CyberPunked
Member
So superior textures, and post processing effects such as DOF on PC. No suprise there. I feel the comparable PC settings would be Medium/High.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Tomb Raider PS4 Pro version vs PC Maxed out 4k screenshot comparison
- Thread starter Wishmaster92
- Start date
So superior textures, and post processing effects such as DOF on PC. No suprise there. I feel the comparable PC settings would be Medium/High.
Practically non existent. At CES earlier this year there was not a single vendor that offered a 1080p HDR TV. Some projectors might be capable of doing it but flat screen panels no so much. The cost of implementing the technology would make the TV closer in price to its 4K brethren.
Sanctuary
Member
Right, but I would rather say uncommon (or rare) than saying "they don't exist", because they do. I guess they are adding HDR support to all PS4s just for those that have a 4K TV but are staying with the OG PS4. All I can say about that though is: Yuck.
NOLA_Gaffer
Banned
I'm just saying that to the average person they're damn close enough that it doesn't matter. The real test is in the framerate department, which still frames won't show.
And yes I probably do need Lasik...though the thought of someone trying to fix my poor eyesight via lasers makes me uncomfortable.
ViolentP
Member
Lasers shouldn't go into eyes, only out of them.
Fabtacular
Member
You're not wrong. GAF is a bubble where people pick over the minutiae. The vast majority of people entirely overlook the issues that are the entire focus of every DF article.
But the weird thing is that it's not like GAF is just super into visuals. So many people here were saying how UHD Blu-Ray wasn't important because they can already stream 4K on Netflix. Go to AVS Forums and those people would have a god damned heart attack at the suggestion that the quality of a Netflix stream is comparable to UHD-BR.
Ditto.
kraspkibble
Permabanned.
Ps4 pro looks really blurry. 4k native is far more sharp looking. Honestly whats the point? This simply isn't 4k. Should've just stayed at 1080p and focused the extra power into framerate or graphics.
If you think TR is really blurry at 4K/'4K' on PS4 Pro, staying at 1080p on a 4K TV will only be significantly blurrier again. That's the point for the 4K owner - to have a cleaner image than a standard 1080p output would net them.
That buzzword "PBR lighting" as if the current game doesn't already use PBR (even if energy conservation is broken, but that's on developers...not the hardware)
I don't see how this is really blurry.
I don't see how this is really blurry.
Sanctuary
Member
Yep. I can't understand this at all and can only chalk it up to people simply not actually seeing uncompressed 4K content. The titles that support HDR through streaming are going to look noticeably different than 1080p discs sure, but they aren't going to look as good as a UHD. Too many compression artifacts still. You also aren't going to get DTS:X or Atmos through Netflix (hell, at least half of their shows still don't even support DD 5.1). Someone mentioned that Vudu supports that, but it also requires a Roku or another specialized device, and they also don't have nearly as much content as Netflix overall right now.
It also doesn't help that close to 80% of the households in the US can't even reliably stream 4K anyway.
I'd also disagree though that GAF aren't "super into visuals". At least not in terms of games anyway. If that were the case, you wouldn't see games like TLOU, UC4 and TW3 being as lauded as much as they are, when clearly their presentation is why they are praised so much. Not the gameplay.
Whoah. I thought I was replying in the Paragon comparison thread. Anyway, the shot for TR is a bit blurry, but the Paragon shots show a clear difference between 1080p and the upres. Even when it's not at a native 4K, it still looks quite a bit better.
potatohead
Member
Yep.
They are right too. UHD 4K via BD is a lot better than the streaming. Same for 1080p streaming versus 1080p BD.
For most people though it doesn't even matter, because they really won't notice. To the advantage of the streaming companies of course.
metareferential
Member
A close up on a face isn't going to show much, though.
We need a panoramic shot, something with finer detail and draw distance. That's where FauxK shows up xD
We need a panoramic shot, something with finer detail and draw distance. That's where FauxK shows up xD
killatopak
Member
I honestly think the PS4 one looks better but it's mainly because of the lighting. I could still see those blur on her hair and stuff but it's mostly unnoticeable and I had to look for it. The lighting just took me a single look to see how good it is. If this is what HDR means then I'll probably be buying a 4k tv in the future.
RedAssedApe
Banned
i want to see the 1080p30 version for us ps4 poors that don't have 4k/hdr capable tvs
It's not what it means. The light parameters are just set differently in the 2 versions for some reason. If you could show HDR on your screen then why would you need a special screen for it?
thebesttheworst
Member
I want this also, but my image quality and OCD tweaking part of my brain does not. ;-)
I'd be play opening tutorials for a week before I settled on a preffered setting to crack on and play the game with.
It's why I never lasted more than 5 years as a PC gamer - too much tweaking options and frame rate settings and not enough actual playing the game.
killatopak
Member
The settings on the first one is better then lol.
I think you can show it although not entirely. If what Mark Cerny showed in the meeting is true then looking at the comparison thing he did of a landscape picture which differentiated a standard pic and an hdr pic, you can still make a comparison even on a non hdr screen.
What they do there is take a normal image as the 'HDR' and make the 'non-HDR' one look worse than it would normally, or 'less-HDR' than it would normally. So you still see the effect but only in inverse if that makes sense.
