• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

PS3 to use XMB? (Shot included)

W

Wollan

Member
Thanks to kb-smoker at IGN PS3 for bringing this to my attention.

This pic was showed during Ken Kuturagis(120fps) speech the other day:

1027sce_gui.jpg


I would love for the PS3 to use the XMB interface(also seen with the PSP and PSX).
So clean, nice and easy to use.

If I had to take a guess what these different icons represent(starting from the left):
'Home/local'(other units the PS3 is connected too), Setup, Photo, Music, Video, Screen Options?(why isn't this under setup, maybe because of faster dual screens on/off), Games, Browser, Parental Control, Friends/Community, Cell-phone.

Here are some other random shots from speech:

1027sce_hd_roadmap.jpg

1027sce_cell_roadmap.jpg
 
2160p. o_o

.... why in the heck are they touting 120/240fps? that's way beyond the capacity of the human eye.

Why don't they make High Definition ultraviolet-lit TVs while they're at it?
 
GaimeGuy said:
2160p. o_o

.... why in the heck are they touting 120/240fps? that's way beyond the capacity of the human eye.

Why don't they make High Definition ultraviolet-lit TVs while they're at it?
Click to expand...

Actually looking up on it seems to indicate the human eye can reach up to and surpass 200 fps. I just googled it one day, and well it surprised me. I guess it would be harder to tell, but the human eye can precieve such fast information anyway.
 
GaimeGuy said:
2160p. o_o

.... why in the heck are they touting 120/240fps? that's way beyond the capacity of the human eye.
Click to expand...

120/240 is NOT beyond the limits of human perception. Both are admittedly overkill for games, however. Some people really will not be able to tell the difference, in much the same way that hearing range differs between individuals, but then again some will.
 
blackadde said:
120/240 is NOT beyond the limits of human perception. Both are admittedly overkill for games, however. Some people really will not be able to tell the difference, in much the same way that hearing range differs between individuals, but then again some will.
Click to expand...

That doesn't change that fact that both are completly unnecessary. Freaking movies are 24fps and no one complains. What pisses me off is the fact that they're thinking of introducing Super HD discs 2 years after HD.
 
GhaleonEB said:
I'm holding out for Super Duper HD. Nothing else comes close.
Click to expand...

I think it was on the old boards but I remember reading about how a company got like a terabyte of storage to playback ultra high super duper resolution video on a massive screen which amounted to like maybe 20 minutes. The result?

It was so clear and life-like that some people in the audience got dizzy and nauseous.
 
koam said:
That doesn't change that fact that both are completly unnecessary. Freaking movies are 24fps and no one complains. What pisses me off is the fact that they're thinking of introducing Super HD discs 2 years after HD.
Click to expand...

People are starting to complain after seeing video recorded and outputted in higher framerates. It just looks better.

HomerSimpson-Man said:
I think it was on the old boards but I remember reading about how a company got like a terabyte of storage to playback ultra high super duper resolution video on a massive screen which amounted to like maybe 20 minutes. The result?

It was so clear and life-like that some people in the audience got dizzy and nauseous.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I remember the same thing. Apperently some of the people in the audience ghasped or seomthing also.
 
I can see differences in every scan rate I set my monitor to ... obviously they go above 60Hz, so there's certainly justification for an increase. 240 though? Even if percievable, the trade off seems to not be worth it.


Maybe 120 is worth it? I would certainly like to see more TV manufacturers follow Pioneer's lead and offer 72Hz. If that happens, I'd like consoles to offer it up as well.
 
koam said:
That doesn't change that fact that both are completly unnecessary. Freaking movies are 24fps and no one complains. What pisses me off is the fact that they're thinking of introducing Super HD discs 2 years after HD.
Click to expand...


Actually I complain about movies all the time. Fast action sequences look like utter shit to me. Everything is just teleporting around.
 
Brodequin said:
I can see the arguments now, "GT7 is better than PGR5 because it runs at 240fps instead of 120!"
Click to expand...

lol. Nothing to do with games though, remember that. This is only for Video.
 
BlueTsunami said:
People are starting to complain after seeing video recorded and outputted in higher framerates. It just looks better.



Yeah, I remember the same thing. Apperently some of the people in the audience ghasped or seomthing also.
Click to expand...

Who are these "people"? This is the first I've heard of this. Also, 240 is overkill. 60 would be ideal.
 
Movies upgrading to 60fps would be surreal!
I hope its soon!
 
koam said:
That doesn't change that fact that both are completly unnecessary. Freaking movies are 24fps and no one complains. What pisses me off is the fact that they're thinking of introducing Super HD discs 2 years after HD.
Click to expand...

The comparisions between movie framerates and videogame framerates are a bit warped. Film is done at 24 fps and works well yes? It has film's natural motion blur to help but that can come at a heavy price. Same can't be said of videogames why?

Because a film is not under constant movement, it has directed sequences, near constant use of still shots, and when things pans it pans slowly, actions have motion blur when they move, it's smooth but when the camera itself moves it can't handle quick moment. Ever watch a film pan around everything starts to blur heavily, a quick pan would be a undetailed mess. To resolve this sometimes they film at a higher framerate like Saving Private Ryan, that film "looks" different than other films.
 
