HRD is not inherently bad, the human eye is HDR, its pretty damn amazing TBH
the issue is people who do HDR photo/vid push it past the point of it being normal and over saturate and sharpen everything which makes it look like shit
before "HDR" became a buzzword pretty much every landscape photo you have seen is technically an HDR through the use of a neutral density filter and a polarizer
Ansel Adams zone system is the analog version of it
Yes a MEDIA firmware update is coming at the same time VR is released for the PS4. Playstation's VR goggles plug into a HDMI 2 port. That will be enabled with a firmware update (Firmware 4.0) as will upscaling to 4K, HTML5 <video>, Embedded Playready, HEVC, UHD Blu-ray and likely a Video Chat program and Browser update.I'm not sure if someone already said this but...
I doubt that the "PS4.5" will have increased gaming performance vs the current PS4. It's been in the wind for a LONG time, that the HDMI port on the PS4 was a design flaw... in the fact that it can't support UHD content. Sony has been discussing business with companies like Netflix for quite some time now, since actually right around when the PS4 first launched, and I never understood how they were going to do 4K streaming video on a PS4 without some hardware modifications. Sony's also not just videogames, they're heavily tied into bluray and TVs as well, so a PS4 that can't play UHD bluray disks is a problem for them.
The need for the update is UHD streaming and video content, not gaming....
5) The Xtensa processsors in later AMD APUs and dGPUs can support openVX and/or the video distortion needed by VR googles. This is also true for the XB1 and PS4.
6) The Xtensa processsors in the same above can support frame rate doubling as well as UHD blu-ray up-converting and down converting video for 1080P TVs and 4K TVs (Digital bridge).
.
How does this relate to gaming? The overall image these graphic artists are trying to achieve mimic photographic visual fidelity but at the same time, throw terms loosely. In fact, gaming HDR is the lack of HDR in which contrast is high where they incorporate "bloom" lighting -- which essentially is the sun and the sky where it's so bright you almost do not have any detail at all (which dictates a high contrast, low dynamic range scene)
Best posts in that thread. "Why not call it a PS5?" Also the idea that "yeah your games will work but they'll play like shit on the old console" is just the most dumb thing I think I have ever heard about a console. I still don't buy it myself, I mean there are games with unannounced release dates that are PS4 exclusives that are still not released. So we are supposed to believe they are not going to run like crap on the PS4 and we need the new system to actually get a playable game going forward?
Is the new strategy for consoles to release 100 remakes, remasters, and HD versions of old titles with 1 or 2 decent exclusives before telling everyone they have to buy the next $500 box to play the new stuff? A lot of people are not happy with this BS. Honestly I could give up console gaming entirely with the number of games worth a $60 purchase lately. Reading the neogaf thread tells me I'm not alone.
FWIW: 2x the power of a PS4 GPU still ain't enough for 4k gaming I'm sorry to say. people are running more than 2x the GPU power combined with 10x+ the CPU power and nope...no 4k at good frame rates.
Pretty much this.
This whole thing is just stupid beyond belief. $400? $500? For an upgraded PS4 so I can play the latest HD remake of a game from a few years ago?
No, f*ck you. I'll happily just stay with PC then if you want to come out with a gimped PC that needs "upgrades" a few years in anyway.
Do we know for sure this is a console replacement, and not just a shrink plus UHD playback or built in VR?
What you said is why I passed on a PS4 last week. It MIGHT just be an HDMI upgrade and 4K playback, but I don't care to pay full price right before a hardware refresh. The big-time games haven't happened on PS4, as Driveclub, The Order, and Killzone all flopped. I guess the answer is Bloodborne, but that's still somewhat of a niche genre. Uncharted is almost here, same with Ratchet & Clank, and you might have The Last Guardian and Horizon: Zero Dawn later in the year. Sony's finally getting some stuff together, but even at what seems to be its best, I think Microsoft's game big-name options top those of Sony.
