Exactly. I think I'd much prefer to see some form of digital LP filter applied first.Fafalada said:Retina-buffer(tm)?Simon said:But how do they get blended? Is there some form of accumulation buffer?
Exactly. I think I'd much prefer to see some form of digital LP filter applied first.Fafalada said:Retina-buffer(tm)?Simon said:But how do they get blended? Is there some form of accumulation buffer?
I think that's an inaccurate statement. First of all, for a CRT, you want a high refresh for ATI's temporal dithering to work best. For LCD's a long response time really shouldn't make much difference, except for very high contrast edges.nobody said:Chalnoth said:And you should understand that if there's motion, they can't be blended out.
That's the point.
Temporal AA may work only if there's no movement in a scene and your display device (CRT or TFT) refreshes very slow.
nobody said:Chalnoth said:And you should understand that if there's motion, they can't be blended out.
That's the point.
Temporal AA may work only if there's no movement in a scene and your display device (CRT or TFT) refreshes very slow.
Chalnoth said:Heh. Ideally, a CRT will go what is effectively completely black between refreshes of the screen. There's no reason to desire motion trails on any display device.
Sure, but if they are made to run at the higher refresh rates this isn't an issue, is it?Cryect said:Thats true but unfortunately as they have been putting better phosphors into monitors so you can have refresh rates unfortunately this has a detrimental effect on lower refresh rates. I've noticed older monitors I have no issues with 60Hz refresh rate on them but newer monitors <80Hz on a lot still has flickering issues.
Well, you can always force higher refreshes with various sorts of software...Cryect said:Nah its not really just was commenting on it since its a minor issue if you are using older stuff that doesn't run higher than 60Hz (ex VGA)
No. This would be the exact same thing as 4x OGSS. We've been there, done that. It's typically not worth the performance hit, particularly not compared to modern MSAA implementations.flick556 said:I always liked HAA(half antialiasing) I have seen it in one or two software renders, you simply render at twice the required resolution and then downsize to the desired resolution. The results are pretty good. I think this should already be possable in consoles given thier low res and it should soon be possable to render double 1024 res for pc. If this ever worked at acceptable speeds it could replace current systems, though I'm not sure if current AA is based on this idea or not.
Chalnoth said:No. This would be the exact same thing as 4x OGSS. We've been there, done that. It's typically not worth the performance hit, particularly not compared to modern MSAA implementations.flick556 said:I always liked HAA(half antialiasing) I have seen it in one or two software renders, you simply render at twice the required resolution and then downsize to the desired resolution. The results are pretty good. I think this should already be possable in consoles given thier low res and it should soon be possable to render double 1024 res for pc. If this ever worked at acceptable speeds it could replace current systems, though I'm not sure if current AA is based on this idea or not.
This was the FSAA used with the GeForce 256/GeForce2 series of processors.flick556 said:Good to know; how was the quality, it's hard for me to compare given the differences between hardware and software renders and I have never seen 4x OGSS before. It seems like such a simple solution that could produce very good results. Though the performance hit would be high.
This isn't true. MSAA never computes more than one color value per triangle per pixel. The reason why you get some extra cost at triangle edges is that when more than one triangle intersects the pixel, more than one color value ends up being calculated. So it's not an automatic 4x performance hit for that pixel.Cryect said:MSAA (Multisampling AA) is preferred in general because it only breaks pixels into 4 pixels if an edge goes through that pixel and then once it breaks into 4 pixels it of course takes 4 times the processing there.
Chalnoth said:This isn't true. MSAA never computes more than one color value per triangle per pixel. The reason why you get some extra cost at triangle edges is that when more than one triangle intersects the pixel, more than one color value ends up being calculated. So it's not an automatic 4x performance hit for that pixel.Cryect said:MSAA (Multisampling AA) is preferred in general because it only breaks pixels into 4 pixels if an edge goes through that pixel and then once it breaks into 4 pixels it of course takes 4 times the processing there.