Gran Turismo 5 Links PS3s to Get Crazy High Resolution, Frame Rate
In celebration of the racing series' tenth anniversary in October, the crew from developer Polyphony Digital threw a party in New York City in which some Sony displays let players try out versions of Gran Turismo 5 Prologue in 2160p resolution and at 240 frames per second.
The high-resolution display and the super-smooth display, which were separate demonstrations, each used four PlayStation 3 consoles in tandem to produce the on-screen image.
The 2160p screen used the systems to each draw one quarter of the screen at a normal HD 1080p resolution, and the images were combined on the fly using a high-end Sony digital cinema projector to show a high-quality image on a 220-inch screen.
As for the 240 frames per second demonstration, a Sony prototype screen using FED technology combined four PS3 systems each running 1080p at 60 frames per second. Consecutive frames were staggered across consoles, allowing the display to show 240 frames in one second, providing what was described as a very life-like display.
All the demonstrations went down at an event called Downshift Session 2008, which fans at NeoGAF cleverly noticed. Polyphony has not announced whether the technologies will be used in future editions of Gran Turismo 5 Prologue or the eventual final release of Gran Turismo 5.
-
Renalicious
replyHmm, I think they're trying to dazzle everyone with high numbers, the resolution makes sense, but the frame rate isn't 240fps, at least not 240 full frames per second. 240 quarter-frames per second sounds more accurate.
-
-
yup... its 60fps thats it.
-
-
Yes. Just because I have 4 screens outputting 60fps each side by side to display a single image, doesnt mean I am seeing 240 frames being rendered every second, I am still only seeing 60, Its not that hard to understand, not sure why they tried to fob everyone off with it either. Big waste of time.
-
-
-
-
-
-
Ok, I take back what I said. I read too quickly (and you have to read very carefully to spot this detail, it's not very obvious).
It does say they were 2 separate tests. One is 2160p @ 60 fps and the other was 1080p @ 240 fps.
I agree, some people (including myself) want more than 60 FPS that all new LCDs limit us to. Top end CRTs had refresh rates up to 200 Hz and that was years ago.
Seems like we took a step backwards with LCDs without noticing it much. I mean, they can't scale to different resolutions well, usually only 60 Hz refresh rate, ghosting, worse colour reproduction, etc.
The only benefits are lack of health hazards and smaller size/weight.-
Don't underestimate the smaller size/weight when it comes to the manufacturers. It's a lot cheaper to store and ship than heavy and bulky CRT monitors. Along with drastically decreased manufacturing costs, the pro's outweighed the con's.
Also while the top-of-the-line CRTs had extremely high refresh rates getting 200Hz out of a CRT takes extremely low resolutions or you shorten the life of the monitor greatly running it at the ragged edge (still not reaching larger LCD resolutions). Like you'd be running any current-gen games at 200fps anyway.
-
Sure, I'm not denying that it saves them a lot of money. That is exactly why they're able to push 20/22/24" monitors to consumers with ease, whereas in the CRT era it was 17/19" for most users.
It is also why the manufacturers were so eager to push widescreen monitors too, because a 24" 16:10 widescreen monitor has the same area (and therefore number of pixels at the same pixel size) as a 22" or so (I didn't do the actual calculations, so I'm just estimating here) standard 4:3 monitor.
As far as 200 Hz goes, sure you won't get that with anything but 640x480 or so, but at least you can still get 85, 100 or even 120 in the higher resolutions. 120 is already 2x 60.
Also keep in mind that CRT technology has stopped being actively developed for many years now, whereas LCDs are getting all the attention these days.
So it's like comparing a video card of today with one from 5 years ago. Doesn't mean CRT couldn't be much better today if they still worked on it.
Of course, I'm not advocating that CRTs are better than LCDs. All I'm saying is they've had certain advantages (not minor ones) which people seeminly forgot about when we "moved on" to bigger and better technologies.
-
-
Ok, that makes more sense. 1080p @ 240fps using four PS3s is very likely :)
-
Things like perfect geometry, perfect flatness, and yes lack of health hazards are pretty notable benefits IMO.
Plus with you start talking about ghosting and color reproduction, that's something only a small percentage of the population cares about. Plus if you care so much to eliminate those, you buy a better screen. (especially in the case of color reproduction)-
Ok, I know the advantages of CRT are probably limited to the lower percentage of all PC users, and that is gamers.
For normal desktop use, CRT really has no advantage over LCD. It's only when you start gaming on it that suddently your LCD may not be all that great in *ALL* aspects.
Another advantage of CRT>LCD for gaming I forgot to mention: virtually-zero input lag. Oh and also, for some reason I never noticed the tearing with V-sync off on a CRT, but on an LCD it's *ridiculously* visible and makes it impossible to play without V-sync on.-
Eh? Most gamers seem happy with low response time LCDs. I was thinking more along the lines of the contrast and color you could get on a high end CRT.
That's not to suggest CRT's aren't better in some ways, just that LCD's aren't useless.
As for input lag, I don't think it's an issue with the vast majority of LCD monitors. I've seen some people complain about it with certain LCD TVs where it's the fault of some processing the TV is doing, but I don't think it's an issue with the technology itself. Your video card is doing more buffering of frames than your monitor is.
Oh and I definitely remember tearing without Vsync on CRT monitors. When I went from Voodoo2s to a TNT card I was extremely aware of the fact that the new card seemed to never truly enable Vsync. Although if you had a good CRT and you ran at really high refresh rates I imagine that would mitigate the effect a good bit.
-
-
-
-
-
who says they were using modern tech or a TV for that matter. Maybe it was on a monitor of some sort that could easily display 240fps.
or maybe i just dont understand your post. -
They're accurate in a sense, because ~240 Frames are being produced at once... but not really.
-
-
60fps an as average. Most games are going to drop well below the 60fps average during certain actions. Take a 3 car wipe out with alot of detail, might go down to 35fps or less.
-
Between 60 and 240, yeah.
But between 120 and 240, probably not.
The more FPS you get, the better, because that means you're future proofed for longer and you can enable more gfx options like AA, AF, higher resolution while still having decent FPS.
Why would anyone ever want to have less FPS? It makes no sense.
What people are looking for is to have their computer (or playstation, whatever) be *ABLE* to render at 1000+ FPS or more. If it can do that, then you can just slow it down artificially down to 60 or 120 fps or whatever you want. But in a year, when more demanding games come out, you can still get 60 or 120 fps.
But if you barely get 60 fps now, that means tomorrow your rig is too slow for a newer game. And during some more intensive action/scenes your fps will drop from 60 fps to lower, etc.
-
-
