Melon Husk
Member
Turns out 900p was enough if you upscale it?
Whatever, I don't care.
Whatever, I don't care.
Reconstructed resolutions shouldn’t be called the same as native resolutions
- Thread starter LordOcidax
- Start date
LordOcidax
Member
Even less than that… Cant wait to read some attacks to Switch 2 because the low native render resolution no matter the final results due the Nvidia DLSS…
Melon Husk
Member
We didn't count the megapixels in the CRT era and life was good.
GoldenEye98
posts news as their odd job
Sure, and that's Sony chose to call it P(i)SSR upscaling.
KungFucius
King Snowflake
It is better if it runs better isn't it? I mean if native 4k is 20 FPS and something like 4k (1080_DLSS3.1) runs at 60 FPS and looks almost as good then it is better.Yes… 4K reconstructed from 840p is better than 4K nativeYou are a good example on why people needs more information about this…
LordOcidax
Member
Is not me that put 8K in the box… And yes, some people care.
D
Deleted member 848825
Unconfirmed Member
I partially get the OP's point. There's a problem with calling everything 4k, when in reality it could be anything as a base being upscaled/reconstructed with varying degrees of fidelity. But until they come out with a better way of quantifying image fidelity, then marketing will always just say its 4k. Which is a bit naughty.
If you're into your tech. Then you're going to look deeper. But it can be a problem. Because I've played some low base resolution games, but with excellent reconstruction, which look great at 4k. But then I've played some higher base resolution stuff, which looks awful. So sometimes even when you get a tech deep dive, you still wont know for sure how nice its going to look, until you've got your own eyes on.
If you're into your tech. Then you're going to look deeper. But it can be a problem. Because I've played some low base resolution games, but with excellent reconstruction, which look great at 4k. But then I've played some higher base resolution stuff, which looks awful. So sometimes even when you get a tech deep dive, you still wont know for sure how nice its going to look, until you've got your own eyes on.
Last edited by a moderator:
Fbh
Member
Yup, all this upscaling tech has made the info we get from dev literally useless
"The game will be 1440p/60fps" means nothing anymore because it can be anything from proper 1440p/60 to upscaled 720p at 40fps with frame gen.
At least DLSS is pretty good and hopefully so will PSSR. But FSR, which is what we mostly get on consoles right now, sucks ass.
"The game will be 1440p/60fps" means nothing anymore because it can be anything from proper 1440p/60 to upscaled 720p at 40fps with frame gen.
At least DLSS is pretty good and hopefully so will PSSR. But FSR, which is what we mostly get on consoles right now, sucks ass.
rodrigolfp
Haptic Gamepads 4 Life
Your daughters & other 200 million gamers can ignore the specs.
Last edited:
Unknown Soldier
Member
Nanomachines shouldn't be called the same as biological muscles
Because they are actually better
Because they are actually better
The real question is - what are you actually proposing to regulate?
Since PS2 generation - games have performed various stages of the rendering pipeline at various resolutions (usually lower than video-output) so 'rendering resolution' has not been a single-metric for over 2 decades. This only amplified in PS360 era, and by the time PS4/XB1 launched - the concept lost most meaning.
We briefly brought it back to attention during VR revival of 2016 (where a lot of modern rendering techniques were rolled back/removed, and pixel resolution dominated for awhile again) but on 'flat' games, things have only gotten more muddied with each passing year.
I know it sounds counter-intuitive after decades of pixel counting - but really - take for example the most obvious challenge to your call for 'regulation':
When running on PS4Pro - the game pixel-counts to a perfect 4k - edges are precisely 4k grid aligned, no temporal shenanigans there, and no artifacts. Yet - the game actually only shades 1/4th of the samples - ie. it's still a 1080p game when you consider the compute workload.
So how do you regulate this? Is it 4k? The geometry, depth and all the 'regular' pixel metrics are there.
Is it 1080p? It's not reconstructing anything either - nor is it checkerboarding, hell there's not even a TAA component in there IIRC.
analog_future
Resident Crybaby
All this FUD about DLSS/PSSR/etc.. yet I'm 100% certain that the vast majority of you wouldn't be able to point out which one's native and which one's upscaled if you had a blind comparison.
