digg

Facebook Connect Join Digg About

PS3 to Run at 120 FPS?

gamespot.com — It's possible, says Sony Computer Entertainment president Ken Kutaragi; all that's needed is a TV capable of displaying it.

Who dugg this? Made popular Oct 28, 2005

Digg DudeWhat is Digg?

Digg is a place for people to discover and share content from anywhere on the web. Digg surfaces the best stuff as submitted and voted on by the community. Take the Tour to learn more.

79 Comments

show profanity settings
expand all
  • inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+19"Human eye can't tell the difference between 75 fps and 120 fps."

    In short, that's a lie.

    A refresh rate of ~72 Hz or higher is recommended to prevent eye strain... but that has NOTHING to do with the number of frames the human eye can detect. There have been several scientific studies contradicting your statements. One even proved that the human eye can detect images flashed onto a screen for less than 1/200 of a second. Then, there's the fact that video games and films (probably what you're thinking of) are displayed in a completely different manner. Video cameras are similar in function to the human eye, blending all of the light gathered between frames into the next frame... whereas, video games render discrete images of the EXACT positions of everything at a specific point in time with no visible passage of time if you look at a single frame.

    Also, the framerate at which motion (without motion blurring) goes from a series of discrete changes to one fluid movement depends on the amount of movement being display and its speed. In really fast-paced games the difference between 75 and 120 frames per second CAN be easily noticeable. If you're playing something like Mario Party or you're in a slow-paced adventure game it's not going to make much of a difference, if any.

    I don't feel like dipping into the actual mechanics of the human eye, video cameras, and 3D renderers... so that's all I'm going to say, for now.
  • oepapel, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"In other news, the PS3 is rumored to be able to turn lead into gold and can generate matter from pure nothing!"

    Since it's plugged into the wall, it has an energy source. And energy CAN be converted into matter. I don't know about the lead -> gold thing.
  • UrbenLegend, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"Nintendo will have a completely new experience with it's controller that's what i'm buying. Bottom line sony is a dying company and once this new expensive peice of crap comes out Sony will die."
    Oh woe is me, Sony gonna die! Microsoft is flatlined! Nintendo is too kiddy! If you are so upset about Sony's marketing speak, then don't go around talking ***** about products when all you have ever heard about them were strings of BS from rumor-monger sites and advertisements.
  • isewise, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Nice comment CDHarrisUSF! I just need to find a really good TV that supports a high refresh rate!
  • ShellShock, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"Let's face it guys ps3 is a bad investment not because it is ***** but because sony are retards"

    you sound like a fanboy, how do you know that the PS3 will be expensive? the price has not been confirmed. Sony is not going bankrupt any time soon, more like nintendo is going bankrupt after the revolution.
  • okan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1sony going bankrupt? you are out of your mind.
  • zediker, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1a normal human eye, those trained to detect the black between frames can. 60Hz on a monitor gives me a headache, 70 is better, 85+ is much much better =)
  • Chewie67, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1If the PS3 delivers on half of what Sony is promissing, it will be a KILLER machine. Let's hope that's so. Regardless if you're and Xbox fan, a Nintendo Fan or a PlayStation fan, and KILLER PS3 will push all three companies to develop even better machines. It's a win for all console gamers.
  • Bindibadgi, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3I dont care less if it runs at a squillion gigaflops and makes tea for me, i just want to play good games.
  • anti_hax0r, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1
    Film decided on 24 frames per second because of several issues, cost of film being #1. Second, 24fps is the slowest they (the man) decided that the human brain can put frame to frame together for fluid motion.

    The minimum.

    This is called persistence of vision.

    Film is a progressive medium, meaning you see the whole picture at once.

