http://spong.com/news/f/o/forgetps3s304585l.jpg
Posted 13 Aug 2009

If you're as bored of PS3 Slim and price cut 'reporting' as we are, it's refreshing to hear that Sony is actually talking about something concrete in relation to PS3 related tech. At a recent briefing in Australia, Sony's Yoshinami Takahashi (deputy senior general manager, Home Entertainment Group... phew), said that he expected the 3D Blu-ray format to be ratified this year, with players available in 2010.

Cnet reports (http://www.cnet.com.au/sony-3d-blu-ray-coming-in-2010-339297894.htm) that "When asked what he thought studios were planning for 3D Blu-ray content, Takahashi conceded that shorter-length content was more suited to the technology. As many viewers suffer from headaches and nausea watching full length movies in 3D, documentaries and animated shorts would probably be in greater demand."

Sony then clarified Takahashi's line by stating, "If the 3D Blu-ray format, which is currently being tested, is confirmed and goes into production, we would be hoping to see 3D Blu-ray players by the end of next year, however, nothing has been confirmed as yet."

So, does this mean a new PS3 with 3D Blu-ray or will PS3 owners be using outdated tech in 2010? We've got no idea, but someone is bound to run a story saying that a source has told them that this is definitely happening for sure.

source (http://news.spong.com/article/18896/PS3-Slim-Already-Outdated-by-3D-Blu-ray)

It needs a special format to play the 3D content? Isn't it just data, regardless of it's a BR disc, DVD, CD etc? I'm totally confused on this concept... does the player output something special? No need for glasses? Someone care to explain?

Yeah why do they need another format for this? Also why are they using that retarded mockup of the PS3 Slim

Actually the report from Cnet does not indicate at all that this can't be provided through a firmware update for the PS3. This just seems like a new BD profile that current standalone BD players won't be able to take advanatage of, but that shouldn't affect the PS3 at all since it's been able to upgrade to newer BD profiles in the past

Good idea to confuse fringe buyers even further by letting them know the tech they haven't even bought yet will be obsolete soon.

This thing is absolutely dead in the water if it requires all new hardware and not just a firmware update. You'd THINK it would just be part of a new profile update for the existing technology, unless they're batshit crazy.

I can't imagine they'd be giving sneak peeks of 3D versions of existing PS3 games at CES earlier this year, then tell us later "oh, by the way, you can't do this on that PS3 you have now."

Blu-ray players are firmware-upgradeable noob. The only reason early players couldn't adopt new profiles was because they didn't have ethernet ports and storage.

Of course, HDDVD had all those things since 1.0 and the first players.

not all players have ethernet and storage troll

now I can finally play all of those wonderful 3D blu-rays.

oh...wait, that's right, there aren't any.

damn, I already threw away my outdated ps3 after just reading the title.

That's because it wasn't originally mandated that blu-ray players have those, which I already stated if you had even paid attention, numbnuts.

However, the superior HDDVD format did specify those features on all of its players.
failtroll is fail

Blu-ray players are firmware-upgradeable noob. The only reason early players couldn't adopt new profiles was because they didn't have ethernet ports and storage.

Of course, HDDVD had all those things since 1.0 and the first players.

hey dude... he mentions the PS3 can update to this new profile.

I was going to clarify that I was talking about non-network players when saying standalone BD players but I figured most would understand what I meant. But then again dale is a dumbass and clearly an HD DVD/Microsoft troll .

No way, dale loves the PS3 and blu-ray. He can't stop playing Killzone 2... he told me in a PM.

That's because it wasn't originally mandated that blu-ray players have those, which I already stated if you had even paid attention, numbnuts.

However, the superior HDDVD format did specify those features on all of its players.

Enjoy your coasters. :lmao:

not all players have ethernet and storage troll

An early mistake for sure (except for the PS3), but I doubt you can find a player on the shelf today that isn't upgradeable.

That's because it wasn't originally mandated that blu-ray players have those, which I already stated if you had even paid attention, numbnuts.

However, the superior HDDVD format did specify those features on all of its players.

Good thing I never bought that "superior" format so I didn't need to have a "superior garage sale".

Good thing I never bought that "superior" format so I didn't need to have a "superior garage sale".

:lmao:

It'll never catch on if its going to be a standalone thing. The studios are already scratching their heads on all the extra stuff to fill up normal blurays with.

3D would be fun stuff imo

3D would be fun stuff imo

Unless you have an imax in your house I dont think I cuold stand watching a 3d movie on a regular television. Who knows though. The technology might get better. I think I just have a problem with 3-d in that my eyes seem to be off just a little bit from their standard paralax so it appears funky and makes my eyes hurt.

