Forums - Sony Discussion - Gran Turismo PS5: 4K Resolution is Enough, Looking Into Higher Than 60fps - Kazunori Yamauchi

Tagged games:

What do you think

Yes 2 6.45%
 
That's to much 3 9.68%
 
I dont mind the games running at 30 fps 0 0.00%
 
Make it 120 fps with 4k with PS4 graphic 3 9.68%
 
Make it 60 fps 4k with be... 23 74.19%
 
Total:31
Eagle367 said:
SvennoJ said:

It all depends on the size of the screen you want to play on, or how much of your fov is filled up with it. VR being the largest as it tries to fill up your entire fov which is up to 150 degrees per eye. Sitting 8ft away from a 150" screen (projector range for now but screens keep getting bigger as well) you have a fov of about 76 degrees. Atm 37 degrees is more common 8ft away from a 65" tv.

Recommended sitting distance for 20/20 vision is based on 60 pixels per degree. 8ft from a 65" tv puts you at needing at least 2,220 pixels horizontally, thus higher than 1080p, but lower than 4K. However you can easily see improvements at up to double that, 120 pixels per degree, since rows of square pixels are more easily detected than analog pictures. So you might even have some benefit from 8K at that distance and size and/or still need good AA.

For fps other things come into play. The human eye tracks moving objects to get a clear picture, however on a screen objects make steps over the screen which makes it hard to follow them. The solution for this jarring effect so far has been to apply motion blur. It doesn't make it sharper, it's not how the human eye works but it's easier to watch a blurry streak than a stuttering object cross the screen. To make it like real life, moving objects need to make smaller steps more often. Ideally they only move 1 pixel per step. Depending on how fast the object goes and the resolution of the screen, the required fps for a moving object can go way past 1000 fps.

Of course there are also limits to what the human eye can track. When in a moving car, the road further away is perfectly sharp, while the closer you look you get to an area where you get flashes of sharp 'texture' (where the eye temporarily tracks or scans the road) to an area where it's all a motion blur. Per object frame rate is something for the future to replace per object motion blur so the eye can work naturally. (Actually it's nothing new, the mouse pointer animating independently from a 30 fps video playing underneath is common practice, as well as distant animations running at reduced speeds) Anyway the bigger the screen, the worse the effects of lower frame rates, or the higher the fps you need to present a stable moving picture. For cinema there have always been rules not to exceed certain panning speeds to still be able to make some sense out of the stuttering presentation.

So yes, there are diminishing returns when it comes to resolution and fps. Or the opposite, achieving the last 10% of 'realism' cost more than the first 90%.

What I was hinting at is that there are more ways to do ray tracing, and dedicated hardware can help or can hinder innovation. Or rather there is not a simple switch to add ray tracing to a game by turning the chip on. Plenty other things need to be done (which will slow down the rest) to make the best use of the ray tracing cores. But it will help. Software only ray tracing would severely restrict the resolution to make it feasible. (Or needing a lot of shortcuts making it far less impressive)

Anyway as long as I can still easily tell the difference between my window and the tv, not there yet :)

Interesting read. I guess I'm just a minimalist and don't care that much about the 10%. I mean I prefer switch over all other consoles for a reason

If you currently don't care about a difference in IQ from X1X level to Switch then yep we are at a point that any improvement in IQ is not necessary for you.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Around the Network
Eagle367 said:

Interesting read. I guess I'm just a minimalist and don't care that much about the 10%. I mean I prefer switch over all other consoles for a reason

It depends on the type of game as well whether going big adds anything or is even detrimental. Playing a 2D platformer on a 200" screen doesn't add anything, just makes it harder to keep track of things. Super stardust on PSVR doesn't work at all since you can't keep track of what's coming. Even in Burnout paradise on my 92" projector screen it was much harder to concentrate on the road and the mini map in the corner to know where to go at the next intersection.

Of course on Switch you have a little screen in your hand so it's much easier to have clear visuals. BotW on my projector still looked good but was a little rough and fuzzy compared to Horizon Zero Dawn on the same projector. Then there's this fetish amongst developers to keep using smaller and smaller fonts. In GTA4 I already had minor trouble reading the small cell phone text on my 92" screen. Death stranding on my 52" 1080p tv, I have to walk to the tv to decipher what the destination is for lost cargo in the share locker, can't read it from the couch.

