PGR3 not truly high-definition, if in-game screenshots are to be believed

Thats a VERY poorly written article. Nowhere is there any PROOF, only conjecture. The person writing it is basically guessing throughout when it comes to frame rates. And the example of showing a plane for 220th of a second only reinforces the scientifically provable concept of 'visual retention".

In fact the author quoted a different article's logic where the original article determined a maximum percievable rate of 72FPS based on the speed data travels on the optic nerve. This auther never mentions an actual figure for this speed because it would render his guesswork completely false.

Some people don't know this but not everything on the internet is true.

No wonder funkonaut is so misinformed.

next gen it's 60fps, below it's psone or saturn....

#23 - "actually yes, there is one that accepts a *native* 1080p made by HP, and there will be more next year, and in a few years it will be quite standard."

My Sceptre set will do a native 1080p signal just fine, thank you very much. There are plenty of (affordable!) TRUE (1080p) HD sets. What we have to wait for is 1080p CONTENT, and at this point (aside from PC output) the only way you're going to get that is by waiting for PS3.

That said, I'm sure X360 will look fine on any TV set.

That article just shows that the human eye has the potential to see over 60fps, and that research is still being done to determine how much the eye can truly see.

Anyways, the fact of the matter is that we can see way better than 60fps. And we can most certainly see a difference between 30 and 60fps.

Man, ill trooper got schooled. I love when tools like ill get to eat it when they have no idea what they are talking about.

900mhz phones? Precious.
Ha ha.

Actually, the article doesn't "show" anything.

It speculates alot and draws some unsupported conclusions based on vaguely interpreted data.
Data, thats never actually given to the reader. Only the interpretations are given.

I would be willing to bet that if you had a game running at 55FPS and 60FPS you couldn't tell the difference. But if we can see truly 200 FPS, then we would be able to see each frame and pick out the 50 from the 60 very easily.

What kind of resolution is 1024x600? It's what you would get if you did development of the game on SVGA monitors, which is probably what the developers did. HDTV monitors cost more than cheap computer monitors, and they were likely working on PCs (or Macs, as the early Xbox 360 dev kits were G5s). So they did a letterboxed image on a 1024x768 screen.

If the game ships with this oddball resolution, it will be scaled up to 720p, so those who say 600p doesn't even exist are making a specious argument.

The game looks good to me, if it's only 1024x600, I won't be unhappy.

600p > 480i

Okay, like everyone else here, I am kind of bummed out that, coming right out the gate, there is a game that cheats its way through Microsoft's gold visual standard. Saying that, I'm not surprised.
Come on, we've seen this stuff happening even in our current generation of games. Don't believe me? Read on.
Take, for example, the Chronicles of Riddick, and compare that to even Grand Theft Auto 3 for Xbox, both running at 480p. Yes, I know GTA3 isn't known for its eye-popping graphics, but with the blurry filter shit turned off you can see how sharp the graphics are.
Now compare that to gameplay shots of Chronicles of Riddick. Notice the difference? If you're not a total dick, you'll admit that, even though Riddick's graphics are far better than GTA3's, with its effects and normal mapping, you'll notice how low the resolution seems. That's because it is.
Even though both games are outputting an image that comes through as 480p, there is no denying that Riddick looks really crappy, as far as resolution goes. Same goes with Resident Evil 4 for the Gamecube.
Graphics for both games rock, and there are few games that looks as good, but the resolution is noticeably lower.
So the bottom line is that programmers continue to find "cheats" to get the last bit out of a system, even systems that aren't publicly available yet.
Are we going to continue to see this coming into the next generation? You bet your ass we will.
Will we be happy with it? You bet your ass we won't.

"Ummm. No.

I see a smooth blur either way.

This must be the worst version of Proof I've ever heard."


Well then I suggest you get your eyes checked. Any child can see it. And if you even think about it for a moment then you'll realise why it can't be any different. Well, unless you're not very smart.

By the way, I hope you're not trying this with an LCD monitor. If you are then, haha, that's pretty stupid, and also a little sad. Only CRT's blink to produce the effect, that should be obvious to anyone. Well, except you then.

Anyway, if you're on an LCD use the mouse to see the same thing. Small increments (you could say it looks like several mouse cursors next to each other), not smooth movement. And THINK about why this is true, and it will immediately be clear to anyone with an IQ above 80.

what do you think about the westinghouse monitor that display 1080 p 37 "

"Any child can see it."

Guess that means you're the child then as I can't see it. My eyes are fine. Looks the same either way. CRT and all. Sorry but your silly experiment is stupid. What were you proving again? Oh, thats right. Nothing.
Good job. Next!

Hey snort, Don't mind NK, he's kind of like the local retard. Everyone else ignores him. You should too.

It's only 480p ... want proof? How about Microsoft! Check their official page for the game: http://www.xbox.com/en-US/games/n/nba2k6xbox360/default.htm

Oh Shoobot, you got owned, I understand your anger.

