There is no classic upscaling.
It's closer to interleaved rendering.
-
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.
Digital Foundry: [4K] InFamous First Light - PS4 Pro Upgrade Analysed!
- Thread starter Nachtfalke
- Start date
It's closer to interleaved rendering.
Yes it is, and many games are doing it and will do it. It doesn't look terrible because of how the checkerboard works.
Also as we've said before, straight up scaling from 1800p on a 2160p screen looks much better than from 900p on a 1080 screen due to pixel density.
Then I'm just not sensitive or maybe I just enjoy the game rather than the performance or I have low standards
Also the last time I played a game was in 2013 lol (why am I at a gaming forum if I'm not playing haha)
NXGamer
Member
This is compulsory (as much as can be) writing shader code with 16-bit or 32-bit variables is not something that takes huge work. Unless you are going to recalculate iteratively over long numbers the need for 32 is not as high as required.
The big issue is writing 16-bit code until now gained you no real benefit, as the same reg space was used. This will be used for sure, not just in Pro titles and it will not cause vast amounts of work.
I'll be curious to see how useful half floats actually are. 16 bit computation could be problematic due to a significant loss in precision making it useless for more complex operations though it could be utilized for things such as post processing, bloom lighting, motion blur, and perhaps even ambient occlusion.
There are other bottlenecks in the system to consider as well which may well negate the benefits of using half floats.
I really don't think 16-bit operations can transform a 4.2TF machine into a full on 8.4TF system, which is what headlines seemed to be suggesting, but there is definitely some additional performance to be gained if used smartly.
16-bit seems more useful for things like render targets and the like where you're storing data, though that too could result in artefacts if you're not careful, I believe.
I'm more interested in other features of the Pro such as the geometry upscaling technique which should give you razor sharp edges while performing shading operations etc. at a lower resolution. 4K displays feature such a high pixel density that skimping on aspects of the visuals doesn't necessarily have a dramatic impact on overall image quality from normal viewing distances.
...well, there's more to the Pro than these features. Curious to see where we end up.
There are other bottlenecks in the system to consider as well which may well negate the benefits of using half floats.
I really don't think 16-bit operations can transform a 4.2TF machine into a full on 8.4TF system, which is what headlines seemed to be suggesting, but there is definitely some additional performance to be gained if used smartly.
16-bit seems more useful for things like render targets and the like where you're storing data, though that too could result in artefacts if you're not careful, I believe.
I'm more interested in other features of the Pro such as the geometry upscaling technique which should give you razor sharp edges while performing shading operations etc. at a lower resolution. 4K displays feature such a high pixel density that skimping on aspects of the visuals doesn't necessarily have a dramatic impact on overall image quality from normal viewing distances.
...well, there's more to the Pro than these features. Curious to see where we end up.
Chocolate & Vanilla
Fuck Strawberry
If understand correctly, checkerboard is a part of the actual render of the raw image - before any post processing.
Traditional upscaling is done on the final image data after all rendering/post-processing?
Layman's terms, obviously.
Traditional upscaling is done on the final image data after all rendering/post-processing?
Layman's terms, obviously.
I honestly don't understand why this is so hard for some people to understand PS4 Pro peak performance is 8.4TF when using FP16, this isn't something that's up for debate & it's silly that people argue against this fact just because they have a made up idea about what a TF is . as long as FP16/half precision /half float /16-bit is mentioned when saying 8.4TF there shouldn't be any confusion. the confusion come from trying to limit it to only FP32.
Peak performance, sure, but that's not realistic in a modern game. That's the point.
That's the way it has always been so why try to change it now?
Blackpanther25
Member
I bought a infamous when it first released but I never got passed the introduction. Now I get this game in 4k with unlimited fps?! Game on
They also implemented both checkerboard and geometry rendering.
Sadly only checkerboard was released to public.
thelastword
Banned
It bodes well, we're looking at better textures and presets on the PC side. If all things are equal as it relates to graphical settings, I believe the comparison becomes a better one....I can see this difference from 8ft away, crop is one to one. Not anything like 4k resolution. EDIT make that 12ft, as far as I can go without moving my furniture.
Doesn't bode well if this is true 2160p checkerboarding and not 1800p checkboarding.
Anyway, I feel the PC 4k native comparisons are a bit silly. Best to compare how much better than the OG PS4 or if there's going to be a PC comparison lets see how checkerboarding fares to standard upscale of native 1440p 1800p and then 2160p native for some context on what checkerboard delivers.
Perhaps you should have been there when Cerny was showing 4k Native vs Checkerboard games at the last conference, I think most persons were really impressed by how good checkerboarding was.....and even now, that is true in the games we have seen.
