Rant: Don't you just hate it when people...

[Kruno]

Tell you that your taste in graphics is WRONG!!!? I don't mind people telling me that it's funny or whacky.

The problem lies with people telling you that it is wrong.
Things like, "Kiler, why are you continually confusing poor image quality for good image quality?". WTF am I confusing? That I prefer 320x240 over 1024x768?

Does my OPINION warrant a bashing?
If so, please tell me what I am supposed to like. :rolleyes:

http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3456&start=20

Yeah, but you just make sure your opinion is ludicrous in every single case, probably to get attention or rouse other members into an argument.

Bigus Dickus:
It gets tiring sometimes. You can only hear someone claim that they really like slow framerates at low resolutions with horrible QAA blur and no AF but so many times before you finally just start thinking of them as mentally damaged.

Don't read those posts if you are tired of them. :rolleyes:
By that statement I am starting to think that he/she are severely emotionally challenged. BD can't take it that I have a different preference than he/she does. :rolleyes:

I mean WOW! Are you going to start crapping on people if you like a Mars Bar and they prefer M&M's over a Mars Bar?

STFU and live with it. :rolleyes:

( I'm not becoming like Sy with all these rants am I? :eek: )

[Uttar]

If you want REAL blur, make each pixel in a screenshot based on a 3x3 grid around it, using the original image pixel values.
Voila! World's most blurry picture ( TM )
You could always ask nVidia to implement that in hardware for the NV35 :P
But even if it increases transistor count, I can promise you I refuse pay one more buck for that 'feature'


Uttar

[StealthHawk]

how are people supposed to know that your post is going to contain a blurb about how you like blurred images and such?

i'm not entirely sure if you're being serious or not when you say you think low resolution looks better than high resolution or joking. you've said it enough times that i think you are serious.

you also conveniently left out this part of BD's replyYeah, but you just make sure your opinion is ludicrous in every single case, probably to get attention or rouse other members into an argument

fine, if you have an opinion that differs from the norm, more power to you. but you've made it very clear that those are your tastes already. do you really need to remind us over and over again? eventually people are going to call you out, especially when you start describing things as getting rid of blur as "bad" instead of "bad for me."

The GF4 is nothing more than a bad GF3 refresh. QAA became poor quality. They reduced the blur. :/
I played UT2K3 at 1024x768 32bpp QAA on my GF3 and it never once went belove 35fps, same with MW and every other game. All at maxed details.

I believe it was a mistake to not allow a QAA blur slider as an option on the GF4. IMO the GF4 maybe slightly faster (not 2x faster :/) with bad QAA.

only at the end of your post do you finally stop using quantifiers and start qualifiers.

[Kruno]

Yer, I must make sure in future I say "bad for me".

[LORD-eX-Bu]

That sucks K.I.L.E.R, don't worry, just a bunch of people that don't know the first thing about tolerance. Anyways, what you like and how you go about things is for you to decide, not for someone else to dictate to you. Don't take any crap from anyone K.I.L.E.R. Keep up the good work bud and give em' hell.;)

[Kruno]

Thanks. :)
I will. :D

[marqmajere]

Oh, and your taste in graphics suxors. :p (Someone had to do it. :D )

[Smokey]

Your tastes do sound strange K.I.L.E.R, but I do remember you starting a thread in the games forum, maybe it was a poll? asking if you had strange tastes in graphics ;) You can like whatever you want to mate :p

[Edge]

You know, while I think it's odd to like lower resolutions, I don't think it's unreasonable. And really when you think about it, lower resolution will make an image more "realistic". In high resolution, you can see all the polygon edges, low res textures, and graphic glitches easily, whereas in lower resolutions you'd never notice it.

For an example, take a screen shot of a game in 1600x1200, and then take it at 400x300. Now enlarge the 400x300 picture using Photoshop or some other program that smooths the image out, and compair it to the 1600x1200 one. Sure, it's a lot blurier, but I'll bet you in the 1600x1200 one you can see fuzzy textures and polygon seems all over, while the origionally 400x300 one is too blury to notice any defects.

