Yep, this clears things up a lot, thanks.

I was not reffering to something as drastic as 900P, but whatever resolution north of 1080p they use before their reconstruction thingamagig.  As games get more demanding and they are optimizing around 6TFlop Scorpios and 10TFLOP GPU's...that native res is going to be pared back on PS4 Pro and it will start looking softer and softer in comparison.

That is just the nature of the beast. 500GFlops difference caused it, surely ~2 TFLOP difference will too.

I see what you mean now. You could be right but another aspect is that by the time the Scorpio rolls around, the PS4 will have sold about 70 million units whilst the Pro would probably have sold 5 million(rough estimate I know), so I think developers will focus their efforts on the console that has more users, rather than the most powerful console at the time. We saw this with the PS2 and original Xbox where the PS2 had a massive lead and got most of the focus and exclusives. But we shall see when the Scorpio rolls around. Alot can change in 14 months.

native 4k will have the edge but only very slightly and certainly not worth the extra investment. for a console to have full 4k the cost would be enourmous you would have to have a £400 gpu in there as a minimum.

ive read all the facebook hate comments towards the ps4 pro i think its mostly from pc fans. i dont think they know what they are talking about, this kit sony is bringing out is amazing value if you have a 4k tv with thier own patented upscale technology i bet the games look incredible

Native resolution will always be better.

MS has been doing the same thing on the XBox One, this is how Quantum Break runs at 1080p, even if it's not 'really' 1080p.

Slightly different as it takes data from previous frames and results in jagged edges whilst in motion. Rainbow Six Siege used checkerboard rendering but was done in the software, where the Pro does it within the hardware itself making it easier for developers.

First to get it out of the way, nothing can 100% accurately reconstruct missing pixel data.  However, rendering more pixels has a roughly linear cost while giving ever diminishing returns to what the eye can see.  

1080p is already really close to optimal resolution at normal view distances. Native 4k detail improvement is quite marginal without super sizing your TV-to-view-distance ratio. Rendering 2k and doing a high quality upscale is going to give you a majority of visual improvement that native 4k could. It's just a law of diminishing returns.  Rather than using 4X the power to render 4K you can use the power for other enhancements that are more easy to see.

The checkerboard solution is a good way to use half the pixel coverage with uniform scaling in both X & Y axes while minimizing softness.  Also the checkerboard pattern may be alternated each frame to get a higher temporal resolution (similar to interlacing).  It's already been done with great effect.  Nice one Sony if they have incorporated 'checker' rendering in hardware.

The hair strains on the left, the jaggies on the right shoulder, the more detailed skin texture...

The more detailed textures of the skull and the stones, the jaggies on the arrow shafts, the feathers on the arrows...

The whole point of the technique is to minimize blur compared to other upscaling alternatives.

Ultimately we're not dealing with infinite resources, so the question isn't is "4kChecker as good as 4k", but rather "is 4k so much better than 4kChecker to warrant dropping half the frame rate or half of the game's effects?"

Ah, you have to zoom in to see the difference?