PS3 to run at 120fps? ken said yes...

[Sklaar]

PS3 to run at 120 fps?
It's possible, says Sony Computer Entertainment president Ken Kutaragi; all that's needed is a TV capable of displaying it.
Coming soon to an Internet message board near you: waves of more-hardcore-than-thou posters referring to any game running at 60 frames per second (fps) as "a slideshow."

Appearing at the Tokyo International Digital Conference on Thursday to talk about the technological capabilities of the PlayStation 3 and the Cell processor, Sony Computer Entertainment president Ken Kutaragi said he expects the PS3 to be capable of running games at a stunning 120 fps, according to a report in The Nikkei BP.

Never mind that even newer TVs aren't capable of refreshing the screen 120 times in a single second. Kutaragi said that when new technology comes to market, he hopes to have the PS3 ready to take advantage of it.

As for the Cell chip at the heart of the PS3, Kutaragi also had high hopes for its future beyond gaming. Taking High Definition TV as an example, he said that the Cell chip could take advantage of the technology in many ways, such as displaying newspapers in their actual size, showing multiple high definition channels on the screen at once, and video conferencing. He emphasized that the Cell can be used to decode more than 10 HDTV channels simultaneously, and it can also be used to apply effects such as rotating and zooming.

Later, he introduced the idea of a Cell cluster server that operates with 16 units, each consisting of eight Cell chips running at 2.5Ghz. That would total a processing power of 25.6 teraflops. Kutaragi also outlined plans to shrink the chip from the current 90 nanometer process to a 65 nanometer process in the future, and eventually down to a 45 nanometer process.

By Staff -- GameSpot
Posted Oct 28, 2005 10:27 am PT

[O.D.S]

Finally some news...some relly good news

great find Sklaar!

mmmm 120 fps? and here we were talking about "if Killzone could reach 60fps it would be awesone"

[xbdestroya]

Well... it's certainly an - extreme! - comment by KK. ;)

[venomv]

Isn't 60 fps all the human eye can pick up anyone, whats the point of going faster?

[Coded-Dude]

subliminal messages.......

[Danji]

The human eye has trouble detecting the differences in framerates higher than that. That doesn't mean it doesn't notice it. It would smooth things out when your character turns, for sure.

I really want a monitor on this thing because I know some awesome types of monitors could do that. At what res. I have no idea.

[mmilinski]

Well, it's not only about refreshing the screen - however it counts, try any FPS on PC (100 fps is incredibly smooth and responsive when compared to 30 fps) - the number of inputs from controller the game engine is reading is important as well. Which makes a huge difference. I've read somewhere that 85 fps is the limit for the human eye, but it's even more when it comes to feeling the difference in responsiveness of a game.

[Domination]

PS3 to run at 120 fps?
It's possible, says Sony Computer Entertainment president Ken Kutaragi; all that's needed is a TV capable of displaying it.
Coming soon to an Internet message board near you: waves of more-hardcore-than-thou posters referring to any game running at 60 frames per second (fps) as "a slideshow."

Appearing at the Tokyo International Digital Conference on Thursday to talk about the technological capabilities of the PlayStation 3 and the Cell processor, Sony Computer Entertainment president Ken Kutaragi said he expects the PS3 to be capable of running games at a stunning 120 fps, according to a report in The Nikkei BP.

Never mind that even newer TVs aren't capable of refreshing the screen 120 times in a single second. Kutaragi said that when new technology comes to market, he hopes to have the PS3 ready to take advantage of it.

As for the Cell chip at the heart of the PS3, Kutaragi also had high hopes for its future beyond gaming. Taking High Definition TV as an example, he said that the Cell chip could take advantage of the technology in many ways, such as displaying newspapers in their actual size, showing multiple high definition channels on the screen at once, and video conferencing. He emphasized that the Cell can be used to decode more than 10 HDTV channels simultaneously, and it can also be used to apply effects such as rotating and zooming.

Later, he introduced the idea of a Cell cluster server that operates with 16 units, each consisting of eight Cell chips running at 2.5Ghz. That would total a processing power of 25.6 teraflops. Kutaragi also outlined plans to shrink the chip from the current 90 nanometer process to a 65 nanometer process in the future, and eventually down to a 45 nanometer process.