You really like that word 'Idiot' it seems. But you need to get back to class - show a print-out of this conversation to your professor. YOU will be the one who started off with simplified arguments, my friend, not me.

And your boy remoTed is a little lost in the 'sofa kingdom' - When I mentioned the 900MHz phones, I'm jokingly taking your incorrect correlation of 'AC' frequency with what I consider how many times a lightbulb turns on and off in a second to an ultimate and ridiculously wrong postulate - by your first post's logic, a 900MHz phone wouldn't be possible, because in Shoo's world, nothing electric is operating above 60 times a second. A saw being propelled by an electric motor not able to exceed 60 rpm. Yeah, jokes are lost over the internet. But let's address you switching up your style and calling ME an idiot.

How is it possible then? While analog circuts are robust enough to handle the fluctuations in AC (like a the lightbulbs you mentioned) and the fact that many of the items unable to handle the fluctuation have TRANSFORMERS in them converting AC current to DC (Direct Current) like YOU ONLY NOW thought to talk about - after your fluffy theory about lightbulbs turning on and off 60 times a second got challenged. Yeah guy, I understand - the current hits it 60 times a second, turning it 'on' and 'off'.'

But NOW, in your revised arguments and insults, you are talking about bulbs DIMMING, not going 'on and off' like before. "Visual retention." Something I pointed out in my first post. So now suddenly I'm an "idiot?" Because you NOW suddenly place that argument in your next post? Something I POSTED THE LINK about, and you are now telling me I'm wrong? I posted the link to inform YOU. I knew what it said. It proves both of us right - if you overlook how you wrongly accused lightbulbs of going ON and OFF 60 times a second - but it's analog, so the on and off current keeps the glowing wire glowing long enough to remain 'on,' by a light-bulb's standards - it's still eminating light, hence 'ON,' albeit for only a split second longer.

The CURRENT might be alternating, but the bulb is not going to dip low enough to be considered 'OFF' in my books, one of which includes a college textbook from my ELECTRONICS class, where I got a B-. Slacked off a bit that semester, barely pulled that off, but still quite good enough to understand the basic concepts of AC and DC, and Tesla and Edison.

As for the FPS issue: The mind percieves motion by how much change you can percieve, and up to a point (speedwise) how much concentration you are applying to look for it. Did you see that red frame amoung the 30 others shown to you that second? Maybe, maybe not. The mind does not percieve the 'frames per second' system unless that is what is being presented to it. Real life is analog, and all systems presenting it back to us (film, video, etc.) insert a 'black' burst in between images to allow the mind to grab something for 'visual retention,' a term all here should understand if you've read this far in this godforsaken thread. So while you may not think you are seeing higher than 30-40 frames a second, you are also, on some level of conciousness, interpreting a 'black' time between each image. A film has a solid black field between each frame, while an analog NTSC image has two interlaced scan passes that create a fully-realized frame, the black-time being created when the image is starting to fade, but then is immediatly replaced by the next field.

So, do you consider a field inserted between the frames a frame itself, thus raising the perceptible changes? I do, but you probably won't because you're arguing with me.

Can you see the difference? I already posted about watching 48fps IMAX HD films, and those being more fluid than 24 fps or 30fps. In a simple example, if you still have a multisync monitor ("How gauche!"), you can change the scan rate to something less than 75 and then set it again to something higher. I see the difference. Someone above tried to use a 'pen waving' example, but I think it's much easier to simply try computing for a while at a lower scan-frequency than you are used to and you'll feel the difference - my eyes actually get a little bothered if the flicker of a lower rate is present - it's why I picked up an LCD monitor. And no, Shoobot, I'm not picking out the 55th or 57th of 60 frames a second, I'm simply saying the difference is noticable.

Eh, whatever. This could go on a long time. Let's all just enjoy trying to get a 360 next week, where it's dipping to a easily visible 20-30 Units Per Store.

Sorry Ill for being so quick to call you an idiot, I suppose it is possible that you are either drunk or stoned when you post on here. I'm not sure which is more likely based on you thinking I got "owned". I guess you must consider me proving you wrong to be "owned". Thats fantastic.

Your HUGE post has done nothing to dilute the fact that you made a fool of yourself with your points. None of which made any sense at all. Now you say you were joking and that I somehow altered my argument? Well let me attempt to catch you up to speed. My arguments and points have never changed. Nor have they been refuted by you or anyone else.

My points were simply that no one can perceive 200 FPS and that if you could, you would be able to see your lights flashing. This is a fact. Lights flash on and off 60 times per second. On high speed video, its easy to see.
This has nothing to do with whether some other devices run on AC or DC. That point was only introduced because of your BS argument that when faced with embarrassing reality, you now claim was a joke.

I'll simplify this for you even further.

