gt5 3d confirmed

[Stonemonkey]

Depending on the background lighting, the image brightness, person's age and visual acuity, people can discern discrete frames up to and above 100 Hz.

24 fps works because the film frames are blurred, and the lighting and projection equipment (etc.) lessen the choppiness. LCD's need the source at the same as their refresh, otherwise it's choppy as hell...

24 fps does not do well with fast movement and fast camera movement and there are rules and limits that movie makers have to stay within because of that. Games at 24 fps would be terrible, 30 might be ok and playable but you'd definitely notice a difference going up to 60 but above that the difference is probably starting to get a bit more subtle.

Even in the cinema where the movie is played at 24 fps though, when it's in 3D they alternate between the left and right image at a much higher rate, something like 144 Hz so that it alternates between left and right image several (3?) times before displaying the next frame.

 

[Soundtrack]

Depending on the background lighting, the image brightness, person's age and visual acuity, people can discern discrete frames up to and above 100 Hz.

24 fps works because the film frames are blurred, and the lighting and projection equipment (etc.) lessen the choppiness. LCD's need the source at the same as their refresh, otherwise it's choppy as hell...

24 fps does not do well with fast movement and fast camera movement and there are rules and limits that movie makers have to stay within because of that. Games at 24 fps would be terrible, 30 might be ok and playable but you'd definitely notice a difference going up to 60 but above that the difference is probably starting to get a bit more subtle.

Even in the cinema where the movie is played at 24 fps though, when it's in 3D they alternate between the left and right image at a much higher rate, something like 144 Hz so that it alternates between left and right image several (3?) times before displaying the next frame.

Aren’t subliminal pictures 1/24th of a second?

IMHO, I don’t think film frames are blurred; shoot a parked car and it will look sharp whatever the frame you choose (even 1FPS), shoot it at x km/h and the very same car will look blurred (more or less depending the chosen shutter speed). By the way, I never found moving cars where an issue in any 24 fps movie.

Motion blur is part of the way we perceive reality, and you can easily spot it by waving your five fingers in front of you.

Therefore I kind of agree with the fact anything above 30 FPS is wasted resources. (unless of course if getting "accurate" motion blur is more processor intensive)

 

[Stonemonkey]

Aren’t subliminal pictures 1/24th of a second?

I doubt there's any specific property like that for subliminal imagary, if you were to introduce a subliminal image frame into a 24 fps movie then it would be 1/24th sec, if you were to put one into a 30 fps movie then it would be 1/30th sec.
However, there might be a range with a minimum length of frame where anything shorter wouldn't be picked up at all and a maximum length where anything above just registers as a still image. And maybe even that range could be variable depending on content.

IMHO, I don’t think film frames are blurred; shoot a parked car and it will look sharp whatever the frame you choose (even 1FPS), shoot it at x km/h and the very same car will look blurred (more or less depending the chosen shutter speed). By the way, I never found moving cars where an issue in any 24 fps movie.

Generally movies are not blurred or anything to compensate for 24 fps and shutter speed and framerate are independent. As I said before there are rules or guidelines that movie makers follow when filming so that the movement does not become an issue when viewing. Although I do recall a Bruce Willis movie I watched in the cinema had some problems with fast camera panning.

Motion blur is part of the way we perceive reality, and you can easily spot it by waving your five fingers in front of you.

Therefore I kind of agree with the fact anything above 30 FPS is wasted resources. (unless of course if getting "accurate" motion blur is more processor intensive)

Proper motion blur is expensive, fake motion blur is cheap but isn't very good.

It'd be interesting to see a GT replay running at a solid 30fps vs solid 60fps side by side just to see how much difference there is

 

[alucard0712]

Can someone please explain to me why you guys keep thinking 60 fps is important, when the human eye can only see something like 22 fps?
I mean, I understand everyone wants a stable framerate, so wouldn't a stable 24fps be better than an unstable 60fps?

Man you just don't know what are you talking about.If things were like this PD won't show us a demo IN 240fps...They know that's important for racing.

I don't care of motion blurred frames.That's my eyes buisness,but i REALLY know that more FPS=BETTER.Maybe 240fps is enough.
I can easly tell the difference between 60fps and 120fps (i do special test).

To say if frames are blurred you can easly see when it is, but it's DO NOTHING with FPS.Motion blur is motion blur, FPS is FPS.
I mean don't mix motion blur to FPS.Motion blur can smooth the motion.That's all.It's EFFECT.But FPS adds a precise frames of that motion.It's real frames.