By Staff -- GameSpot
Posted Oct 28, 2005 10:27 am PT

WOW! http://community.the-underdogs.org/smiley/misc/eek.gif

If that's true, then that blew my expectations off the chart. The Most I was expecting was 70fps, and I was basing that on a very short game. But with this news, that means 30fps could be obsolete for PlayStation 3 titles next-gen. http://community.the-underdogs.org/smiley/misc/eek8.gif

Moreover, notice the shrinking of the Cell processor in the future. It goes from a 90nm all the way to a 45nm processor. Notice he wasn't talking about the newer 45nm processor they are working on. I'm wondering what will be the purpose for the Cell processor having to be shranken a second time.

Anyhow, I guess that confirms no 65nm Cell at launch.

[xbdestroya]

When chips get smaller, they get cheaper.

The chips in PS2 have gone through about five process shrinks to get where they are now from the size they were when the console launched. Without those shrinks, the slimline PSTwo would not have been possible.

Also, with TV refresh rates, I really don't think we'll ever be seeing games targeted at either 30fps or 60fps; he's talking future support possibilities there.

[woundingchaney]

To say as much is kind of vague. It would really depend on the software your running right. Essentially if we are talking about running a simplistic game (or something along those lines) then running at 120 fps isnt really any indication of the systems power. Does Kutaragi ever state what could be ran at 120 fps (as in what game in particular)??

I think its overly utopian to expect to play games on the PS3 at anything other than 30 or 60 fps.

[xbdestroya]

By the way GameSpot kind of sensationalizes the quote. This is the original article they took it from, translated through Google:

Article (http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Farena.nikkeibp.co.jp%2Fex po%2Fnews%2F20051028%2F114052%2F&langpair=ja%7Cen&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&prev=%2Flanguage_tools)

[Hawk]

120 fps means that your TVs response time should be 1000ms/120=8,333 ms. Monitors are capable of that time but I haven't seen 1080p TVs with that response times.

[CrumCon]

Why does ken even bother mention this possibility?
There arent even any TV with this response time.
Why even bother mention it?

Most people dont even own HDTV.. let alone HDTV with this kind of response time lol..

really silly ken.. we know they had to say something cause X360 almost arrives lol

[cpiasminc]

Isn't 60 fps all the human eye can pick up anyone, whats the point of going faster?
One of the old tricks I used to do in my PC demoscening days to do something similar to Amiga's HAM mode was to tweak the VGA CRTC registers to get the refresh rate up to 120 Hz. When you did this, and say, flashed blue and red screens alternating on every vretrace, the end result would run together and look to be a purple screen. As you can guess, the common thing to use this for was to draw red and blue pixels in one buffer and green pixels in another buffer and swap them back and forth thereby manage to fake high color modes even though the screen was really 256 colors.

As you can probably guess, the end result was flickery as hell (most likely due to the nature of what we're doing than anything else), and I can guarantee you the same trick wouldn't work at 60 Hz.

Human eye latency is measured ~85 ms, but that doesn't mean the eye doesn't keep gathering information in between that time scale. It's just that that's the minimum amount before your brain will actually perceive a series of images as motion (12 fps). But even a pretty poor eye can still collect information beyond 170 fps.

[Z]

well, they are always talking about the future. that os why they always mention things hat are yet to come.
Does Kutaragi ever state what could be ran at 120 fps (as in what game in particular)??
well, he is talking about the technicall posibility. if devs don't use it, it doesn't mean the capability isn't there.
but to agree with you, this is kind of vague since we want 'real world performances' and not 'possible' specs. but this is the clever part. this way, if it doesn't happen, Ken will still be technically correct. if it does happen, he can say "I told you so".
I think its overly utopian to expect to play games on the PS3 at anything other than 30 or 60 fps.
why the gloomy view? be optimistic! I am not saying we will see games that fast, but I certainly do expect new things to come- now and forever.

[Domination]

When chips get smaller, they get cheaper.

