3D PS3 Titles Will Suffer Visual Downgrade, GT5 a Casualty?

[eSZee]

I play on a 720p projector + PS3 set at 1080i, I see a crisper image and less jaggies than PS3 720p mode. On my set GT5 TT is actualy one of the cleanest and more detailed games on PS3.

You see less jaggies because the image isn't as sharp on 1080i. In games 720p will look better since all 720 lines are refreshed at the same time. With 1080i you have 540 lines refreshing before the other 540 refresh. 1080i will look better if you're looking at a still image or slow moving objects, but 720p will look better with pretty much everything else.
Plus if you have a 720p projector, then the 1080i you see is most likely downscaled to 768i since that the resolution of the lens.

 

[Stonemonkey]

.....
Clever! Presumably that's only "worth it" if upscaling to a resolution having linear measurements greater than √2 times the rendering resolution? Or are there other benefits at other points in the pipeline?

The two targets are half width and half height so each has 1/4 of the number of pixels of the final image and in total there's only 1/2 of the pixels to fill which is why there's the loss of detail but increase in speed but with a sort of AA.

Doing two seperate renders like that is faster but I think I can get the same effect by doing one render to a target with the same height as the final buffer but half width and offsetting the odd lines by the 1/2 pixel which will save on triangle setup so be faster still.

I'm also working on stereoscopic rendering too so that means I could render the left and right channels simultaneously (triangle by triangle) using the left and right halfs of a buffer equal to the size of the final buffer and be almost as fast as a single render to a target that size.

 

[Zer0]

You see less jaggies because the image isn't as sharp on 1080i. In games 720p will look better since all 720 lines are refreshed at the same time. With 1080i you have 540 lines refreshing before the other 540 refresh. 1080i will look better if you're looking at a still image or slow moving objects, but 720p will look better with pretty much everything else.

Wrong, I talk about GT5P/TT and at 1080i on my setup the image is crisper with finer details(both pause and gameplay), at 720p is softer and the game has more rendering artifacts(dots and lines flickering between polygons). That is a fact in my setup, not a theory.

Also in the projector I can select 3 types of hardware deinterlacer, no problem at all with moving objects. Maybe you are speaking about very early technology or an unprocessed interlaced video signal.

 

[Mr Latte]

Too me Im not really bothered about 720p or 1080p mode no matter what resolution is used the jaggies and shadowing is the downfall of the games beauty.
Its the same when you buy a new car that screen it shows with the car coming into view has a chuck load of jaggies. I wonder if its to do with whatever lighting system they are using and I hope although looking at most recent videos it hasnt changed.

In the past 2 years Ive played the game via various hardware Ive owned so well aware of some of the comments being made:

720p projection
1080p projection
1080i HDTV
24" 1080p Monitor


Whilst all those displays like anyone elses will look slightly different and have their own characterstics Id settle for 720p anyday if it meant reduced jaggies. While the 720p mode of the game aparently has 4xAA its not enough and GT5Ps lighting/shaders must be part of the cause. We do however have to take into account the beauty of the graphics and 60fps with 16 cars so maybe its just me expecting too much.

Personally Im excited most about 3 screen setup and curious to discover if that also supports the head tracking.

 

[eSZee]

Wrong, I talk about GT5P/TT and at 1080i on my setup the image is crisper with finer details(both pause and gameplay), at 720p is softer and the game has more rendering artifacts(dots and lines flickering between polygons). That is a fact in my setup, not a theory.

Also in the projector I can select 3 types of hardware deinterlacer, no problem at all with moving objects. Maybe you are speaking about very early technology or an unprocessed interlaced video signal.

No, i'm not.

 

[NissanSkylineN1]

So hold on, will GT5 still be available in 2D 1080P?

 

[parker_125]

It would most likely be safe to assume so. ^^^

 

[Mr Latte]

So hold on, will GT5 still be available in 2D 1080P?

The question Id like to know is......

If they have managed to support dual 720p for 3D and get 120Hz (60fps in game) which is quite a large task and doubtfull. Have they been able to increase 2D from:
1280x1080 to 1920x1080 for 2D @ 60 HZ ?

