Support NeoGAF

[Neo Blaster]

Honest take: enthusiasts know how it works and don't give a s*it as long as they get good image quality and performance; casuals don't know how it works and don't give a shit neither, they just want to play.

 

[Bojji]

Can I have some of whatever GAF is smoking if DLSS Ultra Performance looks even remotely close to native 4K

Defense mechanism to prepare for 845p/720p games on Pro.

 

[LordOcidax]

The average buyer doesn’t give a crap. They have more important shit to care about.
Only the hardcore fanbase splits hairs over this stuff.

So, they should remove 4K, 120fps, 8K from the box completely… and we are going be ok with that…

 

[Laptop1991]

I agree, it's not native resolution, and should be advertised as such, in fact with each new GPU years ago the FPS would go up in games like Crysis in native rsolution and with MSAA which doesn't get used alot anymore,, but now with each new RTX card being more powerful, it's still 4K 60fps recommended and that's WITH upscaling tech, whats going on lol, dodgy salesmen.

 

[Killer8]

Yeah, reconstructed is not the same - it's better.

 

[LordOcidax]

Yeah, reconstructed is not the same - it's better.

Yes… 4K reconstructed from 840p is better than 4K native You are a good example on why people needs more information about this…

 

[Tal Shiar Agent]

Native 4K is also an entirely pointless waste of resources.

 

[willothedog]

Yeah, we should start handing out jail sentences to people who mislead with pixels.

Don't give the UK government any ideas.

 

[buenoblue]

Just assume nothing is native and you will be right 99% of the time

 

[rodrigolfp]

How else will they mislead the consumers?

 

[yurinka]

Reconstructed resolutions shouldn’t be called the same as native resolutions

Reconstructed resolutions are called reconstructed resolutions and native resolutions are called native resolutions. They aren't called the same.

Do you think it should be regulated?

No.

 

[darrylgorn]

Reconstructed is legitimately a great term for it.

Just add the R to the end of the target resolution.

4KR
2KR
1440PR
1080PR

 

[soulbait]

Because power is an important selling point for companies… Buyers should be informed.

You purchase games based off of their native resolution?

I don't know about you, but I buy games based on how fun they are and if they are playable.

Sure, some games have swayed me because of their pretty graphics, but if the fun gameplay is not there, I am not going to stay around for a while (or I might wait until the game has a massive discount to check it out).

Graphics, resolution, sound, art style are all elements that help make a game stand out. But what makes a game is its playability and if the gamer finds it fun. I don't see native resolution vs reconstruction resolution adding to a game's fun.

 

[LordOcidax]

Native 4K is also an entirely pointless waste of resources.

 

[Msamy]

This topic comes from another thread, but i think this discussion would be interesting.

If a 4K reconstructed resolution from 840p is not the same as 4K reconstructed resolution from 1440p (examples), or the AMD tech is not the same as Nvidia tech, AI, etc etc… If they are too many variables and too many results. Why is called as simple as 4K?, like it was a native resolution, a simplification that only benefits one side with marketing and the buyer’s doesn’t get a clear information on the product. I think that something like that should be regulated to prevent false advertising and prevent confusion. Something like 1440p(R) or 4K(R) should work, a la 1080p and 1080i.

Do you think it should be regulated?

Finally someone who knows what he is talking about other than those.....,

 

[LordOcidax]

Reconstructed is legitimately a great term for it.

Just add the R to the end of the target resolution.

4KR
2KR
1440PR
1080PR

4K (R) * And explain what R mean… Is not that hard.

 

[soulbait]

When an average buyers read 4K in a box, assume all games are going to be 4K… Not every buyers is part of neogaf or follow DF… A clear information ins the box is not going to hurt.

I try to explain to my friends about different bitrates and which streaming services have better video quality and why 4K UHD is still supreme. None of them care. They just want what is easy. I get laughed at, while I enjoy the best quality possible. Many do not even see the improvements. Do you think most will understand the difference between reconstructed and native?

