Digital Foundry PS4 Pro Launch Coverage Begins
- Thread starter Jonboy
- Start date
BigEmil
Junior Member
Exactly. These people trying to downplay this stuff the difference between native 4k and a efficient 4k rendering you will hardly notice the difference on your TV unless you try your hardest to and look hard and ogle at it up close. Yet we still have these same people constantly saying no it will look much worser lol ok then
summary:
-can't tell the difference between checkerboard 4K and native 4K unless you're practically kissing your tv, it's that good
-had PS4 Pro on for ~8 hours straight with Infinite Warfare running, no heating problems and it was super quiet the entire time.
couldn't even hear the fan until putting phone (what he was recording with) behind the system.
-he "can't say" if there will be a Bloodborne patch or not (so there may be a chance?)
Omnistalgic
Member
But everyone keeps saying 900p - 1080p is not the same as 1800p to 2160 (checkerboard to native) because the clarity from a higher resolution is already super high to begin with.
It's much easier to notice those differences at lower resolutions. Makes sense to me either way, I think Pro and Scorpio will be very comparable honestly and Phil is just hyping up his own product with stuff like "the difference will be obvious" or "4.2 isn't enough for 4K"
MrBurnsExcellent.gif
Do you only have the one unit to do all this on or do you have a few?
thelastword
Banned
Well lets be fair here, these 2013 consoles should have been rendering every game at 1080p native. People had 1080p sets for so long when the XB1 and PS4 came along, that they were just tired of playing 720 and subnative games on them. They wanted games to take advantage of their 1080p sets after having them for at least 8 years or about.
This mid gen refresh is so different though. 4k TV's are starting to get affordable and gain some momentum, yet it's not even close to the predominant standard that 1080 is or was years ago before the XB1 and PS4 made their entry in 2013, but yet, the Pro is already giving us native 4k games and close to 4k rez games. You know how long I had to wait to play consistent 1080p games on my 1080p tv? I'll tell you...2013....All before that, it was resolutions below 720p with abysmal framerates at that..
It's just ironic that people are saying checkerboarding is not native (which it is not tbh) when so many console gamers are still playing at 720p and 900p on the XB1 in 2016. Hell, even PC gamers can't do these games at native 4k 60fps, but a $400.00 console should? I think what's upsetting people on either side of the fence is how genius checkerboarding and the ID buffer is on the Pro. The differences are highly indistinguishable here and at such high pixel counts, that would always be the case. The minimization of upscaling and upscale artefacts, the injection of TAA in the checkerboarding process to clean the jaggies and noise was also genius....and it's what at work here.
At least this time around, I don't think it will take 8 years before the majority of games I play on a 4k set are native games, especially with the PS5 and XB2.O coming up in 3 years. However, this early, as a new 4k tv owner, I can enjoy native games now, games that are close to native like 3680 * 2070 now, games that are checkerboarded to 2160p, which many are reporting to be very close to native on inspection.....I think that's a very good place to be as a new 4k set user. It's a far cry from how 1080p went down for me.
So I'm beginning to wonder if these people who say that these games are not native, if they've been playing native 4k games for years now?????? at playable framerates.....This is the first console to give us 4k games, and in the last few years according to many on these forums, they could not see the difference between 900p and 1080p, which was quite obvious when upscaled tbh. Now we have people saying "these games are not native 4k"... when the resolution on the Pro is so much higher and the technique to get to a 4k image is so superior with minimal artefacts......Strange line of arguments when you put all of this in perspective.
chromatic9
Member
Is it the same as Quantum Break? My reservation is I've seen how if you stop and wait a cleaner image is built up but if you play normally ie moving or stopping very briefly then it's not very good. In a demo scenario or stopping for a screenshot and comparing later I'm sure it will look close as there's time to use previous frames while stationary.
It's funny honestly. I think some are under the impression that 1080p on a 1080p screen looks better than 1440p on a 4K screen because NATIVE RES!!
Caipirinha
Member
More than actually playing games, talking about games is the primary hobby for a lot of people here.
If they don't argue about consoles then that hobby becomes a lot less engaging to them, they are emotionally invested the way people are in their local football clubs. There's no use talking logic or reason, it's not about that, it's about tribalism through emotional attachment to corporate branding.
kikonawa
Member
I dont think its the same. I have it on pc and i think it looks like a 360 game.
One PS4 Pro split between myself and Rich at the moment - but we've worked it out. John's supporting from Germany thanks to the wonders of proxy editing too, which really helped.
Some of us already owning a PS4 are interested in knowing whether or not the 200$ upgrade (400$ -200$ of selling your PS4) is worth, though.
