There were sub native 720p games at launch on 360.
They demanded 720p when it was supposed to be free, but when the cases started popping up (even before launch) where it wasn't as free as expected they lifted the restriction.
Yes, a few of them, but mostly sports/remasters. PLASTICA-MAN made a list, but I don't know if it's up to date:Are there any AAA native 4K games on the Pro? All I can think of is Rez which is a PS2 game.
Wait, what? I didn't check the DF video yet. Is this real or hyperbole?
FIFA, NBA2K, Last of Us, Wipeout etc.Are there any AAA native 4K games on the Pro? All I can think of is Rez which is a PS2 game.
The problem with RDR2 on PS4 Pro though isnt the fact it isnt full native 4K, it's that whatever method they used to get to 4K wasnt adequate. It's possible they wanted the full framebuffer but didn't want to (or couldn't due to engine/renderer) use checkerboard or temporal injection. I think they just do half horizontal res and upscale that, right? There are clearly better solutions, but obviously they wont work with every game
Hyperbole. It shares some of the visual flaws but it still looks good.
Kameo was also sub HD.I wanna say PGR3 wasn't technically 720p, even though it looked good.
There is a huge 4K print above it. Which is not.1920x2160 is not 4K
And then they say it's outputs in 2160, completely forgetting the 1920 part. For the average person it read 4K. When they see 2160p part. So sneaky.
It's a lie no matter how much it sugar coated.
It does use a reconstruction technique though. I'm not saying the results can't be better but to act like non-reconstructed rendering is a waste is misguided.
Uh, my point still stands. Rampage has a 4K Blu-ray release that features an upscale from a 2K matrix, and many older movies that have no available high-resolution sources whatsoever (or the studios releasing them simply don't want to invest the cash necessary to make a remaster from the original, celluloid matrixes) are being released in 4K Blu-rays too. No one is claiming it to be a case of false advertisement either.You're still wrong there are a shedload of movies shot natively in 4K using RED and Arri Alexa 65's. No upscales at all. Don't come in telling people to inform yourself when you're misinformed yourself.
The change in aspect ratio doesn't lower the display or output resolution, that makes no sense. Are you saying all the blu-rays with black borders at 2.35:1 and 4:3 are not displaying at a 1080p resolution?
RED has had cameras shooting in 4K since 2008. Movies like Alien and Blade Runner have been in 4K for years scanned and mastered in 4K
The first 4K movie using RED One was the Che movies back in 2008 with a Digital Intermediate 4K master format for the second movie.
Netflix only accepts the DCI of 4098x2160p for their 4K shows.
The Rampage information you decided to post was of a movie with a resolution of 6.5K mastered in 2K (2048x1080p) and then upscaled at 4K.
Why don't you go look up a movie like Gone Girl with have a DI of a 4K master format mastered from a 6k/5k source format.
I call BS on this thread and believe the poster in question or someone else (probably an Xfanatic doctored this image.
Here is a promotional image from Sony, via Engadget that contradicts the claims made in the OP posted image:
I call BS on this thread and believe the poster in question or someone else (probably an Xfanatic doctored this image.
I call BS on this thread and believe the poster in question or someone else (probably an Xfanatic doctored this image.
Here is a promotional image from Sony, via Engadget that contradicts the claims made in the OP posted image:
No it literally doesn't. It doesn't show the native Res anywhere on that image whatsoever.OP it notes the native res in fairly large type which gives information needed to understand the 4K is an upscale: you didn't see that or you're ignoring that or you think it's not enough?
Not mentioning it given the slant of your OP is more misleading that the ad you're apparently complaining about.
This is a learning opportunity, really. 2160p is any resolution with 2160 pixels of height, not shorthand for native 4K. Heck, "native 4K" has plenty of standards that all feature a vertical image of 2160 pixels.When I see someone say "output in 2160", I think native 4K. I'm pretty sure that's what the vast majority of people think.
That's where I have an issue with it.
The problem with RDR2 on PS4 Pro though isnt the fact it isnt full native 4K, it's that whatever method they used to get to 4K wasnt adequate. It's possible they wanted the full framebuffer but didn't want to (or couldn't due to engine/renderer) use checkerboard or temporal injection. I think they just do half horizontal res and upscale that, right? There are clearly better solutions, but obviously they wont work with every game
I call BS on this thread and believe the poster in question or someone else (probably an Xfanatic doctored this image.
