Digital Foundry Article Technical Discussion [2022]

Reconstruction methods can absolutely improve this. They can add information that it expects to be there so the 'fine' details are better resolved much like a native high resolution implementation. It is an actual high resolution image at the end of the day.

But Forbidden West is using a slightly lower resolution. 1800p reconstruction and then upscaled is definitely not gonna be as good as 2160p reconstructed with no upscaling necessary. Combined with what's probably just not the best reconstruction method nowadays(checkerboard), I can see this potentially being the issue here as a whole.

 

Especially fine Details are a problem for reconstructions and motion. Those tend to be more or less "guessed" and that can change with every frame. E.g. the more frames there are, the more data you might have (with a smaller time frame between them) to reconstruct details, yes, but you also have a higher chance that something goes wrong and starts to flicker (pixels get visible and invisible on a per frame basis). This e.g. happens often with small things like power lines etc. Those are already problematic with just native resolution and a AA tech, but with reconstruction so far, they often get "artifacted" quite fast. Those red flowers or the grass in HFW is not that different. The picture moves + the grass etc moves which than results in the flickering or shimmering of those moving details.

 

HFW is also dynamic resolution 1800 checkerboard. It is actually below 1800 checkerboard quite often! So it is then something like 1400 checkerboard etc.. etc...

That exacerbates the aliasing and reconstruction issues even more.

 

But...it just isn't 'blurrier far less detailed' image, compared to the original release. As someone who actually owns the game and has played it to 95% completion throughout these patches, there just is barely any difference in overall image quality despite one screen zoomed in on a DF video showing perhaps less detailed foliage in one scene. The vast majority of comments in any reddit thread on these patches are "I don't notice a difference". The game's biggest drawback in performance mode is still the shimmering, it's not some supposed massive increase in blurriness (which is also an issue in some scenes mind you, but the shimmering in motion is the biggest eyesore).

Until the DLSS patch hit, HZD on the PC - along with its hosts of other problems - had far worse shimmering than it even being run at native 4k vs checkerboarded on the PS5, as the PC's implementation of TAA was worse, and there was no way to fix it until they added DLSS a year later.

Regardless I don't know why the PC is being brought into this, as it's not on the PC yet. I mean I'd love to see this with DLSS on the PC too, whenever the hell it's released and whenever you can actually get a GPU at a reasonable price - when/if that happens I'll probably double dip and get the PC version too, this at 4K DLSS quality at 60+ fps would be amazing, I'm constantly reminded of how jaw-dropping this game can look when I jump into Fidelity mode (then quickly jump back because, you know - 30fps). Provided of course, it's a stable 60fps - which frankly IME is far more common on my PS5 than PC ports, especially recently.

But... "This game would theoretically run much better on a platform it isn't currently on with no firm timeframe to eventually come to" - I mean uh, quite the feather in your favourite platforms cap then I guess then?

 

Indeed it's likely that - it's not even 1800p CB in many areas in performance mode. I think what also spurred the reaction was that there's such a disparity in some scenes between performance and resolution mode, far more than what you would expect to 'just' double the FPS. If the resolution mode in the same scene that gives poor fidelity in performance mode was obviously not native 4k as well it would perhaps be easier to understand as you would say "Well obviously then that scene is just incredibly GPU heavy", but many times in this game I will switch to resolution mode and the difference is massive, like going from 1080p to 4k.

Now this is a particularly egregious example, perhaps this is checkerboarding screwing with DoF, there were some notes in the early patches how some cutscenes were displaying in too low of a res with performance mode which was fixed, but this is the latest patch.

Performance:



Resolution (Fidelity):



I mean, the performance image is literally losing highlights on the Tremortusk's armour completely (notice the yellow lights - this was not unpaused before each mode change). The bottom image still looks like native 4k - at least by comparison.

 

Certainly there are some egregious cases in certain games with past DLSS implementations where ghosting was an issue with certain elements, but this has been lessened quite a bit with newer versions.

Outside of Control, are there comparison images available somewhere that could show this? Alex from DF usually gives his DLSS impressions based on still frames from moving images and I just don't see the excessive ghosting outside of known problematic releases (such as early versions of Cyberpunk with car taillights). Metro Exodus was another but playing it on my PS5 at 60fps and there is significant ghosting with the weapon model during movement using TAA. Even DLSS advocates seem very sensitive to ghosting so I just don't know "most times", but I can't speak from direct experience either as I don't have a DLSS capable card so I'm interested to see actual comparisons.

 

Cyberpunk's ghosting was pretty bad, though. It would ghost when you were in an elevator. Even the ones when you couldn't see the outside world. People really fixated on the ghosting while driving, and while I could see it, it was easily dismissed as a motion trail from a fast driving car. When you are in an elevator, and nothing is moving in your viewpoint but everything is trailing upwards... That's pretty distracting. More recent versions of DLSS make the ghosting barely more visible than what TAA has, and the performance benefits are large.

