PDA

View Full Version : High resolution versus antialiasing


Pages : [1] 2

JemyM
10-03-02, 03:46 AM
I have a 19" and very good eye sight. I enjoy sharpness more than speed so 30-60 fps was ok by me.

I have reached the horsepower required to run games in 1600x1200 at over 40-50fps (over 60 on most). Running at 1600x1200 I remember when I could snipe heads with the silenced pistol in No One Lives Forever, there where no better weapon available in the entire game. The crystal sharp 3d was enough to fully see and aim the crosshair above a head and click the left mousebutton. I even sniped some guards on the other side of the map...

Now i started to run Morrowind/NWN in 1940x1440, and with a nifty 2100+ cpu, the games runs great. I will probably make the final jump to resolutions at 2000 or greater when I grab my next gfx card in 6-12 months, just becouse I can.

This makes me wonder... Why are Anti-Aliasing so popular?
Anti-Aliasing makes a image "smoother", at the cost of both speed and sharpness.
Is it true that most gamers use a cheap 17" that cant run better resolutions than 1024x768?

Instead of grabbing a new horse-powered graphicscard to get better anti-aliasing, wouldnt it be better to grab a new monitor? Even 1280x1024 makes it near impossible to see pixels at a good 17", and most graphiccards can run 1280x1024 at higher FPS than 1024x768 x4 anti-aliasing

Best Regards
JemyM

StealthHawk
10-03-02, 03:57 AM
because 1280 obviously has more jaggies than 1024+4x FSAA.

FSAA is all a matter of taste, but with gamma correct FSAA ala the R9700, it should improve image quality even further. i wouldn't say that FSAA actually blurs the image, unless you use something like QCA or 4x9tap.

bottom line is, if you don't notice aliasing all over the place, don't use FSAA. most monitors that people buy also don't have good refresh rates over 1024, so that's another problem about high resolution.

JemyM
10-03-02, 04:31 AM
because 1280 obviously has more jaggies than 1024+4x FSAA.


Depends on the monitor. On a 17" at 1280x1024 its pretty difficult to see the pixels. Specially in motion.
Im used to a 19", but I run 1280x1024 at work, and its from there I can give this "inprofessional opinion".

The Hz problem might be a good explenation thou.

Best Regards
JemyM

Bigus Dickus
10-03-02, 09:36 AM
On my 22" iiyama, pixel shimmering is easily spotted even at 1600 x 1200 resolution. This is eliminated with FSAA, hence I prefer to run at a lower resolution w/ AA than run a 1600 x 1200 (I'd prefer to do both, obviously, but haven't bought a new card in over a year).

JemyM
10-03-02, 09:42 AM
Oh. 22". I fear thoose babies. :) I know what kind of resolution I need on a 19" to remove the "blur" but god knows what evil resolution is required to do that on 22"!!!

Best Regards
JemyM

Chalnoth
10-03-02, 10:46 AM
Additionally, modern high-end video cards are essentially at the point where it is silly not to run with at least 2x FSAA in most any game.

Regardless, FSAA is one of those things that until you run with it enabled for a while, you probably won't notice why it's so good until after you disable it.

Kruno
10-03-02, 11:10 AM
Chalnoth, I rather play some old games with no AA than with any AA.

Chalnoth
10-03-02, 11:13 AM
Kiler, you've always had wierd tastes in image quality :confused:

Cotita
10-03-02, 12:22 PM
Since the geforce4 and Radeon9700 give you 2x AA for free even at high resolutions (1280+), its a waste not to use it.

I have a ti4600 with a 17" monitor and I can play mafia at 1280x1024 with 2xAA or quincunx. it looks somewhat better than 1024x768 with 4xAA and runs faster.

The use of AA in games is a matter of personal taste and IMO depends on the games you play. In fast paced 1st person shooters like q3 or serious sam there is no apparent IQ improvement using AA, but Flight sims, racing games and games like warcraft3/morrowind, look completely different with AA enabled.

You really don't need 60fps when playing mafia and it does benefit a lot using even 2x AA.

just my 2cents

jbirney
10-03-02, 12:51 PM
Originally posted by Cotita
. In fast paced 1st person shooters like q3 or serious sam there is no apparent IQ improvement using AA, but Flight sims, racing games and games like warcraft3/morrowind, look completely different with AA enabled.