I'm not sure the comparison is to be done how you have presented it here though, I have watched the Patreon video and TR holds pretty well outside of the better settings on PC.
Of course I'm not saying that 4k native is indistinguishable from checkerboard rendering, I'm just saying the technique is mighty impressive for presenting an unconventional 4K image that remains sharp and free of artefacts when you don't zoom in. It holds up pretty well against 4k native especially in motion. I've watched the Patreon video of TR, there are a few instances where the PC 4k image looks sharper, but if you look at the entire video the Pro version looks about the same for the majority of the video.....
Perhaps we can look at other 2160p checkerboard games to get some concensus as to how close it looks. Infinite warfare is mighty fine looking in that regard. At this point, I think it's all heavy nitpicking on a $400.00 console utilizing a great technique. I mean, just a few days ago all we had were consoles that was doing 720 to 1080p with resolutions as low as what we saw in Ark Survival and Halo 5...........
Pro resolutions are far and away better than such resolutions with upscaling methods that muddy the image even more. We've moved away from this and now people are talking about soft and comparing the console with Titan X systems? .....It's a far cry from DF rumbllings that some 720p and 900p games hold up to 1080p with traditional upscaling with the exponential jaggies and artefacts it brings. All these articles of resolution isn't much of a difference,,,,where we even had moments like "best looking 720p game" etc.......is quite a different message in comparison.....The techniques here (on the Pro) resolve a much sharper image with few if any visible artefacts in motion with a much higher resolution boost on top. It's a shame this is being nitpicked against $2000.00 machines.
Well Forza fell to 59fps at times, I guess we should lock that to 30fps. I mean, it makes sense for uniformity and consistency.....In that instance, the framerate would be the same as the rear view mirror speed, replays and intros.....
The base render resolution of the Pro version is lower than 4k native, so you will always see such disparity in a pic comparison. The same was quite visible with 900p vs 1080p games on XB1 vs PS4 or 720p vs 1080p games on these platforms.
I was kinda taken aback when it was announced that Infamous was checkerboarded, because I knew they were using Geometry rendering all this time. I can only imagine that they're using GR for the 60fps mode and checkerboard rendering for the 4k mode.
It only goes to show how much work those two guys did, they should really be commended for such brilliant work, and they also did two titles as well.
Negotiator
Member
AI pathfinding (compute shaders) doesn't need 32-bit precision. Vertex shaders need it.
ND already runs UC4 AI pathfinding on the GPU asynchronously... using 32-bit regs seems like a waste of resources in that case.
Not sure about pixel shaders, but we'll see how it pans out. Some devs seem confident about it. Maybe TLOU2 or UC4 SP DLC will be the first games to make serious use of FP16 shaders...
Writing mixed precision shader code is not exactly an easy task:
https://forum.beyond3d.com/threads/fp16-but-its-the-current-year.59725/#post-1950859
I'm sure ND/ICE Team will impress us...
Yeah, there's definitely plenty of interesting use cases. I'm very interested to see how it's put to use, though I'm sure we'll have to await new presentations or white papers in order to understand the full scope.
michaelius
Banned
What resolution is "prefer framerate" mode? I somehow missed it in the video (or was it not mentioned?)
Just like how digital foundry questioned how Microsoft was able to double ESRAM bandwidth out of thin air.
1080p
Exactly.
Liabe Brave
Member
No, you're incorrect. The checkerboard technique is not upscaling: it does not start with one size frame and transform it into another size. This is demonstrated by the fact that there are current and upcoming games that use checkerboard, but whose framebuffer is 3840x2160.
Caayn
Member
Actually it does. Although it doesn't use a target resolution as we're used to as the used resolution has "holes" in it. A checkerboard implementation will shade only 1/2 pixels of the final image. The other pixels are "made up" by the checkerboard implementation.
NXGamer
Member
Oh I agree, I never meant mixed within code but instead of. So long as you know your target value you can code and compensate as appropriate.
Indeed, the question was exactly " ".
I'm sure I wrote more than that....
Liabe Brave
Member
Yes that's what happens, but that's not scaling. Nothing is changing size. Checkerboard in this context is an interleaved rendering technique using reprojection. It is not "upscaling" in any way.
Yes, but I was only disputing the part where you agreed checkerboard was a "double upscale". No problem with the rest.
Transforming a 1920x2160 pixel grid to a 3840x2160 pixel grid is a upscale. How you calculate those new 4 million pixels is what will say if is some kind of upscale or another, right?
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
No actually it is not!
