• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

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

Neo Blaster

Neo Blaster

Member
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

Bojji

Member
MadchesterManc said:
Excuse Me Wow GIF by Mashable


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

Defense mechanism to prepare for 845p/720p games on Pro.
 
Laptop1991

Laptop1991

Member
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.
 
soulbait

soulbait

Member
LordOcidax said:
Because power is an important selling point for companies… Buyers should be informed.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Msamy

Msamy

Member
LordOcidax said:
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?
Click to expand...
Finally someone who knows what he is talking about other than those....., 👍👍
 
soulbait

soulbait

Member
LordOcidax said:
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.
Click to expand...


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

TGO

Hype Train conductor. Works harder than it steams.
I agree we need to stop with the "it's only 720p" crap
 
Msamy

Msamy

Member
Bojji said:
Defense mechanism to prepare for 845p/720p games on Pro.
Click to expand...
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
 
MadchesterManc

MadchesterManc

Member
Bojji said:
Defense mechanism to prepare for 845p/720p games on Pro.
Click to expand...

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 :messenger_grinning_sweat:
 
L

LordOcidax

Member
soulbait said:
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?
Click to expand...
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

Killer8

Gold Member
LordOcidax said:
Yes… 4K reconstructed from 840p is better than 4K native 👍 You are a good example on why people needs more information about this…
Click to expand...

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.
 
Mr Reasonable

Mr Reasonable

Completely Unreasonable
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.
 
Last edited:
L

LordOcidax

Member
Killer8 said:
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.
Click to expand...
You are talking about Nvidia tech not AMD tech… That’s the whole point of this thread… The miss information.
 
Dorfdad

Dorfdad

Gold Member
XXL said:
If it looks the same or better who cares? The most important things is clarity, how we get there is unimportant.
Click to expand...
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: XXL
B

BattleScar

Member
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

Heisenberg007

Gold Journalism
GHG said:
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.
Click to expand...
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

ReBurn

Gold Member
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?
 
Wildebeest

Wildebeest

Member
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.
 
Loboxxx

Loboxxx

Member
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.
 
G

gooner4life_uk

Member
MadchesterManc said:
Excuse Me Wow GIF by Mashable


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

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

Tqaulity

Member
LordOcidax said:
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?
Click to expand...
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

Sakura

Member
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.
 
Knightime_X

Knightime_X

Member
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Ps5 pro games performance and resolution of patreon Digital Foundry
2 3 4 5 6
288
17K
Putonahappyface replied
PS5 Pro | Red Dead Redemption 2 v1.00 Resolution Bump Confirmed.
Review 2
53
5K
Kenneth Haight replied
Microsoft Auto Super Resolution tested: a new AI upscaler has arrived
27
3K
analog_future replied
retro consoles and 240p / 480p resolution - sometimes less is more
2
79
9K
sigmaZ replied
Erm Moonlight Game Streaming is on xBox consoles and its incredible.
Hardware
4
622
spons replied
Top Bottom