Up until UT2k3 I would have agreed. Now after play that, I would have to say that is not the case. UT2k3 has lots of indor maps with a ton of polys. Here the jaggies are much easier to see. For the older lower poly games (like SS/Q3) then yea I agree with you.

However once you know what to look at its very easy to spot jaggies and yes even at 1600x1200.



Kiler, you've always had wierd tastes in image quality


K.I.L.E.R Chalnoth, I rather play some old games with no AA than with any AA.


Chalnoth If he has a GF3/4 or R9700 then I can see why. Older games like CS make use of Alpha textures which are not AA-ed so cranking up the res on those games helps more than AA.

StealthHawk
10-03-02, 03:05 PM
Originally posted by jbirney
Chalnoth If he has a GF3/4 or R9700 then I can see why. Older games like CS make use of Alpha textures which are not AA-ed so cranking up the res on those games helps more than AA.

if you remember back a few months Kiler said he liked the resolution of 640X480 and said it provided superior IQ compared to higher resolutions somehow.

JemyM
10-03-02, 05:07 PM
Chalnoth / Cotita
----------------------
Running 2x FSAA in 1940x1440... Whats the point with that?

The only thing I can see, is that the game starts to stutter becouse of increased calculations needed.

Maybee when we can run 2x FSAA in 2048x1536 in 60fps we can switch it on, just to "feel" that the image quality should be better (even if it cant be seen)... Kinda like texture filtering, you can still get 60fps with it, so there is no need to switch it off to gain speed.

Best Regards
JemyM

thcdru2k
10-03-02, 08:04 PM
this discussion is all unnessecary, its up to your personal taste, and thats a good thing, set it up the way you want, what you think looks best.

volt
10-03-02, 08:33 PM
KILER is _different_
:D

Chalnoth
10-03-02, 09:51 PM
Originally posted by thcdru2k
this discussion is all unnessecary, its up to your personal taste, and thats a good thing, set it up the way you want, what you think looks best.

Personal taste? Well, tradeoffs are naturally up to personal taste, but there are certain things that are absolutely better-looking.

If you think that an inferior image (ex. 1600x1200x32 w/ no AA vs. 1600x1200x32 w/ 2x AA) looks better, then it is only because you have gotten used to the no AA image, and don't want change. The 16x12x32 w/ 2x AA image will always have superior image quality. The only question is whether or not that increase in image quality is feasible given the performance hit (as it should be on all but the very newest games on modern high-end cards...).

Kruno
10-03-02, 09:57 PM
I am a little weird on the inside :D
Games that look like duds with AF enabled:
FF7 = green borders
FF8 = I have not tried it since the 20.xx dets though but has some green crud on borders as well.

older games I usually play have disgusting effects.

FF7 has lines all over screen with FSAA unless you enable MSM then the FSAA IQ degrades.

JemyM
10-04-02, 02:15 AM
thcdru2k
--------
Without pointless discussion, there would be no... discussion.

Chalnoth
--------

If you think that an inferior image (ex. 1600x1200x32 w/ no AA vs. 1600x1200x32 w/ 2x AA) looks better, then it is only because you have gotten used to the no AA image, and don't want change. The 16x12x32 w/ 2x AA image will always have superior image quality.


That very much depends on the monitor... I agree, that on my 19" I can see the jaggies on 1600x1200, but its very different when running in 1940x1440. Thus, I rather run 1940x1440 than 1600x1200 w AA.

K.I.L.E.R
---------
Thoose kind of console games, can rarely use high resolution, so I understand the need there. I ran AA in Pool of Radiance II myself.

Best Regards
JemyM

thcdru2k
10-04-02, 02:25 AM
1600x1200x32 vs 1600x1200x32 with 2xaa..

even though one is better, its still personal taste. if you rather it look good but have a performance hit and feel slow thats up to you. it all depends on the person still..nothing changed

Chalnoth
10-04-02, 02:58 AM
Originally posted by JemyM
That very much depends on the monitor... I agree, that on my 19" I can see the jaggies on 1600x1200, but its very different when running in 1940x1440. Thus, I rather run 1940x1440 than 1600x1200 w AA.

