Killzone: Shadow Fall Multiplayer Runs at 960x1080 vertically interlaced

GG so sneaky, people don't even understand what's going on when they're told!

There's NO interlacing going on folks. What is going on is 1/2 the virtical lines are updated with a interpolation of the frame before and the frame after. The other half are the correct frame.

That's a temporal issue, but not a resolution issue. Its still 1080p, just 1/2 the vertical image is a best guess between two frames. Similar to 3:2 pulldown.
 
Does this mean Titanfall is really pushing more pixels and if not, why?
Titanfall does render slightly more pixels per frame. However, the resulting image is smaller than a 1080p TV; if output as is, there'd be black bars all the way around. So the game zooms in, stretching all the existing pixels to fill the screen entirely.

Shadow Fall renders slightly fewer pixels, but then also calculates--with varying degrees of accuracy--what all the other pixels should've been. No zooming in is done, and the screen is filled with unique pixels.

The end result is that Titanfall is very blurry over the entire screen, due to the high amount of zoom. Killzone is mildly blurry in the horizontal direction, since some of each texture's pixels are approximated (though not vertically). Killzone also has artifacts that look a little like dithering around some objects, again due to bad approximation.

Whether you prefer high blur everywhere, or low blur most places and artifacts some places, is a personal choice. Killzone does produce an image closer to what a hypothetical native 1080p render would look like, though.
 
Im pretty sure the easiest way is to have a 1920x1080P framebuffer, then render 2x(960x1080P) screens into that.

Not sure you all guys remember the old CRT-television?.
It basicly did the same, but with the vertical lines instead.

It draw 2 sets of screens into one image, making it a "complete" image.

This technic seems to make the same, but horisontal instead.
 
Not saying it's not some kind of big deal. But you may being taking it a tad personally, as maybe you should. I'm not saying buy it but it looks like you're one stop short of going into your computer and blocking any mention of Guerrilla Games from appearing on your computer. You're gonna look at that new IP one way or another !!
Not really, there is no need for me to click on things that I have no interest in. As of today I have no interest in their new IP. There really was no need to lie, KZ was a launch title, and being such people tend to expect less than stellar performance. GG could have stated the truth and patched the game later ala CoD. Only the fanboys would have been up in arms, and they wouldn't be facing the possibility of people rolling their eyes when they make claims about future games. How many people will take anything GG says now at face value until proven wrong? I personally think there is way too much dishonesty in this industry, most of it is totally unnecessary.
 
What the hell does any of this have to do with Titanfall?, i is confucious Pixel pixel resolution resolution no 1080, this should be the language of the gamers.. I have spoken.
 
Titanfall does render slightly more pixels per frame. However, the resulting image is smaller than a 1080p TV; if output as is, there'd be black bars all the way around. So the game zooms in, stretching all the existing pixels to fill the screen entirely.

Shadow Fall renders slightly fewer pixels, but then also calculates--with varying degrees of accuracy--what all the other pixels should've been. No zooming in is done, and the screen is filled with unique pixels.

The end result is that Titanfall is very blurry over the entire screen, due to the high amount of zoom. Killzone is mildly blurry in the horizontal direction, since some of each texture's pixels are approximated (though not vertically). Killzone also has artifacts that look a little like dithering around some objects, again due to bad approximation.

Whether you prefer high blur everywhere, or low blur most places and artifacts some places, is a personal choice. Killzone does produce an image closer to what a hypothetical native 1080p render would look like, though.
Titanfall blurry?

I didn't notice any blur on my 47" 1080P LED TV.

It looked fantastic.

The X1 supposedly has a top notch upscaler on board. Perhaps that has something to do with it.

I don't care for resolution. If the game looks and plays fantastic then that's fine.

Personally I believe Ryse is the best looking game this gen - so far. Regardless of not being 1080P.

The sooner everyone gets over this resolution / frame rate thing - the better.
 
That's a temporal issue, but not a resolution issue. Its still 1080p, just 1/2 the vertical image is a best guess between two frames. Similar to 3:2 pulldown.
Actually, it's not much like 3:2 pulldown. With video, all an algorithm has it what the pixels are in each frame. So interpolation of frames is just repeating information that's already there. This is why 3:2 pulldown can be seen as judder by sensitive viewers.

