Oh, ok. Well yeah, that was basically what I was getting at, too.Originally Posted by xbdestroya
120 now is just crazy but with future tech.....
Less invasions, more equations!
GIVE THIS MAN A PRISE!!! yes the human eye can't pick up anything faster that 32 to be exact thats why every hollywood film is 32 fps dose anyone call the MATRIX a slide show?... looks pritty damn smooth to me i have a better ideal insted of caping the games @ 60fps lets cap them @ 32fps and X2 our polly countOriginally Posted by venomv
We the people...
this is by far the stupidest thing ive ever heard. You guys realise that when your runing 120FPS it looks 99% like what it would if it were 30 FPS.
Do you know what this means? This means that the processing power is cut 4 times just because Sony wants a higher frame rate. Whats better, having 100% awsome graphics, or cutting the graphics 4 times (25%) but having a higher frame rate which will make hardly any difference.
you do the maths. Just because they say we might be getting better frame rates, dosnt mean it wont affect the processing power and graphics of the game. In my honest opinion, 40 FPS for a game, and perhaps a flicker free TV is all you need.
I'm amazed at how many ludicrous commentaries are being said here. Not intending to say my opinion is better than all of your opinions, but I for one can tell the difference between 30 and 60 fps and say that 30 are choppy-ness compared to 60 which bring the possibility to offer quite natural motion in some cases. I can honestly say that I can tell the difference between 25 and 30 and between 50 and 60. I can probably tell the difference between higher frame rates than 60 given a monitor that is faithfully able to display higher frame rates than that. If any of you can't, it means you have rarely seen sources working at those framerates or you haven't used good enough equipment. Or you most likely need to pay a visit to your ophthalmologist.
You either got it all wrong or you made that up or you have no idea what you're talking about. Since the introduction of sound, most films have run (and do so nowadays) at the standard speed of 24 frames per second. If you need proof, get any standard Hollywood movie on DVD, pause it and then count how many frames are in each second by pushing the "step" button.Originally Posted by jaxmkii
I'm afraid the whole thing about the 120 FPS is just a misinterpretation, intended or not. It could mean 60 FPS for two monitors at once (displaying a different picture) or that in case a new ultrahigh FPS standard appears, PS3 will be able to keep up. Or maybe something totally different.
If a 'simple' game could go 120 FPS, then an average game will still be over 90 fps and that's still good enough. I believe this means that we're going to be seeing 60 fps flat, hence the Killzone demo was sped up to 60 fps.
I want more info.
If that's the case, then Kutaraji would have stated that. That 120fps figure is certainly one monitor, but I believe that this is a confirmation that 120fps is possible.Originally Posted by VG Aficionado
Mr. Hate: You need to relax. He is not forcing developers to conform to a 120 fps standard. Instead he is hinting about the impressive technology in the PS3--it's the king of next-gen consoles.
The only reason movies can run at such low frame rates is because of the motion blur that comes with the capture method used to make the film. The reason why games can run at similar frame rates and look choppy is because most games do not have a motion blur effect overlaying them. Some games do, and they can run at 30fps and still look great because of it.
Really, once you get past 60fps, the visible difference in frame rate and "smoothness" is negligible. I see no point in PS3 games shooting for 120fps, especially given that TVs and monitors generally don't have refresh rates to match that speed.
In short, Ken Kutaragi is batshit insane.
Yeah but it reminds me that it s like a damn Sony marketing strategy to show off .
It s like saying yah ! Buy Ps3 because the games will run too quickly at 120 fps.
And something like yeah the TV constructors will have to build new TVs .
Playfrance.com PS3 News 24/24 the latest news.
"Pure logic is the ruin of the spirit.”Being true to yourself really means being true to all the complexities of the human spirit"
This is quite true. Some AAA games already feature a motion blur effect which make them look more natural when properly used. I'm sure this trend is going to evolve in the best possible way.Originally Posted by Mr. Hate
Anyway, I don't think there's a framerate and an ideal effect applicable to such framerate that will ever please everyone's needs since every single person has their own perception of motion. Also, most people don't seem to agree what they expect games to look like. Do they expect them to run like movies or TV programs, or movies with motion blur, or ultra-high framerates without motion blur, or the contrary, or everything at once? No matter how natural motion will ever get, there will always be people who disagree until they're proven the contrary, which I don't see happening soon enough.