 

[Soundtrack]

John Lasseter and team introduced motion blur in “The adventures of André and Wally B” (a computer animated short from 1984). Maybe those men knew nothing in Computer Generated Imagery.

Certainly, adding in between frames can also help smooth out the motion, but what’s the point off computing 1/240th. of a second frames if an average people’s brain can be fooled by a conciously imperceptible image that lasts ten times more? (referring to the common film frame-rate)

On the other hand, tech-demos can be mind-blowing, especially if you want to showcase a SONY 4K 3D ready digital projector (but sorry no racing/gaming involved here unless you have very deep pockets).

 

[H20HYBRID_GT]

Thanks for the replies, I understand it a little better now, however it seems there's a bit confusion over Hz and Fps, I don't think that's the same thing?

I just still find it odd to have this high fps, when human eyes actually can't see it plus I played games with 30fps that were absolutely smooth and I played games with 60fps that were stopping pictures all the time, so I know what I prefer.

As for the blur thing, that's kind of the point, I don't think 100 years old movies had motion blur, that's just happening in the brain of the watcher, cause... well, we cannot compute more than a set amount of pictures at a set amount of time.



...........................................

Man you just don't know what are you talking about.

That's why I was asking a question.

It's not always that simple, more equals better, ask Carlos Santana.

If things were like this PD won't show us a demo IN 240fps...They know that's important for racing.

Yeah? ...

I don't care of motion blurred frames.That's my eyes buisness,but i REALLY know that more FPS=BETTER.Maybe 240fps is enough.
I can easly tell the difference between 60fps and 120fps (i do special test).

Maybe your test is cheating you, so you go buy a new TV/ monitor?

To say if frames are blurred you can easly see when it is, but it's DO NOTHING with FPS.Motion blur is motion blur, FPS is FPS.
I mean don't mix motion blur to FPS.Motion blur can smooth the motion.That's all.It's EFFECT.But FPS adds a precise frames of that motion.It's real frames.

How many frames human eyes can see per second? Did you think bout that, ever?

Further I agree, I don't think it has something to do with computer generated motion blur.

 

[alucard0712]

1.In this situation it is better.Up to 240fps i think.Why?See №2
2.Search google for "gran turismo in 2160p, 240fps"
3.No.
4.about 100-120fps,depended on conditions, but i don't believe in that.Why?See №2 ^^^

 

[Griffith500]

Did you actually click on the link i gave you?

He said it's practically 1080p, not actually - 1440p was not mentioned at all.

I imagine that's because of some overhead with having to render from two different angles every other frame - but it shouldn't really be anywhere near that high a penalty. "720p per eye is a ridiculous statement" (we get that with 2D), other than to clarify that you need to render from a different angle per eye...

To summarise, "practically 1080p @120 Hz" means it will tax the console as though it were 1080p... though I think this is utter tripe.
Once you optimise the engine to swap camera viewpoints efficiently every frame, it'll be virtually unaffected...

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

By the way, my personal opinion is that, for LCD / Plasma / OLED type displays, 100 Hz is a safe minimum for the future (that's per eye... 200 Hz for 3D) I remember when my aim was only 30 fps back when I was using old CRTs - the electron-beam trace has a habit of nicely "blurring" between images for you. There's a cool add-on for GTAIV (on PC) that adds a subtle motion blur effect that totally negates (the perceptibility of) the slowdown stutter I used to get, even though it incurs a greater processing penalty!

My reference to motion blur in movies is because of the film or CCD - it's only exposed for a short period of time, but the system (i.e. photosensitive compounds / electronic interface) is specially designed to allow the meagre 24 fps to be sufficient upon playback to us humans, via the typical mechanical and digital projectors that exist across the world, to eliminate the slideshow effect.



I tend to use frames per second for the rendering / output device (e.g. PS3, computer or the software itself) and Hertz for the display. Since Hertz is defined as reciprocal seconds ("per second") it is indeed superficially identical to fps.

 

[alucard0712]

I add in short: No need to _render_ twice but _display_ twice at different angles.Not so big impact as rendering twice.I bet for GT5 720p 3D.

As for herz and fps.FPS is FRAMES PER SECOND.It's depended on game performance.HERZ is DISPLAY REFRESH RATE.FPS cannot be higher than refresh rate.Refresh rate is also reduce "flickering".More HZ=BETTER.120HZ is very good now on LCD and plasma.

 

[kikie]

A interesting article on 120Hz monitors. This is an interesting read if you're interesting in stereoscopic 3D gaming, like GT5!

https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/showthread.php?p=3825271#post3825271

I wonder if these monitors (120Hz) will work with GT5 3D.


