PS4 and Xbox One resolution / frame rate discussion

[BajiRav]

I guess strictly speaking, 1080p is correct because the vertical resolution is still 1080 pixels tall? Even if the vertical resolution is 960...

Strictly speaking 1080p is defined as 1920x1080 or 16:9 ratio with a 1080 pixels in vertical direction.

 

The game is 960 x 1080 and is rendering lower number of pixels(1036800) than the Titanfall beta (1115136).

[JonnyLH]

Wow...didnt know Killzone:SF ran at sub HD resolution in multiplayer, was this known? Its framebuffer is 960x1080p and that's for an exclusive game!

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2014-in-theory-1080p30-or-720p60

just proves how meaningless this resolution/fps discussion really is.

edit: Sony lied?

http://blog.eu.playstation.com/2013/11/02/killzone-shadow-fall-campaign-hands-on-new-multiplayer-footage/

Hilarious. Got to say, this and the Ukraine crisis made for some interesting morning reading.

 

Regarding the solution they've implemented, its a very smart way of lowering the pixel count but keeping the IQ. Much better than simply up scaling a 720p image. The amount of people which seem to have been directly annoyed and upset by this on reddit and GAF is absurd. 

 

What's more important around this though is what Sony and GG made the general consensus believe on it's launch. That it was true 1080p. I'll be interested to see if there's any official word on it, even if that word comes from twitter. The only situation similar to this was Aaron Greenberg's tweet which mistakenly represented Ryse as a true 1080p game which he apologised for.

[E6B9VR]

I found these screens of Titanfall beta on NeoGAF.

At 792p, this looks pretty good IMO - I don't get why having this at 1080p will be better given that most people will not have time to look around in the heat of the battle. The game looks good and certainly plays good going by overwhelming positive reaction (despite what some may think, Microsoft can't buy every internet forum account for positive reaction).

 

Play a game on your PC monitor at native resolution, then change the resolution and look at the amount of blurring and aliasing, you can't honestly say that running a game around 792p is acceptable.

 

Try and downplay it by saying "you cant notice it in the heat of battle", increased pixel resolution means you can see and pick out targets more quickly and efficiently when they aren't just a bunch of blurred, aliased blobs somewhere on the screen.

[BajiRav]

Play a game on your PC monitor at native resolution, then change the resolution and look at the amount of blurring and aliasing, you can't honestly say that running a game around 792p is acceptable.

 

Try and downplay it by saying "you cant notice it in the heat of battle", increased pixel resolution means you can see and pick out targets more quickly and efficiently when they aren't just a bunch of blurred, aliased blobs somewhere on the screen.

I think I worded my post poorly - graphics will be undoubtedly better at 1080p. I meant to say the game looks pretty good even for 792p and is not a bad blurry mess that many people were claiming (not limited to Neowin).

 

My heat of the battle comment still stands true IMO and at least in my personal opinion. I can't remember the last time I wondered "wow leaves on that tree are badly aliases" during a multiplayer game.

[E6B9VR]

The problem is it's not just incidental graphics, it is everything on the screen. Look at the image I have attached full size, I have upscaled it to 1080p using a slight sharpening filter much like Xbox One scaler does and imagine a player on the ground next to the car, now imagine at 60fps with the screen all blurry and shimmering jaggies you can't possibly tell me that's acceptable.

[Jarrichvdv]

The problem is it's not just incidental graphics, it is everything on the screen. Look at the image I have attached full size, I have upscaled it to 1080p using a slight sharpening filter much like Xbox One scaler does and imagine a player on the ground next to the car, now imagine at 60fps with the screen all blurry and shimmering jaggies you can't possibly tell me that's acceptable.

Untitled-1.jpg

I'm sorry but the Titanfall beta looked a lot better than the image you've attached. This is just a crappy up-scale. The consoles have way better upscalers than that; also they fixed the sharpening filter in Xbox One to minimize jagged lines.

