Oh don't get me wrong I'm a total advocate for Checkerboarding and its outstanding result as demonstrated already by a number of titles. I understand from a developer's perspective CBR is the smart move and people should fully embrace it, ironically Phil himself insinuated the competition by adopting the technique kinda directly undermines the developer's choice did he not? As well as creating a confusing message that only their product is guaranteed to hit native 4k. Anyway PR is gonna PR, as long as the games look sharp and gorgeous on a 4k HDR TV it's all that matters.
Mixed Information on Consoles or How I learned to loathe PR *spin off*
- Thread starter rockaman
- Start date
-
- Tags
- snowflakes
yet low end will, and will allow the minimum & recommended specs to be lower.
Obvious benefits to users and publishers
And this goalpost matters because...?
Phil Spencer pretty much explains this fully in the Giant Bomb interview (thanks @mpg1 for the linking this originally) starting at around the 30:30 mark. He even mentions the Titan XP!
Reposting this here, because it seems that when given the time to give expanded and more nuanced answers he expresses himself much better. This section has him saying that like the One X the PS4 Pro is for people who want a premium experience and that not every game for One X is going to be native 4K, and those that aren't will look great.
Weird that you don't see these quotes popping up all over message boards.
I'm not sure that developers will use the extra power on high end gpu with much better assets. It will probably cost too much.
So if CB is used on PC, we will probably have the same games visually but with an incredible high framerate (90/100fps). But most PC players are happy at 60fps.
But Jay is right, i see mainly a benefice for lower end PC. Also, high end GPU should remain competitive much more longer with CB which is a good news.
Last edited:
consider most engines will be multi platform, so after developing CBR it will not be removed, especially when there's far too many benefits to it.
at most will be an option to run it native.
also it wouldn't be the developers not using it on high end gpus, that would be the gamer if they are able to, and want to disable it.
As far as I know everything that moves and is not part of the geometry has even more artifacts such as shadows, particles, etc. The additional data is mainly be used for static geometry. CBR, Temporal Filtering and Temporal Injection (other method) are mostly hyped by the use of static images without movement. Sure it looks okay there. However, games usually have movement.
Normal upsampling can be better because of the temporal compo. Everything that moves and is not static geometry looks frayed out with CBR. And even if it is geometry it can be suboptimal.
I would not call 4K CBR real "4K". In my opinion SONY pushes it too aggressive. Microsoft already tries to convince people that 4K is the next big thing without sense or reason. And to somehow get away with it they are pushing developers to use CBR which may also lead to worse graphics because it is still expensive.
Last edited:
All forms of temporal reuse will have artifacts, if occlusion is not detected and handled properly. However temporal AA is already used my most games / engines, and it already introduces these artifacts if occlusion is not handled properly. AAA engines need to handle this even when CBR or any other form of temporal upsampling isn't used.
I am not actually saying that CBR is the future, I am saying that temporal reuse and reconstruction is the future. CBR is just the beginning. There will be much better techniques in the future. You don't want to have equal spacing for your image samples, because some areas need more samples than others and you'd also want to generate more samples for occluded areas (as previous samples aren't available). Unfortunately rasterization isn't a good match for iteratively adding image samples to locations (based on confidence metric). You need a gather based approach (ray tracing or similar).
Last edited:
I don't think you'll hear much complaints about ultra setting 4K@144fps
I certainly wouldn't mind it. Certainly extends the life of hardware.If TAA and CBR are in general terms the same basis it is true that it depends on the type of implementation in both cases. Just as there is good and bad TAA there can be good and bad CBR as well.
In any case the methods of "temporal reuse and reconstruction" should be developed further. At the moment it is just the beginning.
Last edited:
Here:
https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2016/09/microsoft-says-ps4-pro-isnt-powerful-enough-to-do-true-4k/
The reality is that 4Pro does do a lot of up-scaling with or without CBR, often with CBR to make it to 4K (1800p).
That being said the idea of marketing 4K native is poor and misleading, we're all on the same page on this one, but it fits for games that have 0 intention of creating a reconstruction pipeline. This is specifically where Penello's comments would ring true vs 4Pro.
