PDA

View Full Version : Differences in AquaMark3 screenshots


Pages : [1] 2 3

MikeC
09-13-03, 08:44 PM
volt and myself have the pre-release version of AquaMark3 and we had hoped to post our preview today. But there's just too much information to cover and tests to run for that to have happened. volt has been putting most of the article together, which allowed me time to experiment with AM3.

AM3 has an automated screen capture facility that takes screenshots at selected frame intervals. For example, I can configure AM3 to take a screenshot every 50, 100, or 1000 frames. I assume that the previews that were posted today used this feature to grab their screenshots.

The Radeon 9800 Pro screenshot that 3DGPU used as a comparison of image quality was taken at frame 4000 during the "3D Volumetric Fog" test and can be seen near the bottom of this page:
http://www.3dgpu.com/modules/wfsection/article.php?articleid=74&page=2


I've cut out a section from their screenshot and appended two other screenshots that are examples of what I've been getting while testing the Radeon 9800 Pro. The second and third images have 4X AA and 8X AF enabled. The second image is based on forcing AA/AF in the driver control panel while the third image is based on AM3 controlling the level of AA/AF. You'll find slight variations between those two images, as well as performance.

http://www.nvnews.net/images/news/200309/am3_comparison_s.jpg

The full size is here:
http://www.nvnews.net/images/news/200309/am3_comparison.jpg

You can clearly see that the fog and other background objects were not being rendered in the 3DGPU screenshot. Another difference that you'll find in the full size images is the absence of a watermark at the bottom right that's labeled "3D Volumetric Fog."

Links to the full size images, which are around 1.1MB in size, from my testing are below:

http://www.nvnews.net/images/news/200309/r9800_4xaa_8xaf_application.png

http://www.nvnews.net/images/news/200309/r9800_4xaa_8xaf_driver.png

I also noticed that none of our screenshots show the algae in the water, that appears when running a benchmark. This effect can be seen a screenshot in Techconnect's review:
http://www.techconnect.ws/images/AquaMark3/28.gif

However, their screenshot lists frame 4004, which means they may have taken it manually while running the benchmark.

I'll don't know what's causing this discrepancy, but I'll bring it to the attention of the AM3 developers next week.

Hellbinder
09-13-03, 08:52 PM
Nice mike..

I am a little Confused though. Are these only results from a 9800pro?? Thus there are Discrepencies between your and 3DGPU's *9800pro* results only?

Hellbinder
09-13-03, 08:56 PM
Hmmm looking at this..
http://www.techconnect.ws/images/AquaMark3/28.gif

Your last example also has Quite bad Banding going on as well as Horridly low FPS. What card was that Generated on??

These Two Shots..

http://www.nvnews.net/images/news/200309/r9800_4xaa_8xaf_application.png
http://www.nvnews.net/images/news/200309/r9800_4xaa_8xaf_driver.png

Are simply Beautiful :eek: I mean that is Pretty. The FRame rate is over 70 as well. Impressive.

MikeC
09-13-03, 08:58 PM
Originally posted by Hellbinder
Nice mike..

I am a little Confused though. Are these only results from a 9800pro?? Thus there are Discrepencies between your and 3DGPU's *9800pro* results only?

Note sure, but the two screenshots at 3DGPU from the GeForceFX also have a dark background.

The Guru of 3D has the same screenshot in their preview, which looks like what I've been getting, but I don't know which card they used:
http://www.guru3d.com/article.php?cat=article&id=76&pagenumber=7

volt
09-13-03, 09:01 PM
The preview is mostly completed. Maybe it can be published today, who knows. Nice post by the way!

Ruined
09-13-03, 09:02 PM
Originally posted by Hellbinder
Hmmm looking at this..
http://www.techconnect.ws/images/AquaMark3/28.gif

Your last example also has Quite bad Banding going on as well as Horridly low FPS. What card was that Generated on??

These Two Shots..

http://www.nvnews.net/images/news/200309/r9800_4xaa_8xaf_application.png
http://www.nvnews.net/images/news/200309/r9800_4xaa_8xaf_driver.png

Are simply Beautiful :eek: I mean that is Pretty. The FRame rate is over 70 as well. Impressive.

I see noticably more banding on the mountains and sky in the last two shots you posted (background mountains especially) than on the first one. The first one does have noticably worse AA, however. If the first is the FX5900, then I'd have to say the FX5900 has less banding but more jaggies, while the R9800 has more banding but less jaggies. All three look to please, though.

MikeC
09-13-03, 09:09 PM
Originally posted by Hellbinder
Hmmm looking at this..
http://www.techconnect.ws/images/AquaMark3/28.gif

Your last example also has Quite bad Banding going on as well as Horridly low FPS. What card was that Generated on??

These Two Shots..

http://www.nvnews.net/images/news/200309/r9800_4xaa_8xaf_application.png

http://www.nvnews.net/images/news/200309/r9800_4xaa_8xaf_driver.png

Are simply Beautiful :eek: I mean that is Pretty. The FRame rate is over 70 as well. Impressive.

I suppose the banding could be a result of saving the screenshot in .gif fomat.

Even the high quality screenshots I provided don't give the image quality from AM3 justice. It looks stunning. But you'll be able to find out for yourself on Monday :)

Here a shot with 6XAA and 16XAF:
http://www.nvnews.net/images/news/200309/r9800_6xaa_16xaf_driver.png

I've got 50 more since I took a screenshot at every 100th frame.

Hellbinder
09-13-03, 09:11 PM
I see noticably more banding on the mountains and sky in the last two shots you posted (background mountains especially) than on the first one. The first one does have noticably worse AA, however. If the first is the FX5900, then I'd have to say the FX5900 has less banding but more jaggies, while the R9800 has more banding but less jaggies. All three look to please, though

I am assuming from this that you dont actually know what "Banding" means.

