Post by: zakkiel on October 31, 2005, 02:31:09 PM
Incidentally, if I remember right the human eye only refreshes 20 times a second. You all will have fun observing the many other ridiculous elements of this claim, but I just wanted to point that out.
Next up: PS3 will display at higher resolution than the human retina!!!!
Post by: kirby_killer_dedede on October 31, 2005, 02:49:06 PM
Post by: Avinash_Tyagi on October 31, 2005, 03:07:21 PM
Post by: KnowsNothing on October 31, 2005, 03:46:52 PM
But, you WOULD need 120 FPS to run a real 3D 60 FPS game- 60 for both eyes. Just saying
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on October 31, 2005, 03:58:09 PM
Most people will still be stuck with 60Hz-interlaced.
I think my PC can display a white screen at 120fps too.
Post by: Shecky on October 31, 2005, 04:09:02 PM
Post by: S-U-P-E-R on October 31, 2005, 04:39:17 PM
Quote
Incidentally, if I remember right the human eye only refreshes 20 times a second. You all will have fun observing the many other ridiculous elements of this claim, but I just wanted to point that out.
You remember wrong - a well trained nerd's eye can easily tell the difference between 20, 30, and 60.
I'm interested in this news if PS3 supports VGA output. (I haven't been following if it does or not) I'm VERY interested in lowering my console to useable-CRT ratio in my home (hooray for DreamCast VGA). If it doesn't, this is useless wang-waving that has no bearing on actual gaming at all
Post by: Don'tHate742 on October 31, 2005, 05:16:29 PM
Is Nintendo quietly trying to do away with that feature and hope noone notices? They have mentioned anything about it since E3 04'.
Post by: KDR_11k on November 01, 2005, 02:49:29 AM
The human eye doesn't refresh x times a second, they just threw movies at various framerates at a test audience and concluded that when they said the saw no difference that was the limit of the eye. The eye itself responds to photons, it can take a certain amount over a certain timeframe (because the receptors have to regenerate the chemical) but the input is continuous. The resolution isn't as high as you think, either, the eye moves slightly to make the different "pixels" cover different spots quickly.
This says nothing about the PS3's power as 120FPS can be archieved even on a P200 running an early Quake game. The only difference is that the PS3 will apparently have a mode to output that.
Post by: mantidor on November 01, 2005, 02:50:20 AM
the difference between 30 and 60 is only because of the lack of motion blur, and even then, its not really that easy to notice, so bragging about 120 fps is ridiculous, the difference will be practically non-existant. It just shows how Kutaragi knows nothing about videogames, such a stupidly arrogant person, cant wait to se him fall in flames, it has to happen at some point, right?
Post by: BranDonk Kong on November 01, 2005, 05:08:49 AM
Post by: couchmonkey on November 01, 2005, 05:33:23 AM
Post by: BranDonk Kong on November 01, 2005, 08:37:16 AM
Post by: KDR_11k on November 01, 2005, 09:04:09 AM
Post by: Sir_Stabbalot on November 01, 2005, 09:38:46 AM
Post by: mantidor on November 01, 2005, 10:56:57 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: couchmonkey
Brandogg: that's all a matter of taste. Some people don't notice framerate. I didn't until people kept talking about it in game reviews. Now I can tell the difference between 60 FPS and 30 FPS, but only if I'm trying.
Indeed. I can barely notice the difference between 30-60, much less to 120, and Im pretty sure its the same for the majority of people. Its not a matter of taste though, is a matter of you and how obsessed you are about graphics. If you see a diference between 60 and 120 and think is HUGE, I think youve already crossed the line.
Post by: ShyGuy on November 01, 2005, 11:40:11 AM
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on November 01, 2005, 11:49:43 AM