The 3D resolution and framerate has not been confirmed but one thing is certain 2D wont be getting any worse than it already was in GT5P.

 

[TokyoDrift]

Wrong, I talk about GT5P/TT and at 1080i on my setup the image is crisper with finer details(both pause and gameplay), at 720p is softer and the game has more rendering artifacts(dots and lines flickering between polygons). That is a fact in my setup, not a theory.

Also in the projector I can select 3 types of hardware deinterlacer, no problem at all with moving objects. Maybe you are speaking about very early technology or an unprocessed interlaced video signal.

Zer0, it's not worth it. I too see a crisper image with finer details in 1080p mode compared to 720p, but people like Mr Latte seem to think they know the theory better, and tell me that what I'm seeing is wrong. Never mind the fact that I can see the difference with my own eyes, as can pretty much every person who I've shown both resolutions to. Sooner or later you'll get asked for photographic evidence...

Now, having said that, I do agree with what Mr Latte is saying about being happy with 720p if that resolution gave the cleanest looking image with the most detail at the best frame rates. I'm not a resolution junkie, and will happily take whatever mode the game looks best in. As it stands, right now, that happens to be 1080p mode.

 

[Mr Latte]

Start of a new week for me so Im long past continuing arguments on this topic.

Pixel Facts are still facts my friend, 1080p is still being used for sales more than actual true benifit to consumers and their typical viewing habbits. So if you or others wish to critacise 3DTV as a sales pitch I see little difference.

Different displays with various video technology all effect image quality.
However the best 1080p TV in the world wont help improve GT5Ps jaggies or shadowing issues and that is the element I referred to with 1080p mode doing little to improve them. For the reason being they are not just resolution related. Do remember again as you seem to forget I have said their is indeed benifits and a difference just not a really big one.

Yeah Im still waiting on a photo for a good comparison to highlight the improved jaggies, damn...

Examples on the net...
Shadow and reflection jaggies seem to be issues

 

[TokyoDrift]

Start of a new week for me so Im long past continuing arguments on this topic.

Pixel Facts are still facts my friend, 1080p is still being used for sales more than actual true benifit to consumers and their typical viewing habbits. So if you or others wish to critacise 3DTV as a sales pitch I see little difference.

Different displays with various video technology all effect image quality.
However the best 1080p TV in the world wont help improve GT5Ps jaggies or shadowing issues and that is the element I referred to with 1080p mode doing little to improve them. Do remember I have said their is indeed benifits and a difference just not a really big one.

OK, the words you are looking for are "criticise" and "benefit", as opposed to "critacise" and "benifit". I thought they were typos at first, but having read the same typos several times now across several of your posts, I thought I'd add my lesson on facts for the day.

See, the issue is, you are clearly the one arguing for the sake of arguing, as is evident by your opening statement. Anyway, I thought you were bored to tears with arguing, as you stated previously in your post where you spat your dummy out claiming you refused to read what I put? You really are the text-book definition of a hypocrite.

Anyway, by all means refer to whatever you like, but the fact is, all I said was that the image looks sharper in 1080p than it does in 720p, to which you agree there is a difference, just not a really big one. Funnily enough, I never really quantified the difference - I just said it was a subjective one using my equipment and my own eyes. Still, if you want to argue that pixel facts are still facts, the fact is, GT5P running in 1080p mode has 50% more pixels over 720p, so clearly that is going to make some difference.

Having people like you and dave_sz spurt out facts and numbers in an attempt to refute what people like myself and zer0 say about what we personally experienced is beyond childish. You keep on referring back to me (and others) criticising 3DTV to justify your rants, yet this whole GT5P/1080p/720p thing has got nothing to do with it. It's something you perpetuated when I said that there was an improvement in image quality in GT5P when using 1080p over 720p, and you basically told me I was wrong. I guess Zer0 and lion-face are both wrong too?