Becuase there is CLEAR Banding in the Green backdrop of that image. Which might well be Caused by the .gif format. However there is absolutely NO BANDING at all in the last two shots. Nor Any IQ anomalies at all.

ChrisW
09-13-03, 09:12 PM
I'm confused. :confused: Are you implying that the Radeon 9800 actually looks better and renders more stuff than what is being show in the screenshots?

Hellbinder
09-13-03, 09:14 PM
Mike.. Would you Find a frame where the FPS is Just getting HAMMERED.. ?

Id like to see a worse case sinario with the IQ Settings you are using.

Thanks a lot for all your effort here. :)

Rogozhin
09-13-03, 09:14 PM
I'm rather confused here.

rogo

tEd
09-13-03, 09:20 PM
I just think that 3dgpu probably used a different detail setting.

I've downloaded the screenshots from driverheaven and they also look like those from mikec

ChrisW
09-13-03, 09:22 PM
I know it is probably right in front of my face, but why does enabling FSAA and anisotropic filtering brighten the sky?

tEd
09-13-03, 09:24 PM
Originally posted by Hellbinder
I am assuming from this that you dont actually know what "Banding" means.

Becuase there is CLEAR Banding in the Green backdrop of that image. Which might well be Caused by the .gif format. However there is absolutely NO BANDING at all in the last two shots. Nor Any IQ anomalies at all.

actually there is dithering from the conversion to the gif fromat. gif only have 256colors. I would agree with ruined that there is banding in both scrennshots mikec posted

volt
09-13-03, 09:31 PM
Please note that using the automated screen grabber will result in inaccurate FPS count.

Why ? I dunno. Maybe because the counter can't keep up and it shows the FPS for the previous frames.

Ruined
09-13-03, 09:31 PM
Heh, made an error, my desktop color was set to 16bit instead of 32bit, and was showing more banding in the R9800 caps. Now in 32bit, there still appears banding in the R9800 caps, but much less so. Considering the first screenshot is only 8bit, I'm not surprised there is banding. Also, if any of you are kindly enough to send over the Aquamark3 benchmark I will take some lossless screenshots on FX5900 and we can see how much banding there is ;)

volt
09-13-03, 09:36 PM
Originally posted by Ruined
Heh, made an error, my desktop color was set to 16bit instead of 32bit, and was showing more banding in the R9800 caps. Now in 32bit, there still appears banding in the R9800 caps, but much less so. Also, if any of you are kindly enough to send over the Aquamark3 benchmark I will take some lossless screenshots on FX5900 and we can see how much banding there is ;)

We don't leak software here. Wait until the 15th.

StealthHawk
09-13-03, 09:36 PM
Originally posted by tEd
actually there is dithering from the conversion to the gif fromat. gif only have 256colors. I would agree with ruined that there is banding in both scrennshots mikec posted

The last two screenshots are .png, so there should be no IQ degradation.

tEd
09-13-03, 09:42 PM
Originally posted by StealthHawk
The last two screenshots are .png, so there should be no IQ degradation.

http://www.nvnews.net/images/news/200309/r9800_4xaa_8xaf_application.png
http://www.nvnews.net/images/news/200309/r9800_4xaa_8xaf_driver.png

both banding , probably not from the image format , sometimes 32bit isn't enough

http://www.techconnect.ws/images/AquaMark3/28.gif

banding and additional dithering from the conversion

bkswaney
09-13-03, 09:47 PM
Originally posted by volt
We don't leak software here. Wait until the 15th.

Thanx for the date on the release Volt. :)
Monday it is.

MikeC
09-13-03, 09:50 PM
Originally posted by Hellbinder
Mike.. Would you Find a frame where the FPS is Just getting HAMMERED.. ?

Id like to see a worse case sinario with the IQ Settings you are using.

Thanks a lot for all your effort here. :)

Close to the very last frame in the fill rate test the FPS drops into the single digits :) It's a huge explosion that fills up the whole screen. I'll run more tests tomorrow.

volt
09-13-03, 09:54 PM
Originally posted by bkswaney
Thanx for the date on the release Volt. :)
Monday it is.

Ah, no problem. It's been made public :p

And here is what I mean with FPS count using ASGRA:

http://www.nvnews.net/images/news/200309/fx5900_4xaa_8xaf_application.png

1024x768x32bit 4AA 8AF. 120 FPS ? I don't think so :)

MikeC
09-13-03, 09:56 PM
Originally posted by tEd
I just think that 3dgpu probably used a different detail setting.

You could be right since I don't think they mentioned the settings that were used for the screenshots. I'll test different settings tomorrow and see if I can replicate their screenshot. But hopefully Matt will answer my e-mail before then :)

MikeC
09-13-03, 10:04 PM
Originally posted by ChrisW
I'm confused. :confused: Are you implying that the Radeon 9800 actually looks better and renders more stuff than what is being show in the screenshots?

The screenshots are capturing what's being rendered. But they seem to lose some of the qualities compared to what you're actually viewing on the screen. One effect that doesn't look as good in screenshots are reflections.

particleman
09-13-03, 10:09 PM
Originally posted by volt
Ah, no problem. It's been made public :p

And here is what I mean with FPS count using ASGRA:

http://www.nvnews.net/images/news/200309/fx5900_4xaa_8xaf_application.png

1024x768x32bit 4AA 8AF. 120 FPS ? I don't think so :)

Are you using the same settings as MikeC? Why is there no fog in your screenshot as well as 3DGPU's screenshots?