Wait.... in the posted images the differemces are so glaringly obvious that you can honestly say it comes nothing close to 4k? And without you zooming in and focusing on spots that are more lilely to show flaws that you typically wont be able to possobly see when sitting on your couch plauing the game??? Honestly, if that were the case, then no one would or should have to zoom in to point out how different they are. That alone is unnatural to a typical usage scenario. There were some images of BF4 around when the PS4/XB1 launched comparing the two games together. Just from simply looking at a screenshot it's easy to spot how they were different. no zooming needed. If you honestly are so stuck up in whatever graphical world you live in that you can't appreciate that we are at a point where a $400 4.2TF console can somehow achieve passable 4k that requires a magnifying glass to spot the "obvious" differences then the whole point of this thread is lost on you. 

You can piss on the tech all you want  or dowmplay it all you want. Fact remains that it yeilds really hood results. Espeically when you consider the cost of the box in question. 

This is funny, it's like you got into a Ferrari, beat it around a track and come out saying how awesome and fast the ride was... only for them to pop the hood and u see it had a Toyota engine and all of a sudden you go... "yh, no wonder it was so slow. worst ride ever". 

Probably these 0.5 GB it will also be available to PS4 OG/Slim after their November firmware updates. Sony always shrinked the OS footprint over the years.

Half the resolution of 4k is not 4k. I don't know why it is so hard to understand. If the result is a blurry image, then it doesn't matter to me that it has been rendered with god's approved gaming device. It still misses half of the information what makes 4k -> 4k and it's blurry. Passable 4k is still not 4k.

My BluRay player can also upscale to 4k. Yet, I don't call it a 4k BluRay player.

I'm not denying the archievement in graphical power on a console by this low price point. But at the same time, I am not trying to make it something which is not.

And the graphical world I am currently stuck in is simply PC native 4k gaming. 

That would make sense, I don't know I just expect they would announce that if true, but that's probably too logical.  
Honestly, you'd think they could have pared down the OS reservation more by this point, especially as they don't have the "snap" like MS.
(AFAIK, there actually is another 256mb pool that is rarely mentioned, that could be increased for stuff like video streaming/ screenshot)

Where/when was this said?? If true, WOW lol.

The ONLY zoomed picture in this whole thread was the last close-up of laras neck&shoulder, the other ones were 1:1-sections of the 4K-pictures for the people here, who are even too lazy to open the 4k-pictures in fullscreen (and even there you have to maximize the picture on a 1080p-display) to see the differences and just took a quick look in the forum display and "see no difference"

I think you  and Peh are really missing the point of this thread. I'm not saying there ISN'T a differrence. Yes, 4kc will never look as good as a native 4k. Thats never been in debate.

But the point is simple, is 4kc providing a good enough imporovememnt over 1080p? Will that difference be something that will look sooo bad and detract from the overall I at a glance in comparison to native 4k under normal use situations? Is or should pushing more pixels natively be proposed over pushing pixels "smarter" with less a hit to resources while still achieving results that are better than 1440p which just up till september 7th seemed to have been perfect and ok for most gamers?

Hopefully some here in the know can shed some light on these, but here are my thoughts.

Ok, so Sony has a patent on the tech they use for PS4pro "checkerboard" upscaling or uprendering or whatever. Basically, a native 4k image is made up of 4 1080p images. This method natively renders just two of those 4 images and then reconstructs the other two images from the native pair. The end result is a "native" 4k frame buffer that is made up of 50% native pixels and 50% reconstructed pixels. 

Sony went the extra step of customizing their Polaris GPU from AMD with what I'll call henceforth Up Rez Engines (URE) which makes this process have zero cost to the developers rendering pipeline. 

It's left to be seen how effective this method really is without any side by side comparisons, but it's my guess that if its done in hardware and not a software implementation then it would yield all round better results than however it's been implemented in the past. We do however have a number of games shown so far that uses this tech; Horizon, Days Gone, ME:A. Tomb Raider....etc. 

I find this all somewhat intriguing. GPUs are constantly implementing things in hardware that automates a number of redundant rendering techniques so they don't all have to be done in software. That's arguably the key advantage of a GPU. But never has a GPU been built with hardware to make this pixel rendering technique possible/inherent. And I'm wondering why....

I've looked at screen shots of the Tomb Raider comparison, and while I still stand by my belief that we need more material to make such comparisons, I think it holds up very very well to native renders. 

So why are GPU manufacturers not baking hardware like this into their GPUs, it literally allows you create a passable faux 4k render while using only half the power requirement and massive reductions in the required memory bandwidth. In a machine that has the power overhead to do "native" 4k, this would mean that you have enough power to not just make its the prettiest looking faux 4k possible but even to make it run at 60fps. 

As I said, it's all still left to be seen, but if from comparisons it's extremely hard to tell the difference... then shouldnt GPU manufacturers at least consider making this an option? Unless of course sonys patent prevents them from doing that. 

Discuss!!