 

[TGO]

I agree we need to stop with the "it's only 720p" crap

 

[Msamy]

Defense mechanism to prepare for 845p/720p games on Pro.

You can get native 1440 with 4k PSSR in pro if they decided to go 30fps in quality mode instead of 60 fps, 60 fps mode should remain as performance mode not quality

 

[SmokedMeat]

So, they should remove 4K, 120fps, 8K from the box completely… and we are going be ok with that…

Why would you remove it? Do you not understand what I’m saying?

 

[MadchesterManc]

Defense mechanism to prepare for 845p/720p games on Pro.

Wouldn't surprise me if it comes as a shock to some folk on GAF when it turns out PSSR is gonna struggle like every other upscaler with sub 1080p to 4K.

I made the mistake of trying Ultra Performance with Cyberpunk PT once, its not something I'll ever be able to unsee, but at least now I know miracles aren't real

 

[Tal Shiar Agent]

Sorry kid, but it is a waste. Devs shouldn't push for anything above a native internal resolution of 1440p, it's just not worth it to push higher than that unless they already have plenty of overhead.

 

[LordOcidax]

I try to explain to my friends about different bitrates and which streaming services have better video quality and why 4K UHD is still supreme. None of them care. They just want what is easy. I get laughed at, while I enjoy the best quality possible. Many do not even see the improvements. Do you think most will understand the difference between reconstructed and native?

No, but companies uses resolutions and framerates as selling points, at least they should be clear with that information to prevent miss information and false advertising. Clear informations only benefits us.

 

[Killer8]

Yes… 4K reconstructed from 840p is better than 4K native You are a good example on why people needs more information about this…

Eliminates shimmering, kills TAA blur, can often add detail at higher quality settings, can have an imperceptible difference from a normal viewing distance at lower quality settings, allows ray-tracing to be at all usable, and regularly doubles framerates (even without frame-gen).

It's an easy win. People should practically view 'reconstructed' as a seal of quality.

 

[kevboard]

noone calls them like native resolutions.

you always read 1440p FSR Balanced, or 1800p CBR etc.

 

[LordOcidax]

Sorry kid, but it is a waste. Devs shouldn't push for anything above a native internal resolution of 1440p, it's just not worth it to push higher than that unless they already have plenty of overhead.

And why they put 4K and 8K on the box? Thats not my point here…

 

[Mr Reasonable]

Eh, I sort of think that the only people who care are going to be fanboys engaged in consolewars.

Not once have I not bought a game because I found out the resolution was too low.

I do like it when a game has a native 4k Resolution, but if it means playing at 30fps, then I'm not going to bother with it. It's just not that big a deal. I suppose instead of not being allowed to say 4k when a game is upscaled, I think I'd prefer it if games were only shown with actual gameplay footage (from named systems/formats), and if you think it's not good enough, just don't buy it.

 

[BennyBlanco]

I agree we need to stop with the "it's only 720p" crap

Yeah but it’s disingenuous to call this 4k/60

This is world’s apart from this which is also upscaled to 4k

 

[LordOcidax]

Eliminates shimmering, kills TAA blur, can often add detail at higher quality settings, can have an imperceptible difference from a normal viewing distance at lower quality settings, allows ray-tracing to be at all usable, and regularly doubles framerates (even without frame-gen).

It's an easy win. People should practically view 'reconstructed' as a seal of quality.

You are talking about Nvidia tech not AMD tech… That’s the whole point of this thread… The miss information.

 

[digital_ghost]

No.....this does not need to be "regulated". I have yet to see any publisher or developer claim that an upscaled image is "native". Where is this coming from?

Probably from people native to resetera

 

[rodrigolfp]

Yeah, reconstructed is not the same - it's better.

DLSS quality, maybe. And not all the times.

 

[LordOcidax]

DLSS quality, maybe. And not all the times.