Generally speaking, you're going to get 4K frame buffer (reconstructed, dynamic or not) of a majority of games for Scorpio. This isn't the case for 4Pro as we can see from the list of existing 4Pro enhanced titles.
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1324251
Things will obviously change over time as more developers adopt reconstruction techniques/CBR etc but that also takes time, we'll all likely revisit this thread 3 years from now and ultimately see which marketing positions held any form truth. Forza, they are one of the few engines still using Forward rendering; they won't let go, even though the rest of the industry has moved away from it. So as much as it is a matter of 'what's better', it's a bigger question of what's better for the developers in the end. I'd like to see a lot of games go reconstructed with CBR and really push the graphical barrier; interestingly this sits with the developer and not necessarily the hardware. If there's any benefit from this crud, it's nice to know the base platform still has growth opportunities in graphical fidelity.
Lastly,
It also helps them separate Xbox One S from Xbox One X. We know that One S is a 4K media device but not capable of being True 4K. Which matters _more_ in terms of branding, vs trying to poison their competitors product. If collectively we agreed as a group that it's unlikely that users will jump ship due to power, then looking within the family of Xbox devices, this differentiator being 1S and 1X is critical.
Last edited:
Marketing departments do not make the decision about the resolution. Game developers make the decision. If your game is simple, you might be able to afford 2x pixel shader cost (for "native" pixels). But for most games, saving half of your pixel shader work makes it possible to scale up the quality of all shaders and geometry, resulting in better looking game. Assuming of course that you can afford the engineering work to make reprojection work well with all your shader passses
There's no such thing as "native" 4K anymore in AAA games. Practically every single AAA game does bloom, DOF and particle effects at half res now. I don't know about Forza, but Gran Turismo uses 1/4 res (= 16x less pixels) particles.
There's no such thing as "native" 4K anymore in AAA games. Practically every single AAA game does bloom, DOF and particle effects at half res now. I don't know about Forza, but Gran Turismo uses 1/4 res (= 16x less pixels) particles.
That's been true since forever - different resolution buffers. As discussed back in the day, what people called "native resolution" refers to the opaque geometry rendering rendering. Some of us have been suggesting the notion of counting pixels has been dead for years but it persists and will until it doesn't matter, because it gives people a number they can compare.
Dynamic means the game might be upscaled, for instance from a 1800p framebuffer (so not 4K): It's Microsoft 'true ©' 4K.
Dynamic means the game might be upscaled, for instance from a 1800p framebuffer (so not 4K): It's Microsoft 'true ©' 4K.
and reconstructed is cbr or temporal injection
Last edited:
Eh I don't mind poking fun at technicality. But on a serious note, with dynamic it's been up to DF to prove the average case. We have a lot of dynamic 1080p games on PS4 that just hold 1080p with a handful of blips just below. And then we have 1080p on X1 that are 900p for nearly all the time except when looking at a wall.Dynamic means the game might be upscaled, for instance from a 1800p framebuffer (so not 4K): It's Microsoft 'true ©' 4K.
That being said, I don't mind dynamic 4K as an advertising point as long as 95% of the time you are at 4K. But this is per title.
For real? Who cares? If people want to take it as a lie let them take it as a lie. It's PR and something no long time gamers isnt readily aware.
On a scale of 0-10, where do you think MS's lie lies?
0 being the truth.
10 being the time that Sony claimed the PS3 was a 2 TF supercomputer that could do 120 fps games, would allow 32:9 setups with it 2 hdmi outs and was "probably too cheap" at $600.
Last edited:
What did you read? You couldn't have missed the point I was trying to make any wider if you translated my post to Japanese then to Russian and then back to English before you tried to read it.
The point was that people were pulling a couple of sentences from a full-page interview and solely reacting to those, some of them without ever bothering to read the full interview to even try to understand the full context and, beyond that, were completely ignoring these more nuanced statements because they didn't fit their preferred narrative.
The "True 4K" marketing needs to die in a fire, though. Just go with "Most powerful console". Simple, to the point, and indisputably true.