3D gaming isn't entirely new, but will be a big focal point for Sony this year -- and what better way to show that than by turning one of 2007's bright spots into a full 3D experience. Super Stardust HD is undergoing a HD facelift right now and during an interview with Digital Foundry (via Eurogamer), engine lead Seppo Halonen and creative director Harri Tikkanen talked about adapting the game to 3D and some of the technological leaps and bounds made by Housemarque Games.
What makes SSHD different than other 3D experiences -- specifically, Avatar and other 3D games like Invincible Tiger -- is that it'll be running at a native resolution of 720p at 120 frames per second, 60 frames per each eye, and doesn't use low-res buffers to create the effect. Housemarque accomplished this by having the engine render everything twice, added stereoscopic cameras and moved the vertex processing from the GPU to the SPU. This took up about 50 percent of the SPU's resources, leaving them with enough to pre-process a lot of the game, allowing things to render much faster than before.
As for future Housemarque games on PS3, don't necessarily expect those titles to be in 3D. Tikkanen says that because some titles "lend themselves better to 3D than others," all future 3D compatibility will be decided "on a game by game basis."
Reader Comments (33)
Posted: Jan 11th 2010 11:23PM Granger said
"some titles 'lend themselves better to 3D than others'"
This. Doesn't hurt that Super Stardust HD is one of the few games out there that I'd nominate for a 3D upgrade, even though I don't have the tech to take advantage of it.
This. Doesn't hurt that Super Stardust HD is one of the few games out there that I'd nominate for a 3D upgrade, even though I don't have the tech to take advantage of it.
Posted: Jan 12th 2010 12:08AM Premature ejaculation man said
While that may be true, I don't see how any game won't be able to have some amount of the 3d implementation. Hopefully its just not too hard to implement in games: further inflating the cost of development, putting more dependence on massive publishers and sequels to counter the costs.
Reply
Posted: Jan 12th 2010 12:14AM joeboosauce said
So will any of these 3D games work with the same 3D glasses I got from Avatar??? Not those $200 per person glasses? If not, I don't understand why they don't make it so we can use the ones that we used to see this excellent 3D movie. Can anyone explain???
Reply
Posted: Jan 12th 2010 8:36AM natiahs said
"So will any of these 3D games work with the same 3D glasses I got from Avatar??? Can anyone explain???"
There are actually 3 versions of Avatar 3D. The original is 24fps, recorded on proprietary 3D cameras. That source was then upconverted for RealD (134fps) and IMAX 3D (?fps). Each version requires different glasses.
The 3D Blu-ray / TV tech shown at CES is 24fps but requires active shutter glasses. This article is interesting because it indicates that Super Stardust 3D will run at 120fps. I assume that would make it not only incompatible with any of the theatre glasses, but would make it incompatible with 3D Blu-ray / cable glasses as well.
(There were multiple 3D technologies shown at CES, some that required no glasses, but the standard supported by all major manufacturers is 24fps to conform to existing HDMI specifications).
JET
Reply
There are actually 3 versions of Avatar 3D. The original is 24fps, recorded on proprietary 3D cameras. That source was then upconverted for RealD (134fps) and IMAX 3D (?fps). Each version requires different glasses.
The 3D Blu-ray / TV tech shown at CES is 24fps but requires active shutter glasses. This article is interesting because it indicates that Super Stardust 3D will run at 120fps. I assume that would make it not only incompatible with any of the theatre glasses, but would make it incompatible with 3D Blu-ray / cable glasses as well.
(There were multiple 3D technologies shown at CES, some that required no glasses, but the standard supported by all major manufacturers is 24fps to conform to existing HDMI specifications).
JET
Posted: Jan 11th 2010 11:26PM Goaliegeek said
If a 60fps game needs a TV that supports 120Hz to do 3D, does a 30fps game need a TV that supports 60Hz (every tv)? This whole 3D thing is kinda confusing.
Posted: Jan 12th 2010 6:55PM Overgauss said
"Considering all this 3D BS requires you buy brand new expensive 3DTVs only a couple of years after buying expensive HDtvs I'd say you dont have anything to worry about."
F.U.D. FAIL.
3D Compatible TV's have been available since at least '08. I bought my 120hz 3D compatible Samsung a few years ago at Frys. I just need the glasses/tv interface now and I'm good to go.
Granted some newer TV's may have the '3d tuner' for lack of a better word to interface with shutter glasses included in them.
But that doesn't mean todays tv's are suddenly null and void.
I mean if you want to fall for the "I'M REQUIRED TO UPGRADE MAH TV" trap then go for it imo, but don't pass on shoddy info and speculation as fact.
Sure 6 or so years from now you may want to upgrade your 3D tv for higher refresh rates or so that glasses aren't needed, but that is SEVERAL generations from now.
That being said, I do sense some PS3 peripheral shenanigannery incoming. But in my case it is welcomed.