 

Assassin's Creed: The Ezio Collection on Nintendo Switch: Digital Foundry Tech Review

 

This isn't really the case. I'm playing HZD right now on a 1070 with no noticeable shimmer (from 3ft away on a 38" screen).

Granted when I ran at native (3840x1600) with FSR the shimmering was pretty horrible, but it was easily solved by switching to the games inbuilt upscaler in its highest quality mode. The image was a little softer but shimmering was pretty much gone and the overall image quality is still very good.

I certainly can't handle a perfect 60fps but that's far less important when using VRR. The games still silky smooth for the most part.

 

HZD on pc, after the patches is the ultimate HZD experience. Sony did a very good job in the end for that port i think.

 

The PC was brought in only as a contrast to console gaming in general, where you generally (but not always) have much greater control over picture IQ settings. I can choose to have it as sharp and detailed as I want (DOF, Motion Blur, etc. always diabled) with the knowledge that I'll generally suffer from more shimmering or if I prefer I could have it be blurrier and less detailed.

On consoles, generally the only choice is the one given by the developer. So in the case of the HZD patch, if it does come to the PC (I'm not sure why it would) then you would likely be able to adjust settings to reverse those changes that you can't do on console.

Basically, it just reinforces why I don't game on consoles despite the fact that I'd love to ditch PC (GPUs being insanely expensive) and pick up console gaming. But the lack of control over rendering features combined with lack of near universal support for alternative control methods (KBM in my case) renders consoles a non-starter for me, unfortunately.

Regards,
SB

 

dynamic cb is realy bad idea, second time I've seen it (first time marvel avengers) and second time bad results, simple dynamic res would be better, cb is not free also, tough fortunetly have no problems with 30fps and in 4k is just majestic looking

 

Good point. Based of the results DRS shouldn't be used with CBR.

 

GPU prices, we can hope atleast, wont be this crazy forever i think.

 

until the day that oil goes down, there's very little possibility of anything coming down. Any margin that was there for these products at MSRP are now being eaten into with shipping etc. And if oil never comes down, these prices should only technically move up with newer generations as this becomes the baseline standard cost of supply chain costs. Is not a far fetched future considering the pressure around failing to meet climate change goals.

 

It doesnt either help that people seem to be happy to pay that much either. A friend bought a PS5 for over 1200 dollars last week, happy about the score. I have seen people lining up for GPUs that cost over a grand aswell.

Seems things are not too bad, GPU prices are slowly coming down. Colaborates with that article saying that gpu prices would come bakc to normal later this year.

https://www.tomshardware.com/news/gpu-prices-mid-march-down-nine-percent

 

With the new lock downs and neon production getting cut in half due to ukraine we could see prices rise again.

Outside of that , it depends on what the value is to the person. If their hobby is gaming then maybe the cost of those items isn't to bad. When I was in my 20s my friends used to laugh when I would buy computer parts and stay in playing games with other friends. They'd tell me to come to the bar or the club, but they were dropping $200-300 a night on the weekend to go to those places and drink. So to me dropping a new computer worth of money on drinks every other week was a crap value. To them spending that on video games was a crap value. At the end as long as people enjoyed themselves it doesn't really matter.

 

The super high prices are due to lack of availability of silicon. If that catches up, adequate supply should see prices return to normal. MSRP might go up a bit, but overall it'll be way lower than currently.

eg. $600 GPU currently selling for $1000. Of that original $600 MSRP, how much is transport or oil-based pricing? Let's say a very generous $50. And now let's say that oil costs double. Silicon production catches up, GPU prices returns to 'normal', but now the MSRP is $650 instead of $600 to account for higher transport costs.

Point being, the price increase from some production and distribution costs are dwarfed by the sheer demand vs supply pressure, and it's really that, requiring more production or less demand, that'll determine electronics pricing.

 

If nothing happens to Taiwan that is.

 

I do agree that the prices are based on supply demand pressures at the moment and represents a bulk of the cost. But I don't believe a doubling of oil is necessarily the same thing as doubling the cost of transportation. It being the energy source for the entire pipeline of goods for manufacture as well as needing to pay wages it gets difficult to really understand how big of an impact oil is on the cost of goods, more so for goods that have many suppliers to assemble it; ie cars.

I do see GPUS in stores now, and prices are coming down, but they aren't selling for MSRP anymore unfortunately. I think only big box stores still honor the MSRP price. I'm not sure they will ever come back to MSRP price because everyone is going to be pissed we've been paying 3080 prices for 3070s at these computer stores. (not scalping)