CrustyBritches
Gold Member
Just call it like they do on PC.
I Love Rock 'n' Roll
Member
Are we going to see more details on dic*s? Owerwithse it's fucked and useless...I wanna see dic*s moving at 4K with very high details at 60 fps or even more 
on the Pro for the next Witcher game or get lost!
on the Pro for the next Witcher game or get lost!
ap_puff
Banned
Nah, I think lazy devs will always be lazy, and/or have unreasonable timelines placed on them by management. Any technique will be used as a crutch to shorten dev times.
JimboJones
Member
That's not even considering all the games that use dynamic resolution scaling tooThe real question is - what are you actually proposing to regulate?
Since PS2 generation - games have performed various stages of the rendering pipeline at various resolutions (usually lower than video-output) so 'rendering resolution' has not been a single-metric for over 2 decades. This only amplified in PS360 era, and by the time PS4/XB1 launched - the concept lost most meaning.
We briefly brought it back to attention during VR revival of 2016 (where a lot of modern rendering techniques were rolled back/removed, and pixel resolution dominated for awhile again) but on 'flat' games, things have only gotten more muddied with each passing year.
I know it sounds counter-intuitive after decades of pixel counting - but really - take for example the most obvious challenge to your call for 'regulation':
When running on PS4Pro - the game pixel-counts to a perfect 4k - edges are precisely 4k grid aligned, no temporal shenanigans there, and no artifacts. Yet - the game actually only shades 1/4th of the samples - ie. it's still a 1080p game when you consider the compute workload.
So how do you regulate this? Is it 4k? The geometry, depth and all the 'regular' pixel metrics are there.
Is it 1080p? It's not reconstructing anything either - nor is it checkerboarding, hell there's not even a TAA component in there IIRC.
Heisenberg007
Gold Journalism
ReBurn
Gold Member
There's nothing wrong with having more information, but expecting regulation to force disclosure is kind of stupid. The information is of no value. The only thing you can do with it is accept it or not accept it, and if you choose not to accept it you might as well quit buying new games unless you're going to keep a top of the line continually upgraded PC forever. AI upscaling from lower resolutions isn't going anywhere anytime soon and it's only getting better, so developers are going to continue using it to get the best performance they can.
FeralEcho
Member
My PS5 box still says 8k on it
Not very vague if you outright lie on the box and remove it afterwards....
Akuji
Member
Sure but this has nothing to do with the topic.My PS5 box still says 8k on it
False advertising is already a Thing.
If u want. Sue sony.
FeralEcho
Member
Your post was about game companies always having vague statements about resolution...I gave you a direct example of one that's clearly not vague when it's literally printed on the damn box... What's so hard to understand?!
How is it not relevant to the topic when you were the one that brought it up in the first place?
Akuji
Member
Your post was about game companies always having vague statements about resolution...I gave you a direct example of one that's clearly not vague when it's literally printed on the damn box... What's so hard to understand?!
How is it not relevant to the topic when you were the one that brought it up in the first place?
you know what thread were in ? try to get the context together, i believe in you.
This thread is about lying about native res or upscaled res. and having that regulated.
Also having 8k on the box is not vague, sony outright lied. Thats already regulated. It has zero relation to the topic.
This is about saying, we have 4k output! While the frame that is output is 4k, the way the frame was generated was at a lower res and then upscaled was used.
This is a discussion if we want / need to regulate it in a way that you have to advertise it as - we have upscaled 4k output!
I hope u see the diffrence.
FeralEcho
Member
Careful not to faint from all that passive agressiveness.
Akuji
Member
Uh sorry. I didnt think it was all that passive.
But since thats ur only response, i have to guess u see my point and agree, atleast to some extent.
Not really that important anyway. We probably just should call it quits.
Nontheless, i hope u have a great Rest of the week. ( and this i do mean exactly as written
)Have a good one.
FeralEcho
Member
It's all good,you too.Uh sorry. I didnt think it was all that passive.
But since thats ur only response, i have to guess u see my point and agree, atleast to some extent.
Not really that important anyway. We probably just should call it quits.
Nontheless, i hope u have a great Rest of the week. ( and this i do mean exactly as written
Have a good one.
