Digital Foundry Article Technical Discussion Archive [2016 - 2017]

Status
Not open for further replies.
Overwatch DF face-off. Much Better anti-aliasing coverage (and better quality) on the PS4 version. Apparently DF completely missed it in their article. It's very easy to spot the difference on all their pics. Many areas completely lack any AA on XB1 when there is always AA on PS4. Notice how the PS4 images are still very compressed compared to the XB1 pics. All pics are the max jpg quality available.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2016-overwatch-face-off

PS4: http://images.eurogamer.net/2015/articles//a/1/8/2/9/4/6/4/PS4_002.bmp.jpg
bXbobtx.png

XB1: http://images.eurogamer.net/2015/articles//a/1/8/2/9/4/6/4/XO_002.bmp.jpg
CpZc1FM.png

PS4 (zoomed in 500%): http://images.eurogamer.net/2015/articles//a/1/8/2/9/4/6/4/PS4_006.bmp.jpg
SFpJ1Us.png

XB1 (zoomed in 500%): http://images.eurogamer.net/2015/articles//a/1/8/2/9/4/6/4/XO_006.bmp.jpg
f2LMQSq.png
 
In the D.Va shot X1 seems like it is missing indirect lighting (or it's reduced), although it could be a scene specific bug

Ps4
jpg


X1
jpg


PC
jpg
 
It's likely reduced. Blizzard is pretty good at scaling down. Recommended specs on PC dial in at Phenom X3 and a GeForce 660. Minimal specs are well below that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Interesting...

Doom features an absolutely beautiful bokeh depth of field effect that is used when picking up new items, interacting with objects, or swapping weapons around.

What? A game that actually uses DoF sensibly? Only being used when there's an extremely strong chance that the player will be focusing on those things anyway. Although weapon swapping is questionable, but reasonable. I think this may be the first game ever where I'd leave DoF on. Assuming it's only ever used in the events described in the quote.

Interestingly, Tiago Sousa, lead renderer programmer on the game, suggested that the team fiddled with locking the cinematic mode to 24Hz just for fun but ultimately decided against it as the game suffered.

OK, that impresses me. Focusing on gameplay first and fiddly bits after. No sacrifices made to gameplay in order to facilitate buzzwords or graphics checkmarks. Although I do wish they'd further reduced some of the settings for XBO in order to maintain a more steady 60 FPS.

One of the best looking games this console generation and 60 FPS to boot which makes it look even better than any 30 FPS game when in motion even if it'll suffer in comparison when stationary or in screenshots where there is no motion going on.

I may actually pick this up when it hits the bargain bin just to reward them for the graphics ability of their engine even if I detest some of their gameplay decisions and their horrible checkpoint saving system.

Regards,
SB
 
From weapon swapping they just mean the when the weapon wheel pops up, you don't get any DoF when you simply switch back and forth between two weapons, or when you equip any of the weapons using a hotkey on PC.
 
From weapon swapping they just mean the when the weapon wheel pops up, you don't get any DoF when you simply switch back and forth between two weapons, or when you equip any of the weapons using a hotkey on PC.

Ah, OK, that makes a lot of sense. I really like how they attempted to only use DoF in situations when the user is highly unlikely to be looking at anything other than what is remaining in focus. If you are interacting with something directly, chances are you're looking at it. If you are picking something up manually, you're likely looking at it. Much better than games that just put it in because "it looks pretty" but has absolutely nothing to do with how human vision works where a person will focus on a great variety of different things while walking around.

Regards,
SB
 
Does The Witcher 3 expansion fulfil the original graphics promise?
Digital Foundry on Blood and Wine's impressive new area.

 
In the D.Va shot X1 seems like it is missing indirect lighting (or it's reduced), although it could be a scene specific bug

Ps4
jpg


X1
jpg


PC
jpg

So if I open the PS4 and XB1 screenshots and go between them, that's the real difference between 900p and 1080p ? If so it really isn't anything like the difference you see people talk about, I mean yes it's slightly crisper on PS4 and darker on XB1 but nothing to shout about imo. I have both consoles, I love the XB1 UI, achievements and controller but have always played my third party games on PS4 because of the apparent 'massive differences' in resolution. If those screenshots are indicative of the differences in most multiplatform games then I may just start playing them on XB1.
 
Does The Witcher 3 expansion fulfil the original graphics promise?
Digital Foundry on Blood and Wine's impressive new area.


Wait, are they (DF not CDProjekt Red) blaming some of the performance shortcomings on console to the number of draw calls? I thought the consoles did better with draw calls than PC, especially since this is not a DX12 game on PC.

Regards,
SB
 
So if I open the PS4 and XB1 screenshots and go between them, that's the real difference between 900p and 1080p ? If so it really isn't anything like the difference you see people talk about, I mean yes it's slightly crisper on PS4 and darker on XB1 but nothing to shout about imo. I have both consoles, I love the XB1 UI, achievements and controller but have always played my third party games on PS4 because of the apparent 'massive differences' in resolution. If those screenshots are indicative of the differences in most multiplatform games then I may just start playing them on XB1.

Low frequency surface details benefit less from higher pixel count, and then you have geometry edge filters that make the difference somewhat less obvious.

Depends on the art direction how much it makes a difference for folks.
 
Low frequency surface details benefit less from higher pixel count, and then you have geometry edge filters that make the difference somewhat less obvious.

Depends on the art direction how much it makes a difference for folks.

And depending on the size of your display and the distance between you and the display the difference becomes even loss obvious or disappears entirely.

Regards,
SB
 
Or the other way around. Native or non native resolution always stands out to me hugely. I think many gamers are probably pretty close to their TV when gaming. For me, 42" tv at 2.5m distance.

That said if both the 1080p and 900p have aggressive AA / blur effects, it becomes less noticeable of course. But it is still there, both when UI is native (contrast stands out) and when it is not (UI blurriness stands out).
 
Or the other way around. Native or non native resolution always stands out to me hugely. I think many gamers are probably pretty close to their TV when gaming. For me, 42" tv at 2.5m distance.

Not a problem on a 4K TV, particularly a Sony 4K TV with "X-Reality Pro" which is going to be doing some very nice image processing during scaling which is lessening 1080p output jaggies. Jaggies that were apparent on my 40" 1080p set are less apparat on my 49" 4K set.

Magick! :runaway:
 
So if I open the PS4 and XB1 screenshots and go between them, that's the real difference between 900p and 1080p ? If so it really isn't anything like the difference you see people talk about, I mean yes it's slightly crisper on PS4 and darker on XB1 but nothing to shout about imo.

No because games aren't static screenshots. It's 1600x900 vs 1920x1080 and since this particular title uses morphological antialiasing (SMAA) the image stability across frames will be more temporary stable since there is more data to work with. higher resolution also makes it easier to see distant objects and players, which can be an advantage in competitive FPS.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top