Well your all wrong. The human eye can percieve over 200 frames per second. Heres a link. Linky
So you damn well better believe 120fps would look alot better than 60 or less fps. Some sources even say that the eye can percieve over 300 frames per second, so its not just this source either. Now is the downgrade in graphics worth the extra frame rate? Probably not but its just nice to know its a possibility.
I wish I could have responded sooner, but I was in hurry out the door, but that was exactly the point I was trying to make.Originally Posted by rpgamer_2k5
Do anyone remember the PSM magazine that said something about 60fps standard. It was a recent topic posted here a few days ago. This is why I say 30fps could be obsolete for PS3 games if what was said is being interpreted in a certain manner in which I think it is.
The 120fps figure was made regarding movies.
I don't see any direct reference to (Hollywood and alike) movies in that slide. It talks about video standards, past, present and possible future ones.
Back to the 120FPS thing, I haven't seen a single quote from Kutaragi saying: "PS3 will run games at 120 FPS at 720p - 1080i/p". It still looks to me that it was an interpretation made by a third party.
Since it's conference related I put the thing here, but click on that link for the full story on the slides.
Respect to all those who debate their positions using facts and reason rather than rumor and passion.
Stop and read between the lines for a second. If 120fps is the highest that can be pushed out, then what would be considered standard or slightly above standard for the PS3? Or let's pust it this way: if 60fps is all that we need for a great looking game but we have 60 more fps to play with, which many consider an excessive framerate, imagine for a second where the rest of the hardware could go. That is why the 120fps is such a phenomenal number right now. 60fps for the PS3 console seems like 30fps for this gens' consoles (the bare minimum), which could make a game like Killzone 3...well you can already see where I'm going with this. Anyway, developers will have to make fewer sacrifices, it seems.Originally Posted by Mr. Hate
I think some of you guys aren’t getting it!!
Ken is stating the "120fps figure" in an off-handed manner. Meaning that most (if not all) PS3 games should have enough buffer room to handle mass amounts of data (post processing, physics, AI, ECT…) without sacrificing smooth frame-rates (60FPS). 120fps figure was given to ensure gamers that PS3 will not have frame-rate issues compared to the previous generation of hardware. Sony main goal was to develop a system that can handle massive amounts of data at 60FPS or greater to ensure what they consider “responsive reality” (ala GScube). In Kens mind 30fps is yesterdays news and not a true representation of next-generation power & gaming.
I truly believe PS3 will have less than 10% “30fps games”, and those coming from lame lazy ass developers. I will bet anyone that Sony, Epic, Square/Enix, Capcom, Namco, Tecmo, and the other top-end developers will be able to achieve 60fps easily without sacrificing too much compared to today’s PCs and Xbox 360.
Well yeah, Ken is making a big statement about the console through this release, but I really wasn't trying to address that issue in my post. I know full well that the PS3 is going to be a powerful machine.Originally Posted by Domination
I was trying to stifle the other argument in this thread about whether or not people can really tell the difference between 60 and say 100fps. I personally can't really tell at all, but people who play FPS games with an expensive PC tend to thing they can see a difference between those same frame rates. They might just be trying to justify spending so much money on something so frivolous, though.
I don't understand how this confusion can continue - afterall Cpi explained the situation with the human eye pretty well in post #14 of this thread.
Respect to all those who debate their positions using facts and reason rather than rumor and passion.
Vejita has it right, Ken was talking about Bluray movies, NOT PS3 games. It would be nice if we had 120fps games on PS3, but the short answer is it is very unlikely it will happen. The same can be said for any of the next generation consoles including X360 and Rev.
WRONGOriginally Posted by stanDarsh
Movies are either captured in 24fps or 30fps that includes the original HD-Movie source. Movies do not need anything over 30fps (including HD Film Stock). That 120fps figure is dealing with video games and nothing else!!
Edit: What matters when scaling video from something as small (PSP) to something as big (Local Movie Theater), is the refresh rate and bit-rate. The Higher the bit-rate, the richer looking the film stock is. Higher refresh-rates prevents unwanted movie tarring. Anyhow, anything over 1280x1024 and contains about a 6-8 bit-rate ratio is considered HD-Movie stock. But true HD-Film stock (1080p) is rated at 1920x1080 and contains anything over an 8 bit-rate ratio. Either captured in 24fps or 30fps…………….
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)