The chips in PS2 have gone through about five process shrinks to get where they are now from the size they were when the console launched. Without those shrinks, the slimline PSTwo would not have been possible.

Also, with TV refresh rates, I really don't think we'll ever be seeing games targeted at either 30fps or 60fps; he's talking future support possibilities there.

Cost was one of the first to spring to mind, but I had my finger on something other than that. Future devices was mainly what I was thinking about.

Oh and can you clarify yourself on the last sentence. I wasn't sure if you were saying something different from what I was saying or not.http://community.the-underdogs.org/smiley/happy/glowface.gif

[Sendok]

idk where i read this, but i thought i once read that over 60fps and our eyes can't catch all that

[Krad]

120FPS... WoW.

I would love to see a game run at 120FPS. Although, if these are raw numbers we aren't going to see 120FPS... maybe 70 - 90FPS? That's still very impressive.

[xbdestroya]

Oh and can you clarify yourself on the last sentence. I wasn't sure if you were saying something different from what I was saying or not.http://community.the-underdogs.org/smiley/happy/glowface.gif

Well, I was just saying that if you took the framerate above 60 fps, most TV's wouldn't even be able to display that. 60 is kind of an artifical cap that exists for the majority of TVs out there.

[Domination]

To say as much is kind of vague. It would really depend on the software your running right. Essentially if we are talking about running a simplistic game (or something along those lines) then running at 120 fps isnt really any indication of the systems power. Does Kutaragi ever state what could be ran at 120 fps (as in what game in particular)??

I think its overly utopian to expect to play games on the PS3 at anything other than 30 or 60 fps.

Wounding, not even with a simple game of this gen could a console ever dream of hitting this mark. I think that's what I find to be the most impressive about the 120fps even if it is for the simplest titles. The point is, it doubled what we already had, which makes 30fps a little...well, unimpressive.


Why does ken even bother mention this possibility?
There arent even any TV with this response time.
Why even bother mention it?

Most people dont even own HDTV.. let alone HDTV with this kind of response time lol..

really silly ken.. we know they had to say something cause X360 almost arrives lol

To show how capable the console can be. http://community.the-underdogs.org/smiley/happy/wink6.gif

[Domination]

Well, I was just saying that if you took the framerate above 60 fps, most TV's wouldn't even be able to display that. 60 is kind of an artifical cap that exists for the majority of TVs out there.

Oh, ok. Well yeah, that was basically what I was getting at, too. :)

[Garfunkel]

120 now is just crazy but with future tech.....

[jaxmkii]

Isn't 60 fps all the human eye can pick up anyone, whats the point of going faster?
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 :drunk: i have a better ideal insted of caping the games @ 60fps lets cap them @ 32fps and X2 our polly count =-o

[L3XO]

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.

[VG Aficionado]

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.

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?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.

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.

[rpgamer_2k5]

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. :)

[Added Later]

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 [u[in case a new ultrahigh FPS standard appears, PS3 will be able to keep up.[/u] Or maybe something totally different. 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.

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.

[Bombardier]

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.

[TEEDA]

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 .

[VG Aficionado]

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.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.

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.

[Infernal]

Well your all wrong. The human eye can percieve over 200 frames per second. Heres a link. Linky (http://amo.net/NT/02-21-01FPS.html)
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.

[Domination]

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. :)

[Added Later]

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Illmatic]

The 120fps figure was made regarding movies.

http://techon.nikkeibp.co.jp/article/NEWS/20051027/110194/1027sce_hd_roadmap.jpg


Gamespot aye.........

[VG Aficionado]

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.

[xbdestroya]

Since it's conference related I put the thing here (http://forums.e-mpire.com/showpost.php?p=836731&postcount=102), but click on that link for the full story on the slides.

[Domination]

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.

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.

[Nerve-Damage]

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.

[Bombardier]

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.
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.

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.

[xbdestroya]

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. ;)

[stanDarsh]

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.

[Nerve-Damage]

Vejita has it right, Ken was talking about Bluray movies,

WRONG :nono:

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…………….

[Domination]

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.


