy told me it could do something that I find out can not'
and hopefully swap for the slim PS3.
worth a try anyway, i know they dont accept change of mind returns thats all.

PS3 has a lot more going for it now,
cheers

Save your money from the return and wait. Sony might put in HDMI 1.4 in teh next reissue or something and don't forget I'm refuse to buy one until that PS2 BC comes back. Then I'll spend $300

man you guys have got it $200- bucks cheaper than us in Oz land
mmm, ill c wat they say

If you like the PS2 so much, then just get a PS2. They're only $99 these days:
http://www.amazon.com/PlayStation-2-Con ... 305&sr=1-1

They want BC in the PS3 because it up scales PS2 games to 1080p and smooths them out which is something the standard PS2 cannot do!

http://g4tv.com/thefeed/blog/post/69908 ... ion-3.html G4 is just getting this news and posted it all over thier tv channel last night, check out some of the comments! Unbelievable some of the misconceptions, but lots of people are starting to hear about this now.[url][/url]

Much as it has taken over the realm of top-tier action movies, 3D technology may be poised to take over gaming as well. Sony has said that the first HDTVs to support PS3 3D gaming will likely hit the market next year, but also dropped some tantalizing hints of 3D tech to be included with all PlayStation 3 consoles.
At Berlin's IFA show, Sony was proudly showing off a 3D version of WipEout, played on a specially modded Bravia TV that allows for PlayStation 3 games to be played in 3D. The idea is that the special LCD set will make every PlayStation 3 game 3-Dimensional, so you won't have to buy new games to get that in-your-face effect. The Bravia TV with the special tech is set to go on sale in 2010.
Not only that: Apparently, Sony would like to bring the 3D tech to all PlayStation 3s, so you will just need a special PS3 and not a new TV to enjoy 3D games. The technology won't work with movies or TV shows, sadly, and you still have to wear dorky-looking glasses to get it to work.
Intriguing possibilities, eh? Is 3D gaming the wave of the future? Or is it another gimmick? Let us know in the comment section below.

Single-link HDMI 1.4 still doesn't have enough bandwidth to pump 1080p120 signal, and there's little incentive to add pretty expensive dual-link HDMI when Sony wants S3D games will be playable on every PS3, including models which are not produced anymore. I'd guess they will simply license checkerboard pattern ("quincunx" pattern) scheme from TI, which packs two stereo frames into a single 1080p60 frame. Every 120 Hz 3DTV in existence uses this format and so far there were no complaints about image quality.


(yawn) Makes you think about the quality of other "news" posted at such sites.

I already posted this many days ago in another thread, It's absolute rubbish that article you linked to was posted yesterday but if you see they have posted their source which is cnet http://crave.cnet.co.uk/gamesgear/0,390 ... 9-1,00.htm and that's the article I had linked to in my thread. Even cybereality had said the cnet guys don't know what there talking about. The PS3 can do movies and games in 3D on a ps3 slim, you just need a new 3D tv.

You would think the guys are R&D would notice right? They tell us it's 3D capable

Slightly Off-topic ... do you know if checkerboard ("quincunx" pattern) is included in HDMI 1.4 standard? I am wondering why it is not listed here http://www.hdmi.org/manufacturer/hdmi_1_4/hdmi_1_4_faq.aspx#18 Thanks.

Well, looks like it is not included in HDMI 1.4.

AFAIK, Texas Instruments owns patents on this implementation and they probably do not want to include checkerboard pattern as a part of HDMI specification and license it to every HDMI adopter on "reasonable" terms, in order to demand bigger license payment and/or protect their own 3D DLP technology. But even then, HDMI could at least reserve an identifier for checkerboard mode to insure forward compatibility...


I'm afraid I do not understand what (counter)point you are trying to make. Please elaborate further.

What I am saying is that the people in R&D should have known what to do with this HDMI 1.4 with 3D. They should have known if there was enough bandwidth and so forth

Jadentheman,

I understand your desire to have the highest quality picture on the PS3, but again, single-link HDMI 1.4 will not auto-magically give you 120 Hz frame sequential 1080p because it just does not have enough bandwidth. To make a 120 Hz full-frame format possible on the PS3, Sony would need to either use dual-link HDMI (costly, zero adoption), DisplayPort 1.2 (not currently used on TV sets), or side-by-side full-HD format (3840x1080 @60 Hz) which just barely fits into the bandwidth, but is not perfectly suitable for S3D gaming because of increased processing delay.