Unless you have an imax in your house I dont think I cuold stand watching a 3d movie on a regular television. Who knows though. The technology might get better. I think I just have a problem with 3-d in that my eyes seem to be off just a little bit from their standard paralax so it appears funky and makes my eyes hurt.

haha the only time i've done 3D is at the local IMAX or at Seaworld, Disneyland, and the likes

Enjoy your coasters. :lmao:

I enjoy my coasters, especially when I only pay $5 for a movie that I would have to pay $25 for on BR. If you don't buy a xbox hd dvd player addon now, you are missing out on good cheap movies.

Unless you have an imax in your house I dont think I cuold stand watching a 3d movie on a regular television. Who knows though. The technology might get better. I think I just have a problem with 3-d in that my eyes seem to be off just a little bit from their standard paralax so it appears funky and makes my eyes hurt.

If anyone wants to try it out at home check out "Coraline" on blu-ray. I rented it and got two of the pairs of 3D glasses with it. The effect works, but the image is awash in an unnatural tint because you're looking through two different colored lenses, and it also just gets uncomfortable after a while. For the last 30 minutes of the film I took off the glasses and switched it to the 2D version.

Umm....all tech is outdated basically as soon as it rolls off the assembly line. Such is the nature of technology.

If anyone wants to try it out at home check out "Coraline" on blu-ray. I rented it and got two of the pairs of 3D glasses with it. The effect works, but the image is awash in an unnatural tint because you're looking through two different colored lenses, and it also just gets uncomfortable after a while. For the last 30 minutes of the film I took off the glasses and switched it to the 2D version.

Good film. I did not try out the 3d version though. I did not want to get another headache, which seems to be the case with the green/purplish tinted glasses they give out now. My Bloody Valentine 3D has some decent effects also. The film itself isn't all that great, but worth a rental.

I enjoy my coasters, especially when I only pay $5 for a movie that I would have to pay $25 for on BR. If you don't buy a xbox hd dvd player addon now, you are missing out on good cheap movies.

You pay $5? Thats outrageous! :eek: Actually thats about what I am paying now though. I did pick up quite a few about a month ago off ebay for around $3.00-$3.50 each.

I enjoy my coasters, especially when I only pay $5 for a movie that I would have to pay $25 for on BR. If you don't buy a xbox hd dvd player addon now, you are missing out on good cheap movies.

Um, anyone that pays $25 for a blu-ray is just lazy or impatient, so I find that point moot. I never pay more than $15. Which isn't anymore than DVDs when they first came out. Generally, I pay $10. Ebay, Amazon Marketplace are where its at, hell, even Best Buy is lowering Blu Ray prices on a weekly basis. Then you have Blockbuster or MovieStop for cheap used Blu Rays. No one should pay full retail.

I normally don't like to side with the troll...but I agree with the point he made, and it's a point I've always made when talking about HD-DVD. I absolutely hated the bullsh*t Sony did with their blu-ray players in the beginning having to tell you to go "buy a new one" if you wanted some stupid new feature.

Hopefully Sony isn't stupid enough to make this decision with a PS3..since nowadays it would just be a profile update. But then again..this is the same company that's pricing it's PSPGo at $249, and it's 80GB PS3 at $299 in two days :shake:

now I can finally play all of those wonderful 3D blu-rays.

oh...wait, that's right, there aren't any.

actually, there's Coraline. it's in 3D on blu-ray - here's the link (http://www.amazon.com/Coraline-Blu-ray-Combo-Digital-Copy/dp/B00288KNJU/)

actually, there's Coraline. it's in 3D on blu-ray - here's the link (http://www.amazon.com/Coraline-Blu-ray-Combo-Digital-Copy/dp/B00288KNJU/)

Okay...then I don't get it. What's the whole point of the article in OP then? What is Sony up to? Are they trying to make it "better"?

Okay...then I don't get it. What's the whole point of the article in OP then? What is Sony up to? Are they trying to make it "better"?

Current 3D Blu-rays use those red and blue glasses I believe (Coraline, My Bloody Valentine 3D, etc..), but it's nothing like the polarized glasses you see in theaters. I belive the new 3D format (or profile) is to use those glasses. Though I believe they require a 3D capable TV to use them anyway. Not sure.

