Digital Foundry Article Technical Discussion Archive [2015]
- Thread starter Deleted member 11852
- Start date
-
- Tags
- digital foundry
- Status
IRC - there is no AA on 750 Ti and framerate is much worse. I don't know about other settings
The consoles use AA so the 750Ti will be using it too. It would be a ridiculous oversight and completely invalidate the article to miss such an obvious setting when deliberately aiming for visual parity.
As far as performance goes, the 750Ti is arguably a little faster in the video but both systems seem to trade blows.
OK @Cyan. Look at that video at around 2:50 (they are comparing XB1 with 750ti cards), a couple of things:
- The XB1 game regularly drops at 29 or 28 on the fps meter in this short city scene.
- Even when the fps meter stays >= 30, there are constant frame time fluctuations above 33ms meaning the game if capped would each time drops under 30fps in a very similar way of the PS4 game.
But don't worry, even DF completely miss the point and believe a fps counter above or equals to 30fps automatically means a potentially judder-free 30fps capped game, they imply that the capped XB1 game would run much better than the PS4 when it's in fact totally false. Here they are harmful to the PS4 not the XB1 game.
Now in the light of those new frame-time concepts, watch again the PS4 vs XB1 performance video by comparing only the frame-time values above 33ms, ignoring the rest, you'll see that in fact both games, if theoretically both capped, would run very similarly during basically the whole video. Obviously ignore also the cutscenes moments where the PS4 is capped at 20fps (in order to effectively hide judder, and it works believe me, a cutscene capped at 20fps is better than a ~25fps fluctuating one).
Last edited:
They gave exact settings in youtube video description and there's nothing about the AA. It could be in the "postprocess effect" category, but IMO it should be listed sparately. Also DF mentioned that foliage and shadows rendering visibility is superb on PC ultra settings, much better than on consoles. Point is that I haven't seen any pop-up on PS4 neither- visibility is great.
I just noticed that the Anisotropic Filtering is in fact better on the PS4 version.
Judging by the fact that PC is at a locked 16xAF, that in this screen PS4 AF is just a notch under PC 16x, and that PS4 AF level is between PC and XB1 in many areas, we can assume that PS4 often uses 8xAF vs 4xAF for XB1.
Which goes well with my actual observations. Indeed I several times thought that I was looking at 8xAF textures (when I erroneously thought I dunno why that the consoles version had 4xAF).
EDIT: Plz can a moderator move this post on the DF thread? Sorry about this.
Judging by the fact that PC is at a locked 16xAF, that in this screen PS4 AF is just a notch under PC 16x, and that PS4 AF level is between PC and XB1 in many areas, we can assume that PS4 often uses 8xAF vs 4xAF for XB1.
Which goes well with my actual observations. Indeed I several times thought that I was looking at 8xAF textures (when I erroneously thought I dunno why that the consoles version had 4xAF).
EDIT: Plz can a moderator move this post on the DF thread? Sorry about this.
mmm. If you are right @AlNets I have never seen such discrepancy in textures clarity just because of a 900p / 1080p difference which really should look like this example, where the difference is more subtle:
Also I have just noticed a sharpen filter in effect in the PC pics that could again improve perceived sharpness of the PC version of textures and particularly vegetation.
But let's forget all of this guys because I am going to talk about a much more interesting aspect of the game that no one talked about before: the motion blur used on PS4. :smile2:
There are some interesting dynamic motion blur settings on PS4 and I am generally pretty happy about CD project decisions:
- In 99% of my playtime in the game, there is no motion blur applied (at all) in the near vicinity of the character. The motion blur is applied only at a certain distance (like a ~100m from the character).
- Until now the 2 places where I found a the usual unbearably strong motion blur even close to the camera is at the beginning in your house and a bit later in a castle when they change your clothes and you have to meet with a very important person. I suppose all future 'resting' moments in castles meeting with people will have motion blur applied too. But that's Ok cause we don't have to stay long in those places.
But apparently the lack of motion blur during 99% of the time close to the character doesn't bother a lot of people....I mean, did people even notice it?
They could even deactivate the motion blur applied on the background and no one would see any difference...Ah yes, I think I have read some people complaining about the motion blur used in the console version, well, retrospectively I think they complained when there was one applied close to the character in the tutorial or in the castle after, because that one is some heavy stuff indeed...
Also I have just noticed a sharpen filter in effect in the PC pics that could again improve perceived sharpness of the PC version of textures and particularly vegetation.