Reply
F.U.D. FAIL.
3D Compatible TV's have been available since at least '08. I bought my 120hz 3D compatible Samsung a few years ago at Frys. I just need the glasses/tv interface now and I'm good to go.
Granted some newer TV's may have the '3d tuner' for lack of a better word to interface with shutter glasses included in them.
But that doesn't mean todays tv's are suddenly null and void.
I mean if you want to fall for the "I'M REQUIRED TO UPGRADE MAH TV" trap then go for it imo, but don't pass on shoddy info and speculation as fact.
Sure 6 or so years from now you may want to upgrade your 3D tv for higher refresh rates or so that glasses aren't needed, but that is SEVERAL generations from now.
That being said, I do sense some PS3 peripheral shenanigannery incoming. But in my case it is welcomed.
Posted: Jan 11th 2010 11:28PM s ls said
i want 3D trophies also!
Posted: Jan 11th 2010 11:29PM (Unverified) said
How about the news eh? Feel Plus has announced work on Lost Odyssey 2! WOOT
Posted: Jan 11th 2010 11:44PM (Unverified) said
I don't do tips because I never see the credit on the end of the post lawl.
Reply
Posted: Jan 11th 2010 11:30PM Manvir2489 said
This game any good? What's it play like?
Posted: Jan 11th 2010 11:39PM (Unverified) said
This game just makes me want Osmos on the consoles. 360 and PS3 gamers should experience it's awesomeness. I love it on steam but it'd work far better with a joystiq.
Posted: Jan 11th 2010 11:45PM (Unverified) said
Oh I can tell, just read indie game, saw orbs and psychedelic imagery and immediately thought, "HEY I wanna play Osmos!"
Reply
Posted: Jan 12th 2010 12:26AM einhanderkiller said
You can use software to play any PC game with a 360, PS3, or any kind of controller. I personally use PinnacleGameProfiler.
Reply
Posted: Jan 11th 2010 11:51PM Lekko said
Every game would need 120Hz. If you were to go from blacking the eye out to clear at 30 fps per eye, that would be like staring into a strobe light and would give you too much eyestrain. 60 Hz for shutter glasses is about right per eye to be comfortable to play games at.
Posted: Jan 12th 2010 12:12AM Lekko said
TVs cannot selectively choose what polarization they display. Polarized glasses do not work at all on any current consumer-level product to create a 3D effect. Try looking at an LCD TV some time with polarized sunglasses on and tilting your head from side to side, you should find the angle where it blocks out the screen to black entirely.
They're trying to make some that will work, but so far no. That did just give me an idea though of how it could be done on a hardware level though.
Reply
They're trying to make some that will work, but so far no. That did just give me an idea though of how it could be done on a hardware level though.
Posted: Jan 12th 2010 2:14AM SecretAgentHam said
so is this going to get sold as a standalone release, add-on, or a title update? thats the real question, i wouldnt mind paying ~3 dollars for the 3D upgrade seeing as though i've already dropped about 15 on this game with all the add on content
Posted: Jan 12th 2010 7:04AM den69 said
"Super Stardust HD is undergoing a HD facelift right now."
You mean a 3D facelift? It's already in HD?
You mean a 3D facelift? It's already in HD?
Posted: Jan 12th 2010 7:30AM Wingless92 said
This is probably my favorite PSN game. After coming out early in the life cycle it's one that I still go back to and play. Everybody needs some Super Stardust HD.
As for the whole 3D thing. I think it's way overblown. Not going to pay for another HDTV anytime soon. Now PC gaming I think is a different discussion. Monitors aren't that much and to get a new one to take advantage of 3D would be ok in my eyes. Not sure if I would do it but I would do it way before replacing my HDTV.
As for the whole 3D thing. I think it's way overblown. Not going to pay for another HDTV anytime soon. Now PC gaming I think is a different discussion. Monitors aren't that much and to get a new one to take advantage of 3D would be ok in my eyes. Not sure if I would do it but I would do it way before replacing my HDTV.
Posted: Jan 12th 2010 8:45AM SpanWolf said
So when do we get it?
Posted: Jan 12th 2010 10:22AM Nook said
I don't have a PS3, but the PSP version is awesome - still getting mass playtime over a year since the download. This article makes me want to play right now.
That is all.
That is all.
Posted: Jan 12th 2010 11:09AM benheck said
If you have LCD shutter glasses, and a 120Hz TV, there is no reason you couldn't have 3D at 60FPS.
Problem is this is a *fairly* simple PSN game and most "big" titles have a hard time running at 720p 60FPS, let alone 120Hz / FPS. In fact a lot of big games don't even run at a full 720p.
So what [regular] 3D PS3 games will probably do is render 30 FPS per eye (60 FPS total) and send that to the newfangled / expensive 3D TV, which will then alternate the views very quickly in sync to your shutter glasses while the PS3 builds the next frame.