And is not the same… Especially on consoles…

 

[Dorfdad]

If it looks the same or better who cares? The most important things is clarity, how we get there is unimportant.

Exactly! The only ones who care a purists. We just don’t have the technology at price points to facilitate native 4k with all the bells and whistles at affordable costs. These dlls / psst solutions get us very close to 4k. PS4 had checkerboarding which looked good, pssr far surpasses that so I’m expecting pleasant results.

 

[rodrigolfp]

Also, fun fact.

4k is actually 4096x2160. So not even games at native 3840x2160 are 4k.

 

[BattleScar]

Its always funny to me how PCMR prided itself on how it was always native res.
And now we're flipped the script so much, people are like "People don't need to know if its native res or upscaled" any more. What a turnaround.

 

[Heisenberg007]

But nobody is calling it native when it's reconstructed.

If you're running a game at 4k with DLSS Quality for example, you're not going to call it native 4k, it will simply be 4k dlss quality.

This. Literally nobody is calling it native resolution. Sony is literally advertising the PSSR and promoting its resolution upscaler.

People are getting their panties in a bunch for no reason. And they were soundly sleeping when it was only DLSS (which is also fantastic, IMO!)

Absolute useless outrage.

 

[ReBurn]

What difference does it make? If they were charging you by the native pixel I could see being concerned, but they aren't so what does it matter?

 

[HerjansEagleFeeder]

Marketing departments disagree.

 

[LordOcidax]

What difference does it make? If they were charging you by the native pixel I could see being concerned, but they aren't so what does it matter?

They are charging you by upscaled/AI pixels…

 

[Wildebeest]

Nobody is going to regulate something like this unless it is tech providers like nvidia or epic, who are all in on promoting it as some sort of "free lunch" type miracle tech.

 

[ReBurn]

They are charging you by upscaled/AI pixels…

How much more do you pay for upscaled pixels vs. native pixels?

 

[Loboxxx]

I don't care if the product tells me it does upscaling from 840p or 1400p or native 4K, it's ridiculously technical for an entertainment product.

In my case I'm only interested in the resulting image being sharp and free of artefacts, and to make sure of this I know I need to see technical analysis, like DF or the demos, but the fact that it says so on the box doesn't guarantee me anything.

 

[LordOcidax]

How much more do you pay for upscaled pixels vs. native pixels?

It’s not about price… Is about information. And why are some of you are against more information? I don’t get it.

 

[gooner4life_uk]

Can I have some of whatever GAF is smoking if DLSS Ultra Performance looks even remotely close to native 4K

A lot of the time it looks worse, but like i said, there's SOME cases where it can look better than native, i didn't say it's better than native 100% of the time, i said it needs improvements, but just look at how things are moving, it's too expensive to natively render 4k and 8k, it's a waste of resources, as the ML capabilities improve, so will the ML upscalers and we won't care about native anymore.

 

[Tqaulity]

This topic comes from another thread, but i think this discussion would be interesting.

If a 4K reconstructed resolution from 840p is not the same as 4K reconstructed resolution from 1440p (examples), or the AMD tech is not the same as Nvidia tech, AI, etc etc… If they are too many variables and too many results. Why is called as simple as 4K?, like it was a native resolution, a simplification that only benefits one side with marketing and the buyer’s doesn’t get a clear information on the product. I think that something like that should be regulated to prevent false advertising and prevent confusion. Something like 1440p(R) or 4K(R) should work, a la 1080p and 1080i.

Do you think it should be regulated?

ABSOLUTELY NOT! It's technical details and weeds that is not the concern of Sony (the hardware manufacturer) or the end user. It's a software concern that is determined by the developer and should stay there (as several folks have pointed out). 4K is just a standard for the number (quantity) of pixels. What folks really are talking about with HW capabilities is the "quality" of those pixels.