We already have access to exclusives, but is the price gap we'd have to pay justified by supersampling etc etc? Of course, the answer is going to be a subjective one.
No fighting over whose turn it is to pixel peep then?
My main interest really is the SATAIII, I'm not expecting it to be any different with an SSD than the PS4 was but I'll wait for your tests.
Shai-Tan
Banned
I don't know why people need to push the line that 1800p is indistinguishable from 2160p. 1800p looks good, that's fine. The difference may matter less in current games but it will be obvious in games with more geometry (especially on vegetation) and larger textures. Anyway I'm just glad we are getting away from that plague of FXAA. The best way to get clarity in picture is to actually run at a higher resolution not slather the image with vaseline. Hopefully by next gen mainstream display technology will have also solved horrible motion resolution problems
Backfoggen
Banned
I really wonder what misinformed people like that. It's like they heard "native res is important" somewhere and now extrapolate from that that native lower res is preferable to higher res but upscaled.
……forgetit
Member
This is killing me, I have a new 4K TV and a PS4 pro coming this week and I have to go out of town until Thanksgiving in a few days. I wont be able to experience this stuff until basically December.
Real life sucks doesn't it.
I think this gets swept under the rug a lot of times with most gamers. Everyone wants uncompromising graphics but really there does come a point of diminishing returns for the power that's required. We've already reached a point of good enough for most people that have been playing sub 1080p games this generation, the checkerboard v native 4k jump should be much more subtle.
……forgetit
Member
Tell me about it, stupid job.
It's not quite like QB. It looks much better than that in motion. It looks more like slight pixelation with a bit of blur more than anything else. It's something that only really sticks out if you're looking very closely at the image from close proximity. It looks excellent otherwise.
We have a rotation set up, so one person captures, the other edits, and then it switches. There's basically too much to cover in the time we've had it (perhaps expectedly), but hopefully we've ticked most of the boxes for day one. We'll tackle some subjects I'm reading about here very shortly after.Working it out means one of you working night shifts yeah?
Just tell us if Uncharted 4 1080p just downsample from 1440, or there's more visual effects?
Are you allowed to reveal your upload schedule? I really appreciate the work you guys do.
Can you ask Richard if he did a review for gamesmaster tv show back in the day, I was watching an episode and a young looking chap looked and sounded like Richard but used another name, it's drove me batty I need to know haha.
//DEVIL//
Member
This make sense but the answer is really very simple . Can you afford a 200$ to spend on gaming ?if yes then sure go for it. Even if the difference isn't that big .( I honestly think most peope will not be able to tell the difference unless these consoles are being compared face to face) then you should go for it because deep inside u you will know that you are having the best possible experience of this game on a console.
Like honestly I don't think deep inside I will be OK to play horizon on a normal ps4 when I can play a better experience or smoother graphics. Not just for this game but all upcoming ps4 exclusive games I want. All the sudden this 200$ seems like a bargain
Yeah. While I appreciate the smaller size of the PS4, and find the massive Xbox one power brick annoying, I would have liked better cooling in PS4 which may have allowed for slightly higher clock speeds. However even XB1 only has slightly higher clocks so maybe the original APUs or PSUs don't have much headroom?
chromatic9
Member
Is Titanfall 2 PS4 Pro using checkerboard or simply offering dynamic scaling and upscaling from there. I looked at one image from a PS4 Pro 3840x2160 and it appeared to be around 1440 native and had all the same hallmarks of a simple upscale like you'd traditionally see in pixel counting older games, you know that obvious double stair step and artifacts of interpolation. Nothing close to 4k native or native like.
Sad Affleck
Member
As someone who has no horse in the race between the PS4 Pro's 4Kish or the Scorpio's supposed true 4K, I have made the following observation: the importance of resolution for some seems to ebb and flow depending on which side has the technological advantage. During the PS360 era a few hundred pixels of resolution difference were apparently a huge deal and clearly better for 360 owners while PS3 gamers claimed that games looked mostly the same. Then the next generation started and suddenly native 1080p was of paramount importance for PS4 owners and anything less looked like crap, while xbox one owners had an epiphany that a slightly fuzzier look isn't such a big deal. Now with the Pro and Scorpio we have a reversal once again. Non-native 4k is fine now because of new techniques and the amount of pixels, while next year it will not be fine because it's not native and it will look like shit. This sort of constant goalpost moving is both funny and sad, in my opinion.
This is a great question.
Oh yeah i know it'd bug me to know i could play FFXV, Horizon etc etc with a better IQ (however marginal, though some games could REALLY need an update on that front, Bloodborne for example is a blurry mess).
But whether or not i can afford it depends.