3D would be cool for gaming but I a) already wear glasses, so it's a pain and b) don't plan on buying a new TV anytime soon and in this economy, probably am not alone.
Problem is this is a *fairly* simple PSN game and most "big" titles have a hard time running at 720p 60FPS, let alone 120Hz / FPS. In fact a lot of big games don't even run at a full 720p.
So what [regular] 3D PS3 games will probably do is render 30 FPS per eye (60 FPS total) and send that to the newfangled / expensive 3D TV, which will then alternate the views very quickly in sync to your shutter glasses while the PS3 builds the next frame.
3D would be cool for gaming but I a) already wear glasses, so it's a pain and b) don't plan on buying a new TV anytime soon and in this economy, probably am not alone.
Posted: Jan 12th 2010 11:29AM RadiXe said
so we're counting FPS by per eye basis now?
Posted: Jan 17th 2010 7:09AM (Unverified) said
We shouldn't be, because this will confuse people...
120 FPS is 60 FPS stereo, so if some1 says they have a 60 FPS 3D game, its most likely going to be 30 FPS stereo. which would be unplayable...
:)
Oh and trust me, with how you need to fool the brain for 3D and not have eye strain, 120 FPS is the WTG.. Nothing less..
:)
Reply
120 FPS is 60 FPS stereo, so if some1 says they have a 60 FPS 3D game, its most likely going to be 30 FPS stereo. which would be unplayable...
:)
Oh and trust me, with how you need to fool the brain for 3D and not have eye strain, 120 FPS is the WTG.. Nothing less..
:)
Posted: Jan 17th 2010 7:00AM (Unverified) said
Slaziman (PSN ID: Slaziman) @ Jan 12th 2010 12:53AM
But LCD shutter glasses work with polarization as well as far as I know. But I guess not all polarization is equal.
No incorrect, shutter glasses are just that, they turn on and off, as where polarized glasses require what you are looking at, to have an adverse opposite polarized effect on screen for each eye.
Call it passive filtering as opposed to active blocking..
Let me quickly explain, LCDs are in them selves, polarized, and they only work 1 way, on, letting light through, and most likely polarized.
Now at the cinema, we have 2 polarized views on screen, 1 vertical, 1 horizontal, and the glasses compensate for an opposite, so 1 eye receives only the filtered information say from the left camera, being the left eye, and the right camera for the right eye.
Because of the LCDs manufacture process, they only have 1 position for polarizing, when you infact need two opposites pixel polarizations, 1 for each eye, to make a stereo image, if this makes sense??.
So for LCDs to work with Polarized glasses, you would need horizontal and vertical opposing polarization positioned pixels, 2 pixels for every normal pixel to allow for the stereo vision.
Its just the nature of how an LCD works...
I can not vouch for plasmas as I don't know 100% how they work...
Shutter glasses seem to give the most realistic stereo vision as you do not rely on polarization to get the effect, but a total black out of each eye sequentially to fool the brain.
Plus its more cost effective for cinemas to have cheap sun glasses they let you keep, instead of $100 plug into the wall sets...
Hope this clarifies things up..
And no, I ain't no rocket scientist, but I have been to the m00n... :p
But LCD shutter glasses work with polarization as well as far as I know. But I guess not all polarization is equal.
No incorrect, shutter glasses are just that, they turn on and off, as where polarized glasses require what you are looking at, to have an adverse opposite polarized effect on screen for each eye.
Call it passive filtering as opposed to active blocking..
Let me quickly explain, LCDs are in them selves, polarized, and they only work 1 way, on, letting light through, and most likely polarized.
Now at the cinema, we have 2 polarized views on screen, 1 vertical, 1 horizontal, and the glasses compensate for an opposite, so 1 eye receives only the filtered information say from the left camera, being the left eye, and the right camera for the right eye.
Because of the LCDs manufacture process, they only have 1 position for polarizing, when you infact need two opposites pixel polarizations, 1 for each eye, to make a stereo image, if this makes sense??.
So for LCDs to work with Polarized glasses, you would need horizontal and vertical opposing polarization positioned pixels, 2 pixels for every normal pixel to allow for the stereo vision.
Its just the nature of how an LCD works...
I can not vouch for plasmas as I don't know 100% how they work...
Shutter glasses seem to give the most realistic stereo vision as you do not rely on polarization to get the effect, but a total black out of each eye sequentially to fool the brain.
Plus its more cost effective for cinemas to have cheap sun glasses they let you keep, instead of $100 plug into the wall sets...
Hope this clarifies things up..
And no, I ain't no rocket scientist, but I have been to the m00n... :p
Featured Stories
Super Joystiq Podcast 004: 38 Studios meltdown, Gravity Rush, Civilization 5: Gods & Kings, Dragon's Dogma
Posted on May 25th 2012 3:30PM





