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

Forums - Sony - Uncharted 4 PS4 vs PS4 Pro Screenshot comparison in 1080p

Zekkyou on 06 November 2016
LudicrousSpeed said:
Not much difference there, and that's zoomed in. Will be even harder to notice while playing.

Are they at least making the SP 60fps or something?

This isn't something you should really expect from major AAA titles. In can happen in certain games, but in most instances the Pro's CPU won't facilitate doubling the frame-rate. This will likely be the case for the Scorpio too if it's not using Zen.



Around the Network
DonFerrari on 06 November 2016
onionberry said:
DonFerrari said:

Yes it's, downsampling and better texturing make the pro version better.

I see the same textures at a higher resolution, that's not better textures that's more fidelity to the original textures. Like when you play old 64 games on an emulator, same textures, higher fidelity.

both are being rendered at 1080p screen.



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."

jonathanalis on 06 November 2016
Intrinsic said:
jonathanalis said:
original ps4 uncharted 4 is not in 1080p?
the resolution gain is crystal clear, but if the u4 is already 1080 on old, we wouldnt see any resolution gain on 1080p screen ps4 pro.

1440p>1080p

On a per picel basis the amount of data resolved is fixed. So if you resolve for a 1080p image you will never see 1440p/1800p/2160p details automagically appearing.

But if you resolve for a 1440p image, as is rumoured to be the case with U4 on the PS4pro, downsampling/supersampling from that to 1080p carries most of the detail rendered at that higher rez and makes them vissible on a 1080p set. It will still not be tbe same as running it natively or on a higher resolution display but thsts more to do with the screen door effect (think gaps beteeen pixels, more pixels you hsve the harddr those gaps are to spot) than anything else.

The "resolution gain" you are seeing in these comparison shots is due to  the reference image (game running on PS4pro@1440p instead of 1080p) having a higher pixel density (which means more details are resolved).

On a 4k display, this would look even better than what you are looking at here. 

When you downsample a 1440 image to 1080, it losses all the high frequency information, so is basically the same thing as rendering at 1080p, in details. It is what maths from nyquist shannon sampling theorem tells.

The only advantage is on AA.



jonathanalis on 06 November 2016
SvennoJ said:
jonathanalis said:

jpeg compresses better (in less bytes) a low quality than a high quality image.

So, maybe the not compressed version of ps4 is lower quality compared to pro imae version.

Nah the ps4 pro image is saved at 3840x2160, hence the big difference in file size.
Comparing image quality on images that have been compressed down to 3.3% of their original size is what's a bit pointless.
Actually the ps4 version is less compressed at 5.1% of its original size. 1:20 vs 1:30

The hair looking weird is all because of compression artifacts.

ok. i though the images were output from tv and had same sizes.



onionberry on 06 November 2016
DonFerrari said:
onionberry said:

I see the same textures at a higher resolution, that's not better textures that's more fidelity to the original textures. Like when you play old 64 games on an emulator, same textures, higher fidelity.

both are being rendered at 1080p screen.

Supersampling



Around the Network
Intrinsic on 06 November 2016
jonathanalis said:

When you downsample a 1440 image to 1080, it losses all the high frequency information, so is basically the same thing as rendering at 1080p, in details. It is what maths from nyquist shannon sampling theorem tells.

The only advantage is on AA.

No, it just doesn't work that way.

The biggest most obvious advantage is AA, but you do end up with a better all round image that shows more detail when downsampled from a higher resolution. Maybe, the reason we see more detail is that with the inherent better  AA we end up with what appears to be a cleaner sharper image. I don't know, but this much is certain, you take a 1440p native render downsampled to a 1080p output screen gives you a better image than a native 1080p render outputting on a 1080p screen. 

The higher you go in pixels from the downsampled target the better your results. When you think of it, every form of AA is in truth supersampling. Basically rendering more pixels than your native render.



SvennoJ on 06 November 2016
Intrinsic said:
jonathanalis said:

When you downsample a 1440 image to 1080, it losses all the high frequency information, so is basically the same thing as rendering at 1080p, in details. It is what maths from nyquist shannon sampling theorem tells.

The only advantage is on AA.

No, it just doesn't work that way.

The biggest most obvious advantage is AA, but you do end up with a better all round image that shows more detail when downsampled from a higher resolution. Maybe, the reason we see more detail is that with the inherent better  AA we end up with what appears to be a cleaner sharper image. I don't know, but this much is certain, you take a 1440p native render downsampled to a 1080p output screen gives you a better image than a native 1080p render outputting on a 1080p screen. 

The higher you go in pixels from the downsampled target the better your results. When you think of it, every form of AA is in truth supersampling. Basically rendering more pixels than your native render.

I agree, but not every form of AA though. FXAA only blurs edges after the image has already been rendered. Only AA implementations that work while rendering increase detail.
In theory you can render the same quality image without super sampling, yet the easiest way to do that, is by super sampling. There are so many different effect layers nowadays that it's a nightmare to get all the efficient (direct to 1080p) AA techniques to work nice together.



Suke on 06 November 2016

This is just getting stupid, YES, there's a different but .....come on. Will this improve the framerate. what is the purpose of this...... :L



“Don’t follow the hype, follow the games”

— 

Here a little quote I want for those to keep memorize in your head for this coming next gen.                            

 By: Suke
Cirio on 06 November 2016

Not seeing $400 worth of upgrades here...



Conina on 06 November 2016
Suke said:
This is just getting stupid, YES, there's a different but .....come on. Will this improve the framerate. what is the purpose of this...... :L

The purposes of it are

  • higher resolution in some games on 4K-displays / better antialiasing thanks to supersampling on 1080p-displays
  • more details in some games (more objects, foliage, different NPCs, better textures...)
  • better postprocessing-effects in some games (shadows, water-shaders, depth of field...)
  • better performance in some games (more stable framerates, less slowdowns)
  • higher framerates in less demanding games (60 fps instead of 30 fps, many indie games will use that)
  • a combination of some (not all!) the improvement-options above

The differences to the normal PS4 version will of course depend on several factors:

  • display resolution
  • display size
  • distance to the display
  • eyesight of the player(s)
  • tolerance of the player(s) to slowdowns and jaggies
  • skill and effort of the developers