M3d10n said:Aren't they're too far away to notice the difference?
No, they're using a new technique where four observers funnel their observations into a single person thereby enhancing it beyond what one observer could manage on their own.
M3d10n said:Aren't they're too far away to notice the difference?
Metalmurphy said:And it's funny how everyone associates damage to realism and cause of that GT5 sucks, yet NO GAME does damage realistically.
"OMG # game is so much better/realistic cause it has damage", yet you can crash a car at 100mph and still finish the race.
It's worth noting that everyone who says anything like this, just cements the knowledge that they know nothing about the development process.DCharlie said:thank god they got this tricky do-or-die demo nailed down, now they can FINALLY get back to finishing GT5.... :/
Chrange said:An attempt at damage - however successful - is still better than bumper cars and pinball cornering.
I know, I know - you'll throw out the equally tired "they're not doing it until they can do it right" line next, correct?
Metalmurphy said:I'm all for performance damage btw
It's worth noting that everyone who says anything like this, just cements the knowledge that they know nothing about the development process.
edible_candle said:They record at 120fps, but they'll then play that back at 24fps (1/5 speed), or 30 fps (1/4 speed), or 60fps (1/2 speed) to get slow motion. If you played it back at 120fps (and had a monitor capable of displaying 120fps, or 120hz content) then it would run at normal speed and look very fluid.
I'll bet you a beer in your favourite pub that GT PSP will end up being something like a PSP customization/lobby/otherstuff front end app for GT5 + remoteplay support.DCharlie said:Plus i still hold a slim hope of GT PSP
Yep.Metalmurphy said:Huh? It's switching resolutions on the fly?
XonoX said:I don't get the 240 fps thing.
Each ps3 is rendering a quarter of the screen - each doing 60 fps.
So the full screen still only refreshes 60 times per second amirite ?
Their calculation is 240 quarter screens per second which is a bit dodge.......
There were two demonstrations.XonoX said:I don't get the 240 fps thing.
Each ps3 is rendering a quarter of the screen - each doing 60 fps.
So the full screen still only refreshes 60 times per second amirite ?
Their calculation is 240 quarter screens per second which is a bit dodge.......
god I hate the way Sony thinksFarnack said:
Lock if old?
It is 240fps.PseudoKirby said:god I hate the way Sony thinks
that would NOT be 240 FPS
thats 4 combined screens to make 60 FPS
if you put two TV's next to each other each running at 60FPS that DOES NOT equal 120FPS...
PseudoKirby said:god I hate the way Sony thinks
that would NOT be 240 FPS
thats 4 combined screens to make 60 FPS
if you put two TV's next to each other each running at 60FPS that DOES NOT equal 120FPS...
The Ultra-Real, 240fps DemonstrationThe other display was a playable demonstration on a Nano-Spindt FED / Field Emissions Display developed by Sony, with a frame rate of 240fps (240 frames per second).
Gran Turismo 5 Prologue has already achieved a frame rate of 60p (progressive), but in this demo, Gran Turismo was made playable at four times this frame rate at 240fps.
The SXRD demonstration described above used four PS3s to improve image quality, but this used the same to increase the frame rate.
The display used in this demonstration was the 19 inch nano-Spindt FED screen produced by FE Technologies, who is a company that has taken over the development of the FED technology that was being developed at Sony.
65536 said:It is 240fps.
60fps = 1 new image every 16ms (or thereabouts)
If you have four PS3s rendering a 60fps image, each offset from the last by around 4ms, you have a 240fps image when this is merged together.
the eye is capable of picking up pretty high frequencies, the 24fps came as an arbitrary standard established in the movies back in the day (most likely a product of frame size, roll thickness and rotary mechanism), and 30hz for tv came as the closest-to-24 quotient of 60hz field refresh, which in its turn came from the north american domestic power grid frequency (50hz in europe). basically, the link between human-eye's perceptive power and traditional video frequencies is none.skulpt said:Yeah, it's actually pretty clever. Just have an overlap of sorts. I wonder how well the eye can even discern 240fps though. I wonder where the line is where the eye can't even really tell something is smoother or not. I'm sure it can go well beyond 60fps, but 240fps? Anyone know?