Agreed. There should be at least 4 years between consoles. Or else the upgrade isn't gonna be that much and also they will get the idea to do this more and more because so many spoiled kids out there, you know the system will sell. Our keeping up with the Jones' society is to blame.
A few people talk about buying new phones every year or 2 and people are ok with it. The difference is that most people are not spending $500 up front every time they get a new phone. It is paid over time which allows people to get a device they probably couldn't afford to buy outright. There is no option for a console.
The upgraded PS4/Xbox One are for people that haven't been enticed to buy one yet and feel that the consoles are getting old. A new hardware launch creates a ton of buzz. Xbox needs it more than PS4 because they are behind in sales. I don't feel that these upgraded units are actually for people that already have a PS4 or Xbox One. If they do get on a 2-3 year cycle of upgrades then the next iteration 2-3 years down the line will be for people that bought a launch PS4 or Xbox One. I don't see people upgrading every time, but every other time seems appropriate and more in line with normal console launches.
Doing upgrades more frequently compared to big launches keeps the excitement up and means new SKUs more often. It seems more appropriate for today's consumer culture. I don't see people being happy with a 8 year long console cycle these days.
Who is to say that those games will not be shifted to the ps4k if this turns out to be true? The neogaf thread mentioned that developers have already been working on titles specifically for the new hardware and "significant sacrifices" are made to get the game working on the old ps4. That's pretty much a slap in the face to everyone who made the ps4 such a hot seller. At least on PC I can choose between 60fps or 30fps and increase visuals and resolution. On a console I don't get that ability and that is one of the benefits of it. You know that the game will work the same as it did in the reviews and you won't have very many surprises with performance. This would basically remove that and place everyone who didn't buy the new system in something of a second class citizen status.
I understand that the original specs are kind of weak but I don't think 3 years or even 3.5, if the rumored early 2017 launch is the case, enough time to really get games out there. I didn't think many of the games looked bad either.
Agreed. There should be at least 4 years between consoles. Or else the upgrade isn't gonna be that much and also they will get the idea to do this more and more because so many spoiled kids out there, you know the system will sell. Our keeping up with the Jones' society is to blame.
A few people talk about buying new phones every year or 2 and people are ok with it. The difference is that most people are not spending $500 up front every time they get a new phone. It is paid over time which allows people to get a device they probably couldn't afford to buy outright. There is no option for a console.
I agree that the need for this is overblown, but when you talk of sacrifices to run a game on PS4, though have already been going on with these consoles. It's not like they're not underpowered devices running on crappy CPUs and so-so GPUs. I guess it just depends on how much effort is being split in a developer's studio to deal with 3-4 hardware configurations.
Also, it doesn't seem like there is any "shifting" of games. Instead, it sounds like the goal is to have two units, with games able to target the right one (probably through a system scan like you see on PC for some games' visual settings).
Except in this case, which I think it rather unique. The hardware we got with these consoles was on-par with a 2011 GPU, meaning we could be getting 4-5 years of graphical improvements with this refresh (depending on how high they take the upgrade). What's more, you can get to DDR4 to drop power consumption, and hopefully get off of those dirty Jaguar cores and 500-GB, 5400-RPM laptop drives.
Didn't Microsoft actually try an Xbox lease program a few years ago? I thought I read about it once, but never saw it mentioned again. I'll also say that while we can upgrade our phones every 1-2 years, not everyone does, even fewer do it at full price (thanks to trade-in programs like Next), and you don't have an issue of losing a software library going to a new phone (unless you switch platforms). Plus, it seems like mobile hardware still progresses faster than consoles and their desktop stuff, and phones have more components to improve (like the camera and display, which aren't console matters to consider).
Oh, and don't forget that phones are in our pockets and hands all the time. I've not had the issue, but many replace phones every 1-2 years because they get broken. That's something to consider in the comparison as well.
Agreed. There should be at least 4 years between consoles. Or else the upgrade isn't gonna be that much and also they will get the idea to do this more and more because so many spoiled kids out there, you know the system will sell. Our keeping up with the Jones' society is to blame.