Park the Shark said:
...
You make a point about "cherry picking" screen shots, motion involved with tri filtering, etc. You do realize that you're essentially saying there's no way to prove that nVidia is damaging IQ, short of posting raw video captures.
No that is wrong. I said you can't prove they are
not damaging image quality short of video captures (or tools like colored mip levels), but said you can prove that they
are damaging image quality. I also explained why: in short, seeing it in still screen shots means you see it in motion,
but seeing it in motion does not mean you will see it in still screen shots...and games are played in motion.
Example of the logical issue here:
You have two metal junction boxes, each with several bare wires. In one box, you see sparks. In the other, you do not. The sparks in the one box is proof that it is dangerous. The absence of sparks in the other box is
not proof that the box is safe. Colored mip map levels are like checking if the wires are bare or not (or maybe whether there are wires at all) in the first place...depends on other factors in the situation for whether there will be a problem when sticking your hands in the junction box.
No one is going to do that for bandwidth reasons.
I think Wavey (DaveBaumann) has been pointing to example shots where he maintains the mip map transition is evident even in still screenshots. Please note, if you are still under a misinterpretation of my comments, that this does not contradict what I actually said. Please direct some discussion towards those examples directly for discussing your questions about being able to see the issue.
More accurate to say that "[H] has not shown obviously noticeable still screenshot IQ degradation for the maps selected", or anyone involved with posting screenshots you may have looked at.
Well, that's what I'm asking... Has ANYONE posted a screenshot showing decreased image quality?
I believe Wavey has been tackling this...?
I have already said that I haven't seen any. I've looked. Haven't found them yet. Got a link for me?
I've seen such pictures, and noticed the transitions in them, and I believe Wavey provided them at the time. I presume he is linking to such pictures in his above discussion to you. Does that serve?
Also, does an accurate reading of my statements about still screenshots help concerning understanding this issue?
It's not like the nVidia cards can't do trilinear...nVidia decided to disable it for fps boosting.
I don't think anyone has disagreed with THAT point.
Well, there was a failure to represent the issue to readers of atleast one of the site's reviews.
5. nVidia has promised to resolve the issue by providing the end-user control over AF.
Note that nVidia's review guidelines already propose that the end-user has control over trilinear filtering ("Quality" mode), though through application detection as evidenced in UT2k3 that is not the whole truth. The whole truth about the change remains to be seen.
So is the bottom line that people want [H] to put on their front page something like "nVidia lied, saying they would give us true tri filtering, but gave us a bi/tri mix".
Actually, I think I'm seeing your point... Essentially, many people are feeling that [H] is supporting the "cheating" because despite KNOWING that nVidia is not doing full tri filtering, they are maintaining that it is fair to compare directly to ATI who IS performing full tri filtering. I do think that is a valid point.
That is the issue with regard to the recent UT2k3 review and the UT2k3 bi/tri article. The controversy is related to quite a bit more besides just that issue, but to which the issue is related, as I outlined.
Furthermore, since ATI does have a very comparable setting, the two should be compared at that setting. Certainly it is NOT fair to set both to full tri-filtering when we know the nVidia card is going to override that.
I'm going to post this directly over at [H] and see if Kyle will respond.
Well, FYI, similar things have been posted there. One polarizing issue, specifically, is that Wavey posted such at [H], in a post that seems by any measure not to have broken the rules of conduct of the forums, but was pointed in factuality and details presented (I'd choose the term "inconvenient" in illustrating issues with Kyle's "take" on trilinear filtering). What is polarizing about this instance is that Kyle banned Wavey as a result of it.
This is (one) incident that adds to the other factors I already mentioned.
You had some other points on why, in general, may do not like Kyle. I'm not into all that, hell just this bi/tri issue is complicated enough.
Well, you did ask. You might not be interested in all the details, but all of the details relate to the "controversy", though you perhaps atleast understand the specific flaws as far as just this issue to see why it is related to a broader issue of controversy.
I'll just let that go by saying that I think there must be some happy medium between allowing folks to go off flaming and deleting something just because you don't like it.
Well, the thing is Kyle allows
himself to go off "flaming"
and deletes things because he doesn't like it.
I personally have no knowledge of the situation and don't care to get involved with it--unless he starts deleting MY posts.
Seriously, though, I have noted he sometimes does have an emotional chip on his shoulder.
Well, you are free to have no knowledge of it, or not to get involved in it, but you can't change that it is involved in the answer to the question about the "controversy" with [H] you asked. However, I don't recommend trying to conduct a discussion by dictating that everyone else must view things in similar isolation.