Fascinating stuff (honest, I didn't know half of that), but you forgot to tell us which fps would actually be close to a natural viewing experience. >_<blu said:the eye is capable of picking up pretty high frequencies, the 24fps came as an arbitrary standard established in the movies back in the day (most likely a product of frame size, roll thickness and rotary mechanism), and 30hz for tv came as the closest-to-24 quotient of 60hz field refresh, which in its turn came from the north american domestic power grid frequency (50hz in europe). basically, the link between human-eye's perceptive power and traditional video frequencies is none.
here i could cue in the story about the link between the diameter of the shuttle's rocket boosters and the thickness of a horse's back, but i'll spare you this. basically, many technical standards one'd expect to be a function of some 'fitness research' are nothing more than legacy which almost everybody have forgotten the origin of.
true. according to this doc, humans can visibly discern frequencies of 45hz on a high-luminosity background (ideally that's what you'd need your movie fps to be based off, say 90 fps discrete), but otherwise can pick frequencies of 100hz, in some cases 120hz, and even higher.Haunted said:Fascinating stuff (honest, I didn't know half of that), but you forgot to tell us which fps would actually be close to a natural viewing experience. >_<
And it's funny how everyone associates damage to realism and cause of that GT5 sucks, yet NO GAME does damage realistically.
"OMG # game is so much better/realistic cause it has damage", yet you can crash a car at 100mph and still finish the race.
Anybody else find reading through this thread a real fucking struggle?
It's probably one of the best anti-Sony troll bait threads in a long time (other than NPDs amirite)Damodar said:HEY GUYZ, POLYPHONY SHOULD STOP THIS NONSENSE AND JUST RELEASE THE GAME ALREADY! AMIRITE?!?!
AND THEY EXPECT ME TO BUY 4 COPIES AND A NEW PROJECTOR JUST TO PLAY IT!?!!?
Anybody else find reading through this thread a real fucking struggle?
Thanks.blu said:true. according to this doc, humans can visibly discern frequencies of 45hz on a high-luminosity background (ideally that's what you'd need your movie fps to be based off, say 90 fps discrete), but otherwise can pick frequencies of 100hz, in some cases 120hz, and even higher.
Damodar said:HEY GUYZ, POLYPHONY SHOULD STOP THIS NONSENSE AND JUST RELEASE THE GAME ALREADY! AMIRITE?!?!
AND THEY EXPECT ME TO BUY 4 COPIES AND A NEW PROJECTOR JUST TO PLAY IT!?!!?
Anybody else find reading through this thread a real fucking struggle?
PseudoKirby said:god I hate the way Sony thinks
that would NOT be 240 FPS
thats 4 combined screens to make 60 FPS
if you put two TV's next to each other each running at 60FPS that DOES NOT equal 120FPS...
Apex said:£4000?
http://www.cine4home.com/reviews/projectors/SonyCineAlta4K/SRX-R110.htm
I remember PD testing the same on late 2000 with GT3, 6 PS2, 6 big wall screens and a total of 1920x1440 at 60 fps.
Wollan said:Office trip at Polyphony.
Lol @ beds under desks.
http://www.todarrinhudson.com/2008/10/gran-turismo.html
jmonteiro said:Actually I think it's 960x1080
DCharlie said:i'm finding waiting for GT5 a real struggle, seeing shit like "This is what GT6 will be like" is making be sad.
GT5 FIRST PLEASE. OMG ONE THING AT A TIME PLEASE!
you forgot GT4mobile for PSP.
tak said:Wouldn't 3840 x 2160 be the same display resolution as a Forza 2 triple screen setup running at 1280x720 on each screen?
45hz is just a chrominance (color) change discernment ability. It's much higher than that for detecting changes in brightness (resulting in ability to detect things moving). There's been some military tests that show that people can see the shape of a B/W image that's been strobed in front of them for just 1/200 of second.blu said:true. according to this doc, humans can visibly discern frequencies of 45hz on a high-luminosity background (ideally that's what you'd need your movie fps to be based off, say 90 fps discrete), but otherwise can pick frequencies of 100hz, in some cases 120hz, and even higher.
Lord Error said:45hz is just a chrominance (color) change discernment ability. It's much higher than that for detecting changes in brightness (resulting in ability to detect things moving). There's been some military tests that show that people can see the shape of a B/W image that's been strobed in front of them for just 1/200 of second.
Wollan said:Office trip at Polyphony.
Lol @ beds under desks.
http://www.todarrinhudson.com/2008/10/gran-turismo.html