Current 3D Blu-rays use those red and blue glasses I believe (Coraline, My Bloody Valentine 3D, etc..), but it's nothing like the polarized glasses you see in theaters. I belive the new 3D format (or profile) is to use those glasses. Though I believe they require a 3D capable TV to use them anyway. Not sure.

Actually they don't use those red/blue glasses anymore. They are now green/purplish & have been known to cause headaches which makes them a pain to use. The first batch of the Journey to the Center of the Earth remake had both 2d & 3d versions. It had a few decent 3d parts, but I paid the price for watching the entire movie in 3d.

Actually they don't use those red/blue glasses anymore. They are now green/purplish & have been known to cause headaches which makes them a pain to use. The first batch of the Journey to the Center of the Earth remake had both 2d & 3d versions. It had a few decent 3d parts, but I paid the price for watching the entire movie in 3d.

red and blue, or green and purple, it's still the same point, lol.

Current 3D Blu-rays use those red and blue glasses I believe (Coraline, My Bloody Valentine 3D, etc..), but it's nothing like the polarized glasses you see in theaters. I belive the new 3D format (or profile) is to use those glasses. Though I believe they require a 3D capable TV to use them anyway. Not sure.
no. Polarized glasses are still the same principal as the colored lenses, it's just that the info goes to different eyes via polarized filters rather than colored filters (so there's no color loss). 3d TVs work like those "moving image" labels, using a lenticular lens to essentially combine multiple images into one. At least that's one way to do it, prob not the only.

no. Polarized glasses are still the same principal as the colored lenses, it's just that the info goes to different eyes via polarized filters rather than colored filters (so there's no color loss). 3d TVs work like those "moving image" labels, using a lenticular lens to essentially combine multiple images into one. At least that's one way to do it, prob not the only.

okay thanks. I was just trying to think of a reason why they need a new format, do you know why?

no. Polarized glasses are still the same principal as the colored lenses, it's just that the info goes to different eyes via polarized filters rather than colored filters (so there's no color loss). 3d TVs work like those "moving image" labels, using a lenticular lens to essentially combine multiple images into one. At least that's one way to do it, prob not the only.

Pretty close, Bonk.

All 3D Stereo works from two images. The best way is to send those images independently to each eye (like the View Masters from our youth, or modern 3D headsets with microdisplays). However, that's impractical for normal use.

So one way is to use color filters (called anaglyph). That's been used for 100 years and has obvious problems. Sending a different color spectrum to each eye causes your brain to work harder, resulting in fatigue and headaches.

The new technology in theaters works on a similar concept, but instead of color filters, they use light polarization. This sends the same color spectrum to your eyes, so you can watch a two hour movie without fatigue.

Unfortunately, that technology isn't quite ready for TVs. The three technologies coming are DLP (available right now), Fast LCD (true 120hz displays, not the maketing garbage you see in BestBuy), and Cross-Polarization LCDs (normal LCD with expensive polarizing film bonded to it). The DLPs and Fast LCDs require battery-powered shutter glasses (like nVidia's), while the Polarized LCDs use passive glasses like the theaters.

Bonk, what you mentioned is called Lenticular displays, or Auto-stereo. Using lenses, you can create a glasses-free stereo display. However, it requires an ENORMOUS amount of pixels (about 9 times what's available in 1080p) for HD quality. Even then, you still have dead zones where you lose the stereo effect. That technology is great, but still about 10-15 years out. We could be seeing it on Cell Phones soon, though.

This 3D Blu-Ray idea is a few years out built on today's technology. It should only require a profile update (PS3 will be fine, but first-gen Blu-rays will not work). The biggest expense will be a new 3D-capable TV.

Pretty close, Bonk.

All 3D Stereo works from two images. The best way is to send those images independently to each eye (like the View Masters from our youth, or modern 3D headsets with microdisplays). However, that's impractical for normal use.

So one way is to use color filters (called anaglyph). That's been used for 100 years and has obvious problems. Sending a different color spectrum to each eye causes your brain to work harder, resulting in fatigue and headaches.

The new technology in theaters works on a similar concept, but instead of color filters, they use light polarization. This sends the same color spectrum to your eyes, so you can watch a two hour movie without fatigue.

Unfortunately, that technology isn't quite ready for TVs. The three technologies coming are DLP (available right now), Fast LCD (true 120hz displays, not the maketing garbage you see in BestBuy), and Cross-Polarization LCDs (normal LCD with expensive polarizing film bonded to it). The DLPs and Fast LCDs require battery-powered shutter glasses (like nVidia's), while the Polarized LCDs use passive glasses like the theaters.