Insumatposa
Member
PureHair is not HairWorks. It is a custom modified version of TressFX 3.0 done by Crystal Dynamics.
So wait, Rise of the Tomb Raider is only 30fps on the PS Poor? Definitive Edition was near 60 and it looked great. What was the Xbone version of Rise? Its like $20 now so if that runs near 60 I might want that one instead.
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
Xbone version was 30 FPS.
Pro lets you choose between 3 modes:
1. 4K @ 30 FPS (not sure if this has all the effects cranked to high as option 3 does)
2. 1080p @ Unlocked (Currently at 45~60 FPS range, might improve before release)
3. 1080p @ 30 with all features cranked to max (lighting, effects etc).
Sauce
Unknown Soldier
Member
Where have you been? So many opportunities you've missed...
Bitch Pudding
Member
Looks good for what it is.
Face looks much better on PC, though:
Face looks much better on PC, though:
ShooterMcTavish
Banned
Looks good for what it is.
Lol I find it funny we are arguing about diff when it takes everyone at least 5-10 seconds of looking to point out the diff, and this is with a still image. Now do the same once it's in motion.
It looks really good, end of story
Gemüsepizza
Member
Pretty easy when the PS4 Pro will be limited to 30 fps in most games, while PC isn't. Also, of course it's hard to see much differences in the pictures you have quoted, when there isn't much displayed in the first place .
The only people who are going to call out the discrepancies in-game are likely people that already have a beast of a PC and some experience playing in 4k. In other words, not really the target market here. That's pretty incredible for $400. I'm thoroughly aroused.
rokkerkory
Member
The 4k comparisons going fwd are going to be very very interesting
It really doesn't take five or ten seconds to see the difference. Maybe it takes that long to put it into words but the difference is perceptible instantaneously. The 4k is simply much sharper than the upscaled 1080p.
Now what we need to see is if this upscaling method is significantly better than normal upscaling for which we'd need a 1080p shot of the same frame.
The question now is if it will produce a better image than 1080p at 1080p, and looks like it might, and by a non trivial margin!
My worry is how bad artifacts can get at high-rate of movement, but restricting games to 30fps might do the trick?
Well, you'd want higher framerate for fewer temporal artifacts - the issue there is with fast moving scenes rather than fast framerate. But if you're viewing at 1080p, that's not going to be an issue - afterall, it's still substantially more information than just the native 1080p frame. And while I can't say first hand about the 4K image, I'm guessing it will fair better perceptually on this front than earlier goes at lower resolutions did. A game could probably do some extra things in fast moving scenes to diminish any artifacts further (e.g. a decent motion blur), though obviously that's a much more game dependent thing.
So PS Poor version will just run at 30fps?
Unknown Soldier
Member
So true 4K on PC looks noticeably better than FauxK on PS4 Pro. I'm not surprised.
You are right! I was thinking about it backwards.
I got a feeling they're gonna get real annoying real fast. "You think that looks good? Check out this screenshot I took from my $1,200 PC!"
Looks good considering its using samples based on resolutions far higher than the base 1080p option.
Yeah, the graphic settings got turned down(closer to PS4 OG), but for the 1080p graphics mode, i really expect it to shoot back up in ultra settings.
Yeah? That's the long and short of it. Also, why do you keep saying "PSpoor"? Is that supposed to be funny?
Yeah, the graphic settings got turned down(closer to PS4 OG), but for the 1080p graphics mode, i really expect it to shoot back up in ultra settings.
Yeah? That's the long and short of it. Also, why do you keep saying "PSpoor"? Is that supposed to be funny?
dragonfart28
Banned
You don't play on a 4K TV 2 inches away from the screen.
You're in your couch.
The flaws are much harder to see then.
PC gaming demand extreme sharpness because you're right in front of your monitor.
If you play your PC games on TV it looks great and when you need more FPS you can easily lower some graphical settings, and won't notice much of a difference visually.
You're in your couch.
The flaws are much harder to see then.
PC gaming demand extreme sharpness because you're right in front of your monitor.
If you play your PC games on TV it looks great and when you need more FPS you can easily lower some graphical settings, and won't notice much of a difference visually.
TerryLee81
Member
Of course 4k native looks more sharp, but for $400 it looks really good!
That should be fairly obvious. There's no way an imitation can surpass the original(unless your Shirou). The point is that the checkerboard rendering technique to display at higher resolutions looks far better than a normal 1080p frame, to the point where it scales much better when output to 4K displays or downscaled to 1080p displays. It bridges the gap a fair amount, even if it doesn't hit the mark of a native 4K frame.
killatopak
Member
People tend to forget how much money it took for that 4K screenshot to be made on PC.
CaptainSmirnov
Member
Eh people love to hate, what can you do.
I think the face crops are a little unflattering to the PS4 Pro shot...there's an extra near-range light source there contributing that is perhap wash a little detail/contrast away that might be there otherwise. It is still not quite the same resolved detail, but if the PS4 Pro version had the same render bug as the PC shot and was missing that blue 'wash' over the face, it would be a little bit more apples-to-apples.
Undead Hero
Member
Not even paying attention until it's 60+ fps as well.
Who would that be? Pointing out differences doesn't mean that you no longer remember the price of goods.
Forsaken82
Member
Wish I had your eyes... Must be nice ignoring the washed out colors