PS3 can do 120fps. Amazing.

[SynthDude2001]

Originally posted by: cryptonomicon
i hate that 'human eye can only perceive' blah blah fps bullcrap.

bunch of fvcking morons always say that.

dont TELL me I can't see the difference between 70 and 120fps because I can and it is a huge differrence to me.

I've got to agree. It's obviously different from person to person, because some people claim that they can't tell the difference over 30fps, or over 60fps, but I know I can clearly tell the difference between 60fps and 100fps...

 

[IntelHydralisk]

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.

This is the best part.:laugh:

 

[alimoalem]

Originally posted by: thelush84

The sad part is that people are stupid and will buy into this, play it and then play an XBOX360, seeing to difference they will realise they have been had.

i still don't think they'll know that they've been had even with a side-by-side comparison

 

[IronMentality]

Yeah, Samsung is kicking the ****** out of Sony right now. So is Apple.

 

[GOREGRINDER]

i think it depends on what your use to with frames,...if your use to playin a game at 250fps,..and it dips to 120,...thats that individuals "slowdown" and what they are acustomed to. now take that same person and give him 24 fps.but,..i also believe there is a such thing as a "good 60fps" and a "bad 60 fps" a bad 60fps is on a system struggling to perform such frames,....a good 60fps is a system that is flowing with ease at those frames hence,...smoother gameplay such as doom3 and quake4 is locked at 60fps,..but does it perform the same on almost all systems then if its the same frames?,......imo,..no

 

[PseudoKnight]

To put this eye/fps thing to rest:
http://www.100fps.com/how_many_frames_can_humans_see.htm

I suggest you link that everytime you see someone say stupid things like "the eye can't see over 100fps". The misinformation is way too rampant.

 

[FishTankX]

Why can the human eye percieve TV as smooth when it only runs at 30FPS, but can tell the difference between 60 and 120 in games? The answer is simple. Motion blur.

Motion blur allows the eye to fill in the information between all of the frames when watching something that has been recorded by a camera. Think of it as extended information. But with videogames there is no motion blur.

The fundamental thing with Videogames is that instead of being a fluid motion in time, each frame in a videogame is a snapshot of everything being perfectly still, no blurring or motion at all. Take any frame from a fast action DVD and then take any frame from a fast action videogame and you shoul imediatley be able to tell the difference.

Thus, without this motion blur, it takes more and more frames to get fast action sequences with lots of rapid movement to apear completly smooth to the brain. In essence the more frames that are displayed past 60FPS the more the brain has a chance to 'Blur them together' to replace information that would normally be avaliable in the real world.

 

[Topweasel]

Still Doesn't matter if the refresh rate is below this 120FPS, as some one said this had to be about something different then games because I promise you port F.E.A.R to it and it won't be hitting 120 FPS in HD. UT07 would have no chance of ever seeing the this 120FPS limit as well.

 

[Mocib]

Does anyone here read nothing but the first post?

Once again... that "PS3 120fps" thing is for the movies and videos, not games.

Here's the roadmap pic: http://techon.nikkeibp.co.jp/article/NEWS/20051027/110194/1027sce_hd_roadmap.jpg

 

[0roo0roo]

Originally posted by: Cheezeit
that is so hype... even if it was real, you have to have a supereye. do movies at the theater seem choppy to you? Because thats only 24fps.

not quite true...what works in movies doesn't work in games

http://amo.net/nt/02-21-01fps.html

 

[VIAN]

Also, the human eye can detect a maximum of around 70 frames-per-second

Wrong. Don't repeat that stuff.

That GameSpot article is a misinterpretation. It's 120fps for movies and videos, not games.

Wow, that's useless. How about we move to 60 progressive fps first from DVDs.

I imagine there have been studies that measure how much FPS is necessary for the human eye to not detect the refresh rate. Anyone know what the magic number is?

1000. They did a test with a pilot once and he was able to view a frame and recognize what it was a 1000th of a second. So all these 30fps is the maximum we can see is BS. We start to see diminishing returns very soon, but it doesn't mean we can't continue on.

do movies at the theater seem choppy to you?

Yes they freakin do, I can wait till they use a real framerate instead of that crappy 24fps. It's not even 30. That's my minimum.

can the human eye even tell the differnce between 60 and 120 fps?