Yeah, I saw that, but XB's artical seesm to explain it different, or at least what I could make out of it. http://community.the-underdogs.org/smiley/happy/biglaugh2.gif

[Nerve-Damage]

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…………….

What didn't you guys understand? Please read above!!

24fps & 30fps is enough for film playback, anything over is a waste of material. All current 1080p film stock is recorded at 24fps. No need for anything over 30fps!!

[xbdestroya]

I personally don't think it's refering to video games or anything other than the refresh rates of future televisions.

The whole fps progression, the whole resolution progression - it all deals with technology advancement in the A/V space.

EDIT: Actually, forget my first sentence, but keep my second one. The FPS is down there near the 'PC' line - but are they related?

[stanDarsh]

Nerve, let's try and follow this image a little closer shall we:

http://techon.nikkeibp.co.jp/article/NEWS/20051027/110194/1027sce_hd_roadmap.jpg

Under "Video" Bluray we have 120fps! Notice nowhere did it say the word GAMES otherwise I would agree with you, Gamespot misquoted a japanese site again, just like they did with "Tekken 5 being unplayable on the new silver PStwo", which turned out to be just Tekken 3 in arcade history having some problems.

[venomv]

Under "Video" Bluray we have 120fps! Notice nowhere did it say the word GAMES otherwise I would agree with you, Gamespot misquoted a japanese site again, just like they did with "Tekken 5 being unplayable on the new silver PStwo", which turned out to be just Tekken 3 in arcade history having some problems.

Also nowhere does it say movies, so whats your point?

[stanDarsh]

Well if we look first, it says DVD Video, Then next it says Bluray. Video is something you watch, a game is something you play, hence it is refering to things you watch, ie Movies, TV shows etc.

[kaphwan]

I have taken the liberty of scanning in the cover of one of my ps2 games (guess which game it is!), and we can clearly see that games have a "DVD Rom" logo, which is not a "DVD Video" label.

http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a81/kaphwan063/f1bb0657.jpg

So maybe Blu-Ray games will have a different logo, but I think that the term "Blu-Ray Disc" is too general to mean one or the other specifically.

[stanDarsh]

Well it's an NRL game for sure ;)

While it doesnt say something like "Blu-ray Disc Video", however, adjacent to it, it DOES say DVD Video, and not DVD Rom, like you just pointed out on that scanned NRL back cover.

If anyone is still in doubt. Read "One's" post here:

http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/showpost.php?p=608940&postcount=56

Taken from this thead here:

http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/showthread.php?t=24469&page=3

[sousuke]

24fps & 30fps is enough for film playback, anything over is a waste of material. All current 1080p film stock is recorded at 24fps. No need for anything over 30fps!!
It doesn't neccessarily have to be 120fps on the disc. There are already TVs that can interpolate the frame rate from 50 Hz to 100 Hz for example. Maybe thats what they meant with 120fps - temporal interpolation or whats it called.

P.S.: one of my friends has such a TV and I must say it's really better to watch a 24fps movie at 24fps, at 100fps it looks like some cheap TV series ;)

[Illmatic]

I have taken the liberty of scanning in the cover of one of my ps2 games (guess which game it is!)

http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a81/kaphwan063/f1bb0657.jpg



Oh it's Rugby League for sure ;)

BooYaa!! :laugh:

Got to give it up to Sidhe Interactive, being little ol' NZ(local) devs and all :smoke:

[Red_Eyes]

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.

You must have faulty eyes. The difference between 30 frames and 60 frames is so obvious to the eyes. And the difference between 30 and 120 frames is even more obvious.

The eye may not be able to pick up frames faster than 60, but the eyes do notice it. And it looks so smooth.

[Red_Eyes]

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.

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 play FPS games, and I do notice the difference between 40 frames, 50 frames, 60 frames, and 120 frames.

[Killing Moon]

At that point, wouldn't 120fps be more beneficial for gameplay control than anything else? 60fps is about as fast as we can decipher without things becoming fast-forward'ish. In any case, it's good news, if true.

PC games already have this ability and from my recollection, it's mostly about control response beyond the 60fps cap limit.

[lip2lip]

25 000 000 000 000 000 math units a second???

