The alpha used as hair in the demo is quite poor by PS4/X1 standards, I can't remember seeing similar issues in Witcher 3:

Hair can be rendered differently ... 

In Final Fantasy XV's case with Noctis, I think most of it is ACTUAL geometry which is why we see so much aliasing here. 900p + tons of thin geometry = tons of aliasing! It is very important that we sample more in the presence of thin geometry since aliasing will manifest more easily ... 

As far as the real alpha effects are concerned such as smoke, spells, some debris along with other things, FFXV looks a lot more crisp in those areas than the Witchers 3 ...

The spell effects were nice, granted, but taken as a whole, the material in both Episode Duscae and the Platinum demo doesn't measure up to Witcher 3 graphically.

If the final game goes under 25 fps, I'll just wait for the late PC port that will certainly come rather than get a PS4 for it like I was planning to. I find anything under 30fps to be unplayable for an action game, and I can't imagine playing a game these days which consistently drops to sub-20 fps.

I wasn't comparing FFXV as a whole to the Witcher 3, I was only comparing the alpha effects ...

And do we know that none of the hair on either Noctis or that white cat thing utilizes any alpha? Cos there's some pretty significant pixelation happening there.

Digital foundry implies that the hair is been rendered with thin geometry and thus they agree with me ...

In other words, Xbox One always runs at a lower pixel output than PS4 and it translates to a perceptibly clearer image for the latter, in the main. However, image quality takes a hit due to the aggressive in-house post-process anti-aliasing, causing the image to blur on each console regardless of resolution in use. Coverage is also spotty, particular on Noctis and Carbuncle's hair, and high contrast elements can flare up in aliasing for a few frames before returning to a blurred state. For the second demo running, Final Fantasy 15 is let down by a post-process image treatment that's inadequate for the subject matter at hand, and it distracts from the great visuals at its core.

Post-process anti-aliasing doesn't work well with thin geometry as outlined in Morgan Mcguire's presentation about aggregate G-buffer anti-aliasing and notice how the hair quality on the X1 is perceptively lower compared to the PS4 too. It's probably due to the fact that the X1 is rendering at a lower resolution compared to PS4 since the image quality scales with resolution thus it is most likely that the hair is geometry instead of a bunch of transparent quads. Alpha effects and shadows usually does not scale with resolution until you increase the resolution of those independently ... 

In the analysis video though he says: "alpha blending on hair is an obvious issue".

I don't think ALL of the hair is geometry though, just most of the outermost or more external parts ... 

The hair is still mostly geometry but at a more coarse granularity ... 

It takes twice the power to render 30 frames into 60 frames, so how does twice the power fix a poorly framed game that can drop to a staggering 15 frames and also fix the resolution to hit a rare 1080p from a game that averages 900p and less?

 Did you do the maths here? The PS4K is rumoured to have twice the power of a PS4, so how does it fix the framerate and the resolution?

Your comparison to UC4 is a poor one when UC4 is 1080p and 30 frames whereas FF15 is an unstable 30 frames and a dynamic 900p…