Bonk, what you mentioned is called Lenticular displays, or Auto-stereo. Using lenses, you can create a glasses-free stereo display. However, it requires an ENORMOUS amount of pixels (about 9 times what's available in 1080p) for HD quality. Even then, you still have dead zones where you lose the stereo effect. That technology is great, but still about 10-15 years out. We could be seeing it on Cell Phones soon, though.

This 3D Blu-Ray idea is a few years out built on today's technology. It should only require a profile update (PS3 will be fine, but first-gen Blu-rays will not work). The biggest expense will be a new 3D-capable TV.

that was really informative

Pretty close, Bonk.

All 3D Stereo works from two images. The best way is to send those images independently to each eye (like the View Masters from our youth, or modern 3D headsets with microdisplays). However, that's impractical for normal use.

So one way is to use color filters (called anaglyph). That's been used for 100 years and has obvious problems. Sending a different color spectrum to each eye causes your brain to work harder, resulting in fatigue and headaches.

The new technology in theaters works on a similar concept, but instead of color filters, they use light polarization. This sends the same color spectrum to your eyes, so you can watch a two hour movie without fatigue.

Unfortunately, that technology isn't quite ready for TVs. The three technologies coming are DLP (available right now), Fast LCD (true 120hz displays, not the maketing garbage you see in BestBuy), and Cross-Polarization LCDs (normal LCD with expensive polarizing film bonded to it). The DLPs and Fast LCDs require battery-powered shutter glasses (like nVidia's), while the Polarized LCDs use passive glasses like the theaters.

Bonk, what you mentioned is called Lenticular displays, or Auto-stereo. Using lenses, you can create a glasses-free stereo display. However, it requires an ENORMOUS amount of pixels (about 9 times what's available in 1080p) for HD quality. Even then, you still have dead zones where you lose the stereo effect. That technology is great, but still about 10-15 years out. We could be seeing it on Cell Phones soon, though.

This 3D Blu-Ray idea is a few years out built on today's technology. It should only require a profile update (PS3 will be fine, but first-gen Blu-rays will not work). The biggest expense will be a new 3D-capable TV.

I personally prefer polarization out of all of these. It is the most convincing, no color bleed problems, no headaches. Not sure how you would make an LCD panel able to change it's polarization without some crazy LCD technology that doesn't exist AFAIK. Well, I take that back, I have seen LCD monitors that have two LCD panels polarized differently. I bet they interfere with each other though, amongst costing a fortune.

Shutter glasses, from my experience, are headache inducing and don't work all that great as you still get a bit of light coming through when 'closed' that causes weird and annoying ghosting effects.

Pretty close, Bonk.

All 3D Stereo works from two images. The best way is to send those images independently to each eye (like the View Masters from our youth, or modern 3D headsets with microdisplays). However, that's impractical for normal use.

So one way is to use color filters (called anaglyph). That's been used for 100 years and has obvious problems. Sending a different color spectrum to each eye causes your brain to work harder, resulting in fatigue and headaches.

The new technology in theaters works on a similar concept, but instead of color filters, they use light polarization. This sends the same color spectrum to your eyes, so you can watch a two hour movie without fatigue.

Unfortunately, that technology isn't quite ready for TVs. The three technologies coming are DLP (available right now), Fast LCD (true 120hz displays, not the maketing garbage you see in BestBuy), and Cross-Polarization LCDs (normal LCD with expensive polarizing film bonded to it). The DLPs and Fast LCDs require battery-powered shutter glasses (like nVidia's), while the Polarized LCDs use passive glasses like the theaters.

Bonk, what you mentioned is called Lenticular displays, or Auto-stereo. Using lenses, you can create a glasses-free stereo display. However, it requires an ENORMOUS amount of pixels (about 9 times what's available in 1080p) for HD quality. Even then, you still have dead zones where you lose the stereo effect. That technology is great, but still about 10-15 years out. We could be seeing it on Cell Phones soon, though.

This 3D Blu-Ray idea is a few years out built on today's technology. It should only require a profile update (PS3 will be fine, but first-gen Blu-rays will not work). The biggest expense will be a new 3D-capable TV.
thanks for the info.

I can almost guarantee that 3d won't catch on until lenticular lenses or a similar non-glasses method for viewing becomes possible. People already hate watching TV if they lose the remote. Can you imagine having to keep track of glasses, especially if they're battery-powered?

BTW, also found this article (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/3324433/3D-television-a-reality-within-five-years.html) talking about holographic displays as well.

