GT5 Frame Rate

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mike1027
  • 24 comments
  • 4,274 views
Messages
130
Messages
Mike1027
Do you think PD will ever make higher frame rates?Higher than 60?

I don't think so because the human eye cant process anything over 60fps

But what do you think?:confused:
 
1080p is limited to 60fps. when a tv says 100hz/240hz it just makes up the extra frames in between to make the image move more smoothly

i cant see tv signals ever moving above 60fps. so i vote no
 
Um, the human eyes can process over 60 fps. There's a huge debate as to what fps they are limited at (despite not seeing in fps anyway).


Anyway, 60 is ideal as it's a nice multiple of what TVs refresh at, so I doubt they'll change from 30/60 anytime soon.
 
i can easily see if its below 60

above that, nope. well i can on VERY fast moving things (like in ... starcraft 2 and such)

i dont think you're gonna get much higher than 60...
but i wouldnt think it has a limit, coz idealy you should be able to reach 120 frames for stereoscopic 3D, right? :)
 
There isn't any real reason to up the frame-rate past 60FPS. It's possible that GT5 will drop into the 30s or 45s with all of the onscreen clutter (max cars in front, in the rain / snow, and with tire-spray), and that's fine.

60FPS is nice, solid, smooth, fast, and something that we've been spoiled with in the GT series since 3. Anything beyond is difficult to discern -- though possible for some people.

Hopefully no one comes in with the argument that television programs and films typically display 24FPS, that's all the human eye can see, and that's all we need for games.

👍
 
They can't really go over 60 FPS because they are already pushing the envelope of what the console can do.

Honestly, we could see some improvements in the next installment, but we won't see anything dramatic in this game. As Kaz pointed out in one of his interviews, he said the engineers were sometimes complaining about the 60 FPS limit as it was hard for some part of the game.
 
15fps i believe is the minimum for animations.
I wonder if it's possible within the laws of physics to have something in actual continuous movement, by that i mean there are no frames per second, there are no frames, it just moves. As in real life display. It wouldn't be called a TV as we know it Jim.
 
15fps i believe is the minimum for animations.
I wonder if it's possible within the laws of physics to have something in actual continuous movement, by that i mean there are no frames per second, there are no frames, it just moves. As in real life display. It wouldn't be called a TV as we know it Jim.

Yeah, something like that. I forget how many frames it takes to suggest movement, but when I took a 2D animation course, it was 12 frames shot two times apiece to make up 24FPS.

I wonder if we'll see technology like you mentioned any time soon, as well as the consoles capable of exploiting it. Hope hope hope.
 
The simplest and easiest solution i can think of is a direct brain implant connection. Why create images outside of the human body when the brain can do it already?
PS Mind i will call it.
Thanks Sony, cheque in the post.
 
Movies play at 24fps and most games are locked at 720P 30fps.

They said rain, snow and few areas it will dip but I do not think it will be noticeable and always be 50odd fps.
 
Blu-ray discs run at a maximum of ~60fps for interlaced or 24 for progressive. Using this site, personally I don't see much difference between the 60, 90 and 120 fps, but that's potentially a monitor issue. That said, anything more would do nothing but increase file sizes and loading time.
 
Movies play at 24fps and most games are locked at 720P 30fps.

most games run at 720p 60fps. progressive scan is 60fps usually, interlaced is usually 24fps

TB
Blu-ray discs run at a maximum of ~60fps for interlaced or 24 for progressive..

you have that back to front 720p/1080p is 60fps and 1080i is 24fps

with a 720p/1080i tv set the 720p runs at 60fps and the 1080i runs at 24fps as more info is sent per frame at 1920x1080 so it cant keep up with the frame rate of 720p
 
...the human eye cant process anything over 60fps

Untrue, I'm afraid. About a fifth of people can spot a 10fps difference up to 250fps. I haven't seen any tests above that threshold because the equipment simply doesn't exist.
 
You can get SuperHD, which is 2k and I believe there are some 4k sets around. Though no point as I doubt consoles will support over 1080p for the next gen.

Programming a game like GT5 to 1080p to run at near as 60fps consistently is a remarkable effort and one of the reasons why it took so long. Be happy with 1080 at 60fps, you won't be getting much better than that on consoles for a long time.
 
Do you think PD will ever make higher frame rates?Higher than 60?

I don't think so because the human eye cant process anything over 60fps

But what do you think?:confused:
Seriously? Why do people always say such stupid things. The human eye can process and see 1,000 FPS. It's not limited. Hence why PC gamers strive for 100-120 FPS, and get 100-120 Hz monitors. You can clearly tell the difference between 60 and 120 frames a second. Clear as day. But again, your eye has no known limits.
 
HDMI cannot do more than 1080p at 60 frames per second. Nothing at 1080p will go over 60hz. PC gamers get more hz by playing at lower resolutions... but all forms of video cables cannot handle more information than 1080p at 60hz. If that.
 
TB
Blu-ray discs run at a maximum of ~60fps for interlaced or 24 for progressive. Using this site, personally I don't see much difference between the 60, 90 and 120 fps, but that's potentially a monitor issue. That said, anything more would do nothing but increase file sizes and loading time.
You have to have a monitor that supports that many Hertz (Hz). That equals FPS in games. I have the Samsung 2233rz which is a 3D monitor, but is one of the few LCD's to have 120 Hz functionality. If you use that site, change the color to white on black. Set it to 60, and focus on the bar moving, it seems grey, not fully black. But in 120 it's fully black. That's clear improvement on smoothness. It's more grey on 60, and even a little on 90 because of the bleed-through white on the adjacent and rotating pixels.
 
HDMI cannot do more than 1080p at 60 frames per second. Nothing at 1080p will go over 60hz. PC gamers get more hz by playing at lower resolutions... but all forms of video cables cannot handle more information than 1080p at 60hz. If that.
Wrong again. HDMI can already support resolutions higher than 1080p, and at 60 FPS. Remember, on TV's and monitor's it's not FPS, it's Hertz (Hz).

Despends what HDMI cable you are talking about sir. Not all are equal. HDMI cables don't transfer "FPS", they transfer data.
 
Wrong again. HDMI can already support resolutions higher than 1080p, and at 60 FPS. Remember, on TV's and monitor's it's not FPS, it's Hertz (Hz).

Despends what HDMI cable you are talking about sir. Not all are equal. HDMI cables don't transfer "FPS", they transfer data.

Oh, I guess I'm wrong. *googles*

Well, realistically speaking, I don't believe there to be 1080p native tvs accepting an HDMI signal at more than 60hz. It would be super-cool if there were, though, for gaming. I think the screens that artificially upscale a 60hz signal to 120+ are just tacky, and I haven't heard of any that actually accept 1080p at more than 60hz.
 

Latest Posts

Back