Yes, Sony R&D engineers must have been perfectly aware of this situation, and considering that S3D gaming will be available on all PS3 consoles (but discarding unfounded rumours that all current PS3 games can be auto-magically upgraded to stereoscopic 3D), they must have been researching a solution which is based on some form of frame packing to allow two frames into 1080p60 singnal, and it seems like TI-patented checkerboard pattern scheme is the best of these.

If HDMI 1.4 went beyond just specifying some common transmission schemes (and not specifying the most common one, the checkerboard pattern) and offered even a slight increase in bandwidth, things could have been different, but it just seems like HDMI LLC could care less about S3D gaming requirements when they developed the updated standard.

Isn't checkerboard half the resolution or has sony found a way to do it at full resolution 1080p60 per eye?

Just make it with 4:2:2 color subsampling and everything will fit fine in the available hdmi 1.4 bandwidth.
Nobody noticed the subsampling with Blu-ray, so why bother ?

How about reducing the framerate to 100Hz and multi-flashing for 200Hz displays ?

Much more likely to be 1080p50 quad flashing to 200hz, or 1080p60 with dual flashing to 120hz. Maybe even 1080p60 quad flash to 240hz. But any which way the signal over the cable will probably be 1080p50/60 because they are the allowed modes (together with 1080p24) for 1080p in the HDMI spec. No new hardware, no need for extra bandwidth, no loss of resolution, no need to license patents. It is also a logical progression of the existing 100/120/200/240/whatever hz upscaling technology that has been around for years.

Why can't they just come up with a decent format that has some bandwidth to spare. I mean it seems like HDMI just came out and before I have even got a chance to use it its friggin' obsolete. DVI has had a pretty nice run on the PC side of things, but now they are pushing for DisplayPort. Why can't they just come up with something solid that will last more than like 2 years?

Yes, and for many reasons, this is DisplayPort by VESA, the new VGA D-sub connector!

On a serious note, HDMI is fine for what is was designed for, connecting consumer electronics in the world of DVD, 5.1 receivers and 1080i CRT displays. Sony has no-one to blame but themselves as the member of HDMI consortium. Almost every proprietary display link standard created by the industry was developed with yesterday's requirements in mind and no foresight for the future, and HDMI is no exception.

Yes. That's why it fits into 1080p60 signal.

As I said earlier, YCbCr and chroma subsampling is an optional feature in the HDMI specifications, and is not guaranteed to work on the PS3.

1080p100 does fit into the bandwidth, but then its not a standard CEA861 mode and is not guaranteed to work on the PS3.

How is that possible? This 1080p50 signal needs to contain two stereo frames, so a loss of resolution is inevitable.

Two words: frame sequential

Okay, so technically there is a loss of resolution, but it is a loss of temporal rather than spatial resolution. And it is only a loss if the game originally pumped 60fps/50fps (note distinct frames not refresh) and most games don't. Most console games are only written with a target frame rate of 25-30fps anyway, and almost every film ever made was filmed at 24fps. There is a very good reason for why the film frame rate is so low: most people cannot tell the difference with anything above 24fps. The only time you will ever notice that the frame rate is low is when there is fast movement as the real thing that causes the sensation of jerkiness is too large a change from one frame to the next e.g fast horizontal pans.

All this 'I need my game to run at 200+ fps to get the competitive edge' coming from PC gamers is a load of horse manure, and acitvely encouraged by the GFX card companies to sell more HW. Most gamers play on 60hz LCD panels anyway, so that is the effective frame rate cap, yet you still hear them bang on about how they wouldn't settle for a fps counter below 100 etc etc blah blah blah

Well the 3D games always demoed by Sony are Wipeout HD and Gran Turismo 5 which are known to run at a rock solid constant 1080p60.

Clearly you never played a PC game on a high refresh CRT monitor. There are some die-hard pro gamers that *still* play Counter-Strike 1.6 on high-end CRTs for this very reason. On LCD its mostly for bragging rights, I agree, due to the 60Hz limit. But provided the display can handle it the higher FPS is a clear competitive advantage. Also keep in mind that if FRAPS says you are getting 60FPS that is an *average*. You can have the stats output as a text file where you can see the real min/max and everything in between. So in reality some frames are rendering at 30FPS, some at 90FPS, theoretically as far as 0FPS min and 120FPS max but your average would still be 60FPS. So you really do need an average of 100FPS+ if you want to be certain that not a single frame is going to take longer than 16ms.