***faints!!

[lip2lip]

ps, seriously 25 quadrillion is many, considering p4s only do 1/4000 this.

:spit:

[jaxmkii]

Well your all wrong. The human eye can percieve over 200 frames per second. Heres a link. Linky (http://amo.net/NT/02-21-01FPS.html)
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.
oh come on folks lets not fall for this one... remember VCRs? did anyone ever notice the differance between 4head players and 8heads? no... thats cause there was no differance! the manufacturs just needed a sales pitch... and it worked.
i guess the question is whats more importaint to you?

40fps and 100M ploys
or
120fps and 33M plolys

whats the point of a super smooth world of block people?

personaly my prioritys would be concervitive on the frame rate and AA liberal on the rez and ploys

[jaxmkii]

Nerve, let's try and follow this image a little closer shall we:

http://techon.nikkeibp.co.jp/article/NEWS/20051027/110194/1027sce_hd_roadmap.jpg

Under "Video" Bluray we have 120fps! Notice nowhere did it say the word GAMES otherwise I would agree with you, Gamespot misquoted a japanese site again, just like they did with "Tekken 5 being unplayable on the new silver PStwo", which turned out to be just Tekken 3 in arcade history having some problems.
let me get this right they plan on something to replace BR buy 2008?!?

[O.D.S]

let me get this right they plan on something to replace BR buy 2008?!?
well blu-ray was released much earlier (this year?)

so maybe its implying that there will be some sort of development or testing of a new type of disk by that time frame...well IMO anyway

[xbdestroya]

Recordable blu-ray discs have been around for awhile now in Japan (years), but the whole BD disc and BD-Rom standard is being finalized, and that's what all the Hollywood and game media action recently has been about. That will launch next year, and it's what's relevent.

As for the 'Super HD,' Sony's working in partnership with one of the Holographic disc companies I remember (I'll search for it later) so I wouldn't be surprised if that's what it was in reference to. 2008/2009 seems a little early with blu-ray in the pipe, but who knows...

EDIT: Found what I was looking for...

AUGUST 24, 2004 (IDG NEWS SERVICE) - Although Blu-ray Disc and HD-DVD technologies have yet to reach the mainstream, a Japanese company said it has made progress toward a more advanced holographic technology that may one day replace them. Optware Corp. said today that it has achieved the world's first reliable recording and playback of digital movies on a transparent holographic recording disc...

...Drives for home users will cost about $2,700, about the same as commercially available Blu-ray Disc players cost now. While Kageyama didn't have a cost estimate of future home-use HVDs, he said that a number of Japanese, European and U.S. companies led by Sony Corp. have expressed interest in the technology. Last month, Sony ordered collinear technology equipment from Optware to research and develop holographic storage technology and disc manufacturing systems using blue lasers, according to an Optware statement.

"Sony and some major Japanese electronics companies are studying holographic storage to replace HD-DVDs and Blu-ray Discs. Sony wants to develop next-next-generation storage technologies, and we can say that our collinear solution is getting very popular," Kageyama said...

Link (http://www.computerworld.com/hardwaretopics/storage/story/0,10801,95446,00.html)

Then there is this article from a couple of months later:

HVD Alliance (http://news.com.com/Group+aims+to+drastically+up+disc+storage/2100-1041_3-5562599.html)

Sony is not a part of the HVD Alliance formed in that second article, but I think it stands to reason that from the information in the first article, Sony is definitely studying holographic storage and it's potential.

By the way, completely on the side, Optware was formed by former Sony engineers.

[Loomer]

Human ear is generally 22 kilohertz
*2 = 44 kilohertz
+ .1 kilohertz for good measure = 44.1 kilohertz, which is standard for most audio sources
Realize that in concept 2x frequency ensures that x frequency will fit in 100% of the time.

The same concept applies for fps. But also realize that not necessarily when we interpret fps in the 120 range does this mean the difference will be so detectable, therefore so great, and therefore so practical.

Yes, many monitors are not capable of displaying such high framerates.

[Ducey]

But we do need more than 60fps. neeeed.

Well, I do anyway. For some reason I am sensitive to 60Hz and fps. I can look at a crt and tell you straight away if it's displaying 60Hz or if it's displaying more. It gives me migraines.