    NTSC Video (television) started (in the 50's) by trying to be progressive, but the tech was so new then that by the time the photon gun got to the bottom right (the photon gun shoots light towards the mask in a Cathode Ray Tube - CRT or "tube" tv starting with the upper left going across to the right resetting and going to the next line then it hits the bottom right sending a blanking pulse to reset the gun to upper left) the upper left was dim. Even at 30 HZ, it was dim. So they decided to draw every other line thus field rendering. So an NTSC (the TV we currently have - pre HD) has been cursed with dealing with interlacing. By interlacing, the first field would write then the gun would go back and paint the second field, so it was 60fields per second. Now they had a problem with AC being at 60HZ so they decided to change the video signal to be offset a little because there was a sync problem of some sort causing bands on the television. So video became 59.94 fields or 29.97 frames per second.

    So there were two frame rates, film at 24 and NTSC video (in USA) at 30drop frame (29.97fps or 59.94 fields/sec). Sorry, you will have to google PAL and SECAM.

    All NTSC televisions have to belong to this 50yo standard, including compatibility with black & white.

    Computers entered the market in the later part of the century and started interlaced also. I'm sure that many of you will remember when getting a non-interlaced monitor in the late 80's was a big deal. Remember that NTSC video is quite a lot easier to display than RGB computer video (with all flavors of rendering).

    Video cards have matured but NTSC is NTSC. HD came on the horizon and something called Convergence started happening in the late 90's where television engineers and computer graphics people started working together so that we can have computers and television work together and (sort of) be the same thing.

    Video game rendering is rendering and texturing 3D models in real time, this is much different than playing back 2D video/film images. In addition to just watching, you are interacting and the "lag" you all talk about is just pushing the video card beyond it's limits it's not "lagging" as in network lag/latency, it's having a problem drawing the scene so you upgrade your computer to the newest Nvida/ATI solution you can afford.

    The faster the refresh, the better, but if you have HD or SD, the max refresh to play that would be 60 hertz. So having faster refresh for video is worthless, for games/computing, the faster the better.

    If the PS3 can do 120 FPS, it is out of the range of all current and new television technology as the article points out, but what's stopping someone from plugging it into a computer monitor that could handle it if the connections are there? It's just bragging rights crap until the display tech catches up.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persistence_of_vision


  • ministewy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1ALl this talk of people going bankrupt? No one is going bankrupt so everyone can settle down about that. Fanboys of all systems need to stop skewing their info just to try and scare others.
  • BugMeNot2, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Possible, but let's wait till we judge it.
  • gregcotten, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Everyone - lets get this straight - NTSC Broadcast runs at 29.97FPS Interlaced (60 fields per second). Movies shot on film are normally played back at 24 progressive(obviously) frames per second.

    Sorry - just want everyone to be on the same page.
  • Karyyk, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0This is the number games hype, nothing more. By spouting off useless numbers that mean little, if nothing (in this case, nothing), they'll get all the fanboys/girls in a tizzy and, ta-daaa, free publicity.

    The fact is, it might well be CAPABLE of it, but no developer is going to sacrifice performance for frame rate that no player is CAPABLE of noticing.
  • gregcotten, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Robbie - WRONG. HD 1080i runs at 60i fps - which means that there are 60 FIELDS per second (fps in this case means fields) - NOT FRAMES (fields are either the odd or even lines on a TV). Also, square pixels are used for HD. 720p runs at 30p fps (which in this case means frames), which is a progressive format.

    HD has never run at 120 fields per second (60 frames a second) - and the PS3 is utilizing a technology that is virtually frivolous on NTSC monitors.
  • RobbieC, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Yeah, I was wrong. 120hz is progressive and obviously therefore not fields, which means it runs at 60fps. I realised that right after I hit submit, and seing that there is no way to edit the post, I just let it slide. But thanks for clearing it up. Also, try not to be so rude next time dude.
  • RobbieC, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0120 fields per second (120hz) is HD standard. Differing terminology. It is only saying it can run progressive rather than interleaved. DVD players can do that...
  • ncaa76, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1PS2 still got it, did you see the Black video?
    http://www.gamespot.com/ps2/action/black/index.html?sid=6136638&autoplay=6136638
  • Animal, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I don't think there will be any games running at 120FPS. If you have enough processing power to do so, why not improve the graphical detail or bump up anti-aliasing and anisotropic filtering effects to take advantage of that extra power. Any game that's running at 120FPS is running an outdated graphics engine for the hardware it's on.
  • Eaglet, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Ha ha. It's so fun to listen to Sony in the months leading up the a console release.