Also, try looking at a Doom 3 screenshot from 10 feet away from your monitor. Looks almost %100 realistic. Now look at it from 1 foot away from your monitor. You'll probably notice that the models are made from a (compairativly) low number of polygons. Same picture, different impression.

I don't know if this is the reason that K.I.L.E.R likes low res better, but it just goes to show that personal taste has more to do with images then most people realize. That's why some people don't like AA because it seems to "blur" the screen (and I'm talking regular 2x or 4x AA, not quincunx or anything) and why people don't like Anisotropic because it seems "unrealistic" that a camera could see surface details that clearly from so far away.

So in the end, while I don't always agree with other people opinions, I respect them because everyone sees everything differently, and for every "wrong" thing you think other people think, there's 100 things that people could point out that you're wrong about.

Damn, I've really gotta stop writing such long posts:D

[StealthHawk]

Originally posted by Edge
You know, while I think it's odd to like lower resolutions, I don't think it's unreasonable. And really when you think about it, lower resolution will make an image more "realistic". In high resolution, you can see all the polygon edges, low res textures, and graphic glitches easily, whereas in lower resolutions you'd never notice it.

For an example, take a screen shot of a game in 1600x1200, and then take it at 400x300. Now enlarge the 400x300 picture using Photoshop or some other program that smooths the image out, and compair it to the 1600x1200 one. Sure, it's a lot blurier, but I'll bet you in the 1600x1200 one you can see fuzzy textures and polygon seems all over, while the origionally 400x300 one is too blury to notice any defects.

that's ridiculous. you don't see more graphical glitches at high resolutions than you do at low resolutions. if anything, high resolution helps mask glitches. compare two screenshots at low res and high res. the textures will be clearer at high res. playing at high res doesn't make low resolution textures look worse, it makes them look better.

although i kind of understand what you are saying. if everything is a blurry aliased mess, low res textures wouldn't stand out as much. however, the effects that you are talking about(low res textures standing out more) would really only happen when you have a mix of high res and low res textures. if everything is low res that fact won't "stand out" because it's what is normal.

i also don't really agree with the polygon comparison either. polygon edges can be easily seen no matter what resolution you run at.

there is also a fundamental flaw in saying that AF makes things "too clear" vs no AF. take a look at paint on a street. do you see the lines continuing in a straight fashion all the way down the road? yes. look at a game. without AF the paint dividing the street gets lost in the distance, it becomes garbled. that isn't how real life is. i'm not saying that AF makes things more realistic, even though i think it does, but having no AF also does not make things more realistic.

[Edge]

Perfect example of differing opinions:)
Though I think you could be a little more open minded about it.

Well the thing about textures is that they are limited in resolution. At 1600x1200, you would need to make it so that you can't see textures smaller then that resolution to have it be a "perfect looking" texture. So when you walk up to a wall in an FPS game, if the texture that takes up the ENTIRE screen is less than 1600x1200, then it's going to be not as sharp as the rest of the picture. It would have to be a fairly low-resolution-to-screen-ratio texture before most people would notice it, but it's still going to be less than what the rest of the screen resolution is. And of course, in 320x240 resolution it would have to be a very, very low resolution texture to take up less pixels than the screen resolution.

Anisotropic does make things like lines running down a road seem sharper, and I'll admit that this is a much more realistic effect then how the LOD settings handle it, however you must also remember that when running in 1600x1200, details on all screen elements (including the LOD Bias) is so fine that it begins to surpass what it would look like on a regular TV, and when you have an imperfect source such as a 3d rendering which has imperfect textures, you are going to notice defects.