Yep, I have a 22" CRT and a 24" widescreen LCD on my desk. The CRT is an Iiama Vision Master Pro 514 and it hsyncs to 142khz, which i believe makes it the highest refresh CRT ever made. It can do 1920*1080 at 120hz, 1600*1200 @ over 100hz. When stereogaming, I run it at 1280*960 or 1024*768 at 140hz. I would probably run 1024*768 at 175hz if I thought my cabling was up to the job, It is just that I really don't see the need for the actual motion to occur at this rate - the high refresh is purely to stop flicker.

In my opinion 30fps is still playable for most people, and anything above 60fps is just unnessecary, but I am not a die-hard pro gamer. Using 1080p60 frame sequential encoding would still allow 60 new views a second if you send each frame immediately after it is rendered, which is AFAIK how both NVidia and IZ3D do things (Rather than rendering both views at the same moment in time then sending one after the other, which would result in an effective frame rate of 30fps). Console gamers do not complain about the frame rates they currently get (60hz), and a lot of them probably play on 120hz upconverting TV's already anyway, so they are already experiencing at least a 2 frame lag due to the processing lag (need to buffer 2 frames to be able to calculate an intermediate one)

I know that this would not cut it for the dedicated few hardcore gamers, but they are much more likely to be using a PC than a PS3 anyway and probably make up a very small fraction of the market.

As for the need to render a higher average to prevent the frame count from dipping during difficult scenes, I would tend to agree and think that is why sony have picked Wipeout HD / Gran Turismo 5 as the demo apps - Like BlackShark said it is already possible to achieve >>60fps so there is no risk of dropping a frame and the L/R swapping like happens with IZ3D's shutter drivers.

DmitryKo got this from avs forum
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1179743



So what he is saying is the refresh rate can go up to 170hz with it's bandwidth

The way he comes up with this 170 Hz figure is TOTALLY off. He simply confuses vertical refresh rate (frame rate) with maximum pixel rate. Pixel rate is total resolution (including blanking intervals!!!) multiplied by vertical refresh rate, and amounts to 340 MHz (mega hertz) for single-link HDMI 1.3.

I don't get why he uses 1920x1200 as a reference mode and not HDTV-standard 1920x1080, but even then his blanking intervals do not correspond to values defined by the CVT formula (2592x1245 px for a 60 Hz 1920x1200 px signal). Also, it is not correct to assume that bandwidth scales linearly with refresh rates; in fact, a higher refresh rate requires slightly more blanks (2656x1289 px for a 120 Hz 1920x1200 px), as guard intervals are defined in seconds.

To be fair, he does understand that 10.2 GBbit/s figure represents HDMI symbol rate, not the the data rate - in fact, HDMI, DVI and DisplayPort all use 8b/10b encoding, where each 10 bit symbol contains 8 bits of data and 2 error-correction bits, so the actual data rate will be 20% lower than the symbol rate; 10.2 GBit/s * 8/10 = 8.16 GBit/s.


Here is bandwidth calculation for 1080p120 mode using CVT formula ( 2656x1160 blanking with 120 Hz refresh) and 24-bit RGB pixels:
2656x1160 px * 120 Hz * 24 bpp = 3 080 960 * 120 1/s * 24 bit = 8.873 GBit/s , 9% more than the maximum data rate allowed by single-link HDMI 1.3.

170 Hz refresh would only be possible for resolutions up to 1520x855 px (with 170 Hz refresh, blanking is almost exactly 2112x947 px = 2 Mpixels), which is 1.6 times less pixels than 1920x1080:
2112x947 px * 170 Hz * 24 bpp = 8.16 Gbit/s - wow, we are testing the limits of HDMI 1.3 here

So, no miracles today.

As a matter of fact, the pixel rate was only meaningful in analog displays, where maximum video signal frequency was limited by the bandwidth of an video signal amplifier in the CRT tube (signal bandwidth), where signal quality was degrading badly at very high frequencies, making impossible neither high resolutions (high horizontal scan frequency, in analog terms) nor high vertical frequency (refresh rate). Digital signal links do not have this limitation and can freely trade resolution for refresh within the limits of the maximum allocated bit rate, so this is rather an artificial limitation in the HDMI spec, aimed at rather old analog devices.

"The way he comes up with this 170 Hz figure is TOTALLY off."

LOL! My friends at NASA are still smarting from that lander that crashed into mars. I really have started to hate flying in these new planes. Futureshock is here and even for the big brains of this planet, the complexity of some things are getting beyond any human system. We need some advanced AI to do all this heavy lifting. Deep Blue can be used for more than playing a chess game no?