[BajiRav]

The problem is it's not just incidental graphics, it is everything on the screen. Look at the image I have attached full size, I have upscaled it to 1080p using a slight sharpening filter much like Xbox One scaler does and imagine a player on the ground next to the car, now imagine at 60fps with the screen all blurry and shimmering jaggies you can't possibly tell me that's acceptable.

 

I already agreed that true 1080p (or whatever is the native resolution of the display for a PC) will always be better. The graphics in Titanfall are still acceptable within the limits of hardware and for a console game. I would love to have movie quality CGI in games but that is not a reasonable expectation today.

 

You don't need to upscale the image, the one I posted on my original post is an actual capture.

[JonnyLH]

The problem is it's not just incidental graphics, it is everything on the screen. Look at the image I have attached full size, I have upscaled it to 1080p using a slight sharpening filter much like Xbox One scaler does and imagine a player on the ground next to the car, now imagine at 60fps with the screen all blurry and shimmering jaggies you can't possibly tell me that's acceptable.

You know what annoys me, when people put pictures into Photoshop and say this is the achieving image of a high-end scaler which uses a lot of different methods to provide the cleanest IQ possible. Also, the sharpening filter got removed in the last update. I don't need to imagine, because I played the beta and the alpha, it's a mighty fun game in which you forget about the resolution its played at as soon as you hit to sprint on your controller.

 

Upscaling on monitors and TVs is known to be terrible. The Xbox handles managing that exceptionally.

 

You also forget that publicly Respawn have said they're working on up'ing the resolution to 900p. They wouldn't of said that unless they didn't think its possible.

 

Although this makes things better, games still should be running 1080p native in 2014.

[Jarrichvdv]

-snip-, games still should be running 1080p native in 2014.

... depending on what hardware you get. You can't expect high-end performance for 399 (or 499, in case of Xbox One)

For their prices, both are outputting marvellous graphics (look at Ryse: Son of Rome and Forza, or KZ: Shadow Fall)

[E6B9VR]

I already agreed that true 1080p (or whatever is the native resolution of the display for a PC) will always be better. The graphics in Titanfall are still acceptable within the limits of hardware and for a console game. I would love to have movie quality CGI in games but that is not a reasonable expectation today.

 

You don't need to upscale the image, the one I posted on my original post is an actual capture.

Actual capture, looking at it on a PC monitor where the pixels are 1:1, not looking at the upscaled end result so you can't compare.

 

 

You know what annoys me, when people put pictures into Photoshop and say this is the achieving image of a high-end scaler which uses a lot of different methods to provide the cleanest IQ possible. Also, the sharpening filter got removed in the last update. I don't need to imagine, because I played the beta and the alpha, it's a mighty fun game in which you forget about the resolution its played at as soon as you hit to sprint on your controller.

I never said it was exact but have you actually seen the Xbox One scaler, it is terrible.

[JonnyLH]

... depending on what hardware you get. You can't expect high-end performance for 399 (or 499, in case of Xbox One)

For their prices, both are outputting marvellous graphics (look at Ryse: Son of Rome and Forza, or KZ: Shadow Fall)

I don't if my expectations are too high, or others are too low.

 

Ryse definitely does prove that you don't need 1:1 pixels to have a stunning game.

I never said it was exact but have you actually seen the Xbox One scaler, it is terrible.

The sharpening filter pre-February update was terrible. There's a difference.

[Jarrichvdv]

Actual capture, looking at it on a PC monitor where the pixels are 1:1, not looking at the upscaled end result so you can't compare.

 

 

 

I never said it was exact but have you actually seen the Xbox One scaler, it is terrible.

The Xbox One scalar is superb, but the sharpening filter was terrible.

WAS, as it was removed in the latest update.

[E6B9VR]

Looks like I've come to the wrong place to discuss such subjects, I don't understand why people get so needlessly defensive.

 

Upscaled or not 1080p will always look better natively than 720p, or 792p or 900p no matter how fanatical you are towards whatever console you have.

 

792p is unacceptable for a competitive shooter where you have big mechs vs small infantry especially trying to pick them out at a distance when its upscaled and blurry.

[JonnyLH]

Looks like I've come to the wrong place to discuss such subjects, I don't understand why people get so needlessly defensive.