HomerSimpson-Man said:
The comparisions between movie framerates and videogame framerates are a bit warped. Film is done at 24 fps and works well yes? It has film's natural motion blur to help but that can come at a heavy price. Same can't be said of videogames why?

Because a film is not under constant movement, it has directed sequences, near constant use of still shots, and when things pans it pans slowly, actions have motion blur when they move, it's smooth but when the camera itself moves it can't handle quick moment. Ever watch a film pan around everything starts to blur heavily, a quick pan would be a undetailed mess. To resolve this sometimes they film at a higher framerate like Saving Private Ryan, that film "looks" different than other films.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying don't give us something faster, i'm for it. But 240?
 
BlueTsunami said:
lol. Nothing to do with games though, remember that. This is only for Video.
Click to expand...

You're right, but after viewing the slide, that's the first thing that came to mind. :) Anyway, two years is way to fast to transistion from normal to full to super hd. I'm sure there will a handful of amazingly highend super hd displays available, which hopefully is what the first slide intends, but it will be years before it becomes anywhere close to mainstream.
 
koam said:
I'm not saying don't give us something faster, i'm for it. But 240?
Click to expand...

Yeah, it's out there but I guess it's the old saying, "Aim for the stars, even if you don't make it you'ill reach the moon." Well something profound like that, got that in highschool.
 
koam said:
I'm not saying don't give us something faster, i'm for it. But 240?
Click to expand...

I agree with 240 :lol but 24fps is a limitation. What was that Tom Cruise movie with Jamie Fox? Collatoral? I believe that was shot at a higher FPS. I actually looked it up and it was shot at 30fps and their IS a noticable difference (at least for me). It makes it much more natural (movement wise) but it takes away from the *file effect*. Its going to be interesting how this is implimented in movies.
 
For some reason I'm having flashbacks to the buzz surrounding nurbs on the PS2. It was so hyped up - that and fractal-generated landscapes (what ever that was).

Plus, nurbs is more fun to say than these buzzwords.

Nurbs, bitches! NURBS!
 
BlueTsunami said:
I agree with 240 :lol but 24fps is a limitation. What was that Tom Cruise movie with Jamie Fox? Collatoral? I believe that was shot at a higher FPS. I actually looked it up and it was shot at 30fps and their IS a noticable difference (at least for me). It makes it much more natural (movement wise) but it takes away from the *file effect*. Its going to be interesting how this is implimented in movies.
Click to expand...

Going at a higher framerate gives film a grittier look like you said with Collateral, then there is Saving Private Ryan, heck watch some of the Gladiators fights sequences, most of the film has that classic smooth look while some of the fights are really hardedged gritty looking.
 
HomerSimpson-Man said:
Going at a higher framerate gives film a grittier look like you said with Collateral, then there is Saving Private Ryan, heck watch some of the Gladiators fights sequences, most of the film has that classic smooth look while some of the fights are really hardedged gritty looking.
Click to expand...

Yeah, now that you mention Private Ryan and Gladiators I remember changes in looks. I can see it (at this time) being used as an effect instead of encompasing the whole movie itself.
 
Film would see a benefit even over 120 fps - your eyes wouldn't be able to process unique individual frames, but you would be able to detect movement and direction of movement of objects between frames.

I don't think it will ever happen though - the display devices are only half the problem. Most film cameras struggle even with indoor naturally lit scenes today that would look fine to the human eye. If you tried to triple the shutter rate to 72 fps (even higher for slo-mo) you would either need more light for every scene you shot (baking your actors) or a large format IMAX camera for all your films (limiting what, when and how you could shoot.)

That said - there is one thing Hollywood is moving towards that would be perfect for high frames per second - 3D movies with LCD shutter glasses. Even if the film was shot at 24 fps, you would like to display at 120 fps or higher to avoid flicker. There was a time when people even rumored the Nintendo Revolution was going in that direction...
 
Saving Private Ryan used it primarily to make it look like TV footage ... so it seems more 'real' to most people.

The motion itself is obviously closer to reality, but that wasn't their concern. People associate the higher-framerate with TV. And for wars, people associate TV with live footage. So basically, they were taking advantage of our historical association rather than caring about what actually appears closer to reality. By using it part-time (mainly for combat scenes), it is more jarring and the association becomes even clearer in our subconscious.

It just so happens that this association corresponds with what actually really does look more ... real.
 
BTW - Philips has a technology in many of their TVs that allows them to run at a higher framerate. I can't recall if it does 120 fps for video-based footage, or a multiple of 24 for movie-based footage (or both)?

Anyway, it actually does motion interpolation for the frames it's creating based on the previous and next frames. It quite natural looking (actually I think that might the name ... something like natural motion).

I believe Sony has a similar technology on its PAL TVs. Their DRC can be customized to either run progressive at 50 frames, or run in (interlaced I assume) 100 fps. I would think they must be doing some sort of interpolation as well, otherwise what's the point? Unfortunately, I didn't read up much on it as I'm in an NTSC territory.
 