I personally prefer polarization out of all of these. It is the most convincing, no color bleed problems, no headaches. Not sure how you would make an LCD panel able to change it's polarization without some crazy LCD technology that doesn't exist AFAIK. Well, I take that back, I have seen LCD monitors that have two LCD panels polarized differently. I bet they interfere with each other though, amongst costing a fortune.


You can't make the light polarized from the sort or "change the polarization" (afaik). What you can easily do is put a filter over the screen to filter out the polarization you don't want. Modern technology lets you essentially put a filter over each individual pixel. Then, use glasses with appropriate polarization over each eye to see subsets of the picture.

What's amusing is that if you tilt your head so the glasses lenses are perpendicular to the polarization, the screen will go black :)

You can't make the light polarized from the sort or "change the polarization" (afaik). What you can easily do is put a filter over the screen to filter out the polarization you don't want. Modern technology lets you essentially put a filter over each individual pixel. Then, use glasses with appropriate polarization over each eye to see subsets of the picture.

What's amusing is that if you tilt your head so the glasses lenses are perpendicular to the polarization, the screen will go black :)

Filter per pixel would effectively halve your resolution, and I guess the 'best' way of doing it would to be use a checkerboard like pattern to separate the vert and horz pixels. That or just alternate rows or columns. Considering the way DLP tech works (electrico-mechanical changes in light reflection), dynamically changing the polarization of each pixel may be possible using that technique--I am just not bright enough to work out the details of making that work correctly.

I believe when Sony demo'd their version of this tech back at CES in January, they mentioned that a 120hz TV would be required, basically suggesting that a lot of the new TVs currently on the market could handle the effect. The glasses were the better type, not the old school pink/blue tint. For the Coraline 3D version they used this old school method.

I looked into 3D tech about 6 months ago and wanted to be an early adopter of what I thought would be the next trend in gaming/movie watching, but ultimately came to the conclusion that the tech is still not quite there yet (like jhaan said) and isn't affordable to make it worth it. I was concerned since my TV isn't 3D capable and was thinking of making a switch in a few years, but it doesn't seem to be as widespread as I'd thought it'd be when I first started hearing about the DLPs with their 3D capable displays (ie Samsung, JVC, etc.)

Filter per pixel would effectively halve your resolution, and I guess the 'best' way of doing it would to be use a checkerboard like pattern to separate the vert and horz pixels. That or just alternate rows or columns. Considering the way DLP tech works (electrico-mechanical changes in light reflection), dynamically changing the polarization of each pixel may be possible using that technique--I am just not bright enough to work out the details of making that work correctly.
Resolution's not that much of a problem -- at 1080i, you're only seeing half the picture at once and it still looks fine.

That said, you could filter rows and it should be fine as well.

Umm....all tech is outdated basically as soon as it rolls off the assembly line. Such is the nature of technology.

Yeah... especially so w/these latest gen consoles. Basically, when the 360 and PS3 rolled off the line, you were paying for a computer that was underpowered given the price point it was released with technology older than what was currently available for a PC at the time.

Yes... I know.. consoles aren't PCs per se, but in the latest gen, they basically are, just with specific proprietary changes to their enclosed architecture.

As several people have mentioned in this thread, for the latest and greatest 3D experience, there will most certainly be a need for a new TV, which trumps whatever is going to be rolled out for a console, whether or not it would even be possible for the console to output 3D imaging.

Pretty close, Bonk.

All 3D Stereo works from two images. The best way is to send those images independently to each eye (like the View Masters from our youth, or modern 3D headsets with microdisplays). However, that's impractical for normal use.

So one way is to use color filters (called anaglyph). That's been used for 100 years and has obvious problems. Sending a different color spectrum to each eye causes your brain to work harder, resulting in fatigue and headaches.

The new technology in theaters works on a similar concept, but instead of color filters, they use light polarization. This sends the same color spectrum to your eyes, so you can watch a two hour movie without fatigue.

Unfortunately, that technology isn't quite ready for TVs. The three technologies coming are DLP (available right now), Fast LCD (true 120hz displays, not the maketing garbage you see in BestBuy), and Cross-Polarization LCDs (normal LCD with expensive polarizing film bonded to it). The DLPs and Fast LCDs require battery-powered shutter glasses (like nVidia's), while the Polarized LCDs use passive glasses like the theaters.

Bonk, what you mentioned is called Lenticular displays, or Auto-stereo. Using lenses, you can create a glasses-free stereo display. However, it requires an ENORMOUS amount of pixels (about 9 times what's available in 1080p) for HD quality. Even then, you still have dead zones where you lose the stereo effect. That technology is great, but still about 10-15 years out. We could be seeing it on Cell Phones soon, though.