But let's forget all of this guys because I am going to talk about a much more interesting aspect of the game that no one talked about before: the motion blur used on PS4. :smile2:
There are some interesting dynamic motion blur settings on PS4 and I am generally pretty happy about CD project decisions:
- In 99% of my playtime in the game, there is no motion blur applied (at all) in the near vicinity of the character. The motion blur is applied only at a certain distance (like a ~100m from the character).
- Until now the 2 places where I found a the usual unbearably strong motion blur even close to the camera is at the beginning in your house and a bit later in a castle when they change your clothes and you have to meet with a very important person. I suppose all future 'resting' moments in castles meeting with people will have motion blur applied too. But that's Ok cause we don't have to stay long in those places.
But apparently the lack of motion blur during 99% of the time close to the character doesn't bother a lot of people....I mean, did people even notice it?
They could even deactivate the motion blur applied on the background and no one would see any difference...Ah yes, I think I have read some people complaining about the motion blur used in the console version, well, retrospectively I think they complained when there was one applied close to the character in the tutorial or in the castle after, because that one is some heavy stuff indeed...
Last edited:
I just noticed that the Anisotropic Filtering is in fact better on the PS4 version.
I don't believe this has nothing to do with AF being lower on XB1... I think this has more to do with LOD. Or a more aggressive form of it. Given that the XB1 has a lower resolution, it just exacerbates the LOD issue even more. Pretty much it's like looking at my PC edition of GTA V when compared to my PS4 edition... things at a distance just seems less vivid or detailed (clarity) on the PS4.
I think its just the lower image resolution blurring the details out
Still, I find the blurring on the XB1 game abnormal in some areas compared to others 900p / 1080p games.
Could the chromatic aberration applied on 900p on XB1 and at 1080p on PS4 explain this?
On the Bone, most +33 ms frame times are follow or preceded (or both) by a 16 ms frame. This is a pacing issue and not evidence that - if capped at 30 hz - the Bone version would necessarily see the same types of frame rate drops as the PS4.
It seems pretty clear that XB1 game is running better the majority of the time. Except it's not capped, so it's actually running worse most of the time.
It seems pretty clear that XB1 game is running better the majority of the time. Except it's not capped, so it's actually running worse most of the time.
@Nesh So in fact what I took for 2x hardware AA was in fact a post AA mimicking a 2xMSAA... OK, my bad. But like on PS4, the vegetation on PC does not seem to be post '2xAA' antialiased at all. With or without the post AA, edges on trees and grass are identically aliased.
http://international.download.nvidi...wild-hunt-anti-aliasing-001-off-1920x1080.png
http://international.download.nvidi...-wild-hunt-anti-aliasing-001-on-1920x1080.png
http://international.download.nvidi...wild-hunt-anti-aliasing-001-off-1920x1080.png
http://international.download.nvidi...-wild-hunt-anti-aliasing-001-on-1920x1080.png
The AA method seems to produce ugly results when its combined with the upscaled image of the XB1. Other than that it doesnt seem to do much of difference, probably due to the higher density of the pixels at 1080p. I suspect it tries to blur out larger sections in 900p because pixels are larger and the algorithm treats them as aliasing.
Just out of curiosity, can you capture the following?
one image at 1080p with AA
one image at 1080p without AA
one image at 900p with AA
one image at 900p without AA
Assuming of course that the PC is using the same method. 900p with AA might probably look blurrier than the 900p image without AA
It seems odd that a strictly post-process pass would turn 1x stairsteps into 2x stairsteps. This goes back to the temporal AA issue; if it's using TAA, the reprojection is probably what provides the apparent 2x sampling. Like, if the TAA isn't providing 2x sampling, what is it doing?
What is odd about temporal method to provide 2xSSAA?
They jitter sample positions between frames use re-projection to correct possible movement. (With 2 frames it gets 2 samples worth of AA.)
http://bartwronski.com/2014/03/15/temporal-supersampling-and-antialiasing/
Interesting is that they seem to do it either before rendering the grass/transparent pass or reject it.
They jitter sample positions between frames use re-projection to correct possible movement. (With 2 frames it gets 2 samples worth of AA.)
http://bartwronski.com/2014/03/15/temporal-supersampling-and-antialiasing/
Interesting is that they seem to do it either before rendering the grass/transparent pass or reject it.
Nothing. That's totally normal, and I intended for my post to imply as much. My confusion is with DF's wording which seems to imply that a spatial* post-process method is producing a 2x appearance, with "a temporal component" as a separate entity.
*I probably should have said spatial, in my earlier post I was using "post process" to strictly refer to such methods, i.e. FXAA and SMAA.
Yep AA is in the postprocessing section of the graphics menu.
"All post effects on except vignetting."
Take a look at the first comparison tool picture on the left. The difference is obvious.
- Status
Similar threads
