| StuOhQ said:
There seems to be some confusion about upscaling amongst those who aren't into the retro gaming scene at the moment. Lower-res content looks its best when played on a screen that fits its resolution perfectly. Good scalers can bring those sources up to a larger pixel count with negligible artifacts, while most scalers seriously degrade an image. 1080p looks okay on most 4Ks because 1080p and 4K are integers. Where things (generally) start to get ugly is non-integer scaling. For example, 720p on a 1080p screen, 1080p on a 2K (1440p) screen, and 2K on a 4K (2160p). Those resolutions don't divide evenly into one another, and so the scaler needs to "guess" at extra pixels instead of simply doubling (2x2 wide) or tripling (3x3 wide) the pixels of the source content. |
I'm not disputing that.
What you are talking about is Nearest Neighbor resampling, which allows you to keep the image nice and clean and fresh.
But when that option isn't available... You can still gain better results than native resolution thanks to video scalers having built in functionality that can do a few post-process passes, such as blurring, sharpening, interpolation, that sort of thing.
Good scalers shouldn't degrade an image, introduce artifacts or "damage" an image if done correctly.
| StuOhQ said: That image is actually a perfect example of how much information is generally lost during bad upscaling. The "normal" image has sharp pixels and great contrast. The upscaled image, by comparison, is fuzzy and contrast is low. I would recommend the RGB master series by "My Life in Gaming" or anything by Fudoh for more information about upscaling. |
It's an extreme example and not a perfect upscale, meant to accentuate the differences.
There are also different types of upscaling. You can take a Progressive image and rebuild it into a "higher resolution" interlaced image, one of the most popular examples was Grand Turismo 4 on the Playstation 2... And the improvements was striking and universally praised.
| Miyamotoo said: No, actually we're talking about downsampling, in this particular case downsampling from 1080p to 720p touch screen. Pictures you showed doesn't have anything we staffs we talking about here. |
You must be confused. I have been talking about upscaling a 720P game to 1080P this entire time.
Remember how I wanted a 1080P screen in the Switch? Even if games aren't being rendered at that resolution? That's called upscaling. Not Downsampling.
| Miyamotoo said: Every TV has upscaler, but that's not native upscaler, while for Switch you have games running at native 720p in portable mode and on TV at native 1080p. |
If you think a TV's upscaler has the same capabilities as the Scaler built into the Switch, then you are kidding yourself.
The Switch is going to be upscaling a ton of games whilst docked to 1080P, if you think every Switch game is going to be 1080P whilst docked, then again, you are kidding yourself.
I want the same on the Portable screen.
| Miyamotoo said: If relly doesn't use extra power of Pro, why those features are not available on basic PS4 but just on Pro model!? |
Good question. Probably because the HDMI 1.4 port is limited to 30hz at 4k on the regular Playstation 4. Overwatch is a 60fps game.
Or Blizzard opted not to backport it and downscale the UI even though both versions of the game are 1080P... On the Pro, the game is upscaled.
| Miyamotoo said: Bottom of line, Switch in portable mode is meant to be 720p handheld, that's why it has 720p screen thats why there is no any need for 1080p screen and thats why Switch does not have 1080p screen, it doesnt need it, very simple. |
Correct. The Switch is a 720P handheld. Mostly because Nintendo decided to cheap out.
720P is unacceptable in 2017. It's very simple.
--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--