Liabe Brave
Member
But that's not what checkerboard does. The 2160c method creates a 3840x2160 framebuffer. Half the pixels are rendered by typical means, and the other half by reprojection from the previous frame, often (always?) augmented by additional algorithms.
No. There is no scaling involved--no change of image size. (It actually has more in common with some antialiasing techniques than it does upscaling.) The most accurate term for it is interleaved rendering.
In my opinion is a new gen and more advanced upscaling. The moment you say "half the pixels are rendered by typical means" that means you need to fill half of the frame with pixels "not rendered by typical means" regardless of how complex is the way to obtain them. Upscale only implies you have to calculate new pixels. If you have a 1920x2160 pixels "rendered by typical means", the final 3840x2160 frame is bigger. Two times bigger.
Motion interpolation in TVs has come a long way from the old simple framerate doublers. But it is still motion interpolation, right?
michaelius
Banned
BTW this is very good video to show why 1800p is too much for Pro.
With unlocked frames there's around 10% drop in framerates - but since basic PS4 had 40-50 fps in unlocked mode there's plenty of "safety margin" to keep locked 30 fps and 1800p resolution.
But if the game offers "cinematic experience" of barely keeping 30 fps like Watch Dogs then Pro will have bigger drops than basic mode at 1800p.
So it would be better if developers went for 1620p like Call of Duty did - if they don't have that few fps buffer.
With unlocked frames there's around 10% drop in framerates - but since basic PS4 had 40-50 fps in unlocked mode there's plenty of "safety margin" to keep locked 30 fps and 1800p resolution.
But if the game offers "cinematic experience" of barely keeping 30 fps like Watch Dogs then Pro will have bigger drops than basic mode at 1800p.
So it would be better if developers went for 1620p like Call of Duty did - if they don't have that few fps buffer.
Confused Cheeseburger
Member
00:00 because it looks the exact same. The text seems to have been upped however. But, the actual game looks the same.
MikeHaggar
Member
i played second son, but never went through first light. have it in my library thanks to ps plus, so may have to check it out on the pro. would do high res mode with locked 30fps on 1080p screen.
also, do we know what sucker punch is up to? first light released over 2 years ago and i don't recall hearing anything about their next project. i would think they are due soon...
also, do we know what sucker punch is up to? first light released over 2 years ago and i don't recall hearing anything about their next project. i would think they are due soon...
I'd argue against this. From what I've gathered, checkerboarding starts with half the pixels of the final framebuffer, albeit in a checkerboard format, and then uses maths and magic to calculate what the final frame is meant to be. Even though that process is different to typical upscaling, it still fits the criteria of upscaling one frame to a final frame. Just because it's done prior to when upscaling to take place, doesn't mean it's not using a form of upscaling to calculate that image.
By the same definition, Ryse wouldn't be upscaled as it uses a custom technique prior to final framebuffer, although we all agreed it was upscaled.
To be completely honest, I'm quite disappointed by this solution after learning more about it. The final images seem quite soft, and with this example at 1800p it's taking essentially the same amount of pixels as 900p and filling in the blanks with a bit of maths. Correct me if I'm wrong there, I'm just using my understanding from what's been said to me.
Liabe Brave
Member
Facts are not subject to your opinion. You're simply incorrect.
Absolutely not! For one, as I've pointed out the word "upscale" means "to grow in size". If that's not happening, it can't be the right term.
Second, if "upscale" meant any calculation of new pixels, then AA would be "upscale". A lighting pass would be "upscale". Indeed, every single step in rendering of any kind would be "upscale". You've diluted the term to irrelevance.
No, the frame is not any bigger at the end. It starts at 3840x2160. The values of pixels at odd addresses are calculated by concatenating multiple buffers that describe various influences. The values of pixels at even addresses are calculated by concatenating a different set of buffers.
Yes, because it's still doing the same thing. But upscaling is not doing the same thing as checkerboard.
Unless you redefine "upscaling" to mean "any method calculating pixels", in which case it's uselessly broad. Motion interpolation would be "upscaling" in that view, for example.
potatohead
Member
That has always been the case with df.
Doesn't matter that much since the audience doesn't know the difference either
Nice to hear about a "high framerate" mode that's mostly 60fps. In the original Second Son, it was not consistent at all. There was one cutscene where two people were talking, one with a lot of geometry behind them and the other with next to nothing. As the camera switched between them, the framerate would be jumping from high to low over and over.
Lmao then you have Infinite Warfare at Rock solid 60fps at 2160p sometimes, it depends on the game, stop pretending otherwise.
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
No it does not! These things all depend on the game.
I don't see how you can call some thing up scaling when nothing is scaled. By definition something must change size yet checkerboard rendering start at 3840x2160 and end at 3840x2160.