I can, but I'm not really human. I come from a long line of ferrets.

In a movie theater, the project each frame twice so that you don't notice the horrible flicker you'd get from only seeing 24 images/second, so clearly 24FPS is not high enough to be completely smooth.

From my understanding they show the movie at 96fps. frame 1, black frame, frame 1 black frame, frame 2, black frame, frame 2, black frame, frame 3 ....

Why can the human eye percieve TV as smooth when it only runs at 30FPS

Due to interlacing, it runs at 60fps.

And motion blur does help, it would make 60fps look the best. If any of you are looking for the perfect framerate, I'd say it would have to be 85, the flickerfree refresh rate. Why is it perfect, because you don't see flicker. If you don't notice flicker, you shouldn't notice a crappy framerate.

 

[Matthias99]

Originally posted by: VIAN

In a movie theater, the project each frame twice so that you don't notice the horrible flicker you'd get from only seeing 24 images/second, so clearly 24FPS is not high enough to be completely smooth.

From my understanding they show the movie at 96fps. frame 1, black frame, frame 1 black frame, frame 2, black frame, frame 2, black frame, frame 3 ....

I've never heard of that, and I think that would make the problem worse by introducing more flicker. Source?

Why can the human eye percieve TV as smooth when it only runs at 30FPS

Due to interlacing, it runs at 60fps.

And motion blur does help, it would make 60fps look the best. If any of you are looking for the perfect framerate, I'd say it would have to be 85, the flickerfree refresh rate. Why is it perfect, because you don't see flicker. If you don't notice flicker, you shouldn't notice a crappy framerate.

TVs are also VERY blurry, and have a relatively low response time, which creates a ton of motion blur and 'free antialiasing' (if you want to call it that). If you watch SDTV on a computer monitor or a really good HDTV, you can see how awful it actually looks.

And I don't know about you, but I can see 85Hz flicker in my peripheral vision, so that may not be what I'd call "perfect". Images above 100Hz (on a CRT) look more 'solid' to me, but again, that's somewhat of a personal thing.

 

[Polyfluoroethylene]

Why do they even make CRT's with refresh rates above 55Hz? What a bunch of dumbasses at Samsung.

 

[JonnyBlaze]

i have done tests myself with quake3 & a crt that could do 160hz at 1024x768. i had a hot key to cycle the max fps & refresh rate from 60 up to 160.

i could tell a difference up to 160hz / fps.

vsync was on and my video card can easily keep that fps in quake3 at all times.

 

[RaiderJ]

Originally posted by: Matthias99

Originally posted by: QueZart
between 60 and 120? yes the Eye Can, Between 70-74 and 120 fps? No Absolutely No way

Yes way. There have been several *long* threads in Video discussing this. The basic conclusion is that anyone who says "you can't tell the difference past (X) FPS" (unless X is a very high number) is full of it.

There's a small openGL utility/demo you can download called FPSCompare (link) that lets you display a splitscreen with each half locked at a different refresh rate. Most people can tell differences up to at least 100FPS, although they get much less noticeable (at least for me) after 80FPS or so. Certainly almost anyone could tell the difference between 60-70FPS and 100-120FPS.

With 24FPS movies, there are a couple notes:

1) In a movie theater, the project each frame twice so that you don't notice the horrible flicker you'd get from only seeing 24 images/second, so clearly 24FPS is not high enough to be completely smooth.

2) You can *easily* see motion blur in any kind of fast tracking shot in 24FPS film if you look for it (or take framegrabs from a DVD).

Edit: Link is busted and the program doesn't seem to be hosted on Arsware.org anymore. I'll see if I can dig it up tomorrow, but you may be able to find another link somewhere in one of those Video forum threads.

I remember hearing somewhere that air force pilots who were shown plane "flash cards" for something like 1/200th of a second could correctly identify what plane was on the card.

The human eye does not see a set number of FPS - your eyes receive a constant stream of input and therefore any number is inherently inaccurate.

That said, I would prefer a constant 60 fps over a 120fps max.

 

[MDE]

Originally posted by: Varun
You know I was playing Age of Empires II on my GeForce 6600GT last night with FRAPS running, and it was like 800FPS!

Take that Sony

I can play Pong on my Radeon 8500 at like a bajillion FPS. Take THAT!

 

[Koing]

It's about 'constant'.