Now THAT is HD gaming.

[spyker3292]

3840x2160 at 240fps.

Ah, Polyphony Digital. You would.

Anyway, seriously, this is sweet! 4 PS3's programmed to each play a quarter of the screen. And really? 240fps? I don't even think an eye can catch all that.

http://kotaku.com/5093592/gran-turismo-5-prologue-running-at-240-fps--3840-x-2160-resolution

 

[0098386]

Well, technically there were 2 demos, one super HD and one at 240p. At least according to that Kotaku report.

 

[sikkinixx]

Too bad he was sitting so far from the screen.

 

[JackAxe]

240 fps was using four PS3s on a 1080 screen. Impressive for a "console," well four "consoles."

Now if only the PS3 had enough texture memory.

Too bad he was sitting so far from the screen.

You wouldn't want to sit much closer, like any HD screen.

 

[angelneo]

That was impressive.....

but seriously, I don't see it of any use other than showing it off in demos.

 

[spyker3292]

That was impressive.....

but seriously, I don't see it of any use other than showing it off in demos.

Well.. that is what is was for so..... Yup . It's just to show off.

 

[JackAxe]

Sony could always setup some GT5 Arcade machines for that ultimate experience. Looks like something that would be at Dave & Busters.

 

[chrmjenkins]

They had to do something to boost ps3 sales.

 

[takao]

synchronizing 4 ps3 to run a single game .. that sure took some serious developing .. how about spending the manpower and cash on getting the game released Sony ?

 

[nick9191]

There are so many different reasons as to why that is completely pointless.

 

[0098386]

synchronizing 4 ps3 to run a single game .. that sure took some serious developing .. how about spending the manpower and cash on getting the game released Sony ?

Forget that, give me a PSP version I'd really love one. Daft place to say but the PSP's has really grown on me in the last few months.

 

[r1ch4rd]

The human eye can generally only perceive about 72fps, any more is just a waste.

 

[Chone]

The human eye can generally only perceive about 72fps, any more is just a waste.

There's no real evidence to support that claim.

The general scientific consensus is that it depends on the type of image and context, I don't remember the exact number but some tests done on air force pilots showed that they could identify an object shown for sometime in the 200ths of a second or something similar to that.

Since real life images can't be measured in "frames", there's really no telling to the limits of the human eye, at least not yet.

 

[0098386]

doesn't it depend on brightness and state of mind too? Or at least from what I barely remember from a lesson on stop motion back in 2002. We see things between 50-70fps, the mind recognises more and it will look smoother since when the eye does take the picture it ensures that the image has moved.

Should have paid more attention in college.