Not necessarily. While a crappy monitor will certainly diminish the ability to notice AA at high resolutions, there's still more data in the AA image, which will result in superior image quality (Of course, if the monitor is so bad that it blurs multiple pixels together, it won't be noticeable...but I don't think that ever happens...).

For example, my GF4 Ti 4200 + crappy monitor is noticeably blurry at 16x12, but I can still notice the difference between 2x AA and no AA at that res, though the difference is indeed much less striking than at lower resolutions like 1024x768 (which is to be expected on any monitor).


even though one is better, its still personal taste. if you rather it look good but have a performance hit and feel slow thats up to you. it all depends on the person still..nothing changed

Hence the comment about how the tradeoffs are due to personal preference.

One thing to note, however, is that it is most certainly theoretically possible to have AA that can be enabled with next to no performance hit through compression techniques. Even modern video cards that use no compression, such as the GeForce4 Ti line, show precious little performance hit from enabling 2x FSAA (I'm not sure whether or not the Radeon 9700 uses framebuffer compression...the performance figures seem to indicate that it does, but that's not for certain).

StealthHawk
10-04-02, 05:17 AM
Originally posted by K.I.L.E.R
FF7 has lines all over screen with FSAA unless you enable MSM then the FSAA IQ degrades.

you keep saying that, but what are these adverse effects you speak of? could you provide screenshots to prove your case?

JemyM
10-04-02, 05:32 AM
Not necessarily. While a crappy monitor will certainly diminish the ability to notice AA at high resolutions, there's still more data in the AA image, which will result in superior image quality (Of course, if the monitor is so bad that it blurs multiple pixels together, it won't be noticeable...but I don't think that ever happens...).

For example, my GF4 Ti 4200 + crappy monitor is noticeably blurry at 16x12, but I can still notice the difference between 2x AA and no AA at that res, though the difference is indeed much less striking than at lower resolutions like 1024x768 (which is to be expected on any monitor).


Can we agree that it is impossible to run a modern engine in 1940x1440 with AA with todays computers (on a decent FPS level)? I have a 2100+ Athlon XP and a GeForce 3 Ti500.
I dont even know if I have enough memory in the board to go AA in 1940x1440.

With decent I mean 30-60fps as "ok" and +60fps as "prefered if possible".

Can we also agree, that 1024x768, even att best AA will show less details than 1940x1440?

Best Regards
JemyM

StealthHawk
10-04-02, 05:41 AM
increased resolution doesn't get rid of pixel popping and texture shimmering though, does it? so in a way increased resolution doesn't definitively offer more detail. it offers crisper textures and reduced aliasing. i haven't played games at that high of a res, but 1600X1200 doesn't eliminate jaggies, so i'll assume 1940 doesn't either.

FSAA and AF offer different tangible benefits.

of course ideally you want to use both to their maximum capacity, but as has been said here already, its a crapshot. neither approach is perfect and you can't really say one way or another that higher resolution is always better or that FSAA is always better. it is 100% subjective.

Kruno
10-04-02, 07:59 AM
Don't need to prove it (read those other FF7 threads? One of them was Ryoko's).

I just need it fixed. It creates many grids on the screen when you enable FSAA.


Originally posted by StealthHawk


you keep saying that, but what are these adverse effects you speak of? could you provide screenshots to prove your case?

Chalnoth
10-04-02, 09:53 AM
Originally posted by JemyM
Can we agree that it is impossible to run a modern engine in 1940x1440 with AA with todays computers (on a decent FPS level)? I have a 2100+ Athlon XP and a GeForce 3 Ti500.
I dont even know if I have enough memory in the board to go AA in 1940x1440.

I'd be surprised if the Radeon 9700 had problems at 1940x1440 with 2x FSAA, even in Unreal Tournament 2003.

Kruno
10-04-02, 10:05 AM
Don't give your hopes up ;)

Originally posted by Chalnoth


I'd be surprised if the Radeon 9700 had problems at 1940x1440 with 2x FSAA, even in Unreal Tournament 2003.