If you want to continually try and push this resolution debate outside of GT5P into some theoretical world or other games, take it elsewhere. It only shows how weak you are at accepting the fact that you were wrong to question what people experience just because it disagrees with what you think you know about the theory. This isn't about 1080p vs 720p in general, it is in relation to GT5P, specifically my experience of on my displays, so either put up or shut up because you really are getting boring now.

 

[Ollie1066]

so either put up or shut up because you really are getting boring now.

You disagreeing with almost anything anybody says on this site also got boring a while back as well

 

[Mr Latte]

Thanks for the spelling lessons that is a bad habbit...

On taking this further with you, im not interested.
Im not now going to argue about arguing, thanks all the same.

Let me say anthing you have said regards 3DTV being a fad or how 1080p is so amazing.
Ive just made examples showing facts and not just my own opinion. People here will decide for themselves...
NEVER have I said their was NO difference so maybe get your facts straight.

I also said everyone is welcome to play the game the way they feel is best on their setup.
Maybe you with your 5 hours gameplay should actually go and play the game more...

 

[hardvibes]

You disagreeing with almost anything anybody says on this site also got boring a while back as well

👍

 

[TokyoDrift]

You disagreeing with almost anything anybody says on this site also got boring a while back as well

I may challenge an opinion, but I would never challenge what somebody said they could see with their own eyes. Big difference.

Thanks for the spelling lessons that is a bad habbit...

On taking this further with you, im not interested.
Im not now going to argue about arguing, thanks all the same.

Let me say anthing you have said regards 3DTV being a fad or how 1080p is so amazing.
Ive just made examples showing facts and not just my own opinion. People here will decide for themselves...

I also said everyone is welcome to play the game the way they feel is best on their setup.
Maybe you with your 5 hours gameplay should actually go and play the game more...

Hmmm, did I ever say 1080p is so amazing? You really do go making things up to suit.

Anyway, you seem to have run out of original or valid defenses to the points I raised, and as you said you no longer want to take things further, I'll take that as game over for this episode.

Ooh, no, I see you have edited your original post. "Get my facts straight". Let's look at the facts then shall we? You originally said the following:

Many of you went out and bought HDTVs yet in gaming its not a massive benifit, particulary the premium for 1080p until recently over 720p.

Prior to you mentioning the premium for 1080p over 720p, you said HDTV in gaming is not a massive benefit. So, not a massive benefit over what? SDTV it has to be assumed. To which I replied:

However, I have to disagree and say that 720p IS a massive benefit for gaming, and movies alike. 1080p is not such a big leap over 720p in those regards, but certain games like GT5P, with lots of lines and edge detail on cars, do benefit.

Quite clearly I stated that 720p (being the lowest true HDTV resolution) is a massive benefit in gaming over the assumed SDTV that you implied previously. When I talked about 1080p over 720p in relation to GT5P, notice the lack of words like "massive" and "amazingly".

You then came along with your rants that included:

Regards 1080p being a massive benifit for gaming and in that I refer to PS3.
By all means and tell us how many games really benifit 1080p and how that is massive benifit.

Regards 1080p. You are welcome to prove to people via photos how amazingly better 1080p is over 720p regards PS3 games.

So, with that out on the table, and with all due respect, I suggest YOU get all of your facts right first before trying to act the innocent one:

1. You are including adjectives into the statement that I did not make originally. NEVER did I say the difference between 1080p and 720p was massive or amazing. I simply said that, between quotes here and subsequent ones, that on MY equipment (using the same TV, different modes), I can see a noticeable improvement in image clarity. I didn't say in what capacity, or any particular aspect of the image.
2. You are the one who insulted my observation by offering me (and others) the chance to prove things by providing photographic evidence. If you had believed my observation, you would not have asked for that, but no, you kept on questioning the validity of my claims.
3. NEVER did I tell you that you said there was no difference. Yet, you seem to keep on using that as a basis for your defense.
4. I have lost count of the number of times you reference the "5 hours play time" I claimed to have put into the game, like you are some kind of obsessive.

