GFFX AA post filtering?

C

cellarboy

Newcomer
From [H]Ocp:

GeForce FX Reviews Wrong?
While we are still looking into this, it seems that the in-game screen shots posted on the Net yesterday showing off IQ produced by the GeForceFX 5800 Ultra are "wrong".

There is no doubt that we criticized the GFFX for its AntiAliasing, and now it seems that we may have not had the proper evidence to base our conclusions on. To quote ourselves from this page:


With NoAA you can see the aliasing is quite predominant. 2X AA and Quincunx don’t seem to do much on the GeForceFX visually, but the FPS are effected comparing the shots to the original with no AA enabled.

Of course all of this left us a bit puzzled, and wondering about the AA abilities of the drivers, but the "facts" are the fact correct?

We have been working with NVIDIA on this to get an answer and it seems that now we have the preliminary information to give us a bit more insight on the question.

The GeForceFX's technology applies filters that effect AntiAliasing and Anisotropic filtering after the frame has left the frame buffer. In short, this means that all of our screenshots do not accurately represent the true in-game visual quality that the GFFX can and will produce, as the screen shot were pulled from the frame buffer. We have come to conclusions about the GFFX IQ (Image Quality) that are simply wrong.

While we cannot answer for other reviews of the GeForceFX it is very possible this is an issue with those articles as well, if they were in fact thorough enough to cover IQ.

We are currently working on a way to capture the images properly and will be revisiting the GeForceFX 5800 Preview by covering the IQ portion of our preview with proper screen shot comparison or further addressing the truth surrounding this situation.

Certainly this is a huge issue it seems that NVIDIA was not even aware of when they issued us the review units. Having 48 hours to preview the card over Superbowl weekend compounded this, and while that is no excuse for improper evaluation on our part, it did certainly impact our ability to do a better evaluation. We are sorry for any incorrect evaluations we have made and are working now to remedy the situation. Any new information will be posted here on our news page.
Click to expand...
 
From [H]Ocp:

The GeForceFX's technology applies filters that effect AntiAliasing and Anisotropic filtering after the frame has left the frame buffer. In short, this means that all of our screenshots do not accurately represent the true in-game visual quality that the GFFX can and will produce, as the screen shot were pulled from the frame buffer. We have come to conclusions about the GFFX IQ (Image Quality) that are simply wrong.
Click to expand...
It's not possible to apply anisotropic filtering to the whole frame at once as you need the texture data, not the frame buffer, to compute the values. I believe HardOCP misunderstood something here.
 
The Author of Hypersnap has never been aware there was a need for a Nvidia post filter caption, I've emailed him before on this as I got a copy.
Since Hypersnap is capable of capturing 3DFX's post filter maybe worth a shot to try it..its a very good screen capture utility and there is a trial version.
 
The issues has been evident since GF4 anyway, so why they didn't know about this until now is beyond me.
Click to expand...

Because in the case of the GF4, it allowed them to illustrate how superior Quincunx was compared to the GF3 by using screenshots. :)

Seriously, I was baffled to see razor-sharp screenshots of the GF4 with Quincunx on all the major websites, yet firing up a game of Everquest or Tribes2- the huds and text were extremely difficult to read and blurry. Sure enough, taking some screenshots myself (and the debates that ensued on this forum) showed the framebuffer snapshots did not truly represent the final on-screen image quality.

How sites could say how much sharper and better Quincunx was based on screenshots only illustrates reviewers need to spend more time on reviews. Had they actually played the games and paid attention to the on-screen, in game IQ, it would have stood out like a sore thumb how different the screenshots are from in-game.

Can't say I blame HardOCP or Anand on this front though. Given TWO (2) days to pack as much information, benchmarks and html as they did is just uncanny. I'd really like to know what caffeine/taurine supplements they use and where I can get some. :)
 
Actually, I believe the problem with AA *is* the post filtering.

As for AF... I think nVidia is simply trying to make people think the problem is the same. However, I don't think that's the case. In reality, they probably made their algorithm too aggressive. So, they're going to make it less aggressive in a future revision, increase the performance hit, and no one will notice it because overall performance will have increased with more mature drivers.


Uttar
 
I, too, wonder what NV actually meant by stating "The GeForceFX's technology applies filters that effect AntiAliasing and Anisotropic filtering after the frame has left the frame buffer. " Filters? Like, blur filters? Or were they just too lazy to explain the GF4-like "sampling" that happens after the framebuffer?

*puzzled*

ta,
-Sascha.rb
 
I'm sure it's possible that the FSAA on the FX is better than the screenshots would indicate, especially if they borrowed some ideas from 3dfx(who also did AA like that as I recall). However, the reviews I read still said that in games the 9700 appeared to do 2xFSAA a good deal better than the FX. I'll be interested to see how this plays out, but I'd place my money on ATI still coming out the winner when it comes to FSAA quality.
 
Its still OGMS vs RGMS.
Click to expand...

Not with 2X. 2X on the GeForce should still be rotated. It could still be of different quality depending on the exact location of samples, and whatver gamma correction (or lack therof) is applied to the FX.
 
OpenGL guy said:
It's not possible to apply anisotropic filtering to the whole frame at once as you need the texture data, not the frame buffer, to compute the values. I believe HardOCP misunderstood something here.
Click to expand...
True, but you cannot judge the texture quality without looking at the actual final output. Depending on how the samples are blended, the output blending can increase (supersampling) or decrease (QC/4x9) the texture quality of the output.
 
Lol, so the following statement could be taken as true?

"Screenshots can't begin to describe how good the 2x aa of the FX is."

My feeble attempt at injecting some levity. :)


I too thought it was fairly well known that screenshots of aa in action couldn't always be taken at face value. Quality in motion is another thing too but that leads us to subjective impressions which is a whole another can of worms.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

T
FuryGPU - A full capable GPU implemented on FPGA
Replies
0
Views
425
TopSpoiler
T
Shifty Geezer
Feedback wanted on game project [PC Web] *self promotion
Replies
19
Views
2K
Shifty Geezer
Shifty Geezer
I
Possible rasterization pop-in/too fast frame delivery on LG OLED A2?
Replies
18
Views
2K
inlimbo
I
Shortbread
Phil Spencer Interview: Redfall Reviews, Activision Deal - Kinda Funny Xcast Ep. 137
7 8 9
Replies
175
Views
9K
trinibwoy
T
Kaotik
Working in psychiatry is fun and games
Replies
4
Views
698
Kaotik
Kaotik
Back
Top