HomerSimpson-Man said:
Going at a higher framerate gives film a grittier look like you said with Collateral, then there is Saving Private Ryan, heck watch some of the Gladiators fights sequences, most of the film has that classic smooth look while some of the fights are really hardedged gritty looking.
Click to expand...

That's actually not a higher "frame rate" (although SPR did alot of different things at different times) but an effect of the shutter angle. If you have a very narrow shutter angle your film is only exposed briefly per frame. The quicker you expose your film for a given frame the less motion blur is exposed on your film. There's a good illustration on wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shutter_angle
 
Onix said:
BTW - Philips has a technology in many of their TVs that allows them to run at a higher framerate. I can't recall if it does 120 fps for video-based footage, or a multiple of 24 for movie-based footage (or both)?

Anyway, it actually does motion interpolation for the frames it's creating based on the previous and next frames. It quite natural looking (actually I think that might the name ... something like natural motion).

I believe Sony has a similar technology on its PAL TVs. Their DRC can be customized to either run progressive at 50 frames, or run in (interlaced I assume) 100 fps. I would think they must be doing some sort of interpolation as well, otherwise what's the point? Unfortunately, I didn't read up much on it as I'm in an NTSC territory.
Click to expand...

You are on the right lines. Makes movement seem more natural.
 
AndoCalrissian said:
1027sce_hd_roadmap.jpg


This is why I have a hard time caring about HDTV and HD movie formats. Will anything ever be good enough?
Click to expand...

That can be applied to anything. Advancement in technology will always come with something better....although, there will be a point where no distinguishable things can come from going higher and higher (diminishing returns?).
 
BlueTsunami said:
That can be applied to anything. Advancement in technology will always come with something better....although, there will be a point where no distinguishable things can come from going higher and higher (diminishing returns?).
Click to expand...

Yeah, technology doesn't stand still, companies constantly look forward to newer tech down the line. Though just because a company is researching it or plans to show doesn't mean it's going to have real mainstream application yet.
 
Sony seems to be doing alot of talk about it's multitasking abilities when it comes to displaying multiple stuff. if they bust out video phone, browing, and tv at the same time, that would be pretty damn sweet.

it'll be nice if they deliver.
 
Suikoguy said:
Movies upgrading to 60fps would be surreal!
I hope its soon!
Click to expand...
Hope in one hand and shit in the other, see which one fills up faster. It will be a long time before that transition is made.
 
All this talk has really got me interested in what a 60 fps film would look like, you could already notice the suble difference between tv video and film when it comes to movements and at 60 fps....awesome stuff no doubt.
 
Wollan said:
Screen Options?(why isn't this under setup, maybe because of faster dual screens on/off)
Click to expand...

If u look closer, there are some "communication waves" hitting the top right corner of that screen. My guess is that's it's related to the wireless video streaming thing (to PSP via LocationFree Player?). EDIT: Or it can just be a function that lets you see TV programs on TV via PS3? I dont have a clue really :P

Overall, very interesting icons over there :)
 
HomerSimpson-Man said:
All this talk has really got me interested in what a 60 fps film would look like, you could already notice the suble difference between tv video and film when it comes to movements and at 60 fps....awesome stuff no doubt.
Click to expand...

Home video (of the dv kind) and television are usually played at 60 fps (60i). That's what a 60 fps movie would look like.
 
HomerSimpson-Man said:
Actually looking up on it seems to indicate the human eye can reach up to and surpass 200 fps. I just googled it one day, and well it surprised me. I guess it would be harder to tell, but the human eye can precieve such fast information anyway.
Click to expand...


The human eye could, unhindered, "see" more than 200fps. Of say, a black cube spinning on a white background. But the amount of information in even a simple game would render that calculation moot.

The human brain is easily tricked. Giving it > 200fps is a waste of cycles. Use that power for something else.
 
1027sce_hd_roadmap.jpg



It's when I see shit like this that I finally start to understand what Nintendo is trying to say, talk about your misplaced priorities.....
 
capslock said:
1027sce_hd_roadmap.jpg



It's when I see shit like this that I finally start to understand what Nintendo is trying to say, talk about your misplaced priorities.....
Click to expand...

Wow, nintendo makes movies?
 
maybe my dvd-movies or my dvd-player is crap, but when things moves sideways, you can sometimes see tearing in sideways.. like its got interlaced...

The 24fps is what was the fastest possible back in the early movies.. right?
im pretty sure they would have choosen better FPS if it was possible.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Nintendo bribing players to please use GameChat
2
70
636
cormack12 replied
[Millie A] PS3 Active Users Dropped from 1.1 million in February to 240k in March Due to Netflix Ending Support
2
93
657
Tiago Rodrigues replied
  • Locked
Pearl Abyss addresses use of AI
9
238
Moonjt9 replied
  • Locked
  • Poll
New Xbox Dashboard ad started to use the term "Xbox exclusives"
Rumor Platform 
10
256
TintoConCasera replied
DF Revealed that NVIDIA needed to use two RTX 5090s for the DLSS 5 tech demo (It will use single card with official release)
News  2
66
1K
cinnamonandgravy replied
Top Bottom