All through the posts you keep on effectively saying that the difference is so small as to be almost negligible, yet here I am, simply saying that the difference can't be so negligible because I can quite clearly see the difference with my own eyes on a 46" screen viewed from 9 feet away. You questioned that, and you wondered why you got the outcome you did? Not only that, but having read through the posts again, I see that in addition to Zer0, both II IVORBIGUN II and ICEMAN_ZIDANE confirmed the same observation as myself. Like I said before, are all of these people wrong too?

Next time you decide to directly question what people see, please don't insult their intelligence further by twisting their words around and adding in other words to suit. All that does is result in you digging your hole further, bringing in things like shadow detail with no prior basis, and making repeated reference to things like my "5 hour game time" as though it means I have no grounds to make the claims that I did.

So, here we have the FACTS. You did ask for them. It'll be interesting to see if you ignore this completely, admit misunderstanding, or decide to counter this in any way, and if so, what else you will make up.

 

[Mr Latte]

Dont know about you guys but im totally ignoring that....
He has issues....

Someones opinion is not a fact its an opinion.
PS3 1080p games have 1.3 million pixels below 1080p 1:1 thats a fact.
So why make a big thing out of how good PS3 1080p mode is?

Who cares you see a difference nobody said you didnt, and several times its already been stated.
The point is you make this effort to prove 1080p is better wirte a book on it and yet you wont give somone an inch to say anthing positive about 3D not just in this thread but also the other one. You just criticse it at any given chance and as for being old tech when as I illustrated here theirs nothing new tech about PS3 games being 1280x1080 neither.

I told you a wasnt going to give you any more oppertunities to take this even further and you wont get further argument from it so if you want to waste your time by all means do so...

 

[eSZee]

You're ignoring it, by commenting on it? If you're going to ignore it, don't acknowledge the fact that you know it's there.

 

[Mr Latte]

You're ignoring it, by commenting on it? If you're going to ignore it, don't acknowledge the fact that you know it's there.

True, you have my word TD will wait a long time before he gets a response from me again. The E3 thread is just more proof of how he constantly argues and not just with me.

I will this time take heed to the PMs warning me what he was like.

 

[TokyoDrift]

Dont know about you guys but im totally ignoring that....
He has issues....

Someones opinion is not a fact its an opinion.
PS3 1080p games have 1.3 million pixels below 1080p 1:1 thats a fact.
So why make a big thing out of how good PS3 1080p mode is?

Who cares you see a difference nobody said you didnt, and several times its already been stated.
The point is you make this effort to prove 1080p is better wirte a book on it and yet you wont give somone an inch to say anthing positive about 3D not just in this thread but also the other one. You just criticse it at any given chance and as for being old tech when as I illustrated here theirs nothing new tech about PS3 games being 1280x1080 neither.

I told you a wasnt going to give you any more oppertunities to take this even further and you wont get further argument from it so if you want to waste your time by all means do so...

Telling me the theory of pixel density suggesting that there should be little noticeable difference is one thing. Telling me (and others) to prove their observations with photographic evidence is quite another. It shows total lack of respect (which is fine) but is also as good as saying "prove I'm wrong because I don't believe that you can see a difference". As such, you know exactly why I made a big deal out of it, and the facts are there for all to see.

Anyway, that's all the, albeit inconsistent response I needed for you to show your true colours. Thanks for ignoring me by the way

True, you have my word TD will wait a long time before he gets a response from me again. The E3 thread is just more proof of how he constantly argues and not just with me.

I will this time take heed to the PMs warning me what he was like.

Yup, further confirmation that you knows that on this occasion, you were in the wrong and are afraid to admit it. I have no problems eating humble pie, and am happy to admit when I'm in the wrong. Seems we have somebody even more stubborn than me in that regard here.

 

[Griffith500]

The two targets are half width and half height so each has 1/4 of the number of pixels of the final image and in total there's only 1/2 of the pixels to fill which is why there's the loss of detail but increase in speed but with a sort of AA.

Doing two seperate renders like that is faster but I think I can get the same effect by doing one render to a target with the same height as the final buffer but half width and offsetting the odd lines by the 1/2 pixel which will save on triangle setup so be faster still.