Here is a promotional image from Sony, via Engadget that contradicts the claims made in the OP posted image:
Uh, my point still stands. Rampage has a 4K Blu-ray release that features an upscale from a 2K matrix. No one is claiming it to be a case of false advertisement either.
If the ad was coupled with a campaign to explain this to people, sure I could understand that.This is a learning opportunity, really. 2160p is any resolution with 2160 pixels of height, not shorthand for native 4K. Heck, "native 4K" has plenty of standards that all feature a vertical image of 2160 pixels.
I call BS on this thread and believe the poster in question or someone else (probably an Xfanatic doctored this image.
Here is a promotional image from Sony, via Engadget that contradicts the claims made in the OP posted image:
The problem in RDR2 is as dark1x explained not necessarily the rendering method but the way it interacts with the temporal anti-aliasing. It's the latter that makes it quite soft, "underneath" it has much more detail as can be seen in the first 1-2 frames of a scene before the TAA kicks in.
The problem in RDR2 is as dark1x explained not necessarily the rendering method but the way it interacts with the temporal anti-aliasing. It's the latter that makes it quite soft, "underneath" it has much more detail as can be seen in the first 1-2 frames of a scene before the TAA kicks in.
The issue is, if you don't draw the line at only calling Native 4K by the term 4K (without qualifiers), where do you draw the line?
An Xbox One S will upscale RDR2 to 4K before outputting it to your TV. Does that mean the X1S plays RDR2 in 4K?
Clearly, no. It's not even close. PS4 Pro render resolution is only 50% of 4K/2160p. They shouldn't claim it is 4k/2160p without some qualifier.
every game is 4K on PS4 Pro then, heck watch DVD in 4K on PS4 Pro
I mean, they advertise the Pro as a 4K console, despite it being a 1440p machine that can't even play UHD movies, and have done for two years now. A bit silly, yeah, but we know marketing can be slimy and, again, this has been happening long enough that it should no longer be a surprise.
Yup, patently false info being thrown around in that ad. The defence isn't surprising though.When I see someone say "output in 2160", I think native 4K. I'm pretty sure that's what the vast majority of people think.
That's where I have an issue with it.
Oh must have missed that note about a reconstruction technique in the DF vid. Agreed though, I'm not saying native is worthless, but just that it's not the last word and gold standard. If the framerate isnt dynamic and outputs the correct number of pixels (reconstructed or not) without an upscale, I think 4K fits as a descriptor.
Oh, wait, "Not one movie" was referring to how most movies feature letterboxes images that don't actually have the full 4K resolution on their 4K releases. But, yes, the point still stands that most 4K releases of movies on home media do not feature a native 4K resolution. And so far, you haven't really touched on this point.Sony advertising RDR2 as "Play it in 4K"
"Not one 2160p/4K movie actually outputs at a resolution of 3840x2160, except for maybe the movies filmed with IMAX camera"
You said not one movie outputs at 4K resolution, I tell you it is not true and proceed to say I am uniformed and then show me one of many movies that aren't mastered in a 4K DI. Out of many movies that are shot and mastered with a 4K DI.
What is your point when I am infoming you that there are movies shot and mastered in 4098x2160p?
You said not one movie. I can show you two movies or three or 20.
This kind of shit is problematic for our industry. Don't know about you but I'm hoping for native 4K 60 FPS out of PS5 and Xbox Two. We don't need people thinking checkerboard is 4K or whatever.
Your post is literally the reason why this thread exists.You all joke but you should see how awesome the NES Classic looks in 4K on my 4KTV.
You're okay with a company misleading people so obviously? And the funny part is that they're not misleading the general audience, who sees 4K and that's all they know.This forum has become so sensational. Yeah yeah its not in 4K so someone call the international crime court. Smh sometimes yall make me hate video games.
No, it isn't a lie. A lie would be saying that it plays in native 4K. The game renders at 1920 x 2160 and then check-boarded to 2160p and then outputted to your TV. The ad is technically correct even though it is misleading to us forum dwellers.
It looks better than 1440p when well implemented. Look at Sony's first party on Pro.The should just render it out at 2560x1440 and let the system upscale it, it would look sharper. This checkerboard stuff is just a cheat so they can artificially boost their vertical resolution count.