By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming - Native 4K or Checkerboard "uprendered" 4k

Native is always better. Recontructing frames can only go so far. If your spending money on a 4k TV and player you would want native. This would do for now.



Around the Network
Pemalite said:
Qwark said:
No one expected native 4k to begin with, but this checkboard upscaling does seem to be useful enough to actually utilizing the 2.4 extra teraflops right. And judging by it's contents the PS4 pro is a bargain for only €100- morte than either the PS4 slim or the Xone Slim. Even digital foundry is impresed by this checkboard upscaling, which means it brings us a sharper and clearer image which is clearly better as the vanilla PS4 as long as you own a 4k tv.

They are only impressed because the alternative to Checkerboard is your traditional upscaling.
Native > Checkerboard > Traditional Upscaling.
In that order from best to worst. :)

Peh said:

1080p is kind of unplayable on a 4k monitor. It looks awfully blurry.

Halflife 2 in 4k maxxed out AA

http://www.pic-upload.de/view-31674270/20160911_163611.jpg.html

close up:

http://www.pic-upload.de/view-31674283/20160911_163626.jpg.html

Halflife 2 in 1080 maxxed out AA

http://www.pic-upload.de/view-31674295/20160911_163659.jpg.html

close up:

http://www.pic-upload.de/view-31674304/20160911_163720.jpg.html

 

Depends on the panel.
The quality is less severe than other points in history where we have upscaled content, because this time around it's a straight quadrupling of pixels and you don't need to use funky algorithms to upscale 720P to 1080P with post-process to clean up the image.

For instance, it's sometimes better for me to run some content at 720P rather than 768P or 900P on my 1440P panel due to that fact.

None of it is as good as native content at your panels native resolution though, but you take what you can get. :P

What do you mean by "depends on the panel"?

I don't think a panel can get rid of the blurry picture by upscalling.

Nevertheless, I just checked again by not using AA. The 4k is crisp as it possibly can be. The upscalled 1080 image is still blurry. And obviously less details are being shown.

1080 upscaled no AA

http://www.pic-upload.de/view-31680389/20160912_124137.jpg.html

4k no AA

http://www.pic-upload.de/view-31680399/20160912_124225.jpg.html



Intel Core i7 8700K | 32 GB DDR 4 PC 3200 | ROG STRIX Z370-F Gaming | RTX 3090 FE| Crappy Monitor| HTC Vive Pro :3

Peh said:

What do you mean by "depends on the panel"?

I don't think a panel can get rid of the blurry picture by upscalling.

Nevertheless, I just checked again by not using AA. The 4k is crisp as it possibly can be. The upscalled 1080 image is still blurry. And obviously less details are being shown.

1080 upscaled no AA

http://www.pic-upload.de/view-31680389/20160912_124137.jpg.html

4k no AA

http://www.pic-upload.de/view-31680399/20160912_124225.jpg.html

That's a pretty bad upscale, can't you set it to quadrupling 1080p content? It should not lose brightness or color, just give you blocky 2x2 pixels. My 1080p tv does a much better job with Wii 480p content, and that's not even a straight doubling. Much sharper than that picture you linked.
Monitors have always been bad at upscaling though, hence I always to prefer to play in native res at the cost of frame rate and effects.



I love good graphics and if this means better graphics on the budget of a console I'll want to see it.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

SvennoJ said:
Peh said:

What do you mean by "depends on the panel"?

I don't think a panel can get rid of the blurry picture by upscalling.

Nevertheless, I just checked again by not using AA. The 4k is crisp as it possibly can be. The upscalled 1080 image is still blurry. And obviously less details are being shown.

1080 upscaled no AA

http://www.pic-upload.de/view-31680389/20160912_124137.jpg.html

4k no AA

http://www.pic-upload.de/view-31680399/20160912_124225.jpg.html

That's a pretty bad upscale, can't you set it to quadrupling 1080p content? It should not lose brightness or color, just give you blocky 2x2 pixels. My 1080p tv does a much better job with Wii 480p content, and that's not even a straight doubling. Much sharper than that picture you linked.
Monitors have always been bad at upscaling though, hence I always to prefer to play in native res at the cost of frame rate and effects.

Ignore the brightness and color differences... it's the camera what makes it differ.

A monitor has really limited post processing features, probably none compared to a TV. So, there isn't much I can do about.

That's why you should always use native resolution on a monitor.



Intel Core i7 8700K | 32 GB DDR 4 PC 3200 | ROG STRIX Z370-F Gaming | RTX 3090 FE| Crappy Monitor| HTC Vive Pro :3

Around the Network
Peh said:
Slimebeast said:

"rendered with god's approved gaming device" lol

Ahh, cool. You have a GTX 1070 and game on a 4K monitor!

What I like about 4K is that old 1080p games scale perfectly. But having been accostomed to 4K, how do you feel about 1080p games on your monitor? Does it feel ugly?

1080p is kind of unplayable on a 4k monitor. It looks awfully blurry.

Halflife 2 in 4k maxxed out AA

http://www.pic-upload.de/view-31674270/20160911_163611.jpg.html

close up:

http://www.pic-upload.de/view-31674283/20160911_163626.jpg.html

Halflife 2 in 1080 maxxed out AA

http://www.pic-upload.de/view-31674295/20160911_163659.jpg.html

close up:

http://www.pic-upload.de/view-31674304/20160911_163720.jpg.html

 

How can it look blurry? I understand it's blurry if the monitor upscales from 1080p to 4K (and uses an upscaling technique similar to those you linked to), but can't you prevent it from upscaling so that it remains the original sharp 1080p image?

Those pics don't work, except for one.