Some guy posts a claim that humans can see 200 FPS and more. I say its false and use "visual retention" as evidence. The lightbulb example was simply an example of visual retention. Then someone else, (YOU) jumps in to defend the guy who says NORMAL people can see 200 FPS and this same guy (YOU) claims that lights dont flash(Your words: "There is NO flicker from a lightbulb"). This guy (YOU) spouts some crap about electric saws and phones as proof. Then that guy (YOU) looks like a complete fool after his examples are turned into a laughing stock on the forum. Then this person (YOU) says, "Oh I was just joking, and you changed your argument from on/off to dimming! WAH!!!" Did you get the idea that your claim there is NO flicker is FALSE. Lights do flicker/flash. But we CAN"T SEE IT!!! Thats the whole damn point you keep mssing. You were WRONG and you still are. Period.

One thing I agree with you on, is that this could go on forever when people like you won't face reality.

So, please go buy your xbox and touch yourself as you imagine you can see 200 FPS. Because its clearly pointless to debate with someone who gets proved wrong and then claims they were joking. That is completely LAME.

Jesus christ, explanations are just wasted on some people.

If you can't understand the simple concept of exposure, and how it relates to the human eye and in turn our perception of framerates in games, then just stop posting, and go back to gamefaqs or something.

Yeah, that means you, Ripsnort and Licious. It's one thing to be ignorant of reality and logic, it's another to be arrogant about it. You poor stupid little fucks.

"Jesus christ, explanations are just wasted on some people."

No, but your bullshit is wasted on me. Maybe you and your buddy funkonaut can get together and turn your monitor refresh rates up to 200 and then wave pens in front of them as you tell each other about how sweet it looks and how it proves something it doesn't. Go home child and take your exposure BS with you.

Thank you!

Hahahaha

I'm not gonna bother anymore, but I hope someday you'll figure it out on your own and see what an arrogant dumbass you really were. Fat chance on you ever getting it though, heh.

You're absolutely right. I WON'T get it. Wanna know why? Because I'm BULLSHIT PROOF. I just don't seem to get bullshit, no matter how thick wannabes like you lay it on. Call it luck or something. I like to think its a gift.

Someday I'll figure out "Normal" humans can all see 200 FPS? HA! You're the arrogant dumbass. At least I'm not the one spewing bullshit on game forums about 200 FPS super exposure bionic pens in front of monitors. Maybe if you hit the boards at dipshitgamers.com you'll find someone who thinks you're smart. It seems thats what you want so badly. Too bad no one on here backed up your asinine reasoning (and I stress ASS). Thats probably why you're so pissed off. No one bowed down before the Einsteinian brilliance behind your monitor game. Hopefully you find someone someday to appreciate that sweetass monitor demo, I would seriously hate to think it was totally wasted on this forum. Here's an idea, write a book about it. Maybe someone out there will find it, read it, and marvel in amazement at your wizardlike intellect as they ponder the soft realities of your 200 FPS visions. Yes, I can see it now. It's quite wondeful. You should be proud.

There. Feel better? Good.

Haha, pissed off? Seems you're the one who's pissed off.

It's like teaching basic math to an angry kid who thinks he's right and goes berserk. You just shake your head a little.

You don't get it. Even though I tried to explain, you don't get what I mean, which is blindingly obvious from every post you make. And then with the cursing.

Well, good luck with it, kid. ;)

The human visual perception system is very insensitive to temporal resolution (what everyone is simplifying to fps.) It is very sensitive to vertical spacial resolution, and lesser so to horizonal spacial resolution.

This is well established, well understood scientific fact that anyone can research.

Comparing the FPS of film, video and games is an exercise in futility ... there are many factors besides frame rate that affect each of these mediums (shutter speed, interlacing, etc., etc.)

Would it surprise you that most traditional Disney animation was done on "two's" i.e. only 12 drawings per second. Tell me those don't look smooth. (The artists know what frames to show and what to leave out.) The point is, it is really easy to trick the brain into perceiving motion, and it's capability to resolve it with any consistency is very poor.

Put down your Madcatz controller long enough to crack a book, and please, please, please shut-up once in awhile so that you can listen.

I'm not pissed at all. I'm not the one trying to prove how smart I am by citing a BS gimmick as evidence of a ridiculous theory. I actually enjoy kicking dirt in the faces of people who think they can spew their BS on forums because most people are too uneducated to call them out. The only thing thats obvious is what a tool and the dozens of others just like you on these forums are. 200 frames per second. Your attempted explanation isn't the problem. Its that you learned it wrong. Whatever you think you know about light, exposure, retinal retention, has no basis in fact. None. Do you even realize how silly you sound with this 200 fPS crap? I guess not or you wouldn't keep it up. Thats ok. Someday, you'll turn 14 and if you work real hard you might get to take general science. Hope it works out better for you than whatever joke passed for your previous education. Hopefully it was public as I would hate to think your parents wasted money so you could "learn" the crap you're pushing on here.

"Would it surprise you that most traditional Disney animation was done on "two's" i.e. only 12 drawings per second. "

Absolutely not. Thats the point I've been making and everyone else (except Matt and shoobot) has been arguing with all along . I'm glad someone else with some sense and education has decided to weigh in on this forum Thanks for your input, its right on the money! And I second your suggestion that people should pick up a few more books in their spare time. It makes arguing about video games alot easier. :)