I'm not at the point where i can just throw 200$ around thoughtlessly, but i could cut something there, to have 200$ here, the point is, again, is it really worth it? And i think seeing comparisons and analysis, is a good way to make a more informed decision, beyond the general hype of "New toy is out! Gotta buy!"
User123456
Member
I am thoroughly impressed by the Pro if the Titanfall 2 screens are anything to go by.
If there is one thing that I like more than powerful technology, it is clever technology that as a result punches above its weight.
If this thing can keep its acoustics in check (initial impressions seem good on this front but I'd rather wait a bit and be sure) then I'm 100% in after months of being super skeptical. 400 bucks for the bullshot-level IQ I saw on those screenshots is ridiculous.
Checkerboarding shmeckerboarding. If it looks good and a very clever set of techniques made it possible, consider my engineer respect bone tickled.
If there is one thing that I like more than powerful technology, it is clever technology that as a result punches above its weight.
If this thing can keep its acoustics in check (initial impressions seem good on this front but I'd rather wait a bit and be sure) then I'm 100% in after months of being super skeptical. 400 bucks for the bullshot-level IQ I saw on those screenshots is ridiculous.
Checkerboarding shmeckerboarding. If it looks good and a very clever set of techniques made it possible, consider my engineer respect bone tickled.
Guardian Monkey
Member
Newer, quicker, and more. Has always been this way. Welcome to technology!
geordiemp
Member
I had Ps3 first and switched to 360, framerate on many Unreal engine games was just terrible, it was more than just a few pixels on many non sony games.
I switched again to Ps4, some games like Ghosts (720p really) was just not acceptable on Xb1, they done goofed big time IMO and Xb1 is just a poor design.
I am gettng the pro (1 year is a long time), but at 55 inches once past 1080p we really are into diminishing returns for living room play for me. I have a 4K set and a 1080p set (2 Ps4), and Sony's GPU / Pro solution seems fine for both given what tech is available at that price.
The differentiator between Scorpio and Ps4 pro will come down to 60 FPS capability and if Scorpio gets a powerful CPU to go with the rest.
If both consoles are still on Jaguar equivalents then there is no need to go beyond the pro until you can bash out 60 FPS reliably imo, and if Scorpio is Jaguar then in game Scorpio benefits will be not very exciting over a pro (except for maybe VR)..
Even before we got Pro details I was adamant that I did not care for anything above 4 TF until we get a strong console CPU and bandwidth for comfortable 60 FPS options. We may have to wait until next gen.
For me the issue this time is that there is a point where you simply won't be able to notice the difference (due to resolution, ability of the eye & viewing distance. As such most people probably won't be able to notice much difference Pro vs Scorpio WRT resolution - the difference will come with effects and frame rates (IMHO) - but you are right, last gen all the Xbox fans were in my face for most the face offs yet this gen apparently you can't see the difference lol
Omnistalgic
Member
Disagree, I played on PS3 mostly, all PS4 this gen, and before that was pretty much on PS or Nintendo consoles. I’m definitely much more invested into Sony’s ecosystem and can say X360 often looked better and ran better, particularly early in the gen. This was the case with many 3rd party games, but Sony’s first party really put out IMO the best looking consoles games of the gen.
Fast forward to PS4/X1 and the launch window stuff had a noticeable difference. I think call of Duty was like 720p on X1 and 1080p on PS4 before a patch or something? that’s a difference you can see. But at the same time, it’s not like today I go to a friend’s house and think his X1 games look worse than me playing at home. It was only noticeable in side by side by DF and stuff. But, it was noticeable when looking for it.
This checkerboard to Native gap looks even smaller. You definitely won’t be playing native at home on a scorpio and go over to a friend’s house on Pro and think this looks like crap. Side-by-Side might be even closer than 900p v 1080p who knows, but it’s logical that the higher the resolution you go, the cleaner the image becomes, the more diminishing returns creep it.
I don’t think it’s goal posting at all, but rather a minority of the gaming community having a platform to be heard loudly. Majority of the X1 user base don’t have a problem with resolution I don’t think. And majority of PS4 user base won’t have a problem with Pro.
If you're expecting native 4k 60fps from Scorpio, and the console launches under $600, you're going to be sorely disappointed. If it's 4k 30fps then I the slight difference isn't worth the year long wait
the real measure will come if scorpio simply has XB1 games at native 4k (which seems a waste of power to me). I'm sure we'll see lots of silly arguing about native vs 'upscaled' if that happens and it'll get ugly really quickly.
Personally I hope Scorpio will use similar reconstruction techniques and then use the 'spare' additional power to make noticable improvements in world quality which would actually be meaningful when comparing to PS4 Pro. But if they take a dynamic resolution approach because that works well with XB1/Scorpio/PC, that might soak up some of the benefit of scorpios additional flops.
