More """""""4K"""""" resolution. I'm really not impressed with the PS4Pro.
I found hilarious that comments like come from people who makes indie games with basic 2d retro visuals, just like the guy who made Ori and the Bind Forest.
More """""""4K"""""" resolution. I'm really not impressed with the PS4Pro.
60fps?
So dynamic 4K is now basically 4K. OK sony.
This is completely wrong. For certain frames or portions of frames, CBR is literally indistinguishable from native rendering. In a practical sense, it will often be perceptually indistinguishable.
All this is wrong. There is no "base resolution" for CBR, it's not a form of upscaling. CBR rasterizes just as many pixels as native rendering. Just the method it uses for half of them is slightly less accurate.
For many reasonable definitions of "basically", CBR absolutely is basically 4K. For example, I can 100% guarantee that we can devise fair, honest tests where no one could determine any difference between native and CBR. In real-world applications such perfect results will be scattered, of course. But I think this points out how misguided expectations of giant quality gaps are.
So I assume you refuse to call games "1080p" whenever their shadow buffers, particle effects, or volumetric lighting run at non-native resolution. Without researching, can you name which of last fall's titles aren't "true" 1080p in this sense?
There's a problem with trying to be ideologically pure about things you don't even notice.
Yeah. Marketing will have a field day with the checkerboard upscale technique.The game will be rendered in 2160p checkerboard (meaning, basically 4K)
The game will be rendered in 2160p checkerboard (meaning, not actually 4K)
I can see why they went with the first one
What I posted came from Cerny's interview with DF. I know there's more to it than a standard base res but it was the best answer to the question.This is completely wrong. For certain frames or portions of frames, CBR is literally indistinguishable from native rendering. In a practical sense, it will often be perceptually indistinguishable.
All this is wrong. There is no "base resolution" for CBR, it's not a form of upscaling. CBR rasterizes just as many pixels as native rendering. Just the method it uses for half of them is slightly less accurate.
For many reasonable definitions of "basically", CBR absolutely is basically 4K. For example, I can 100% guarantee that we can devise fair, honest tests where no one could determine any difference between native and CBR. In real-world applications such perfect results will be scattered, of course. But I think this points out how misguided expectations of giant quality gaps are.
So I assume you refuse to call games "1080p" whenever their shadow buffers, particle effects, or volumetric lighting run at non-native resolution. Without researching, can you name which of last fall's titles aren't "true" 1080p in this sense?
There's a problem with trying to be ideologically pure about things you don't even notice.
Checkerboarding up to full 4K is more demanding and requires half the basic resolution - a 1920x2160 buffer - but with access to the triangle and object data in the ID buffer, beautiful things can happen as technique upon technique layers over the base checkerboard output.
QB didn't use checkerboard rendering
Most people disliked the TAA implementation due to ghosting artifacts, not how their super resolution method worked.
It's not simply upscaled. Some of that missing data is filled in from samples in previous frames. It's not as sharp as a native image and there are some artifacts but from typical couch distance the differences aren't dramatic.So if it's only circa 4 million pixels v circa 8 million how can that be classed as basically the same?
I don't get it, I've read the thread and seen some comments but it still makes no sense to me.
Maybe it's something I'll just never get.
IDK
This is completely wrong. For certain frames or portions of frames, CBR is literally indistinguishable from native rendering. In a practical sense, it will often be perceptually indistinguishable.
So if it's only circa 4 million pixels v circa 8 million how can that be classed as basically the same?
I don't get it, I've read the thread and seen some comments but it still makes no sense to me.
Maybe it's something I'll just never get.
IDK
So if it's only circa 4 million pixels v circa 8 million how can that be classed as basically the same?
I don't get it, I've read the thread and seen some comments but it still makes no sense to me.
Maybe it's something I'll just never get.
IDK
It's not dynamic 4K. That would imply that the resolution changes depending on what is currently being rendered.
I think SF used a different method.It uses what KZSF, Watchdog 2, and R6S uses.
Pretty sure theres a PS4 Pro ad out there on youtube, that says dynamic 4K gaming. If that has changed well then who cares i guess.