Just came across this review: http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/3d-polarized-projector,review-31849.html

 

[eSZee]

You quoted your own post showing the same exact thing?

 

[Griffith500]

It's a good article. I had considered using a 120 Hz monitor for normal use, this has convinced me that some models may well be substantially better as the technology matures - we may even get back to CRT quality one day

Glad that the author also dislikes the inconsistent colour temperatures of today's monitors, I struggle to get a decent balance on mine (< 2 year old Acers, but hey... My AG Neovo is much better, and it's 6 years old!)

 

[drivatar]

What was the frame rate of the GT5 3D tech demo?

Wipeout HD is cut down to 30fps: http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=392421

 

[Griffith500]

I was just reading up about various new display technologies making their way our, er, way...

Two that stand out (ignoring OLED displays for the time being):

• FED - Field Emission Displays
• SED - Surface-conduction Electron-emission Displays

The latter is an analogue of the FED, but with an apparently more promising bulk-manufacturing potential (the main hindrance to both OLED and FED technologies.)

The application of "Field Emission" in this case revolves around "nano-scale" electron emitters (e.g. carbon nanotubes) on the back panel of a vacuum cell the size of a (compound) pixel - the released electrons travel through the vacuum to the phosphor elements (similar to those used in CRTs) and cause secondary emission of light from the screen's surface.

Anyway, they apparently combine the clarity, response, viewing angle and depth of colour that CRTs are beloved for, whilst offering better packaging than either CRTs, LCDs etc. and also lower power draw than either of these two.



I think my next display might well be Field Emission or OLED driven, especially given that they are ideal for 3D use, at least the shutter-glasses type - the lenticular types might need special accommodations.

 

[GTjazzabrandy]

Today I saw 3d TV ads for the first time.

 

[Soundtrack]

Today I was forwarded this (should read). Considering 3D products are barely out, this is already quite an impressive kind of disclaimer.

... Or maybe just an usual corporate precaution?

... At which time will car insurance ban 3D sim-players?

 

[JacoJa]

I wouldn&#8217;t be overly worried about that. If you read the first page of every video game manual, it has pretty much the exact same thing.

But seriously though... &#8216;We do not recommend watching 3D if you have been drinking alcohol.&#8217;
What the hell could possibly happen? It'll just look even more awesome.

 

[trk29]

I came across this today found on PS3center http://www.ps3center.net/news/4632/glasses-not-wanted-for-3d/ I would like to know more about it. It is called Deep Screen by a company called RealView. They had a booth at E3 so if anyone has any info on this post it here. It looks like the make a version for the psp and they say that it works well with racers.

http://www.realview.ie/about/gallery/

Pricing would be a lot different (200 and up) than a 3D TV and you don't need glasses, incase there is more than 2 people watching and you don't have extra glasses.

It's basically a screen that attaches over your tv to enhance the 2d object.

 

[steve30x]

I came across this today found on PS3center http://www.ps3center.net/news/4632/glasses-not-wanted-for-3d/and I would like to know more about it. It is called Deep Screen by a company called RealView. They had a booth at E3 so if anyone has any info on this post it here. It looks like the make a version for the psp and they say that it works well with racers.

http://www.realview.ie/about/gallery/

Pricing would be a lot different (200 and up) than a 3D TV and you don't need glasses, incase there is more than 2 people watching and you don't have extra glasses.

It's basically a screen that attaches over your tv to enhance the 2d object.

The first link you posted is broken. The proper link is http://www.ps3center.net/news/4632/glasses-not-wanted-for-3d/ at $400 they can keep it also my TV is 40" so its no good to me. Anyway I want to change my TV next year to something a bit bigger.

 

[GTP_V8SuperCars]

On boarder line on buying a 3D TV for GT5, nothing else interests me for 3D at the moment and most game are not so great in 3D yet.
Waiting around to see GT5 on it in my own eyes.

 

[trk29]

The first link you posted is broken. The proper link is http://www.ps3center.net/news/4632/glasses-not-wanted-for-3d/ at $400 they can keep it also my TV is 40" so its no good to me. Anyway I want to change my TV next year to something a bit bigger.

It does me no good either, I have a 52" and they don't make one for it. I would like to see the version for the psp. I play GT on psp a lot when not at home. So if it looks good maybe one later for my tv. Just don't like the idea of wearing glasses. I have to wear safety glasses at work all day so the last thing I want to do is come home and put on another pair of glasses.. Hell I might end up having to wear prescription glasses after all of that.

I fixed the link thanks.