    The PS3 is going to be released, and it's going to be good, but it's not going to be anywhere NEAR the hype Sony's been giving it.
  • oepapel, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"The cell chip is only 90 nanometers? thats incredibly small"

    The cell chip is not 90 nanometers. The process that it is built on is 90 nanometers. The chip itself will be MUCH bigger. The 90 nanometers # refers to the size of the building blocks (transistors, traces, etc). And, yes, that is incredibly small but even smaller is now available (65nm) with even smaller on the way.
  • Maajid, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Whats the use?
  • TheNik, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Actually, Sony has been doing poorly lately. :/

    Think of one product they have, other than the Playstations, that gives them extreme revenue. Walkman? Not anymore. PSP? Not yet. TVs? Not much coming from that.

    :(
  • inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"you sound like a fanboy, how do you know that the PS3 will be expensive? the price has not been confirmed. Sony is not going bankrupt any time soon, more like nintendo is going bankrupt after the revolution."

    Cell chip + RSX +blu-ray is going to be ultra expensive. Sony either have to sell the ps3 at a HUGE loss, or sell it SUPER EXPENSIVE. Either way, they loose.
  • inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"well, its suppose to be a next GENERATION console, not a TODAY console like the xbox 360. Would you want your xbox 360 next GENERATION or a PS3? Your choice."

    Then why don't you go buy a Cray super-computer to play games, PS3 will never match the power of a cray super-computer.
  • CanEHdian, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0As I recal sony said that the PS2 would be able to push out around 100,000 polygons when it was actually only able to push out 10,000 (these numbers may be wrong, I do know that they hyped up the polygon count)

    Dont trust anything said about the consoles until they are actually released
  • brucebeh, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Wow, why is everyone so upset/pissed?

    All they said its CAPABLE, who knows what else it can be CAPABLE of, it can very well be CAPABLE for rendering a real-time Finding Nemo, but is it going to be used in games? Probably not.. at least not yet.

    And so many people are saying all these new features PS3 have or may have is useless... well, its suppose to be a next GENERATION console, not a TODAY console like the xbox 360. Would you want your xbox 360 next GENERATION or a PS3? Your choice.

    It's like 30 years ago and thinking HDTV would be IMPOSSIBLE, no way you can have 720p on a TV, No way, Dolby Surround Sound? thats impossible!! Same idea. Technology advances, not slows down.
  • oepapel, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1"but energy is still something. pure nothing would indicate the absence of evrything, including energy. "

    But "pure nothing" can't exist! It would violate the Heisenberg uncertainty principle and disprove quantum physics if it did. If it is really pure nothing then it has a definite position and a definite energy state (both 0) to an arbitrary degree of accuracy. Heisenberg states that the more accurate you know position, the less accurate you know energy state and vice versa.

    Also, we know that PS3 will plug into a wall and use electricity so it cannot create anything out of "pure nothing" since it is using electricity to do so.
  • kurt880, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0About the refresh rate, I have been running my Samsung Syncmaster 171v at 60 hertz for about 3 years now. Either my Geforce4 mx440 cant do any better or its the monitor. Even at 70 hertz the image gets so distored that it cannot be seen.
  • Nodnetni, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Ok the game cube runs at games a 60 fps, i would hope that it could be atleast doubled in the 4 year span since its realse.
  • MonkeyFit, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1but energy is still something. pure nothing would indicate the absence of evrything, including energy. And it is possible to turn lead into gold. all you need is a particle accelerator that can add hydrogen atoms to gold atoms. and i don't mean bond them. i mean make them collide with so much force that the proton in the hydrogen atom actually becomes part of the nucleus of the lead atom. it will them be a gold atom.
  • OswaldKenobi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"ALl this talk of people going bankrupt? No one is going bankrupt so everyone can settle down about that. Fanboys of all systems need to stop skewing their info just to try and scare others"

    SCE is one of the only divisions making money at Sony. If the PS3, given its expense, did go bust, Sony would be in very bad shape. That scenario is highly unlikely, so it's nothing to worry about, but Sony is not a solid company right now.
  • polvo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Frames Per Rate, Who cares. I care more about whats on the actual screen. Don't movies, which look very lifelike only run onlike 60FPS.

