Originally Posted by bd2003
4k and 3D are two entirely separate display modes. There's absolutely no relation there. Just cause it supports 4K doesn't mean it has support for 1080p/60/3D. HDMI 1.4b can manage 4k (at 24fps), but not 1080p/60/3D.
In my last post right before your comment, I said:
Originally Posted by joeblow
The resolution would not be 4K but 1080P (rendered twice to accommodate each eye)...
So your response doesn't make much sense. The main thing I was trying to get him to understand is that Sony can truthfully say there will be no 4K games while also later having the option to say we will see some 3D 1080P @60fps. That means there is a difference, so again your comment is confusing.
However, to go on to say that they have no relation to each other is just wrong. You can not have 3D 1080P @60 fps displayed by a device that is unable to produce 4K (obviously all the other hardware components need to be in place too). Once 4K is available, only then can it be possible to hit that ideal 1080P 3D spec and not before. Maybe it comes down to one person saying tomayto and the other saying tomahto, but the answer can easily be explained I think (a lot of basic stuff coming up for clarity):
In the end we are all talking about pixels on a display. Focusing on that point should make things clearer. Almost every gamer is familiar with the resolutions 480P, 720P and 1080P. Many also know that they are shorthand for the number of vertical pixels produced on your progressive screen (i.e. 1080P = 1,920 horizontal pixels and 1,080 vertical pixels, or 2,073,600 total). For whatever odd reason, the tech powers that be decided to use the number of horizontal pixels in 4K resolution to be the shorthand notation: 4K = 3,840 horizontal pixels x 2,160 vertical pixels, or 8,294,400 total).
What is important to note for this discussion is the fact that 4K resolution has exactly twice the number of horizontal and twice the number of vertical pixels as 1080P. It also means that 4K has four times the total number of pixels as 1080P. Now let's see why this is important.
To achieve 1080P in 3D @60fps (with a 4K set and the new HDMI standard in place or it is impossible), the console has to send sixty 1080P rendered frames each second to the left eye and also, separately, sixty different frames to the right eye. That means that each 1/60th of a second, the console is pumping out two 1080P images (one for each eye) to maintain that fluidity in 3D at this resolution.
How many pixels is that per second? 2 (one frame per eye) x 2,073,600 (pixels in a 1080P image) x 60 (frames in a second) = 248,832,000
(or, ~249 million pixels per second)
To achieve the minimum, most basic 4K image in 2D at 30fps (again with a 4K set and the new HDMI standard in place or it is impossible), the console has to send thirty 2160P (i.e., 4K) rendered frames each second to both eyes simultaneously. That means that each 1/30th of a second, the console is pumping out only one 4K image for this resolution.
How many pixels is that per second? 1 (a single frame) x 8,294,400 (pixels in a 2160P -or 4K- image) x 30 (frames in a second) = 248,832,000
(or, ~249 million pixels per second)
So you see? Like I said at the beginning, it all comes down to the number of pixels being splashed on the screen. By me saying you need 4K tech in a machine or 1080P in 3D @60fps is impossible, I am basically saying you need to be able to generate a high enough pixel count to achieve that goal, and that pixel count is the exact same minimum number of pixels generated by the most basic 4K image. If your machine cannot display a basic amount of 4K pixels, it can't do 1080P in 3D @60fps either.Edited by joeblow - 2/27/13 at 6:50am