 

Upscaled or not 1080p will always look better natively than 720p, or 792p or 900p no matter how fanatical you are towards whatever console you have.

You came in with an attacking tone yourself, the harshness with the upscaler was fixed in February and this will always be considerably better than results in Monitors/TVs. Sorry you got such a harsh welcoming, but it gets quite intense in the gaming forums.

 

None of us are denying that 1080p will always look better, because it will. I personally, hate that we get sub-1080p games in this generation but I'm proven wrong with games like Ryse.

[E6B9VR]

I didn't enjoy Ryse, I agree it looks amazing but I am not a fan of how soft everything is. I prefer 1080p native, pin sharp graphics even if I have to suffer some jaggies.

[JonnyLH]

I didn't enjoy Ryse, I agree it looks amazing but I am not a fan of how soft everything is. I prefer 1080p native, pin sharp graphics even if I have to suffer some jaggies.

Ofcourse I prefer 1080p native, but in the case of Ryse, I definitely prefer the shine they added to the game rather than going 1080p. Which Crytek said themselves.

 

Although, to not enjoy a game sorely because of it's soft look is naive. The narrative in Ryse and even the MP is very fun in short bursts.

[E6B9VR]

I didn't mean I didn't enjoy it because of the graphics, it's just not my kind of game and you can tell it started life as a Kinect game.

[JonnyLH]

I didn't mean I didn't enjoy it because of the graphics, it's just not my kind of game and you can tell it started life as a Kinect game.

I apologise then, I personally really enjoyed it and didn't think it was rewarding of the reviews it got. Can't argue with opinion.

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

It's interesting how they've done things with KZ (the actual tech is better than typical upscaling - could be put to good use), but very misleading not to have been open about it. Sony won't comment on it (or will simply say SP is 1080p), maybe Guerilla will, but it's been 4 months and besides motion blur complaints about MP it's largely gone unnoticed. However when you're led to believe something is 1080p you'll more than likely accept that and put discrepancies down to something like motion blur.

 

How did DF do articles on KZ SF and only now notice this?

[trooper11]

It's interesting how they've done things with KZ (the actual tech is better than typical upscaling - could be put to good use), but very misleading not to have been open about it. Sony won't comment on it (or will simply say SP is 1080p), maybe Guerilla will, but it's been 4 months and besides motion blur complaints about MP it's largely gone unnoticed. However when you're led to believe something is 1080p you'll more than likely accept that and put discrepancies down to something like motion blur.

 

How did DF do articles on KZ SF and only now notice this?

Open about what? Are you talking about the frame rate differences or something else?

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

Open about what? Are you talking about the frame rate differences or something else?

 

Open about what they were doing for the MP resolution. People were just going around saying the reason the SP is 1080p/30FPS is due to MP being less taxing (less graphical effects/ect). However, in reality it was doing 60FPS due to the frame buffer tech they've "invented" (this isn't the same as Halos HDR lighting before anyone comments), and quite apparently the engine/PS4 can't do 1080p/60FPS with KZ.

 

We especially need transparency if this is something that is to be happening on a regular basis, as one dev thinks

 

post from sebbbi, Trials HD dev, on B3D

1080i is much better than 720p in most cases if you use good software deinterlacing algorithm. Inside the rendering engine you know exactly how much each pixel has moved from the last frame, so you don't need to analyze the movement on screen like TV sets do. The result is much better. Stalker game used similar approach last gen.

 

Also refreshing every single pixel per frame is not always the wisest thing to do. Most pixels (in a 60 fps game) could just be reprojected (+ color tinted) without any noticeable image quality difference. This is exactly what modern video compression algorithms (including BluRay) do. There will be games that use similar rendering techniques in the future. It's completely dynamic how big percentage of the screen these styles of rendering engines will recalculate every frame (as the error metrics will dictate that). The final output of course will be 1080p, but some low contrast areas might sometimes be more blurry (because the human eye doesn't notice the difference in motion). Enlarged screenshots however would look partially blurry (just like BluRay screenshots look like).