This 3D Blu-Ray idea is a few years out built on today's technology. It should only require a profile update (PS3 will be fine, but first-gen Blu-rays will not work). The biggest expense will be a new 3D-capable TV.
So are you saying that if you have a 120HZ tv, you will be able to play these 3D movies??

lol isnt there 240hz lcd tvs now and led tvs 0.0

lol isnt there 240hz lcd tvs now and led tvs 0.0

yeah...the 240HZ vs 120HZ diff isn't very big...and current LEDs are not that much better in PQ...just thinner

So are you saying that if you have a 120HZ tv, you will be able to play these 3D movies??

No. The 120Hz and 240Hz TVs you see on the market are mostly marketing garbage (frame interpolation or backlight tricks). They can't do 3D.

Samsung and Viewsonic sell "true" 120Hz monitors (used for nVidia's 3D glasses), but even with those, the liquid crystals run a little too slow for perfect 3D.

No. The 120Hz and 240Hz TVs you see on the market are mostly marketing garbage (frame interpolation or backlight tricks). They can't do 3D.

Samsung and Viewsonic sell "true" 120Hz monitors (used for nVidia's 3D glasses), but even with those, the liquid crystals run a little too slow for perfect 3D.

How bout the B650 series...is that marketing?

yeah...the 240HZ vs 120HZ diff isn't very big...and current LEDs are not that much better in PQ...just thinner
There aren't any consumer available true LED TVs on the market (actually, there may be one, iirc). There are LED-backlit TVs on the market. It's still an LCD, meaning that you shine light through an LCD screen. LCDs are tiny crystals which change shape under electric current. The TV signals change the shape of the crystals, allowing different light colors to shine through from the back. It's essentially a bunch of filters over a backlight. Just in LED tvs, the backlight is LED lamp instead of a standard CCFL.

A true LED TV, or more specifically OLED TV, is one that uses organic LED, which are essentially thin layers of organic material which give off light under an electric current. Hence, there's no backlighting needed. The OLED pixels are the source of the luminesence, not a filter.

uh, yeah, i ain't wearing another pair of glasses to watch a freakin' movie.

3D is a gimmick. only children dig it.

uh, yeah, i ain't wearing another pair of glasses to watch a freakin' movie.

3D is a gimmick. only children dig it.
i digg 30DD

uh, yeah, i ain't wearing another pair of glasses to watch a freakin' movie.

3D is a gimmick. only children dig it.
really? You'd rather see something planar than in the way our visual system actually works?

I don't like the current 3D setup. Everything looks like a cut out. It's definitely still a work in progress.

Thought you might be interested in this article...
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/2d5adde2-9727-11de-83c5-00144feabdc0.html

"3D technology looks set to hit the home consumer market next year, with Sony on Wednesday announcing plans to sell 3D televisions globally by the end of 2010."

Yeah... especially so w/these latest gen consoles. Basically, when the 360 and PS3 rolled off the line, you were paying for a computer that was underpowered given the price point it was released with technology older than what was currently available for a PC at the time.

Yes... I know.. consoles aren't PCs per se, but in the latest gen, they basically are, just with specific proprietary changes to their enclosed architecture.
Consoles do not work that way though.

A computer is a combination of different parts.

A console is a standard. Whether it is less powerful or more powerful than a computer does not matter. It is a standard. If I buy an Xbox it will be the same no matter where I buy it or who I buy it from. Thus development is easier and more consistent. The latest pc version of "shoot stupid farking aliens over and over" game may look kick ass for you on your $5000 super rig with Jesus as your video card, but for someone else it is could look worse than q-bert. Consoles are made for simplicity and consistency. That is why the only upgrades that have been released ever (excluding the "toiler" style accessories, which all failed) have been memory upgrades. People would rather buy a machine and live with it for a few years until there is a significant technological change that warrants a new release.

And consoles cannot be general purpose computers by definition. If they were then it would be illegal to rent software for the machines.
really? You'd rather see something planar than in the way our visual system actually works?
Except we can interpret depth in a flattened image. This is called perspective. Does it really matter if the image is actually attempting to recreate a more real perception? It might. Depending on how well the system works. Home viewing actually is more difficult to deal with as there are a wider range of horizontal and vertical viewing angles. The television in my room that is on right now is at a horrible angle, but I can still tell what is going on. Any 3D effect would need to produce wide viewing angles.