Pixel count is the same. It is rendering a full 3840×2160 framebuffer. Slightly less accurate than Native 4K but still it's basically 4K.
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1330505
He was probably just checkerbored.
There's plenty of knowledge you could attain about dynamic resolution vs checkerboard vs upscaling. But who cares, right? The only thing I don't get is why someone who doesn't care would care to post about it.
Welcome to neogaf.
I'm still confused about checkerboard rendering. But it sounds like checkerboard rendering = 2160i instead of 2160p.What is the difference between CB 2160p and 2160p native (4k?)??
Also, imagine this engine and zelda.
You can design fair, honest tests where people can't perceive the difference between 900p, dynamic resolution scaling, and 1080p.
Because the 4 million 'fake pixels' are taken from the previous frame. Meaning that they are very close to what 'real pixels' would look like. Although a lot depends on how fast the scene is moving.
Scorpio!!!
I'm still confused about checkerboard rendering. But it sounds like checkerboard rendering = 2160i instead of 2160p.
I've never understood knowing you're part of the problem, but not having that bother you. I guess that's a topic for another thread.
I didn't say "perceive". There is no way to devise a fair, honest test where 900p upscaled and 1080p are actually identical. But there are situations where CBR is literally identical to native rendering.You can design fair, honest tests where people can't perceive the difference between 900p, dynamic resolution scaling, and 1080p.
How can it be basically 4k if it uses half the pixels?
So if it's only circa 4 million pixels v circa 8 million how can that be classed as basically the same?
I don't get it, I've read the thread and seen some comments but it still makes no sense to me.
Maybe it's something I'll just never get.
IDK
Once Scorpio hits and there are (presumably) multiplatform games that are native 4K on Scorpio and checkerboard 4K on the Pro we can actually see how big the difference is.
Cerny said 1920x2160 buffer for 2160p checkerboard.All this is wrong. There is no "base resolution" for CBR, it's not a form of upscaling. CBR rasterizes just as many pixels as native rendering. Just the method it uses for half of them is slightly less accurate.
After perceptual 60fps comes perceptual 4k.In a practical sense, it will often be perceptually indistinguishable.
Cerny is correct. But a checkerboard resolution can't really be expressed in a base resolution as it renders a picture with voids in it. So 1920x2160 is only fit to explain the number of actual shaded pixels (~4.1m), not as the image size which is still 3840x2160 but with holes in it.Cerny said 1920x2160 buffer for 2160p checkerboard.
Sorry to take Cerny words over yours.
The rest are reconstructed on the fly using data from nearby and past pixels. The end result is a sharp image, not a upscalled blurry one.
Digital Foundry was very satisfied with 2160p checkerboard in RotTR and Infinite Warfare. They described it as very nearly identical to real 4K, with them needing to press they eyeballs to the screen to see which render was real 4K and which was checkerboarded.
When done right, checkerboarding can do wonders.
Cerny is correct. But a checkerboard resolution can't really be expressed in a base resolution as it renders a picture with voids in it. So 1920x2160 is only fit to explain the number of actual shaded pixels (~4.1m), not as the image size which is still 3840x2160 but with holes in it.
I understand but comparing still images isn't a great way to get an accurate result. Isn't checkerboard rendering supposed to introduce artifacts during motion? What good is a still image comparison? When is the image ever still in a videogame?
Isn't that a bit close, lol?
You're misunderstanding what cerny said. There's no base resolution, you start with the native resolution you're trying to render but half filled with traditionally shaded pixels while the other half is filled in from information from previous and current frames.Cerny said 1920x2160 buffer for 2160p checkerboard.
Sorry to take Cerny words over yours.
Take this checkered pattern is 4K but only the white ones are traditionally shaded. The blacks are filled in.
I understand but comparing still images isn't a great way to get an accurate result. Isn't checkerboard rendering supposed to introduce artifacts during motion? What good is a still image comparison? When is the image ever still in a videogame?
No, it looks fine in both static and moving scenes. RotTR implementation introduced barelly visible artefacts on very thin objects [like sparks after grendades].
Go look at DF videos about checkerboarding.