Sony Playstation Meeting September 7 2016 [PS4 Slim, PS4 Pro, Rumors, Speculations, and News]

[Akumajou]

No SATA III chip controller?

Come on Sony!!

 

[goonergaz]

DF hands on. Looks pretty good.

Yeah, cheers for that - nice 'wrap up' at 22:30, sounds very positive!

I already can't see the difference between 720p vs 1080p on my 40" TV in my normal seating distance. Ok, maybe if there is an obivous long aliased edge/line I can kinda see the aliasing. 1080p without AA is perfectly good for me. So 4K is really pointless for me. Having said that, I do see the need for more than 1080p on my PC monitor.
Anyway, if I have to chose between 1080p60, 1080p30 with nicer image, and 4K (or 1080p downsampled from 4K), the last option is definitely a no. 60 vs 30 will depend on the type of game.
What I really want is HDR! That is definitely a game changer more than increasing the resolution. I just hope there'll be a 1080p display with HDR because I don't need a higher resolution than that. Now we know that the old PS4 can be patched for HDR support, I really hope someone will make a 1080p HDR display. What will likely happen tho is HDR will be limited for high end 4K display and they will never produce 1080p HDR display, so to enjoy HDR content you'll need to buy 4K display even if the content (in this case, a PS4) can only output 1080p.
Also according to DF article that there is more custom stuff on the Pro other than the checkerboard upscaler, which will be revealed in the upcoming weeks.
As for the reveal itself, it is really underwhelming for me, considering the focus on 4K and HDR, both which I can't perceive on any of my display.
Mark Cerny voice tho... so soothing...

I kind of agree with this, HDR (to me) is more important and I'd prefer 1080p60 with bells and whistles. Even DF said (something like) 'I had to get within a couple of feet to notice it wasn't as pin-sharp as native 4K'. I think 4K looks amazing, but we're not quite there yet - a couple of years time maybe. What I'm gutted about is I'm in the 'place' where I'd like HDR but to get it I need to buy 4K. It'll be interesting to see if we can get a 4k HDR screen and run at lower resolution but keep HDR? But even then, if I upgrade I want to go up from 50"...I'm looking at the DX750 range 65" is £1700 I suppose for ~£1000 58" is a nice compromise, I don't know, seems a shame to miss out on the 'full' experience.

 

[Sigfried1977]

I already can't see the difference between 720p vs 1080p on my 40" TV in my normal seating distance. Ok, maybe if there is an obivous long aliased edge/line I can kinda see the aliasing. 1080p without AA is perfectly good for me. So 4K is really pointless for me. Having said that, I do see the need for more than 1080p on my PC monitor.

Pretty much this. I have an old 720p projector I'm occasionally using to watch a movie using the PS4 as a source. It accepts 1080i signals as well, but the image quality is considerably better at its native 720p resolution. As a result I always go to the console's display settings to uncheck 1080i/p prior to watching a film. Last time I did that I forgot to re-check the 1080p box under the console's display settings and then played a good 20 hours of Deus Ex on my 50 inch tv without really noticing it. It's not that I cannot spot the difference either, but resolution really does reach a point of diminuishing returns awfully early. As far as I'm concerned, 4K tvs at anything but truly gargantuan sizes are the equivalent to 24 bit High-Res audio. It's a big-ass number that's easily marketable yet utterly pointless.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Not 100% sure how the PS4 Pro "checkerboard" method works yet, but the Rainbow Six Siege method is likely more complicated and likely of higher quality.

Why?

 

[rapso]

Unless you're projector or tv are advertised as HDR10, you're not going to be able to display HDR. Not sure what the limitation would be for projectors. I don't know how they control pixel luminescence anyway.

there are two mainstream techs,
-LCD which has pretty much the same limitations as displays
-DLP which works with color-wheels and micro mirrors. These have a wide gamut (IMO that's the most interesting part of HDR), and these micro mirrors are apparently already easy enough to control at 10bits.
haven't seen any projector that is advertised as HDR yet. Anyone seen some?