[DirtyLarry Veteran]

 

Question why that is the case?  So you had no idea that the gpu on the ps4 was more powerful before you purchased both consoles?

 

Come on, your more tech savy than that.

 

However, everyone has the right to seek out information and be informed before they make any purchase whether that is a game console or a game. 

I only saw this now so late to replying, but seriously?

Actually on paper the PS4 and One seem to have pretty similar specifications. obviously those of us who paid attention did know there was a significant difference of the type of RAM each console would utilize, but no, I am not "tech savvy" enough to know what the difference in RAM on a gaming console will actually have on games until I start seeing some technical reviews of the games themselves, which for both consoles were not really released until the weeks leading up to their launch. Sure we knew some target resolutions and frame rates, but still until the consoles were actually in the wild to so speak, a lot of it was just speculation.

 

So no, I really do not have any real idea on just how the difference in RAM was going to affect actual games other than speculation made by people who clearly know more than me in regards to those specifications. And I have always believed "the proof is in the pudding," so until I saw some concrete proof one console was better than the other, I held off forming any sort of definitive opinion.

 

And was I somehow wrong for giving MS the benefit of the doubt with the One and thinking that games would possibly be similar on both consoles? Really? Are you insinuating I should have known all along because of the specifications that were released that multiplatform titles would have had the distinct advantage on the PS4 and as such I have no place to now question such things as a consumer? Really? Nevermind the fact I could dismiss the lack of 1080p on the One and a lot of the launch titles on being just that, launch titles.

 

So you asking me this question based on the comment you quoted me on makes it seem like I cannot question after the fact why the One is struggling to hit 1080p just because I knew the technical specifications of both consoles prior to them being released? And because I did know the technical specifications of the consoles I should not question anything? That is absurd to even insinuate.

 

I feel like a broken record at this point, but I once again need to state it is no doubt the gameplay that makes the game. However I am not going to sit there and say resolution is not relative and or it is not preferred that games actually run at a native resolution and I will also not agree to the fact that somehow I should have known this was going to be the case prior to the consoles being released. Now that it is pretty clear what we are facing, yes, as a consumer who has spent 100's of dollars on each console, I am going to ask why, and continue asking why. Someone dropped the ball.

[E6B9VR]

I only saw this now so late to replying, but seriously?

Actually on paper the PS4 and One seem to have pretty similar specifications.

To the layman they do, the PS4 GPU has 6CU advantage, 12 on Xbox One and 18 on PS4, including double the ROPS which is a massive advantage and that isn't even touching on the whole ESRAM/DDR3 combo situation.

 

I think the problem is only going to get worse, ESRAM goes some way to mitigate the bandwidth bottleneck with DDR3, I think the Xbox One GPU has more to give but developers are always going to be limited by the memory setup in the Xbox One.

 

You are either going to have resolution parity and missing effects/lower framerate on Xbox, or graphical feature/framerate parity but lower resolution.

[vcfan]

Open about what they were doing for the MP resolution. People were just going around saying the reason the SP is 1080p/30FPS is due to MP being less taxing (less graphical effects/ect). However, in reality it was doing 60FPS due to the frame buffer tech they've "invented" (this isn't the same as Halos HDR lighting before anyone comments), and quite apparently the engine/PS4 can't do 1080p/60FPS with KZ.

 

We especially need transparency if this is something that is to be happening on a regular basis, as one dev thinks

 

1080i is nothing new. This is pretty much using interlacing in the other polarity.

[BajiRav]

To the layman they do, the PS4 GPU has 6CU advantage, 12 on Xbox One and 18 on PS4, including double the ROPS which is a massive advantage and that isn't even touching on the whole ESRAM/DDR3 combo situation.

 

I think the problem is only going to get worse, ESRAM goes some way to mitigate the bandwidth bottleneck with DDR3, I think the Xbox One GPU has more to give but developers are always going to be limited by the memory setup in the Xbox One.

 

You are either going to have resolution parity and missing effects/lower framerate on Xbox, or graphical feature/framerate parity but lower resolution.

If Layman means average console buyer - then no, they don't know how many CUs or ROPs each console has.