@Rainbird
lol...I know. But it makes sense if you think about it...

Dude, I knew you loved that banana in my pocket!  And I never "fake" it, thats my girlfriends job!

@Slimebeast:  You do not "NEED" 120fps (60fps per eye) this was just a demo.  The Ps3 could NEVER output real games at 720p (60fps per eye) atleast not natively.  What they did was make the game more fluid, by setting its output to 120fps, so the fps and the hz (refresh rate) were equal.  Now, this is not 100% necissary (and highly and I repeat HIGHLY improbable) because most games are set at 30fps.  30fps makes this work perfectly and Ill show ya why:

30 Frames  =   60 cycles       |    30 Frames   x  Second  =       30 Frames   =   1 Frames

Second              Second        |    Second            60 Cycles        60 Cycles         2 Cycles

30 FPS is a number that current Gen consoles Can output (and a good deal of games are locked to 30fps).  Above,  you see that a 30fps game on a refreshrate of 60hz (per eye), that the screen will redraw the same frame twice over 2 cycles.

[1/60 second + 1/60 second] = 1 frame drawn twice.

In their example they had SSHD running at 120 frames per second (or 60 times per eye).   In their example they do not need any motion blur, since the frames/second = cycles/second.  For modern games (say Uncharted 2), which is set at 30fps they have to add motion blur into the game to make the motion appear more natural.  This motion blur helps blend one piece of action into the next, so it does not appear to chunk.  The best way to see the difference is to watch a sporting event (like say Football) on a 60hz tv and a 120hz tv.  On the 120hz tv it will appear more natural and you will not see nearly as much blur as the football is thrown.  This is because the time between cycles is shorter (1/120th of a second instead of 1/60second) so the frames are drawn closer to one another, which gives you less visible blur.

Here, watch this video and it might give you a better understanding of what we are talking about.  This is a flip comic and you can see during the comic the faster he flips the pages, the smoother the animation is.

Hmm... So the output by the console doesn't have to be more than 60 frames per second then, 30 fps for each eye? (as the TV screen synchs them so that each eye gets 60 Hz - so every frame is shown twice right?)

So in essence. PS3 needs to output games in 60 fps, and the TV screen must be able to support 120Hz, yes?

And in the case of Super Stardust HD they needed 120 fps rendering just because it was one of these 60fps games to begin with?

@Slimebeast

60 frames would be ideal yeah for most ps3 games.

I know you can't see the screenshot in motion but this is the average frame rate when I run street fighter 4 on PC in 3D on the highest setting.

In 2D 38 fps is plenty...but in 3D anything under 55 is unplayable to most people.

I'm curious to know something.

Since both the PS3 and the 360 already have 3D games up and running, what will the difference be for the PS3 with the new firmware update? Is that what allows for the 2*60 Hz output?

The 3D games PS3 and 360 have thus far use the checkerbox pattern.

Its a form of interlacing where only 60 frames is needed at 1080p.

Kinda like this - http://mtbs3d.com/gallery/albums/S3DHARDWAREGUIDE/dlpchecker.jpg

New PS3 update lets it do 1080p x 2 @ 24hz frames for bluray and 120hz refresh rate for games.

Ah, thanks

The original Super Stardust HD was able to render an impressive ~83 million pixels per second. They estimated that by 'optimising for' / 'taking more advantage of' the Cell processor they would be able to achieve about 50% more graphics performance with their new engine.

1280 * 720 * 120 FPS = ~111 million pixels per second. So about ~34% more pixels being rendered per second.

Housemarque has talented coders!

For most types of games I think 60 FPS (2 x 30 FPS) should be sufficient. For example cinematic style games like first and third person perspective games. Super Stardust HD is one of the few games where I think 60 FPS can really matter, because with up to 20,000 ultra fast moving colliding objects at once fast screen updates matter much more than having a game where you focuss on just a few slower moving and much bigger enemies at a time.

FPS in other games more relates to being fluent for human perception and Killzone 2 demonstrates this very well at 30 FPS, the enemies are being animated so much more fluid (like the awesome death sequences) than for example a FPS game like Crysis (nomatter the framerate its running). Or for example Tomb Raider: Underworld running on a PC vs the much smoother animated Uncharted 2 on the PS3.

Refresh rates (not FPS game rendering, but screen output) is related to the frames per second being rendered by the game engine in the way that you need to have the refresh rate of the screen running at least at the same framerate of the game engine rendering to potentially see any advantage (that's why some claims regarding Call of Duty games running so much smoother are so horribly funny when you find out they are just running a 360 game on a slow refresh rate SDTV, or even worse when they point to videos encoded in less than 30 frames per second to prove their point, like on gametrailers).

Refresh rate with certain technologies refers far more to screen flickering rather than fluid animation. Depending on the used display technology this is more or less relevant.