I'm not sure trying to simplify the technical aspect will help with what seems to be some confusion in this thread, but I can try to help, lol...

Starting at time zero, a SINGLE frame is being rendered at 960x1080 (frame 1), with the other 960 horizontal pixels being blank. This frame is then displayed while the next 960x1080 frame is rendered (frame 2). However, frame 1 is not flushed from the buffer, but instead displayed a SECOND time to fill in the blank horizontal pixels in frame 2. Essentially, at any given time a single 960x1080 frame is rendered, dramatically decreasing load (and obviously giving the breathing room to get the framerate up in addition to the reduction of other graphical effects), but each frame is used twice before being flushed from the buffer. Due to the increased framerate, the effect's prominence is mitigated (if multiplayer dropped to say, 15 fps, this method would become EXTREMELY noticeable).

So just to be clear, you cannot combine the two frames and say "see, it's a 1080p frame!", because it's not rendering two frames at the same time and displaying them at the same time. That is, instead, how polarized 3D works, because stereoscopic 3D renders two frames simultaneously, and displays them at the same time, with the polarized glasses only allowing each eye to see a single frame. The effect in KZ:SF is rendering single frames at 960x1080, then using each frame twice to fill in the following frame at a high enough overall framerate to mask the effect.

As I think someone mentioned, the reason the "current" frame isn't "ghosted" like the last frame is because they're most likely using additional methods to "solidify" the current frame's objects based on last frame data (unknown tech to me on this front, probably something interpolating the blanks), and temporal upscale as mentioned in the article also helps reduce the "blur" effect caused by this method. Either way, it's a nifty trick, but shouldn't be spun to sound good. It's a shortcut, plain and simple, to get the framerate up. It works, sure, but it does not do credit to the PS4's power, but instead credits Guerilla Games' craftiness in working around hardware limitations.

PC > PS4 > X1  I predict this will be the order in which multiplats will perform best no need for Digital Foundry.

I was more talking about exclusive games like Forza and Ryse that were trolled to no end people were saying MS had to make huge compromises to make these games (of course they did) while Sony's games were praised because they didn't make compromises... well in the end Forza is the only AAA 1080p 60fps game of the next gen. Then Sony will come up with something else and the Master Race PC Gamers will just laugh at this idiotic war of the tallest dwarf.

Wikipedia, which whilst not definitive tends to note the most generally accepted definition, states that: 

Any display device that advertises 1080p typically refers to the ability to accept 1080p signals in native resolution format, which means there are a true 1920 pixels in width and 1080 pixels in height, and the display is not overscanning, underscanning, or reinterpreting the signal to a lower resolution.

Which would pretty resoundingly indicate that no, this is no longer 1080p.  Particularly given that that in so many ways is more of a marketing definition than a technical one!

This thread spawned some pretty fun tech debates. You don't get that often on this site.

I think that's a brilliant technique by Guerilla Games.

Prety much any fanboy ever.  Couldn't post anything anything, or read something online with out comments about it.  Till this post I thought it was. 

Turns out it was a big ol' lie. 

So with the second comment are you refering to art style?

I don´t like that they lied about the resolution.

They called it native 1080p from the very beginning and this weird interlaced "whats-it´s-name" is far from that.

Not its art style, it's visuals in general. Like i said, a game's resolution really isn't that important, it's what it's showing you at that resolution that matters. For Titanfall it doesn't matter if you're playing at 1080p/60fps on PC or 792p/45-60fps on the X1, it still looks mediocre at best (its held up slightly by it's art style, but not much).

This isn't even reserved for the X1 version, people talk shit about the PC versions visuals too. The X1 version being a lower resolution and frame rate just happens to make the situation worse for it (especially when it's the most advertised version).

It gets more hate that it deserves, but people's complaints make sense.

Titanfall gets so much shit because it's a MS exclusive and it's the most hyped game in a long time by gamers and the media alike. So like CoD, it's cool to hate on it. The visuals are fine. Could they have reached for a higher resolution? Sure, if you play resolutions I guess. But as we see with Killzone 6, there are consequences. I love how in Titanfall, I can run from one spot to another, or wall ride back and forth betweeen two building to create the momentum to launch onto the top of a third, or dash forward in my Titan to squash some enemy pilot, and the game doesn't become a greasy blurred mess because the developer had to find a way to reach some stupid resolution to put on the box.

^ Funny, At 1408x792 it's always a greasy blurred mess then by your definition. That's only 7% more pixels compared to KZ SF MP at it's worst when frame blending can't enhance the final output at all. Although KZ SF still matches native resolution on 1 axis at least.

Now ofcourse the style of the game makes it harder to see with rain, fog, bloom, lens flares and other effects.
And what resolution will be posted on Titanfall's box?

I'm not defending the cutbacks made for multiplayer (I don't even like multiplayer shooters) but I am interested in the technique. Same as I find it a smart solution to half the frame rate of reflections and mirrors in Forza 5 to save some resources. Basically what you get is 1080p30 visuals with the responsiveness of 60fps.

The overall result is more pleasing than GT6's 1440x1080 upscale, at least when you walk at normal speed. A shame it can never work for racing as you always move fast, yet why not update all the car models at 30 fps. They don't move around a lot relative to you and cost the most to render. I think that would be hardly noticeable and would free up a huge amount of processing power to add some much needed detail to the backgrounds.

Asynchronous updates are nothing new, lighting is one of the things that usually runs at lower frame rate. resolution for shadows, reflections and other effects usually run at half or quarter resolutions. This is the first time I see a full screen approach being used to make a compromise between 1080p30 and 720p60. I've been posting the worst case scenarios to figure out how they do it, but it actually looks quite nice while playing.