Kutarugi: PS3 capable of 120 FPS

No doubt with 8-bit infrared and a sound coprocessor that emits frequencies beyond the range of human hearing.

Coming soon, Sony to announce the sequel to the Emotion Engine: the Synasthesia Siphon!

Edit: Subject changed to conform to accuracy in reporting standards.

Where did you see anything about a promise? All I see is a quote about capability, which is meaningless without regard to a game or tech demo.

I got 120fps in Quake on my Voodoo 3…

Nintendo counter-attacks, claims Revolution will be capable of “like a hojillion FPSes, bitch.”

Gee, more refreshes than the human eye can ever detect. Amazing. Now let’s get us some games that put off light in ultraviolet and some superhigh dog whistles and we’ll be all set.

cough

Incidentally, a poster at the Beyond3D forums claims Kutaragi was referring specifically to movies and video, not games.Still kind of irrelevant since I doubt we’ll be seeing 120fps movies anytime soon. There’s some experimental 48fps and 60fps formats, but that’s it.

what the fuck does video need to run at 120fps for?

Superior illusion of motion? Pretty much the same reason movies run at 24fps instead of 16 or 18.

what the fuck does video need to run at 120fps for?
Since 120 is the least common multiple of 24 and 30, it follows that progressive video streams containing some 24 fps material and some 30 fps material will need to be 120 fps.

I am fairly certain that I saw a Dolphin demo running on the Xbox at over 240 fps. I am certain that most platforms are capable of 120 fps, but most developers pile on the visual features and it gets eaten up and dragged down to less than 60 fairly fast. Give anyone an amount to play in, and they will fill it and try and go beyond.

Is it not the case that the refresh rate of your monitor is the limit of what it will actually display? As in, if your game is running at 120 FPS, but your screen is only set to 60 Hz, the game will start drawing a new frame halfway through a screen redraw, creating tearing?

Hence v-sync, which prevents the framerate going higher than the screen refresh?

So what is all this about faster framerates creating a better illusion of motion, since the extra frames don’t get seen?

LCD screens all refresh at 60 FPS, right?

“Using 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,”

WOW so when I buy my $2000 HDTV I can then read a newspaper on it!

This guy says some of the most retared things I’ve ever herd…

I guess I’m trying to say that I think that 60 fps with motion blur is as good as anyone will ever need, unless you play with fraps rather than play with games. Movies are 24 fps + motion blur, so people who prate on as if there is a point to anything at 120 fps can just keep prattling.

As far as I know Vsync is not used for video playback (the subject of discussion here) because video is recorded at a constant frame rate whereas games can be all over the place. I could be wrong, though. As for LCD refresh rates, I’ve seen monitors that can go up to 85Hz and I expect some of the more expensive models can do more; with CRTs you’re looking at much higher figures (160Hz is the highest I’ve seen in a consumer-level monitor). Professional projection systems can do 200Hz or more. It’s not display technology that’s the limiting factor so much as video acquisition technology; Sony seems to be anticipating that UHDV systems may finally go beyond the traditional video frame rates (which haven’t really changed much in the past seventy-five-odd years), but again, it’s basically for show at this point, since UHDV is a good ways from becoming a viable format (the current experimental system requires over three gigabytes for one second of video) and it’ll be even longer than that before it filters its way down to consumers.

Maybe he’s using 3D Bench?

Isn’t that faster than the refresh rate of reality itself?

I’d think that pixel persistence for a given media comes into play when talking about the relative merits of higher rates.

Back in the day, given the right music and a good dance partner, I could Kutarugi like you’ve never seen.

Eh, some people claim that the human eye can detect changes up to 200+hz, but I’ve seen no evidence supporting this. 24fps is the threshold at which the human brain is capable of perceiving motion from still frames. IMO, anything past 75 is just a waste, especially if you can build motion blur into the engine itself like that fantasy FPS.

The article I linked earlier goes into some detail on this. You could easily detect changes up to and beyond 200Hz in certain situations. The idea that the human eye has a maximum “frame rate” came about because of the observable delay between light hitting a photoreceptor and the transmission of those signals to the brain, but the eye contains millions of photoreceptors that are constantly receiving input and sending it to the brain separately – light that may be “missed” by one photoreceptor may be received by hundreds of thousands of others. Simply put, there is no known hard and fast limit to how many images the human eye can process in a given period because the eye doesn’t work like this.

Note that I’m not claiming there’s some compelling need for games to run at 120fps (which isn’t what Kuturagi is talking about either) – with games there is always going to be a tradeoff between frame rate and image quality, and most gamers (including myself) will take image quality so long as the frame rate isn’t painfully low. But so far as video is concerned I think we should finally move beyond the 30fps/60Hz (or 25fps/50Hz if you live in PAL-land) we’ve been stuck with since the thirties and we’re finally taking some steps in that direction.