    Next we'll hear is that the PS3 will be able to power a holodeck. Whatever.

    I'm still getting one though.
  • Xinex, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I don't really care about all this crazy power that we don't need. Give me a revolution anyday.
  • Smooph, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Running what???
  • diggnationdevon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I prefer PC gaming. PCs will replace consoles eventually anyway.
  • inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Yeah I bet we can run zelda III on it too.
  • Lionhart, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1And please, for all our sakes, stop linking your idiotic blogs in your posts. No one cares about you or your life.
  • Zerocool.956, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0The cell chip is only 90 nanometers? thats incredibly small

    The prefix nano means a billionth, which is the same as 0.000000001 or 10-9 in scientific notation So a nanometer is a billionth of a meter and that’s the scale of atoms and molecules The term nanotechnology refers to building things at the nanometer scale

    To give a sense of that scale a nanometer is to a meter what an inch is to 15,783 miles (a billion inches) well over half the distance around the Equator (12,451 miles)

    Or think of a person that’s 6 feet tall (1,830,000,000 nanometers). A hair from that person’s head is around 50,000 nanometers wide: if you could split that hair into 50,000 separate strands, each would be a nanometer wide A molecule of DNA is only 2.5 nanometers wide.
  • anti_hax0r, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0edit

    Computers entered the market in the later part of the century and started interlaced also. I'm sure that many of you will remember when getting a non-interlaced monitor in the late 80's was a big deal. Remember that NTSC video is quite a lot easier to display than RGB computer video (with all flavors of rendering).

    -----

    Now all computer video cards/monitors are non-interlaced as a standard feature.
  • dcarpenter85, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2this fact is meaningless... ps3 does 120fps woopdee ***** doo!
    my pc runs barbie's playhouse at 120fps but that doesnt make it a good game. get off your ps3 fanboy bandwagon and look at what matters... THE GAMES.
  • hollismb, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Actually, it always depends on the game. For example, Project Gotham and Forza Motorsport on the Xbox run at 30 fps, while ToCA Race Driver and MotoGP (2 and 3) run at 60.
  • ToadX, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0That's ridiculous. I doubt Sony would waste their money on something like that. It would increase the cost of the graphics unit so much, and barely anyone cares about having higher fps on a console system. As far as I know, current console systems run at 30 fps, and I've never seen a complaint.
  • gotamd, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0You'd also need human eyes capable of seeing it...which don't exist as far as I know. Though, it's cool that the thing won't be getting choppy hopefully :)
  • okan, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0also... what was the difference between nintendo and super nintendo? "beefed up graphics"

    snes is next gen compared to nes
  • tsupersonic, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0yeah, right...

    Looks like PS3 is gonna be expensive, need PS3 and then a TV that will be capable of running 120 FPS. Hmmm, or I can get a Xbox 360, and I have the HDTV and hometheater system that is gonna be ready to hookup to it.
  • mercury81, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0look who this is coming from KK is the BS king.
  • toasterwaffle, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0yawn... hope they change the way gaming is done, rather than slapping fanciness on it.
  • Lionhart, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Do you fanboys ever read your comments and realise how idiotic you sound? And I'm talking about all sides of the spectrum. Seriously just go do SOMETHING ELSE.
  • SuperBeast, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0I'm pretty sure the PS3 will have fun games. I can't think of a single 360 game I would want. Revolution should be cool though.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 79 of 79 discussions

  • Add a Comment

    Login or register to comment!
    Or, sign-in super fast with your Facebook account ...


© Digg Inc. 2009 — Content created and posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain | Terms of Use Updated | Privacy Policy
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.