In a game, the engine knows more about a pixel than just its current position and color. For example, it knows the direction and speed at which the pixel is moving. It appears Shadow Fall uses that data to shift the pixels in a frame, and then drop half of them in the next one at their new positions. Combined with a truly new render of the other half, this results in a far closer approximation than 3:2 pulldown (or scaling). The tradeoff is a slightly softer image, and artifacts where the shift approximated wrongly.
 
A top notch upacaler that crushes all the detail out of the dark parts of the image.

Really, just cut back on some of the effects instead of the resolution or frame rate. 1080p native without all this bullshit faking should be the standard and we should all be able to get on with it.
 
That's a temporal issue, but not a resolution issue. Its still 1080p, just 1/2 the vertical image is a best guess between two frames. Similar to 3:2 pulldown.
3:2 pulldown refers to a way of stuttering the way fields are sent to map from 24fps film to ~30fps NTSC.

It has basically nothing to do with this discussion.
 
The one question I would like answered is this: GAF insiders blew the lid off the resolution situation of pretty much every single nextgen launch game. No one, not a single one of them had the connections or the inside knowledge to find out the Killzone thing until now? Not CBOAT, not famousmortimer, not thuway, not a single one? Doesn't anyone find this weird?
Not sure what you're trying to say? Are you suggesting that the insiders are intentionally hiding these info?
 
Titanfall blurry?

I didn't notice any blur on my 47" 1080P LED TV.

It looked fantastic.

The X1 supposedly has a top notch upscaler on board. Perhaps that has something to do with it.

I don't care for resolution. If the game looks and plays fantastic then that's fine.

Personally I believe Ryse is the best looking game this gen - so far. Regardless of not being 1080P.

The sooner everyone gets over this resolution / frame rate thing - the better.
Even Major Nelson can't do better PR than this.
 

coolasj19

Why are you reading my tag instead of the title of my post?
Not really, there is no need for me to click on things that I have no interest in. As of today I have no interest in their new IP. There really was no need to lie, KZ was a launch title, and being such people tend to expect less than stellar performance. GG could have stated the truth and patched the game later ala CoD. Only the fanboys would have been up in arms, and they wouldn't be facing the possibility of people rolling their eyes when they make claims about future games. How many people will take anything GG says now at face value until proven wrong? I personally think there is way too much dishonesty in this industry, most of it is totally unnecessary.
I'm gonna follow you around on NeoGAF and quote you, then I'll use really big 1080p pictures of their new IP in my posts until you look at them and go "Gahhh !! Damn you Guerrilla !!".

If I gave them the benefit of the doubt, I would say that saying 1080p is the closest way to describe what the muli-player outputs to the layman without completely confusing them. We've been through this with The Order. Did RaD lie when they said the game is in 1080p? Perhaps they should have said "It runs in 1920 x 800 resolution" or whatever is actually technically correct ( I think the terminology we settled on was anamophic 1080p in 2.4:1 aspect ratio ). Maybe the guy who talks to PR said his interpretation of exactly what the engine did and the PR guy went "Does 1080p work?".

How about this.
If you were Guerrilla, how would you have phrased the terminology of the resolution of the games multiplayer? Here's a template for you.
"Killzone : Shadowfall's Multiplayer runs at ________________ targeted at 60fps."

I want to know what you ( or anyone else in the thread ) would have put in that blank space.
 
Ryse is by far ONE of the best graphical game on console.

Titanfall didn't look blurry for me either. And the crush blacks I noticed that. It's kinda annoying.

But yeah..has anybody hit up YOSP or GG on Twitter for thwir professional input on this? They would obviously have better knowledge than anybody in here... Considering they worked on the game lol
 
When I say sharpness, I mean the resolution. I can tell a difference between a 720p game and KZ:SF MP.

The image quality is worse in MP -- much more aliasing, and dithering artifacts, but it still looks 1080p....which is sort of what it's doing every two frames.

Like I said, given what we know, I don't think the thread title is all that accurate.
This is pretty much what I think. It still looks 1080p when compared to BF4 (the other PS4 fps I have) even if it looks better in SP. I'm personally ok with GG having downgraded the MP like this (it works pretty well), much better than having 720p or 30FPS :) It's pretty telling that nobody knew until now, lol
 
It was always considered an AA solution. Everyone took the word from GG for it.
In a way it is their AA solution, they just do not give it all the information every frame. (Like in SP campaign, in which they use it to get additional supersampling on surfaces.)

I would expect a lot more trickery similar to this in future games.
 
Honestly to all the people saying no one noticed this, it seems like they did. I'm an Xbox gamer, their exclusives appeal a lot more to me. I still follow other games that interest me, one is Killzone, I like the art and lore. I've seen a lot of people complain about "vaseline" in the MP from the threads I've seen. I dont know if I would notice it, since people had similar issues with console Crysis 2, but I thought it looked beautiful.
 
I'm gonna follow you around on NeoGAF and quote you, then I'll use really big 1080p pictures of their new IP in my posts until you look at them and go "Gahhh !! Damn you Guerrilla !!".

If I gave them the benefit of the doubt, I would say that saying 1080p is the closest way to describe what the muli-player outputs to the layman without completely confusing them. We've been through this with The Order. Did RaD lie when they said the game is in 1080p? Perhaps they should have said "It runs in 1920 x 800 resolution" or whatever is actually technically correct ( I think the terminology we settled on was anamophic 1080p in 2.4:1 aspect ratio ). Maybe the guy who talks to PR said his interpretation of exactly what the engine did and the PR guy went "Does 1080p work?".

How about this.
If you were Guerrilla, how would you have phrased the terminology of the resolution of the games multiplayer? Here's a template for you.
"Killzone : Shadowfall's Multiplayer runs at ________________ targeted at 60fps."

I want to know what you ( or anyone else in the thread ) would have put in that blank space.
I think they could of just avoided using the term "native" 1080p.
 
People didn't realise this was a lower resolution? Are they ign staffers or something? It looks like a blurry mess in mp.
Hyperbole pls.
Seriously, lower horizontal resolution is not going to impact the image quality as much as vertical does but the MP has basically no AA solution from the begining and the fact that many gamers are playing on low and midrange holdtype backlight LCD with shitty scalers is the reason it looks not so good for many people.
 

coolasj19

Why are you reading my tag instead of the title of my post?
I think they could of just avoided using the term "native" 1080p.
Actually, that sounds about right. We would still be in the same situation though. People saying it's in 960 x 1080, people saying it's 1080π ( I love this term ), and people stating that it's not technically not not not 1080p.

Considering the extensive articles on DF that went into how their engine works, this would have been perfect for one of those. Maybe this will raise enough of a stink to make that happen. I know DF is probably trying to schedule an interview as we type.

Honestly, I'm more peeved that even with all of this engine sorcery, the dog-on MP still doesn't rock a solid 60fps.
 
This isn't true 1080p any more than using motion flow on your TV settings makes games run at 60fps.
True, but this isn't 960 x1080 scaled to 1920 x 1080 either, like how the Xbox would do it. When using 960 x 1080 of calculated data to draw a 1920 x 1080 frame, you have half of the pixels accurately calculated so the goal is to figure out the other half of the image as close as possible. With a traditional scaler, no matter how fancy your algorithm is to fill in that missing half, it only has the calculated 960 x 1080 of the current frame to use as input. So for instance a simple technique would be to just duplicate the 960 x 1080 data in order to get the final 1920 x 1080 image.

However the Shadow Fall MP technique uses the true calculated 960 x 1080 of the current frame + the offset calculated 960 x 1080 of the previous frame, which accurately shows the missing pixels one frame prior, as input in order to render the final 1920 x 1080 frame. To put it another way, the algorithm is using 1920 x 1080 worth of data to generate a 1920 x 1080 image with the catch being that half of the data is one frame out of date.

I'm not sure if the XB1 could use this technique since it would have to keep the previous frame in ESRAM in order to make use of it, and space in the ESRAM is already tight. Since all of the PS4's memory is the fast GDDR5, it can keep just about as much info as it wants from previous frames in order to improve image quality of subsequent frames.

So while Shadowfall MP doesn't render at true 1920 x 1080, it does a really good approximation of it, which is better than anything a traditional scaler could do. At some point we have to admit to ourselves that the resolution numbers alone aren't accurate enough to convey the image quality. Shadowfall MP not as good as 1920 x 1080 but it's a lot better than 960 x 1080. So what resolution should we say it is? I am not entirely sure.
 

RVinP

Unconfirmed Member
I think the image used as reference in the first post, puts an incorrect representation of this rendering method with respect to the final output.
As the image only shows half the implementation/story.

--
I wonder if this method can be reproduced/replicated on other games (from screen capture of existing games and even real time via SweetFX?).
 
I personally thought they had created some kind of motion AA (think Cryengine 3 supports something similar) as it effectively looks native 1080p when you're still, but blurs significantly when you move the camera just a single millimeter.
 
I'm gonna follow you around on NeoGAF and quote you, then I'll use really big 1080p pictures of their new IP in my posts until you look at them and go "Gahhh !! Damn you Guerrilla !!".

If I gave them the benefit of the doubt, I would say that saying 1080p is the closest way to describe what the muli-player outputs to the layman without completely confusing them. We've been through this with The Order. Did RaD lie when they said the game is in 1080p? Perhaps they should have said "It runs in 1920 x 800 resolution" or whatever is actually technically correct ( I think the terminology we settled on was anamophic 1080p in 2.4:1 aspect ratio ). Maybe the guy who talks to PR said his interpretation of exactly what the engine did and the PR guy went "Does 1080p work?".

How about this.
If you were Guerrilla, how would you have phrased the terminology of the resolution of the games multiplayer? Here's a template for you.
"Killzone : Shadowfall's Multiplayer runs at ________________ targeted at 60fps."

I want to know what you ( or anyone else in the thread ) would have put in that blank space.
how is 960x1080 close to 1920x1080? Your post sounds like the Aaron Greenberg tweet - "you know you are getting 1080p output?" (or something like that)
 
Did RaD lie when they said the game is in 1080p? Perhaps they should have said "It runs in 1920 x 800 resolution" or whatever is actually technically correct ( I think the terminology we settled on was anamophic 1080p in 2.4:1 aspect ratio ).
That would not be correct, as "anamorphic" specifically means the image is stretched for final display, and The Order is not. A correct description would be "native 2.4:1 AR in a1080p frame".

If you were Guerrilla, how would you have phrased the terminology of the resolution of the games multiplayer? Here's a template for you.
"Killzone : Shadowfall's Multiplayer runs at ________________ targeted at 60fps."

I want to know what you ( or anyone else in the thread ) would have put in that blank space.
"Killzone: Shadow Fall's multiplayer runs at 960x1080 temporally reprojected to 1080p, targeted at 60fps."

I know it's a mouthful; I know they'd have to explain what all that means. But that's their responsibility. The multiplayer isn't native 1080p, and just because it's simpler to say that doesn't make it less false.

Heck, the complexity--and apparent uniqueness--of this technical approach could even have been explained as a positive: "The technical wizards at Guerilla have come up with a new frame-by-frame rendering method that's better than traditional upscaling. It maintains most of the gorgeous sharpness and robust detail of the native 1080p single player campaign, while still allowing them to target 60fps during the most intense 24-player online combat!" This approach to explanation has the benefit of being true.
 
True, but this isn't 960 x1080 scaled to 1920 x 1080 either, like how the Xbox would do it. When using 960 x 1080 of calculated data to draw a 1920 x 1080 frame, you have half of the pixels accurately calculated so the goal is to figure out the other half of the image as close as possible. With a traditional scaler, no matter how fancy your algorithm is to fill in that missing half, it only has the calculated 960 x 1080 of the current frame to use as input. So for instance a simple technique would be to just duplicate the 960 x 1080 data in order to get the final 1920 x 1080 image.

However the Shadow Fall MP technique uses the true calculated 960 x 1080 of the current frame + the offset calculated 960 x 1080 of the previous frame, which accurately shows the missing pixels one frame prior, as input in order to render the final 1920 x 1080 frame. To put it another way, the algorithm is using 1920 x 1080 worth of data to generate a 1920 x 1080 image with the catch being that half of the data is one frame out of date.

I'm not sure if the XB1 could use this technique since it would have to keep the previous frame in ESRAM in order to make use of it, and space in the ESRAM is already tight. Since all of the PS4's memory is the fast GDDR5, it can keep just about as much info as it wants from previous frames in order to improve image quality of subsequent frames.

So while Shadowfall MP doesn't render at true 1920 x 1080, it does a really good approximation of it, which is better than anything a traditional scaler could do. At some point we have to admit to ourselves that the resolution numbers alone aren't accurate enough to convey the image quality. Shadowfall MP not as good as 1920 x 1080 but it's a lot better than 960 x 1080. So what resolution should we say it is? I am not entirely sure.
Good explaination, that's how I see it.

Is the end result an image less sharp looking than 'proper' 1080p, of is it giving the effect of being 30fps and not 60fps if it's using two frames to draw the 1920 horizontal lines? I think it's the former. I think you just end up with half of the currecnt fram being old, like you say. Bit of a mindfcuk to think about the effects of it.

When Sony said 1080p and 60fps, technically they maybe were'nt lying. It still is 1080p and 60fps, they're just updating vertical lines half as often, and alternately. I think it's quite a clever method.
 
Good explaination, that's how I see it.

Is the end result an image less sharp looking than 'proper' 1080p, of is it giving the effect of being 30fps and not 60fps if it's using two frames to draw the 1920 horizontal lines? I think it's the former. I think you just end up with half of the currecnt fram being old, like you say. Bit of a mindfcuk to think about the effects of it.

When Sony said 1080p anf 60fps, technically they maybe were'nt lying. I think it's quite a clever method.
They weren't being honest about 60 doe
 

coolasj19

Why are you reading my tag instead of the title of my post?
how is 960x1080 close to 1920x1080? Your post sounds like the Aaron Greenberg tweet - "you know you are getting 1080p output?" (or something like that)

Because if my understanding of the thread is anywhere close to competent, it's not 960 x 1080. It's also not 1920 x 1080. It's not 1080i either. It uses a completely unique way of getting pixels to the screen. Perhaps Guerrilla did mislead us by using the term "native 1080p" but I don't know how to tell them their wrong, even if I know now they are. I know the 1080p term isn't technically correct, but I don't have anything to replace it with. The only way anyone can effectively explain what their rendering engine does so that a normal person understands it is with a Digital Foundry article and about 10 paragraphs.

The challenge for how to explain this system to the layman is still available btw. I'm not defending Guerrilla, I just want to know what they should have said. This is a problem, but nobody so far has the solution. Or, we're closing in on it and it just requires about 10 pages of reading to get a grasp on it. Or we've already reached it by the time I hit "Submit Reply".

This part of my post is now irrelevant but I'm still leaving it up.

They weren't being honest about 60 doe
This has always been the worst part. That sob hovers at 50fps and dips to like 40fps. It's jarring and annoying. Probably why I stopped playing.
That would not be correct, as "anamorphic" specifically means the image is stretched for final display, and The Order is not. A correct description would be "native 2.4:1 AR in a1080p frame".

"Killzone: Shadow Fall's multiplayer runs at 960x1080 temporally reprojected to 1080p, targeted at 60fps."

I know it's a mouthful; I know they'd have to explain what all that means. But that's their responsibility. The multiplayer isn't native 1080p, and just because it's simpler to say that doesn't make it less false.

Heck, the complexity--and apparent uniqueness--of this technical approach could even have been explained as a positive: "The technical wizards at Guerilla have come up with a new frame-by-frame rendering method that's better than traditional upscaling. It maintains most of the gorgeous sharpness and robust detail of the native 1080p single player campaign, while still allowing them to target 60fps during the most intense 24-player online combat!" This approach to explanation has the benefit of being true.
On The Order. Yes, that's the terminology. I just forgot how to say it. I'll memorize it for future usage. Ha, you corrected my usage of Killzone: Shadow Fall. I'll memorize that too since I can see how it could be annoying.

