Topic: PS3 to display at 120fps

[zakkiel]

http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?aid=12629

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!!!!

[kirby_killer_dedede]

Or better yet, PS3 will have better graphics than reality!

[Avinash_Tyagi]

Actually I think they said that with the PS2

[KnowsNothing]

As far as I know, the eye sees a continuous stream, so yeah.  That said, 120 FPS wouldn't be too different looking from a 60 FPS game- it's just not really all that noticeable after that.  I think.  I certainly wouldn't care.

But, you WOULD need 120 FPS to run a real 3D 60 FPS game- 60 for both eyes.  Just saying

[NinGurl69 *huggles]

Funny how the HD standard only refreshes up to 60Hz-progressive.  AREZ THEY TRYING TO BRAEK THA TEVEE?

Most people will still be stuck with 60Hz-interlaced.

I think my PC can display a white screen at 120fps too.

[Shecky]

My computer can do a lot of things at 120 fps...

[S-U-P-E-R]

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  

[Don'tHate742]

Doesn't the REV have the capability to connect uo a computer monitor?

Is Nintendo quietly trying to do away with that feature and hope noone notices? They have mentioned anything about it since E3 04'.

[KDR_11k]

In principle there's not much to say about 120FPS. It looks more fluid because there is no proper motion blur in games so you see objects on a series of positions instead of a flowing motion. In practice there's a problem because TVs don't take 120Hz input signals. A computer screen would have no difficulty with that.

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.

[mantidor]

hilarity.

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?

[BranDonk Kong]

There's a HUGE difference between 30 and 60 FPS, and a HUGE difference between 60 and 120 FPS. Set your computer monitor to 60Hz if you can, and observe all the flickering, then change it to say 85 or 100Hz (if you can), and all the flickering will be gone. The higher the framerate, the more life-like (as in it looks like a window instead of a TV screen) the experience. Of course the only problem is...I've never heard of a TV that can do 120FPS. Sure 30 FPS progressive may look fine and dandy, but 60 ALWAYS looks substantially better, and the higher you go, the better it will look.

[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.

[BranDonk Kong]

Maybe it just depends on how good your eyesight is. I on one hand, have very good eyesight (20/10), so maybe it helps. It's also definitely more noticeable in 3D than in 2D, because animation in 3D isn't really measured in frames per se, as it is in 2D.

[KDR_11k]

Most newer PAL TVs do 100Hz but only take 50 FPS (that looks ugly when you're plugging a 50FPS interlaced source into it, like, say, a Gamecube, you can see the interlacing artifacts). It's free from flickering but there's no need for a 100Hz input signal. So the PS3 outputting 120Hz won't lead to a steadier picture.

[Sir_Stabbalot]

Bah. I bet Sony just set the max FPS at 120. Sure its capable of that, but I doubt it will ever happen in gameplay.

[mantidor]

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.

[ShyGuy]

My PS3 compensates for my insecurities about uh, stuff.

[NinGurl69 *huggles]

F-Zero GX looks great in p.scan.