Ryse is called upscaled because it works basically the same way as any other upscaling technique, the fact that it's not the Xbox default hardware one doesn't change that.
what the hell. Watch Dogs holds a steady 30fps the vast majority of the time. "Barely keeping 30fps" is hyperbole
Caayn
Member
Using your definition of the term upscale it still fits. It grows from ½N pixels to N pixels. It just doesn't grow outward but inward to fill the holes. You're to fixated on the width and height of a frame.
It starts at 3840*2160 as much as a interlaced image starts at 3840*2160. It creates a picture with holes in it. But unlike interlaced it actually fills those holes not too dissimilar to how other upscaling techniques fill empty spaces in a image, it just does it in a more advanced way by reusing older data.
Liabe Brave
Member
The thing is, "maths and magic" is exactly how the first half of the pixels are created too. There's not some background truth that a renderer pulls from--every pixel is built up from scratch. There are a series of buffers representing inputs to the luminance or chrominance values of the pixel, and the engine sums those inputs to determine the final values.
With checkerboard, a different set of input buffers is used, one of which is the final values of the previous frame at the same resolution.
With upscaling, the only input buffer used is the current final values, from a frame smaller than the output target.
No, because in the end Ryse scaled its output from one size to another. Checkerboard does not do that.
It's very simple, people just aren't familiar with the technique the same way they are with upscaling. So they use the (incorrect) term they know, like saying "let's look at the tape" when the footage comes from a hard drive.
You've been misinformed, 1800c is not the same number of pixels as 900p. It's twice as many.
As for the quality of the final images, I won't try to argue your tastes. But keep in mind that "quite soft" is also a description of good AA versus bad. And too, if you're okay with the games you play on non-Pro consoles? Well, 1800c is much sharper than anything you've seen on them.
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
I'm understanding this more and more. Can you provide us the numerical data for how many pixels is in the following....
900p
1080p
1440p
4K
And then
1800c
2160c
taking 1080p as a baseline (100%)
so the checkerboarded frames of 1800c are already 38% more pixels than a full frame of 1080p
edit:
1800p would be 3200 * 1800 = 5,760,000 (277%), btw. For completeness sake.
I can't see your logic, sorry.
In my opinion the native half resolution frame rendered in the old fashion way is upscaled to a final doubled resolution frame. What you are describing is how the holes in the Gruyère native rendered frame are filled. Filled, completed, complemented, upscaled....
If we both agree that the old style rendered image has half the resolution, I can't see why to deny that this image grows later in size, so it's upscaled.
Regular AA is not upscaling because is not adding new pixels, but improving the existing ones.
Upscaling doesn't add more data to the image. Checkerboard rendering does.
I do think it's important to distinguish between checkerboard and native resolutions but I also think it's important to distinguish between upscaling and checkerboard rendering.
Liabe Brave
Member
Your numbers are right, but I'd argue with how they're presented. By giving different values for 1800c and "what it's checkerboarded to" you're falling into the semantic trap that some rendered pixels are "more real" than others.
I think it's more accurate to say that 1800c has exactly the same number of pixels as 1800p. (That's why it's called that!) The difference is that half the 1800c pixels have the potential to differ from the ideal render. (In practice, not all of them will; and for most, the difference will be imperceptible.)
Thing is, your opinion is wrong. Despite the implication of your last sentence here, it actually matters what we call stuff. No scaling is happening with checkerboard, so why call it that? We have plenty of other words that will lead to less confusion.
Maybe it'd help to work from the other direction. What does "old-fashioned render" mean? It means to use data from multiple buffers to determine the value of a pixel. With 2160c, every single pixel of the full 3840x2160 frame is created this way.
Half of them use a simplified technique that can be less accurate. But none* of them are generated solely from the final values of adjacent pixels, which is upscaling.
What you call "old-fashioned rendering" is adding new pixels, not improving existing ones. So is it "upscaling"?
While this isn't - strictly speaking - wrong, the problem with those numbers is that the absolute pixel counts don't translate to actual graphics-compute costs using checkerboard.Fliesen said:
Which isn't an issue in of itself - but it promotes a (sadly false) narrative that CB exactly halves the cost of native res you're targeting. One of the reasons quality is/can be much better than upscaling is that a fair-portion of the pipeline operates at native-target resolution (after or during reconstruction) - eg. anti-aliasing, for instance.
The only thing that separates AA from "upscale" as you define it, is the resolve step. If instead of averaging subsamples you redistribute them to a higher-resolution pixel grid, you get exactly your definition of upscale, with no changes to AA algorithm itself.MaLDo said: