I want to apologize, the 3DS will not need 720i/p

Discussion in '3DS - Console, Accessories and Hardware' started by alucard77, Jun 26, 2010.

  1. alucard77
    OP

    Member alucard77 GBAtemp Fan

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2006
    Messages:
    465
    Country:
    United States
    My first thread did create a lot of controversy, and for good reason. I forgot one main component. I forgot to discuss PPI. I corrected this in the original post, but I figured many people would not go back to read the main post, so I figured I would create a new thread to discuss this and apologize. I also want to give a huge thanks to Wolfmanz51 who corrected me.

    To fully understand why the 3DS resolution is more then good enough we have to understand Pixels Per Inch. To best understand PPI, you first need to know the resolution of the product you are looking at.
    -In the case of the 3DS the resolution is 400x240.
    -The total resolution is 96000.
    - Now all 96000 pixels are going to be squeezed into a 3.5 inch screen.
    - If you were to see how many pixels would go for each inch you would need to do an advanced calculation. Lucky for us, this site exists which does these calculations for us.

    In this case the 3DS has a PPI of 133.28. To put this in comparison, a 50" 1080i/p TV only has a PPI of 43.71. So the 3DS will have nearly 3x as many pixels per inch then a 50" 1080i/p TV.

    This is more then enough to make anything look great if the poly count is high.

    If Nintendo gave us 720i/p, the PPI would be 419.6, which would be ridiculous. That would be nearly 10x the PPI count of a 50" 1080i/p TV.

    Taking all of this into account, I still think that the 3DS will still need a 4.9 inch screen to give us a good 3D experience. Now, I know that a good 3D experience is subjective. I personally am under the belief that 3D looks best when it engulfs your line of vision. You don't feel like your looking into a 3D box, you feel like your in the action. Looking into a 3D box maybe good for some of you, but most 3D TV reviewers criticize 3D TVs because it doesn't make you feel like you are part of the action because the screen is not big enough to do that.

    In my original thread I showed how a 4.9 screen with a 10 inch viewing distance can emcompass the same field of vision as 70" TV at a 12 foot viewing distance. To me a 70 inch at this distance provides the feeling of being in the action that would be good for movies and gaming.

    So the new question becomes, now that we know that we don't have to push out 720p for the DS to look good, should Nintendo try to squeeze in a 4.9 inch screen. Also, what do you think a good 3D experience is? Would looking into a box be enough for you, or do you want to feel like your part of the game? A good way to think of this, is the MGS demo. In the beginning you see the grass go by. If the screen was bigger, the grass would engulf more of your field of vision, and that 3D would feel more real. Or does this not matter to you? Do you not mind 3D that feels like looking into a diorama?
     
  2. TM2-Megatron

    Member TM2-Megatron Predacon Commander

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2009
    Messages:
    1,187
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    Country:
    Canada
    Good to see this is cleared up. Pixel density is indeed pretty important, and having HD resolution (whether 1080 or 720) on the types of small screens used by portable devices would be incredibly expensive to produce. I doubt any company, anywhere, has bothered to mass produce any screen smaller than 17" or so with an HD resolution (and even then, it would only be the pseudo-HD 720). Anything smaller would probably just be made as a novelty, or tech demo.

    Also, unless I'm mistaken, a great number of PS3 games are only 720p (if not most). And to accomodate stereoscopic 3-D at that resolution, even the PS3 needs to halve its normal framerate... if a monster like the PS3 needs such momentous processing power to render 3-D HD graphics, then so would a portable. That kind of power just isn't ready to be put in portable form at an affordable price.
     
  3. antonkan

    Member antonkan GBAtemp Maniac

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2009
    Messages:
    1,063
    Location:
    Burlington, ON
    Country:
    Canada
    +1 for this topic because the 3DS could be expensive.

    Off-topic: I do remember that Zune HD and the forthcoming Windows Phone 7-based cell phones does have 720p for connecting to an HDTV.
     
  4. TM2-Megatron

    Member TM2-Megatron Predacon Commander

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2009
    Messages:
    1,187
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    Country:
    Canada
    720p output is much different than a 720p screen, though... the ZuneHD (according to specs, anyway) has a 480x272 LCD. HD video out would, indeed, be a much simpler order. There are numerous H.264 (and other formats) decoding chips at this point that can assist a device in outputting pretty high-res video. That's significantly different than building a portable device with the CPU and GPU necessary to render videogames at HD resolutions in real-time, though.
     
  5. alucard77
    OP

    Member alucard77 GBAtemp Fan

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2006
    Messages:
    465
    Country:
    United States
    Antonkan,

    They can display 720p on external monitor, if you understand pixel density, you would understand that it would be complete overkill to give you a screen that does 720p on a smart phone.

    Also, not sure if you meant the 3DS would be more expensive with a 4.9 inch screen. If so, I really doubt this. I can't see adding 1.4 inches increasing the price by much.
     
  6. TM2-Megatron

    Member TM2-Megatron Predacon Commander

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2009
    Messages:
    1,187
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    Country:
    Canada
    Not necessarily the resolution... but to output 3-D at 720p, the PS3 can't render as many frames per second. And I do believe the framerate is about halved on 3-D PS3 games.

    EDIT: As the article tk_saturn posted says, the PS3's just not up to outputting 3-D at its normal 60Hz. They needed to drop it to 30, which is a significant decrease.... the DS has a 30Hz framerate. They also needed to decrease from 1080p to 720p, apparently. So a drop of both resolution and framerate, simply to accomodate a gimmick.
     
  7. tk_saturn

    Member tk_saturn GBAtemp Psycho!

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2010
    Messages:
    3,327
    Country:
    United Kingdom
    http://www.mcvuk.com/news/38701/Resolution-drops-for-PS3-3D

    From this and your other threads, I really think you are expecting to much from the 3DS. This isn't a 3D Home Cinema Entertainment, it's a Nintendo handheld console. It's a console for kids, and they will welcome it with open arms. Being much older, you're looking for something different. From the 77 on your ID, i'm actually the same age as you.

    You are looking for an immersive 3D gaming experience. What you want is a PC, with large LCD nvidia 3D blah blah blah and LCD active shutter glasses.
     
  8. alucard77
    OP

    Member alucard77 GBAtemp Fan

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2006
    Messages:
    465
    Country:
    United States
    Why would they need to increase the resolution? The pixel density would still be more then enough with the existing resolution on a 4.9 screen. All that would happen is that the pixel density would go from 133.28 to 95.2. This is still at least 2x what a 50" 1080 TV would give us.

    Unless I am still missing something with pixel density.
     
  9. tk_saturn

    Member tk_saturn GBAtemp Psycho!

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2010
    Messages:
    3,327
    Country:
    United Kingdom
    And that's why you were going on and on about it having to have a 720p resolution. You are making comparisons to a 50" TV, that is no fair comparison as that is a very different beast.

    Instead, why don't you make comparisons to other handheld devices? DS Lite, DSi, DSi XL, PSP, iPad, iPhone etc. Surely that would give people a better understanding? People will roughly hold them a similar distance away from their eyes, so it's much better comparison.

    We know the resolution and the pixel density on the DS stinks. You can make out the pixel structure under normal use.
     
  10. TM2-Megatron

    Member TM2-Megatron Predacon Commander

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2009
    Messages:
    1,187
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    Country:
    Canada
    They wouldn't need to; it just would be nice if they did. A 3.53" widescreen is, IMO, large enough for the moment. I have no doubt the first redesign of the 3DS is likely to increase the size... maybe to 4" or 4.2". Nintendo is probably already putting resources into finding out how to increase the size of the screen while maintaining the effectiveness of the 3-D. But had they made the screens on the first 3DS any larger, they may just as well have pumped the resolution up a bit more as well... perhaps to at least match the PSP's 480x272. Or something that would give it a proper 16:9 aspect ratio... the resolution right now sits comfortably between the television and computer standards of 16:9 and 16:10.

    Honestly, the one thing I would've rather seen in the 3DS we saw at E3? A widescreen on the bottom, to match the top. Maybe not another 3-D, but just a regular 3.53" 400x240 touch screen to match the dimensions of the top. Wouldn't have killed Nintendo to tack on those extra 80 lines of pixels.
     
  11. tk_saturn

    Member tk_saturn GBAtemp Psycho!

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2010
    Messages:
    3,327
    Country:
    United Kingdom
    I saw a few articles complain about that, and also about the lack of 3D on the lower screen. Apparently, it's meant to be very annoying because your eyes have to refocus to 2D to see the lower screen and then back to 3D for the upper screen and so on. I think they mention it on the Engadget hands-on video.
     
  12. TM2-Megatron

    Member TM2-Megatron Predacon Commander

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2009
    Messages:
    1,187
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    Country:
    Canada
    I did think Nintendo's "excuse" for not implementing 3-D on the touch screen sounded a bit hollow... smudges, really? How many people really use their hands for the touchscreen when playing on a regular DS? Why assume the 3DS would be any different?

    However, another 800x240 screen on the bottom would've resulted, again, in significantly more CPU and GPU power to drive two 3-D LCDs at the same time. Crazy power, in fact.
     
  13. alucard77
    OP

    Member alucard77 GBAtemp Fan

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2006
    Messages:
    465
    Country:
    United States
    I don't find I use the bottom screen nearly at all in most nds games. I can't think of the last one where I watched the bottom screen as much as the top.
     

Share This Page