4K with four PS3s
- Thread starter Lord Protector
- 44 comments
- 2,755 views
- 376
- N/A
- xbox lol haha
"I'd personally give it 5 more years or so, and there will probably be enough movies in 4K to consider buying one."
Sony know that . Because of that the 4K TV from Sony has a special feature build in which takes the Video/TV/Game/whatever and "scales" it up to 4K. Its not like the consoles are upscaling, it really changes picture informations and you can really see a difference. And there are "4K ready" BluRays which are different than normal BluRays. I dont know it 100% just google it ...
- 974
- GOTHEBURG
TV will be, in two years most 55"+ will be 4k and in 3 years it will be 4 k even if you dont want it. Like smartTV and 3d today.
But i know that consoles will not support 4k gaming now, but im not totally convinced that can not change either through network or extra hardware support like dual consoles. But probably Ps4 is at tops with 1080p for games.
But 4k is really great to watch movies at least.
- 3,385
- Las Vegas
- dawko-san
- 3,495
- Bristol, UK
- oink83
Of course you can have "too much" frame rate. The human eye physically can't detect somewhere around the 60 onwards in a second, so you are literally losing frames, whilst eating performance. It would be totally wasted.Bite your tongue. You can never have too much resolution or frame rates.
- 2,012
Nope. Proven false plenty of times already by tons of articles and experience of thousands of PC players, as humans can distinguish 250 frames per second without problem if there's no motion blur involved.
Can try it yourself, in a racing game so it's more related to GT (30, 60, 125, 250fps). Only be sure to take the monitor's HZ into account, and disable vsync of course.
GT5 must be amazing in a PD-only build running in a PC with triple 120hz screens and 125fps.
Last edited:
- 3,495
- Bristol, UK
- oink83
Well yes true to an extent, but it's never as simple as "frames per second". If you have motion blur in the image, 100fps, would look just as smooth as let's say 50fps. Why do you think it's easier to view screens in dim lighting? Whilst you can keep adding frames, over and over, at the end of the day, it makes no difference, as you can create a near perfect smooth image with 60fps, and at the same time, could create something that looks unsmooth, with 80fps.
- 298
Interesting fact I read we miss 40 minutes of visual data each day from eye movements which would cause motion blur so the brain deletes the blur and replaces it with a static image of the next thing you look at. Which is why when you look at a second hand on a clock for the first time it looks like it's not moving and time has stopped, until it starts again and continues normally.
I wonder then tactically for racing games, its better to not have too much of a big TV so you can keep the eye focus into a smaller area with less movement. I suppose turning off the HUD might save you some lost "eye frames" too.
So as well as considering software and hardware capabilities we must consider out own eyes too, and maximize their performance under certain conditions.
In terms of retina image to brain to next retina image the fastest we can see is about 6 frames a second. But we dont see in just pure frames, we scan and the brain does a lot of work. Even perception of time changes.
I wonder then tactically for racing games, its better to not have too much of a big TV so you can keep the eye focus into a smaller area with less movement. I suppose turning off the HUD might save you some lost "eye frames" too.
So as well as considering software and hardware capabilities we must consider out own eyes too, and maximize their performance under certain conditions.
In terms of retina image to brain to next retina image the fastest we can see is about 6 frames a second. But we dont see in just pure frames, we scan and the brain does a lot of work. Even perception of time changes.