Look, this is a pet peeve of mine so apologies in advance but it really bothers me when people try to say "PS4 Pro isn't a real 4K machine" or "PS5 isn't a real 4K machine". That's just ridiculous to say simply because developers make games that don't run at that native resolution. Let's be clear here:

1. From a hardware perspective, a platform can be called "4K" capable if it has the ability to render and output a 4K signal. That's it! The PS4 Pro, PS5, PS5 Pro, Xbox One X, and Series X all fully meet this criteria
2. All of the aforementioned systems allows a software developer to create games that renders at native 4K if they choose to
3. The question of what specific data is present in each of the 8.3 million pixels of a 4K image is not a concern of the HW! In other words, how the 4K image is generated is not relevant to the discussion of whether a box is a "4K" machine. THAT Is a software issue.
4. The question is simply a developer's choice in balancing IQ vs performance. Sony or Microsoft can mandate today that every game released on PS5 and Series X must be native 4K. That would be silly and wasteful to do so but if they said it, the HW is perfectly able to meet that demand. Of course, if that were the case we wouldn't be seeing games with the graphical complexity of Black Myth Wukong, Star Wars Outlaws, and Cyberpunk. Again, those games could technically run at native 4K on a PS5...but they would like be <20fps while doing so. So a developer makes choices to balance the perf to reach at least 30fps by lowering the resolution. Again not a HW concern.
5. Plenty of games in the history of game systems didn't reach a 1:1 pixel mapping with the maximum output format. PS3 was technically a 1080p machine, but many games were limited to 720p. Both the PS2 and OG Xbox were technically capable of 1080i, but almost no games actually rendered at that resolution. In other words, THIS ISN'T A NEW CONDITION OF THE 4K era. Developers have always made these choices and doesn't have no bearing on what the hardware is capable of
6. Of course, the same notion applies to the PC space. Where everyone wants to tout how much more powerful the PC "can" be over a console (depending on your specs), most gamers still use DLSS, FSR, XeSS when playing games today....meaning you are not running them at native resolutions. Yet, who here would say that a RTX 4090 is not a "true" 4K GPU? It can do native 4K and hell even native 8K if a developer so choose to optimize their game for it. Same would be true for the PS5 PRO. The power difference would be in the actual quality of each pixel of the frame buffer and yes of course the 4090 would be capable of pushing higher quality pixels than a PS5 Pro can.

Ultimately, this discussion is always silly to me and we conflate different things. If a system can render and output a 4K pixel count, than it is fine and accurate to label is as a 4K machine. That applies to every console since the PS4 Pro. The real question is on the quality of each pixel which is defined in SW. Native, upscaled, reconstructed, checkerboarded, etc .... all tools to manipulate the quality of those 8.3 million pixels. Nevertheless, your TV or monitor will still see 8.3 million pixels and fill the screen with that data. But these details aren't really important to the end user. Everyone can judge IQ for a given game to their own eyes themselves and yes, the IQ will vary depending on the developer's priorities. That simple.

 

[Sakura]

I kind of understand what you mean OP, but the average gamer who doesn't realise that the game is being upscaled to 4k or 2k isn't going to care about or understand "4K restructured" on the back of the box or whatever. And the enthusiasts already know that most of the games aren't running at native 4k or 2k, so they aren't really benefitting from it either.
More information isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it's also kind of pointless in this case imo.

 

[Thebonehead]

Do you think it should be regulated?

 

[SportsFan581]

I think most on the PC side always acknowledge the reconstruction, on console sometimes the output resolution is discussed without specifics.

 

[LordOcidax]

I think most on the PC side always acknowledge the reconstruction, on console sometimes the output resolution is discussed without specifics.

I am talking specifically to consoles.

 

[Knightime_X]

Honestly, I can't tell the difference in most cases.
Native or reconstructed, they look the same.
In some cases, I swear DLSS looks better than native.
Just try it, even if you have a card capable of doing it natively.