Peh said:
Pemalite said:

They are only impressed because the alternative to Checkerboard is your traditional upscaling.
Native > Checkerboard > Traditional Upscaling.
In that order from best to worst. :)

Depends on the panel.
The quality is less severe than other points in history where we have upscaled content, because this time around it's a straight quadrupling of pixels and you don't need to use funky algorithms to upscale 720P to 1080P with post-process to clean up the image.

For instance, it's sometimes better for me to run some content at 720P rather than 768P or 900P on my 1440P panel due to that fact.

None of it is as good as native content at your panels native resolution though, but you take what you can get. :P

What do you mean by "depends on the panel"?

I don't think a panel can get rid of the blurry picture by upscalling.

Nevertheless, I just checked again by not using AA. The 4k is crisp as it possibly can be. The upscalled 1080 image is still blurry. And obviously less details are being shown.

1080 upscaled no AA

http://www.pic-upload.de/view-31680389/20160912_124137.jpg.html

4k no AA

http://www.pic-upload.de/view-31680399/20160912_124225.jpg.html

By what I mean in regards to "depends on panel" is that some TV's have such poor Brightness and Colour calibration that resolution is less of a factor in the overall presentation of an image. (Aka. Resolution isn't everything.)

Secondly some TV's have scalers of questionable quality that may add noise or artifacts into the displayed image, in some more moderate scenario's you might get additional input lag.

Thirdly, some TV's will also do some post-processing on the displayed image to bolster contrast, sharpness, blur, or perhaps create an additional frame between two frames to simulate a higher refresh rate.

Then lastly there is a massive factor of panel size and viewing distance you need to factor in, there is a reason why PC gamers like the "smaller" more expensive details in games... Because we are also some of the first to pick up and notice them due to how close we sit to our displays.

I'm not disputing the fact that native content is superior though, but there is more to this issue than people actually realise.




www.youtube.com/@Pemalite

maxleresistant said:
bigtakilla said:

But people are always talking about "future proofing". Well that's exactly what scorpio will do in a nut shell. Not saying next gen machines won't be better, but with a 4k system at home, you got those cross gen titles that look good enough you can wait to upgrade. Especially if you're an xbox gamer. It's a pretty huge leap in architecture from 900p games to 4k.

 

Then add in that two + years from now could be the ps5, but two + years from Scorpio could be the next xbox thats more powerful than that. Which is why Xbox is essentially in a great position now, if they don't screw it up.

Futurproofing for what? A console should be relevant for 5/6 years. That's the norm. Thing is, if the Scorpio spends 2 years not selling because it's too expensive what's the point?

Especially when they will release a new system every 3 years or so... Then after the scorpio what happens? They have two choices, release a new model that will improve graphics as much but will again be way too expensive for the general public. Or make the smart decision of releasing a 400$ console that will basically be what the pro is to the PS4.

Anyway, besides the lack of 4K bluray, the PS4 pro is already " furturproofed" enough.

Depends on price. If I would pay $400 for what PS Pro has to offer, why wouldn't I pay $100 more and get native 4k and a 4k player?



Slimebeast said:
Peh said:

1080p is kind of unplayable on a 4k monitor. It looks awfully blurry.

Halflife 2 in 4k maxxed out AA

http://www.pic-upload.de/view-31674270/20160911_163611.jpg.html

close up:

http://www.pic-upload.de/view-31674283/20160911_163626.jpg.html

Halflife 2 in 1080 maxxed out AA

http://www.pic-upload.de/view-31674295/20160911_163659.jpg.html

close up:

http://www.pic-upload.de/view-31674304/20160911_163720.jpg.html

 

How can it look blurry? I understand it's blurry if the monitor upscales from 1080p to 4K (and uses an upscaling technique similar to those you linked to), but can't you prevent it from upscaling so that it remains the original sharp 1080p image?

Those pics don't work, except for one.

It's basically this :

http://www.red.com/learn/red-101/upscaled-1080P-vs-4K

I have no influence of what the monitor does with the image. I just imagine that the frame buffer in the monitor is always 4k whatever the size of the source frame is and it fills due to interpolation the missing dots.



Intel Core i7 8700K | 32 GB DDR 4 PC 3200 | ROG STRIX Z370-F Gaming | RTX 3090 FE| Crappy Monitor| HTC Vive Pro :3

Pemalite said:
Peh said:

What do you mean by "depends on the panel"?

I don't think a panel can get rid of the blurry picture by upscalling.

Nevertheless, I just checked again by not using AA. The 4k is crisp as it possibly can be. The upscalled 1080 image is still blurry. And obviously less details are being shown.

1080 upscaled no AA

http://www.pic-upload.de/view-31680389/20160912_124137.jpg.html

4k no AA

http://www.pic-upload.de/view-31680399/20160912_124225.jpg.html

By what I mean in regards to "depends on panel" is that some TV's have such poor Brightness and Colour calibration that resolution is less of a factor in the overall presentation of an image. (Aka. Resolution isn't everything.)

Secondly some TV's have scalers of questionable quality that may add noise or artifacts into the displayed image, in some more moderate scenario's you might get additional input lag.

Thirdly, some TV's will also do some post-processing on the displayed image to bolster contrast, sharpness, blur, or perhaps create an additional frame between two frames to simulate a higher refresh rate.

Then lastly there is a massive factor of panel size and viewing distance you need to factor in, there is a reason why PC gamers like the "smaller" more expensive details in games... Because we are also some of the first to pick up and notice them due to how close we sit to our displays.

I'm not disputing the fact that native content is superior though, but there is more to this issue than people actually realise.

Those pics are taken on a Monitor. Not a TV :) There is no post processing of the image.



Intel Core i7 8700K | 32 GB DDR 4 PC 3200 | ROG STRIX Z370-F Gaming | RTX 3090 FE| Crappy Monitor| HTC Vive Pro :3