Thanks for the rest of the explanation. I agree with it and I don't think I have anything else to say on the subject matter.
 
I'm not sure if the XB1 could use this technique since it would have to keep the previous frame in ESRAM in order to make use of it, and space in the ESRAM is already tight. Since all of the PS4's memory is the fast GDDR5, it can keep just about as much info as it wants from previous frames in order to improve image quality of subsequent frames.
X0 can render and read from/to DDR3, there is no problem. (Unlike X360 in which you had to write to edram and couldn't read from it.)
 
They weren't being honest about 60 doe
There are still 60 frames being shown every second, even if they're half frames. It should be as fluid as 60fps, so calling it 30fps or something else would kind of be more misleading.

I think for the purpose of MP, 60fps is good and I think they've come up with a good way of acheiving that. For now.
 
There are still 60 frames being shown every second, even if they're half frames. It should be as fluid as 60fps, so calling it 30fps or something else would kind of be more misleading.

I think for the purpose of MP, 60fps is good and I think they've come up with a good way of acheiving that. For now.
When I played it rarely hit 60.
 
Now, question: Should this even matter if nobody noticed in the first place? I'm sure there will be some people who now probably say they noticed this all along, or knew something was up, but come on, that's not really true now, is it? Nobody's going to believe that.

If our local 1080 paparazzi truly thought that something was up, or even worth investigating with the game's resolution, a pixel count would have been done ages ago. That didn't happen, regardless of what people may be saying currently. So, what it all boils down to is that this is just one more example of a game (if this is all accurate and no mistakes were made) in which something that was supposed to be so effortlessly spotted and identified, was missed completely by just about everybody. I distinctly remember posts of people mocking developers and posters who sometimes said that it was tough to notice the difference between certain resolutions, and that it wasn't always as easy to spot as people claimed it was.

We now have an example with Killzone that's very close to a 720p resolution for the MP, an MP that many people, even myself, were impressed with visually, and nobody seemed to notice anything amiss with the resolution despite this. That just about tells you all you really need to know.
We all thought it was blurry, but were led to believe it was native 1080p, thus we thought it must have been the AA solution. Don't talk about something you obviously know nothing about, please.
Nope, the guy is right. Everybody missed this. Since when has a developer telling people a game was 1080p stopped people from doing a pixel count anyway? I think I'm only being fair in saying that if the game was an Xbox One title, a resolution analysis would have almost certainly taken place no matter what the developer claimed, and I think everybody knows that. But the best part here is that if people thought the game's MP looked great before (lots of people did) then nothing should be different about today.
 

The Crimson Kid

what are you waiting for
I'm honestly too impressed by this to even be mad at all.

The game clearly renders at 1080p in multiplayer (I could tell that each pixel was getting hit individually from 4 ft away from my 50" Panny plasma) and I immediately noticed the improved resolution versus BF4, but KZ MP looks like it has an imprecise FXAA applied to it alongside some artifacts with objects that are in motion. So you still get a pretty clear image when looking at things that aren't moving and a fair amount of the artifact in motion gets covered up by looking like it is just motion blur.

It really reminded me of how Halo Reach looked when things were in motion, although the blur appears more precise in KZ.

I did notice a difference between SP and MP but that made sense because GG did say that some graphical settings would be lowered in MP so I wasn't surprised to see what appeared to be some strange AA solution in what otherwise was a fantastic looking MP game.

Actually, if they were able to make the algorithm more precise and add some higher-fidelity motion blur to any object in motion, I doubt that anyone would be able to tell the difference
 
This makes me feel like developers shouldn't accommodate to the cries for 60 fps or higher than 30 framerates. Gamers ask for it, Guirella attempts to deliver, resolution not high enough in turn, boom scandal.

I think they listened TOO much.
I think they listened to CoD/BF/Titanfall/next Halo selling points. ;)