I'm also working on stereoscopic rendering too so that means I could render the left and right channels simultaneously (triangle by triangle) using the left and right halfs of a buffer equal to the size of the final buffer and be almost as fast as a single render to a target that size.

Ah, that is a good idea. I wonder if other games developers have cottoned on to this. You say yours is in software; do you think there are any issues with hardware implementation?
I know the PS3 GPU is nvidia-based, but the architecture and integration into the rest of the system may well be unique, opening up the possibility for Sony to allow special "3D-mode" functions etc. for the developers - perhaps this came with the firmware update. (I love little tricks like this; somebody once said, the sound of progress isn't "Eureka!" it's more like, "that's strange" or "I wonder...")

In rough percentage terms, what sort of saving can you get from your alternately sequential line half-pixel offset, half-width composite buffer (you can use that term, if you want ) vs. a discrete, full size buffer for every frame? If this can cover the deficit for 720p @120Hz, we might be onto a winner...

I may challenge an opinion, but I would never challenge what somebody said they could see with their own eyes. Big difference.

Ever heard of delusion? I'm quite happy to challenge what people remember to have seen; it's quite easy to influence that memory and alter it (yourself, or via external triggers), so it's a case of whether you trust them or not. This is the internets, after all...

 

[Mr P510]

Just found out yesterday that I'm one of the 7% of the population that cannot see 3D.

 

[Zer0]

Yeah Im still waiting on a photo for a good comparison to highlight the improved jaggies, damn...

Examples on the net...
Shadow and reflection jaggies seem to be issues
http://i39.tinypic.com/2911e03.jpg

More like a hardware limitation than issues. The PS3 is not an open PC, you can't put a shadow quality selector or a real time environment HQ map switch suitable only for high end video cards with lots of video ram. Also I don't know if you played the game but all these "issues" are dependant and real time scalable(LOD) not fixed like you point in the picture.

I can show you pictures with non pixelated closeup reflections and with much better shadows at similar distances but these are very evident if you play the game.

About the photo, this is an example of the difference in image quality with the same game and different tvs:

 

[Stonemonkey]

Ah, that is a good idea. I wonder if other games developers have cottoned on to this. You say yours is in software; do you think there are any issues with hardware implementation?
I know the PS3 GPU is nvidia-based, but the architecture and integration into the rest of the system may well be unique, opening up the possibility for Sony to allow special "3D-mode" functions etc. for the developers - perhaps this came with the firmware update. (I love little tricks like this; somebody once said, the sound of progress isn't "Eureka!" it's more like, "that's strange" or "I wonder...")

In rough percentage terms, what sort of saving can you get from your alternately sequential line half-pixel offset, half-width composite buffer (you can use that term, if you want ) vs. a discrete, full size buffer for every frame? If this can cover the deficit for 720p @120Hz, we might be onto a winner...

...

Atm I get around 45ms for a full render and 40ms for the double halfscale render but that's 2 complete passes with sorting, occlusion, transforms, lighting, backface culling and triangle setup before you get to filling pixels. If Offsetting the odd lines works I'll be able to do that in one pass so maybe at a guess, 30ms and I'll hopefully be able to do the stereo renders in the same pass.

That's with software rendering though, with nothing better than bi linear filtering so as I said there's a loss of detail but I think the slight blurring improves the image with less jaggies and texture swimming so it's not really something that should be applied to hardware.

 

[Mr Latte]

Zero
It may be hardware limitations but then not all PS3 games suffer so badly from this which makes me assume its to do with their own library of tools/effects used.
GT is a strange game as it changes resolution as well:
The garage/pit/showrooms are 1920x1080 with no AA
1080 ingame is 1280x1080 2xAA
720 ingame is 1280x720 4xAA

Witout the AA in screens like the "new car" is why the jaggies on them is so aparent, sometimes too in the car showrooms or garages. I dont know why they cant reduce the weird "hack saw" shadowing within the game but maybe its unavoidable for them with bottlenecks using 16 cars and 60fps and well if push came to shove yeah id rather they stayed the same and just get used to putting up with the ole jaggies.






Heres what I said 10th Dec 2007 in a set of forums having recently only taken delivery of my 1080p Projector with GT5P
The discussion was in reference to people complaing to jaggies and if others noticed them.

"Well i was only saying becase well i think they certainly are. I dont want people thinking oh well im for running on a 1080 display so it will look amazing. It will only look a bit better than the 720p res as its not full 1080p. Jaggies are very annoying to some gamers look at how Forza2 was criticised and caused a stir. Also the in car view suffered very badly on GT5 demo with jaggies in the shadows, very very noticably.

Its Sony that started the whole 1080p sales pitch for their console.
Marketing is all it is. Thats why MS eventually came forward with 1080 upscaling because the general consumer isnt aware that the games are not really their full quoted resolutions."



I guess my view didnt change on that and for me Ive never been blown away with the changes in 1080p/720p of this game even when at that time I didnt go about boasting of owning a 1080p projector and saying its superz, amazings, spectacularz.

Fingers crossed 2D will also improve if they had to get the games engine more refined for the 3D. Who knows we will have to wait and see.

 

[TokyoDrift]

Nice comparison pics Zer0, but here we have Mr Latte still quoting pixel facts. I really don't know why, because in 720p mode, the entire game is viewed in 1280 x 720. In 1080p mode, the game is shown in either 1920 x 1080, or 1280 x 1080, depending on which part of the game you are in, both of which are higher resolutions than 720p, hence why people like me, you, ICEMAN_ZIDANE and II IVORBIGUN II quite clearly see an improvement.

Also, just to clarify a point, the jagged shadows that are observed in the cockpit view are often so bad as to be quite clearly nothing to do with screen resolution. It could be running at 16000 x 9000 UberHD and those shadows would still look terrible, because they are fundamnentally flawed in their execution. As such, this is not something I ever referred to in my statement that I think GT5P looks better in 1080p compared to 720p.

Sorry for beating a dead horse here.

 

[Mr Latte]

Firstly guy above comments will be ignored....

Zero
Im willing to go into photo comparisons and even help to make comparisons if thats something people want to see. I dont know if their is an interest in getting to the bottom of it.

The photos you show in my opinion are not so good for comparison as one is clearly zoomed or closer. Also the really bad one looks to be interlaced and possibly SD but hard to tell with it so close. As Ive said earlier their is no point comparing different TVs using different modes as it has too many factors regards image quality. Tests would need to be done on the same TV(s) or displays in all modes and then compare.
This would allow us to accertain certain differences in how "resolution effects the game and its jaggies" equally on the same make model but it would be a consistant test.

I dont know if something like this has been done on GTP before or if a "news feature" was on the front page comparing 720/1080 etc. I could however arrange a comparison to be done by a friend who is a professional photographer and set up 3x PS3 on 3x24" native 1080p identical monitors. We can then use SD 720 1080 and have the results put within a thread.

Photo comparisons need to be taken on the same display at the same distance(s) and settings. Additionally in a controlled enviroment to give a true comparison. Im all for a comparison if someone can do it properely.

Someone with an SLR /tripod is really whats needed. Then we would have to insure no additional cleaning or tampering of the images was involved.

PROBLEM
A display that has a pause feature for the video would be best as movement in game can effect the photos. Thats the problem with my monitors it doesnt have this so maybe only would work in static screenshots with a car idle....


I cant find my own photos I took at the time when I was comparing on the projector 2 years ago an the forums they were in is gone. My PJ had a handy pause mode which made getting good photos simple.... Heres an example of the quality I was able to get using handheld camera taking a direct photograph from the projector screen however these were "REPLAY" and have the jaggies cleaned of course. These images were also put through "Picassa" with some mild altering. Im useless with cameras and this isnt an SLR or anything fancy just using an old Sony 8mp camera.

If someone can compare to a quality like this or of course even better to discover things about any differences then it could be interesting.
Im not interested in it being a debate more as showcasing factual visual evidence being highlighted and people can see for themselves.