As far as my polygons edges being just as noticable at low resolutions, I have to disagree. Did you actually do what I suggested and look at a Doom 3 picture from far away and then close up? if you did you'll see my point. There is actually a mathmatical formula that can used to figure that out (in a rendered-edge-size-to-screen-pixels relationship), but please don't make me dig it out again, my brain already hurts from writing this much:p

Take HDTV for example. When people see it they're amazed at how good it looks. But it's also ironic that because of the clearer picture, you can actually see the makeup on people's faces! When you cranck up the resolution so high, you start to see imperfections, whether it be polygon edges or badly put on makeup.

[Kruno]

Take HDTV for example. When people see it they're amazed at how good it looks. But it's also ironic that because of the clearer picture, you can actually see the makeup on people's faces! When you cranck up the resolution so high, you start to see imperfections, whether it be polygon edges or badly put on makeup.

You know what they say? Ignorance is bliss. :)

[Edge]

You know what they say? Ignorance is bliss.

Well, yes, if you wanted to summarize my last 3 pages of opinions I guess that would pretty much be all you'd need to say...bah :D

[Kruno]

I mean the bad make up on characters. :p
The bad make up would ruin the show for me. The make up artists use cheap makeup and can use the TV's motion blur to hide it.

Unfortunate for me that my TV tuner displays a high quality picture.
Meaning that sometimes if you look carefully you can see some wierd things on the characters OTHER than bad makeup. :) *cough* stains on clothes *cough*

[StealthHawk]

Originally posted by Edge So when you walk up to a wall in an FPS game, if the texture that takes up the ENTIRE screen is less than 1600x1200, then it's going to be not as sharp as the rest of the picture.

i still don't see how this is a visual defect. it is a conscious choice made by the game designers. and it still looks sharper than it does at low resolution. you're arguing over consistency, but that is matter of style.

an example of what you're talking about appears in WC3. all characters have the same res textures on the, but the leader of the Burning Legion is an extra large model, using the same resolution textures as the much smaller models. hence, you can see that the textures used on him should have been higher resolution, as it appears very blurry in comparison to the other model's textures. but again, that is up to the designers and artists.

Anisotropic does make things like lines running down a road seem sharper, and I'll admit that this is a much more realistic effect then how the LOD settings handle it, however you must also remember that when running in 1600x1200, details on all screen elements (including the LOD Bias) is so fine that it begins to surpass what it would look like on a regular TV, and when you have an imperfect source such as a 3d rendering which has imperfect textures, you are going to notice defects.

what does tv have to do with computer rendering? i don't think most games are trying to mimic what things would look like on tv versus a computer monitor.

As far as my polygons edges being just as noticable at low resolutions, I have to disagree. Did you actually do what I suggested and look at a Doom 3 picture from far away and then close up? if you did you'll see my point. There is actually a mathmatical formula that can used to figure that out (in a rendered-edge-size-to-screen-pixels relationship), but please don't make me dig it out again, my brain already hurts from writing this much:p

looking at a screenshot from far away will not make blocky models look curved. not at a distance of 10ft.

although i suppose at extremly low resolutions the imprecision and aliasing combine to "pixelate" edges so it would be harder to tell if something was blocky or smooth, because well, everything looks blocky because of the pixelation, at say 320. i'll concede that.

Take HDTV for example. When people see it they're amazed at how good it looks. But it's also ironic that because of the clearer picture, you can actually see the makeup on people's faces! When you cranck up the resolution so high, you start to see imperfections, whether it be polygon edges or badly put on makeup.

and some people, myself included, would argue that is how things are meant to be. bad makeup is not a "imperfection" it is reality. the people are wearing makeup. if the makeup job is bad, the makeup job is bad. it's that simple. whether or not that is desirable is another thing entirely. obviously it isn't. but shows broadcast in HDTV format will just have hire better makeup people then.

edit: basically, at low resolution you have more glitches. period. aliasing is the result of mathematical errors.

so what i am arguing here is NOT that you can't like low resolution. if you prefer it, fine, it's your decision. what i called "ridiculous" was that you were saying that high resolution, which reduces aliasing and makes things crisper, could be akin to glitches. i hope that clears things up.