 

[davygee]

Pretty much this. I have an old 720p projector I'm occasionally using to watch a movie using the PS4 as a source. It accepts 1080i signals as well, but the image quality is considerably better at its native 720p resolution. As a result I always go to the console's display settings to uncheck 1080i/p prior to watching a film. Last time I did that I forgot to re-check the 1080p box under the console's display settings and then played a good 20 hours of Deus Ex on my 50 inch tv without really noticing it. It's not that I cannot spot the difference either, but resolution really does reach a point of diminuishing returns awfully early. As far as I'm concerned, 4K tvs at anything but truly gargantuan sizes are the equivalent to 24 bit High-Res audio. It's a big-ass number that's easily marketable yet utterly pointless.

Totally agree. I have a 40" 1080p TV and it looks great. If I had a 4K TV at what point would I see the difference? Well personally I would need to be pretty close to the screen to notice the difference or if the screen size was proportionally bigger the further back I go.

Would I notice the difference between a 50" 1080p and 4K TV from 3 metres away? No I seriously doubt it. So this is where we move into the realm of gargantuan (as you said) 4K screens before we seriously notice a difference.

So what kind of layout is the normal living space for consumers that would buy PS4 Pro? A 4mx5m room with their seats approx 3-3.5m from the TV. Look at the attached chart.
For 3 metres away (10 feet), the 4K screen would need to be between 85-90 inches for the consumer to see the benefits of 4K, of course this comes down if they are closer, but for a living space, you seriously wouldnt have your nose up against the screen.

Now how much is a 85-90 inch 4K screen today? We are talking £10k. It does make you think. Probably better investing in a 4K projector and a few extra bulbs.

 

[rapso]

specs so low compared to Scorpio with suposed 6+ Tflops.

PS4 Pro has 2.25x speed up over the previously fastest console, if that's not worth it, then 1.5x of scorpio over PS4 Pro should be even less noticeable in games. To make up for the 4x resolution, keeping the same per pixel quality, we'd actually need 7.2TFlops (considering everything scales perfectly linear)

 

[Sigfried1977]

I mean, did anyone come out of an Avatar screening saying to himself: "if only the resolution had been higher." That movie was entirely shot with 1080p cameras.

 

[rapso]

Pretty much this. I have an old 720p projector I'm occasionally using to watch a movie using the PS4 as a source. It accepts 1080i signals as well, but the image quality is considerably better at its native 720p resolution.

had a 720p before, when I got the 1080p, I've switched my PS3 to 1080 ofc. But to my surprise, games started to look noticeably worse (if they had 1080p support). In particular Gran Turismo had less anti aliasing (it looked like 2x instead of 4x in 720p), due to higher pixel frequency things started to alias in the distance (especially fences) and on top, with some more cars, it wasn't stable 60Hz anymore. Hence for PS3, I've used 1080p for movies, but 720p for games.

I expect games in 4k gonna look a step worse, it's just natural that you should see high frequency more. it's just hard to sell to customers, Ryse in 900p was already drama, although it was to improve image quality.

 

[Globalisateur]

had a 720p before, when I got the 1080p, I've switched my PS3 to 1080 ofc. But to my surprise, games started to look noticeably worse (if they had 1080p support). In particular Gran Turismo had less anti aliasing (it looked like 2x instead of 4x in 720p), due to higher pixel frequency things started to alias in the distance (especially fences) and on top, with some more cars, it wasn't stable 60Hz anymore. Hence for PS3, I've used 1080p for movies, but 720p for games.

I expect games in 4k gonna look a step worse, it's just natural that you should see high frequency more. it's just hard to sell to customers, Ryse in 900p was already drama, although it was to improve image quality.

For GT5 there is a 720p 4xMSAA mode and a 1280x1080 + quincunx mode. The latter being a huge step down in image quality (and still not native on a 1080p screen) so it's a very special case (mostly they wanted the marketable letters 1080p written down on the box...).

 

[Sigfried1977]

The PS3 often did odd things while running games at 1080p. Anti-aliasing has become an awful lot better and cheaper though.

 

[Deleted member 13524]

A USB port in the back, at last. I like putting my camera in front while I am inserting my big hard drive in the back.

And if you use a hub, you can insert them both in the back. And no one looking at it from the front will ever know.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

PS4 Pro has 2.25x speed up over the previously fastest console, if that's not worth it, then 1.5x of scorpio over PS4 Pro should be even less noticeable in games.