 

[jagenigma]

This whole obsession with 3D is ridiculous, 75 percent of the movies are in 3D and now games? while it could be used to some advantage with the Playstation Move or Natal, do you know how much programming has to go into something like this? games will take longer to come out and will suffer in quality greatly, hopefully 3D will just be a fad. GT5 would be better off in good ol' 2D running at 1080p and a solid 60FPS

 

[TokyoDrift]

This whole obsession with 3D is ridiculous, 75 percent of the movies are in 3D and now games? while it could be used to some advantage with the Playstation Move or Natal, do you know how much programming has to go into something like this? games will take longer to come out and will suffer in quality greatly, hopefully 3D will just be a fad. GT5 would be better off in good ol' 2D running at 1080p and a solid 60FPS

Well, I'm sure the game will support both (no Mr Latte, we don't need you pointing out the actual pixel facts again), with the bulk of the focus likely being on the 2D rendering, because so few people will be able to play the game in 3D anyway to start with. It's just a shame that 3D, which could have easily been an update, has likely contributed greatly to the delay.

 

[Mr Latte]

This whole obsession with 3D is ridiculous, 75 percent of the movies are in 3D and now games? while it could be used to some advantage with the Playstation Move or Natal, do you know how much programming has to go into something like this? games will take longer to come out and will suffer in quality greatly, hopefully 3D will just be a fad. GT5 would be better off in good ol' 2D running at 1080p and a solid 60FPS

I had my first demonstration of Panasonics 50" 3D plasma yesterday
It was showing just their demo disc and I spent approx 20-30 mins viewing various sequences on the display.

My first impression was ok great Im not noticing any flicker problems, as some people do which Ive read in forums and the glasses wernt the comfiest but that got less annoying the more I watched.

Bottom line though is this particular demo and TV has the ability to show 3D in a fantastic way. The Grand Canyon sequence is a good one and 3 people tried the glasses at the same time as me with the results/opinions all being quite impressed.

I would say this was much clearer than passive glasses and I didnt notice the cinema smearing often seen in motion which sometimes cause me to loose focus in the cinema. Definately the Panasonic 3D plasma has a much higher quality image from 1080p 3D and its got me more excited than concerned now over these TVs being maybe all hype. I viewed at between 5-10FT and the effect was still easily noticable.

If you enjoy 3D in the cinema to any extent then certainly on this particular model Id say most will enjoy this even more. Hunt down a store with one for a demo......
Chances are if the 3D in the Panasonic doesnt impress people then your never going to be impressed with 3D.

Im waiting on my local store to get in the Samsung 3D Plasmas to demo those to see how they compare to the Panny.


Lets wait to reports come back from E3 about how good GT5 is with 3D if its great or if indeed its nothing special.
Part of the problem though is Sonys own LEDs arent as good as Plasma for showing 3D at its best but Sony will ony be showing the game on their TVs of course.
Internet reports are that these can suffer from "crosstalk"

Heres a very good 3DTV guide

 

[Zer0]

Zero
Im willing to go into photo comparisons and even help to make comparisons if thats something people want to see. I dont know if their is an interest in getting to the bottom of it.

I'm lost here I don't know what do you want to prove. Technically no console race game is doing what GT5 is doing, that don't mean that in every aspect will be the best of every single game in the market.

Personally none of the "issues" pointed here bother me or interfere in my gameplay. As I say before to me GT5 has one of the best image quality/detail showcased in a PS3 game. Not perfect but enought impressive overall to make me forgot about the defects. It's like the 2D trees thing, if you search for a defect you will found more than you willing to know, but if you simply play the game you will notice very few except the very distracting ones shown all the time.

Feel free to make all the photos you want! this is a public forum only the mods has the last word. In the past this topic was discussed a lot with different opinions, screen images and direct hdmi screen grabs that looked nothing like the tv game. But have in mind that at the end you can't prove how good or bad my eyes are showing the game in my setup with my settings. It's like the dull sound opinion because a youtube video or tv speakers.

To point something just the 60fps frame interval does increase the fine detail of the image, a perfect freeze paused image is going to show less IQ than you see playing. The cockpit shadows at times look very good and at time more pixelated, it depends of the light angle, track and car. Etc.