Personally I hope Scorpio will use similar reconstruction techniques and then use the 'spare' additional power to make noticable improvements in world quality which would actually be meaningful when comparing to PS4 Pro. But if they take a dynamic resolution approach because that works well with XB1/Scorpio/PC, that might soak up some of the benefit of scorpios additional flops.
Yup, I cannot wait for the 'REAL 4K vs 4fauxK' fights to begin. I'm really curious if Scorpio's performance delta will translate well to the screen, especially if they would be pushing native 4k. I can see a sort of reverse PS4/X1 situation happening, with the big difference that Sony is a year early this time.
Louis Cyphre
Banned
Makes sense but if you are already a PS4 owner and plan to get the new Pro model then you are just contradicting yourself.
He said to stop folling power yet that is exactly what he's doing. The PS4 Pro does not have any games not found on his current PS4.
TLZ
Banned
Omnistalgic
Member
How? Isnt he saying he has a PS4 for the exclusive that arent on PC? Then the Pro is the best way to play those exclusives? I dont see how thata contradiction. Its still about the software, not about the power.
While there will be games at 4k, they won't all be. We don't have all games at 1080 on Xbone/PS4, so devs aren't magically going to all support 4k once we have even 8 or 10 TF machines.
While I love retro...this is like y'alls Super Bowl moment here with the Pro. XD
gigantor21
Member
That fight already started as soon as the Scorpio was announced. Phil and Mark didn't exactly help with their subtweet-style digs at each other's consoles--"Scorpio can do native 4K!" "You need 6TF+ to do real 4K!" and so on.
That helped spur on the constant back and forth over whether or not the checkerboarding is good enough, despite multiple reports that there are no big differences unless you go up super close and really look for them. It dovetails with the broader concerns over the new mid-gen upgrade cycle being pushed by both companies, and people not wanting to feel left behind after only 3-4 years. The concern trolling over whether casual buyers would "get" the upgrade path (despite it being pretty straightforward) was driven by similar fears.
For me personally, I was able to get a Pro for $50 after trade-ins, so there was no reason not to. I want to play the PS4 games at their best.
chromatic9
Member
Will be interesting, depends how well this checkerboarding does in general play.
I've looked at the ROTTR screens released a month or two ago and they look softer than PC at 1440p and ways off UHD res of 3840x2160 native.
We've got some PS4 Pro Titanfall 2 images and they look like 1440p on th eons I counted, it scales dynamically as well. They also display double stair step and artifacts like any simple form of upscaling we've seen. TF2 may not even be any doing checkerboarding, but if it is then it's not doing the magic there, it looks like a 1440p game.
Then you have John from DF saying when moving it's softer and has artifacts, to me that's when checkerboarding can't build an image properly and presumably has to upscale until you can get to a consistent scene and then construct a 4k like image. Only thing is, around 1440p baseline is going to look better than Quantum Break trying this technique at 720p.
As someone who has been downsampling for 6-7 years. 1080 res in not good enough, 1440p in an improvement but meh. 1620p is not bad, 1800p is when things get decent enough but native 4k is a nice baseline of impressive image quality and many screenshotters would agree and can spot the difference. 1440p or being 1440p like doesn't really cut it for me personally but of course its an improvement and TF2 being 900p-1000p especially on a 1920x1080 set, Pro is going to look better, an upgrade is an upgrade. Not trying to downplay the Ps4 Pro, it's a decent improvement and people should go and buy one.
If PS4 pro produces more 1440p ish looking games like a 380x would do then its not punching above its weight and just doing what the spec allows. An Xbox with 390x or above should show the results of having a 45% better GPU as to my eyes moving from 1440p meh zone to 1800p is drastic, let alone native 2160p.
The more pixels you throw at the screen the less of an issue none native starts to look.
900p on a 1080 screen is 1.44m pixels on a 2.07m pixel display. It's readily noticeable that its not native unless there is lost of extra processing going on.
The equivalent on 4k is 1800p on a 2160 screen which is 5.76m pixels on a 8.29m pixel display.
It's still not native and both are still only 69.5% of native but with a higher pixel density and a bit of processing, it will look a damned sight better than 900p on a 1080. It'll still be noticeable too, but assuming your living room doesn't grow, the size of your 4k screen might only be 55" against a 40-47" 1080 display. Anyone who can't see the difference between 900p and 1080 isn't going to stand a hope in hell at spotting 1800 on a 2160. Though I'm sure some will suddenly learn how.
It goes on even further at 8k and so on.
Similar, but killzone renderered every other line, instead of every other pixel quad. The checkerboard pattern is an improvement over killzone's interlaced rendering.