And as stated previously, more than 60fps helps a lot in fps games (Convenient anagrams no?) and would be easily noticeable in terms of smoothness.

85fps would be a nice average standard for next gen consoles. Might need a better TV, but for some of us, it's almost needed.

[Killing Moon]

This really is a great article on frames per second and how our eye can percieve it. Contrary to popular belief (including my own previously), we're able to see WAY beyond 60fps. It's already been proven that we can see 1/220th of a second, i.e. 220fps.

Just check it out if anyone missed the post; I've linked it from my sig. Thanks, dude. GREAT ARTICLE and very informative.

[cpiasminc]

Human ear is generally 22 kilohertz
*2 = 44 kilohertz
+ .1 kilohertz for good measure = 44.1 kilohertz, which is standard for most audio sources Realize that in concept 2x frequency ensures that x frequency will fit in 100% of the time.
There's also a little more to it than that. Problem here is that while the ear typically maxes out around 20 KHz, you get mirroring issues when the audio frequency gets closer to the Nyquist limit of the sampling. For instance, while 44.1 KHz can exactly model a 22.05 KHz wave (assuming zero phase difference), a 22.00 KHz will not be so perfect, and will come out slightly weaker than it should, and a 21.9 KHz wave will exhibit similar characteristics. The theory behind the idea is that in order to model a sinusoidal waveform, you basically need samplepoints at the highest and lowest points of the wave (i.e. two points) -- when the waveform is very close but not equal to the Nyquist limit, those two points you sample won't fall dead-on correct.

This is why, during the mastering phase, professionals tended to use either analog equipment in the old days, or 192 KHz samplerates. Also, using high samplerates means that the mirroring and aliasing errors happen in frequency ranges that humans can't hear, which in turn means that the analog components can be cheaper and lower-grade.

The same sorts of sampling theory issues are why resolutions increase and why SSAA exists.

The same concept applies for fps. But also realize that not necessarily when we interpret fps in the 120 range does this mean the difference will be so detectable, therefore so great, and therefore so practical.
Actually, Nyquist theorem is exactly why film runs at 24 fps (it's double the minimum eye latency). Old filmreels were captured at 12 fps, with each exposure doubled (it's actually kind of weird how 30-40 years later, people started playing back these old silent films at 16 fps rather than 12). But because motion information over an entire frame time period is actually captured in each frame, you get the effective smoothness from it. Since games are showing essentially instantaneous time slice images (i.e. no motion blur), smoothness is detectable at ever increasing framerates because there's a loss of information which causes things to look like stop-motion.

For some reason I am sensitive to 60Hz and fps. I can look at a crt and tell you straight away if it's displaying 60Hz or if it's displaying more. It gives me migraines.
That's not really unique. It tends to be pretty common. This is more of a phase-difference issue. If you could telesync your brain with the video signal, this is much less likely to happen (all we need is a DVI connector on our heads).

It's due to the fact that until your screen is refreshed, the phosphors are fading out, and while it's very slight, your brain doesn't really process visual things synchronously, so there is the occasional interference pattern between your visual processing and the constant fade-in-fade-out cycles of the CRT phosphors. When you turn the refresh up to 85 Hz, the fade cycles become a lot weaker because of the shorter delay and thereby virtually unnoticeable. This doesn't really apply to display technologies like LCD since it's a light-filtering technique, and there's no constant fading cycle.

[sousuke]

I think the question is not what the human eye can see and what it can't, but (like jaxmkii already posted) if it is worth it to sacrifice polycount for frames per second.

I agree that there is a big improvement from 30 to 60 fps.
But from 60 to 120 it isn't that visible anymore (there is improvement but not really worth it in this gen i think, maybe the gen after next gen ;))


...
40fps and 100M ploys
or
120fps and 33M plolys

whats the point of a super smooth world of block people?

personaly my prioritys would be concervitive on the frame rate and AA liberal on the rez and ploys

[Ducey]

Cpiasminc you font of information you. Thanks for that, theres some things you never knew you wanted to know until you knew them, you know? :P