Last edited by a moderator:
Image Quality and Framebuffer Speculations for WIP/alpha/beta/E3 games *Read the first post*
- Thread starter Farid
- Start date
no performance cost
it's just flickering versus aliasing choice
for compare you can use game pause mode (temporal AA is enable in pause mode) and use TV pause function for disable temporal AA
upnorthsox
Veteran
Is that true? In the interlaced AA you describe, wouldn't it be a matter what frame you grab as to what AA is applied to that frame? And you'd never get the full effect of the interlace unless you blended frames together, no? Also, doesn't the "flicker" come from the pixel shift and thus you'd never see that in a single frame?
user542745831
Veteran
Thanks for your reply.
Did you already figure out what 'Sharpen' image quality mode does?
Silent_Buddha
Legend
Whenever you pause it you will still get X number of samples for AA.
So for example. If their temporal AA variation used 2 different patterns of 4 samples each.
In motion it would appear to be either ~8x AA when at 60 fps or over, or increasing amount of flickering for lines the further below 60 fps you go.
When paused, you'd get 4xAA of one pattern or the other, but not both.
BTW - this is a hypothetical case, and not saying that this game is using 4 sample temporal AA.
Regards,
SB
i see any IQ change. maybe not operating in the demo or just for specific video mode (1080i, SD...)
need good screenshot for compare
user542745831
Veteran
Thanks for your reply.
Seems like that could take a while:
http://twitter.com/digital_foundry/statuses/6823934949
Seems like that could take a while
:http://twitter.com/digital_foundry/statuses/6823934949
green.pixel
Veteran
Even if they have SPU resources to spare, can they change it this late in development?
Thanks. I can cleary see flickering on vertical edges when game is in pause. It`s most noticeable when game is in cockpit view. Therefore I will stick with "flicker reduction" option. I didn`t buy LCD to see any kind of flicker.
I doubt any PS3 exclusive game will be able to throw it in this late in the game as I'm sure they would've used the SPUs to capacity or to the best of their ability so wouldn't have any SPU time left.
Interesting, so does that mean 720p mode has something akin to 6x or 8x aa effectively?
Final Fantasy XIII
2xAA?
http://i45.tinypic.com/or2bgi.png
http://i50.tinypic.com/2nsrj2b.png
http://i50.tinypic.com/10cqdl4.jpg
2xAA?
http://i45.tinypic.com/or2bgi.png
http://i50.tinypic.com/2nsrj2b.png
http://i50.tinypic.com/10cqdl4.jpg
Question: why do games on the ps3 choose to use quincunx instead of just 2xMSAA and in some cases the 360 counterpart would be 2xMSAA without the blurring? Is there and advantage to performance with Quincunx? It would have been interesting to see how FFXIII would look with quincunx (for laughs).
btw isn't this game out already? :-s
btw isn't this game out already? :-s
We could speculate all day about Quincunx vs 2xAA, but performance-wise it's effectively identical. The sticky post has more information. Perhaps they prefer the higher perceived edge blurring as opposed to texture sharpness. Who knows.
We've had the debate before, and preference discussion isn't part of this thread. *shrug*
We've had the debate before, and preference discussion isn't part of this thread. *shrug*
Considering that the majority of the people on this forum can't play this game yet, I think the post is where it belongs.
Just like Bayonetta...though from what I here some European members can purchase it already.
As I understood it, NV implements the filter in the RAMDAC, the tail end of the output.
It's a tradeodd between a blurry mess and a blocky one, basically. You've got in effect the same thing as 2D textures. A 2048x2048 texture will look far nicer when filling a 1920x1080 screen then a 512x512 texture. If you have a lower resolution texture, you can either render it point-sampled and maintain sharpness but render little squares, or interpolate it and generate blurring but break the low resolution look.
In this case, we're talking about a 1280x720 'texture' (frontbuffer) stretched across a certain sized screen. Let's pick 32" as there are 1080p and 720p sets of that size. You either have larger pixels at 720p, or a 1280x720 pixel image rendered at 1080p with or without some 'texture filtering' in effect. The better looking really depends on how far you are from the sets. If you're really close (or have a huge screen), the visible pixels may be annoying like pixelated textures are. But you may also prefer the sharpness over the blurring of an upscaled image.
Still, considering the popularity of texture filtering, I think it goes to show that people prefer some upscaling method over pixel resizing. Which means if your going to stretch the image over a huge screen, you'd probably want some upscaling method rather than just rendering larger pixels.
In this case, we're talking about a 1280x720 'texture' (frontbuffer) stretched across a certain sized screen. Let's pick 32" as there are 1080p and 720p sets of that size. You either have larger pixels at 720p, or a 1280x720 pixel image rendered at 1080p with or without some 'texture filtering' in effect. The better looking really depends on how far you are from the sets. If you're really close (or have a huge screen), the visible pixels may be annoying like pixelated textures are. But you may also prefer the sharpness over the blurring of an upscaled image.
Still, considering the popularity of texture filtering, I think it goes to show that people prefer some upscaling method over pixel resizing. Which means if your going to stretch the image over a huge screen, you'd probably want some upscaling method rather than just rendering larger pixels.
