I don't dout that there is some extra blurring in the checkerboard upscale, yet comparing a 4.0 MB lossy jpg to a 6.6 MB lossy jpg to examine blur, bit pointless really. Get PNG files at least to show the difference. The pro version's camera is closer too, zoomed in more on texture detail.

Imagine a checkerboard, black and white squares alternating.

Frame 1, you render the black squares
Frame 2, you render the white squares

To make a full picture, take the rendered squares, interpolate the non rendered squares using the rendered squares and info from the previous frame when possible.

So basically you render 1920x2160 or 3840x1080 depending on how you look at it. Since the squares are offset each line it's better than interlaced rendering yet still exactly half the number of pixels of 3840x2160.

If you want to talk about quality of the images then Youtube would be the worst in that area. We see plenty of videos that claim to be 1080p and Youtube's compression just breaks the general video quality meaning you could have to recrd and output at a higher resolution, users like Totalbiscuit for most of the games he records has to be at a higher res since 1080p introduces artifacts all over the place thanks to Youtube.

Also the FoV on the console is the way it was meant to be, on PC you have the option to change it.

h its comfusing now but thats because we dont have a lot of info about it. 

But this much is certain, it's a way to achieve 4k using only half the pixels and half the overall power.  So you use twice as much as you would have if you were just doing 1080p, and a little more than you would have if you were doing 1440p but you end up with something that's not native 4k but can come pretty close and be in a 4k frame buffer so the output image won't need to be "upscaled" anymore.

I don't think this is how it works. What you are referring to is similar to field rendering which is what the early PS2 games used(also why alot of early PS2 games looked jagged). It renders two alternating fields of scanlines(odd and even) per frame and combining the two to create a smooth motion. This allowed developers to render games internally at half the resolution(say 240i/p) and output at 480i/p(the standard back then) with enhanced frame rates.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TGTR0G2xC1E

Checkerboard rendering is this:



It essentially  averages the neighboring two pixels(diagonal from eachother) and reconstructs one parallel to both. I think this is the basis of it, although I have read it reconstructs 2 pixels for every 2 native pixels which makes sense as 4K contains 4 times the amount of pixels as 1080P(1080P is 1920 by 1080 whilst 4K is 3840 by 2160). There are no alternating pixels popping in or out like with field rendering. So you fill in the black empty areas with reconstructed pixels, giving you 4 times(as 4K/2160P has 4 times the amount of pixels as 1080P) the amount of pixels at much less expense to the GPU compared to native 4K

Based on initial reports I'd honestly like this to continue on the PS5 (probably will with demanding games). I'd much rather have more titles at 60fps and high-ultra settings using this resolution than struggling at native 4k with 30fps and/or reduced settings. Seems like the best power saver since TSMAA (or Sony's own reprojection tech).

Yeah i was initially confused because 4 times 1920x1080 does not equal 3840x2160 with basic math. I found out that the reason they say "4x 1080p = 4k" is based off pixel count not resolution i.e 2mil for 1080p and 8mil for 4k witch is REALLY FUCKING CONFUSING.

So when they say checkerboard 4k upscale is using 4 1920x1080 frames to equal 3840x2160 i was a bit confused...when in reality they mean pixels...Yea fuck this shit, im out.

4K native is always more desirable. This method by the Pro is 'good enough' for console/couch gaming ...for now but will eventually show its limitations sooner.

The more they rely on it and the tougher the games get to run as time passes, the native pixels will have lower res, and as a result the image will get softer.

Everyone wants to think the Scorpio will be more expensive, even though it comes out in a year.

Probably will cost MS the same or close enough to produce it next year than it costs Sony to produce the Pro today. MS could very well sell it at $399-$449 and be happy with a competitive position.

I'm not writing that machine off for a weaker one. That's silly. When it hits the wild it will show its muscle, and unbiased console gamers that want the best graphics in multiplats will look its way.

1920(horizontal pixels) times 1080(vertical) = 2,073,600 pixels Full HD
3840(horizontal) times 2160(vertical) = 8,294,400 pixels 4k

"4K" is double the resolution of 1080P but because of how rectangles work(length times width), it internally contains 4 times the amount of pixels. Also there's alot of confusion about the term 4K because it refers to the horizontal resolution, where 1080P referred to the vertical. Not sure why they did this, probably for marketing TVs and it being easier to say than 2160P or Ultra High Definition.

I don't think this will occur. Console games generally get more advanced and better looking whilst maintaining or even increasing native resolution as developers learn the tricks and become familiar with the console. IE you won't see Call of Duty 2018 on PS4 running at 900P native and looking worse or the same as Call of duty Black Ops 3.