Topic: New 3DS PPI

The resolution is very low on the 3DS. Far too low for HD visuals.

With the 3D on, each eye sees a different half of the 800 pixels horizontal line, otherwise the image gets blurry.

Yes, but the effective image you see is nowhere near being 800 pixels long.

For a similar effect to what that would be, place two mirrors between your eyes.

This is a different scenario. On the 3DS screen, it's very clear that each eye is seeing different pixels. If you have 800 horizontal pixels and each eye sees DIFFERENT pixels, you get 400 per eye. The technology behind this is aiming 400 pixels to your right eye and aiming 400 different pixels to your left eye. The fact that they are slightly different make your brain add depth to those two flat images. I have read a (simpler) explanation on the original 3DS manual (which I still own).

Besides, according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nintendo_3DS:
The Nintendo 3DS contains two separate screens. The top screen is a 15:9 (5:3) autostereoscopic LCD screen with a display resolution of 800×240 pixels (400×240 pixels per eye).

Thanks for backing me up, and therefore is 215ppi !

It's effectively a 400x240 image. Saying it's 800x240 is kinda like saying your TV is 2K when you put it into 3D mode. I mean technically you're being shown twice as many pixels but they're two separate images at the same resolution. Which is why even with the 3D on you can really see the jaggies on your 3DS.

And yeah, they are really falling behind in terms of the display resolution. You'd have to be blind to say that they weren't.

You just said you're being shown twice as many pixels - how can you say that you still see only one plane of pixels if that's the case? I must go back to elementary mathematics.... one plus one is... errr..... one?

It technically is 215 ppi, but if you were to compare a 800x240 image to the 3DS, it would be sharper than the 3DS, because the effective image you're receiving is only 400x240.

Yes I don't disagree with that, but for people to slag it off and say that it's not 215ppi is just wrong. It "is" 215ppi, just not the way that you would see it normally.

It's because you can't see a 215 ppi image. Why claim a certain pixel density if you can't even see it? It would come off as deceitful, something other companies would do. But not Nintendo.

I'm not saying that Nintendo claim it, I'm just saying what it is....

You are right.

You are right.

Again, in 3D mode your left eye sees 400 horizontal pixels and your right eye sees 400 horizontal pixels. So, it's 120 pixels per inch on New Nintendo 3DS top screen and 95 pixels per inch on New Nintendo 3DS top screen (in 3D mode). That's extremely low, no matter how much you love 3DS. I love my New 3DS too.

Maybe it could be described this way. If the 3DS screens were really able to output an 800x240 image, in both 2D and 3D, it would need a screen resolution of 1600x240, with 800x240 going to each eye. Obviously though, we wouldn't be getting an image with the same pixel density as a 1600 pixel wide screen would. It would only look as good as an 800 pixel wide screen.

Now, I guess if you want to get technical about it, the 3DS screens do have 215ppi. That doesn't change the fact though, that the actual image quality, the image your eyes actually receive, is much lower than that, and the 3DS can't produce HD quality graphics.

Like others have said though, that doesn't mean 3DS games can't still look good! (Although, I can't say I wouldn't love HD screens either! )

As I said, technically you're being shown twice as many pixels but they're two separate images at the same resolution. It's kinda like when a satellite or a plane goes over to take some aerial photos. They'll always take stereo images so that they can measure the height of the terrain alongside vegetation etc. But the fact that they're taking two photos doesn't mean that they can now see more detail. Basically there's twice as many pixels but there's no increase in resolution. Make sense?

You're getting a 400x240 image with depth. Which is why, as I said, the amount of jaggies stays the same and in some respects even seems to increase when you turn the 3D on.

Yes I understand that the end point is still 400x240 resolution but that doesn't change the fact that your left eye sees X number of pixels and your right eye also sees X number of pixels where the pixels seen by both eyes are not the same. Hence X + X is..... drum roll ..... 2X.

The Op's initial posts were correct. Even though the total pixels on screen are 800 across, In 2D mode, the effective resolution is 400x240 because the image displayed is stretched over the sub-pixels 1:2. However in 3D mode, that same image is reconfigured by the framebuffer to only display on every other 400 sub-pixels 1:1, leaving the other 400 pixels to the 2nd framebuffer which displays a different image of the same scene at a different angle. Because of this, the effective resolution in 3D mode is 800x240.

This is because each image has its own detail/information that the other image does not display in its 400 pixels. For the 3D effect to work, one image is displayed to its respective eye, the parallax barrier blocks the other eye from seeing the image displayed to the opposite eye. Each eye gets shown the same scene at slightly different angles showing different detail. It doesn't matter how different one image is from the other as someone on here mentioned, as long as the image displays aspects of the scene not shown in the other image, more detail is perceived when the brain merges these two images together to get the 3D effect. This is why objects/environments seem "rounded" while each individual image is just a flat, 2D, 400x240 shot. You're seeing both sides of an object at the same time. Your brain perceives both images at the same time and merges both aspects of the images into one 3D scene, displaying what both images have to offer, 800x240 resolution worth of detail. 2D mode is just an automated version of simply closing one eye with the 3D effect on, you only see one of two images when closing an eye.

The notion on this thread that 3D is 400x240 is physically impossible as that would suggest that either you are not seeing a 3D image in 3D mode at all as that would require a 2nd, slightly angled image to get the "rounded" effect, or that your eyes/brain somehow cancels out the 2nd image's pixels/detail leaving you with only the first images 400 pixels/detail but still a providing 3D effect, which is not only impossible but hardly makes sense. You have to see both images to get the 3D effect, the viewing angles are wider in 3D mode and more is being shown, you are seeing an 800 pixel wide image in 3D mode or else the 3D effect cannot happen. This should be common sense by now.

@CrimSkies97 Let's hold hands and face the haters together. It's us against the world...!

No, he's correct, its 800x240 in 3D and 400x240 in 2D.
Read above where I explain it in more detail:

The interesting fact that the Vita has 220 PPI means it has a lower PPI than the 2011 3DS at 236 PPI in 3D mode.

OMG I HAVE 7000 PPI AM I THE STRONGEST CONSOLE!?