Only in flops. Scorpio is improved in every other area, so Scorpio to 4Pro improvement will be more than 4Pro to PS4. However, diminishing returns means it might not be very perceptible subjectively.

 

[DuckThor Evil]

It's annoying how most are hating on 4k. Has anyone even experienced it in a environment where it's strengths are available? Yes you need a big screen and need to be close to it, If you can't do that stop whining about it. You need to dedicate a place for it or in the future use VR with it to even understand what the resolution is about, amazing details and clarity, sorry but that's just the way it is. If you can and still think it's not worth it, fair enough... I can easily see the difference in my setup in Witcher 3 compared to 1440P and will not lower the resolution unless the framerate drops to 20.

Sony not supporting 4K Blu-ray is very disappointing for us who prefer maximum quality. Iwouldn't like to stream games either BTW... 4k and streaming is well kinda bad match, but I guess the compression is getting better, some of the Youtube 4k videos look pretty nice.

 

[Sigfried1977]

That's why I said gargantuan tv, projector, or a computer monitor. Of course the benefits will become noticeable eventually. I also think there are and always will be better ways to spend precious resources no matter how big the bloody thing is. Give me a better draw distance, push out the Lods, increase foliage density or what have you. Currently these ultra high resolutions only serve to make images which look fake to begin with even less believable. If my hours with VR have tought me anything it's how inconsequential resolution is to immersion.

 

[davygee]

It's annoying how most are hating on 4k. Has anyone even experienced it in a environment where it's strengths are available? Yes you need a big screen and need to be close to it, If you can't do that stop whining about it. You need to dedicate a place for it or in the future use VR with it to even understand what the resolution is about, amazing details and clarity, sorry but that's just the way it is. If you can and still think it's not worth it, fair enough... I can easily see the difference in my setup in Witcher 3 compared to 1440P and will not lower the resolution unless the framerate drops to 20.

I certainly am not hating 4K, it's amazing. I was only making people aware that you shouldn't assume you will see a difference straight away.

On one note, can you give me an indication as to what screen size you have and how far away you are from it? Cheers

 

[Rurouni]

It isn't that I don't see a benefit of 4K, it just that I feel HDR need to happen first before 4K. Right now, there is only a very slim chance that they will make a 1080p HDR because they usually put this kind of advancement on their top panel, which in this time means at least 4K panel. I personally don't need a 4K panel for my TV, but I really want HDR. So to get HDR I need to eat the cost of 4K panel. Of course over time those 4K panel would probably be the standard, but if they make 1080p HDR panel, it might cost a lot now, but will come down in price faster vs waiting 4K+HDR panel to come down in price.

edit: basically it is good that Sony will let devs to both having UHD mode and enchanced FHD mode, so I'm not complaining about the 4K res by itself, but more on the fact that HDR will likely come only with UHD panel, thus the barrier of entry to HDR will be very high.

 

[xz321zx]

Rainbow Six Siege was the first game to ship with the checkerboard rendering technique. (...)

Looks like stereo was/is broken though.

there are two mainstream techs,
-LCD which has pretty much the same limitations as displays
-DLP which works with color-wheels and micro mirrors. These have a wide gamut (IMO that's the most interesting part of HDR), and these micro mirrors are apparently already easy enough to control at 10bits.
haven't seen any projector that is advertised as HDR yet. Anyone seen some?

They use reflective LC , not transmissive, and the apparently inside a projector temperatures are hot enough for these to have better state change properties - better response times & less hysteresis. And no colorfilters - MTF is much different with 90% fill factor.
DLP has better chance at 10bits when there are 3 imager chips because that's 3x more time you can spend on PWM, apparently there will be single chip DLP-s with HDR maybe they can do it with a solid state light source anyhow, I'm not sure.

 

[rapso]

Seems there are two HDR projectors for $3000 and $4000 from epson, 5040UB and 6080UB, both 1080p (with some "4k enhancement").
But it's LCD which sounds suspicious to me for HDR.

I'm with Rurouni, 4k is maybe fine, but I'm all excited for HDR.
what are actually the spec limits for HDR? is it 16bit/channel?

 

[Kaotik]

Is there any comparison picture between the PS4 and PS4 Slim SoCs (and even Pro?)