A handheld is easier to bring closer to your face when the text is small, same as a pc or laptop monitor. Games made for TVs and VR need to be way more careful about font sizes and other important details not getting lost in overscan areas or outside general fov areas. I've been playing Borderlands 2 on PSVR and there part of the hud is high in the fov intersecting the top edge of my glasses, so the top half of it is fuzzy above my glasses while the bottom half is clear. You can't change the position so I'm stuck with that.

Puzzle games, platformers, strategy games, anything top down doesn't need screens bigger than where you can read the fonts comfortably. Too big and you lose the overview. Unless it's made for VR like Tethered where being able to quickly look back and forth to scan the 'battlefield' is very helpful. Different devices and screen sizes for different games.



Gran Turismo is a very elegant "simulator". It is basically "car porn".....I dont think vehicle destruction goes with the game vision.



Hmm its a tough one. Personally id prefer them to lock it at 4k/60 and use the extra power on modeling etc. 1440p was achieved on GT5 i believe and no one really cared for it, not on consoles anyway. 
If they do have spare power than maybe 120fps.



John2290 said:

It's so ridiculous eveytime I see this thread title. Who has a TV over 100hz, 1% of PS4 owners? Perhaps Sony intend on pushing a 4k higher refresh rate line instead of 8k, if so cool but how many are left with 60hz/100hz Tvs with no gains show for it because they decided to stick with their Samsung or LG. This will be great for VR though and we all know they'll be using Sports assets in GT7 so it doesn't cost them a thing and they can actually work on content. I fucking hope they polish things evenly though amd don't go reaching their goals to the moon again, they have to be the most inefficient developer next to Cloud Imperium.

Someone has to produce content for new tech.

Ppl probably have 1080p 120hz. Maybe possible.

Either way, the assets for GTS are meant to be future proof and Polyphony do now outsource content creation.

So GT7 could arrive sooner rather than later. 



Around the Network
twintail said:
John2290 said:

It's so ridiculous eveytime I see this thread title. Who has a TV over 100hz, 1% of PS4 owners? Perhaps Sony intend on pushing a 4k higher refresh rate line instead of 8k, if so cool but how many are left with 60hz/100hz Tvs with no gains show for it because they decided to stick with their Samsung or LG. This will be great for VR though and we all know they'll be using Sports assets in GT7 so it doesn't cost them a thing and they can actually work on content. I fucking hope they polish things evenly though amd don't go reaching their goals to the moon again, they have to be the most inefficient developer next to Cloud Imperium.

Someone has to produce content for new tech.

Ppl probably have 1080p 120hz. Maybe possible.

Either way, the assets for GTS are meant to be future proof and Polyphony do now outsource content creation.

So GT7 could arrive sooner rather than later. 

HDMI 2.0 does support 1080p at 120hz, some 4K tvs (very few) do accept 1080p 120hz input. Not 4K at 120 hz though, for that you need HDMI 2.1 which is brand new
https://www.digitaltrends.com/home-theater/hdmi-explained-everything-you-need-to-know-news-specs/

So you need one of the few hdmi 2.0 4K tvs that support 120 fps at 1080p, or a brand new one with hdmi 2.1 that supports 120 fps input. It's a niche inside a niche.

If you have a PC you could test your tv
https://blurbusters.com/overclock/120hz-pc-to-tv/https://blurbusters.com/overclock/120hz-pc-to-tv/
However this was never about dropping back to 1080p to get 120fps, 4K seems to be the primary goal.



SvennoJ said:
twintail said:

Someone has to produce content for new tech.

Ppl probably have 1080p 120hz. Maybe possible.

Either way, the assets for GTS are meant to be future proof and Polyphony do now outsource content creation.

So GT7 could arrive sooner rather than later. 

HDMI 2.0 does support 1080p at 120hz, some 4K tvs (very few) do accept 1080p 120hz input. Not 4K at 120 hz though, for that you need HDMI 2.1 which is brand new
https://www.digitaltrends.com/home-theater/hdmi-explained-everything-you-need-to-know-news-specs/

So you need one of the few hdmi 2.0 4K tvs that support 120 fps at 1080p, or a brand new one with hdmi 2.1 that supports 120 fps input. It's a niche inside a niche.

If you have a PC you could test your tv
https://blurbusters.com/overclock/120hz-pc-to-tv/https://blurbusters.com/overclock/120hz-pc-to-tv/
However this was never about dropping back to 1080p to get 120fps, 4K seems to be the primary goal.

Yeah sure, I'm not really questioning any of that. I agree



Seriously unless they want to release it on PC nobody on console cares about 120 hz.

Make it look as good as it can, have awesome physics and have it run at 4K 60 fps.