*spin-off* Personal Preferences on IQ (Part Umpteenth Time)

[TheWretched]

I actually don't mind QAA that much, to be honest. I mean, I see that the games do look less sharp than on the 360 (very noticable on Chris' arm/shoulder in RE5), but the difference isn't sky high as many make it out to be (not here obviously).

But I guess, it really depends on what game you want to use it on. "Realistic" games, like Gran Turismo might suffer from the slight vaseline but others, more "comic-like" games, like Uncharted (didn't use it, afaik), Assassins Creed or even Resident Evil don't suffer that much, especially since there is less AA than otherwise (2xMSAA or even no MSAA at all).

Maybe Sony put it into the TRC after realising that no AA is actually MUCH worse and it looks subjectivly better than 2xMSAA. Maybe the V-Lock is also mandatory to some, as many multiplatform games today have it on PS3, but not on 360 (I remember a story, that Sony also made V-Lock mandatory on PS1 or PS2, except only some developers closer to them).

 

[deepbrown]

I actually don't mind QAA that much, to be honest. I mean, I see that the games do look less sharp than on the 360 (very noticable on Chris' arm/shoulder in RE5), but the difference isn't sky high as many make it out to be (not here obviously).

But I guess, it really depends on what game you want to use it on. "Realistic" games, like Gran Turismo might suffer from the slight vaseline but others, more "comic-like" games, like Uncharted (didn't use it, afaik), Assassins Creed or even Resident Evil don't suffer that much, especially since there is less AA than otherwise (2xMSAA or even no MSAA at all).

Maybe Sony put it into the TRC after realising that no AA is actually MUCH worse and it looks subjectivly better than 2xMSAA. Maybe the V-Lock is also mandatory to some, as many multiplatform games today have it on PS3, but not on 360 (I remember a story, that Sony also made V-Lock mandatory on PS1 or PS2, except only some developers closer to them).

I agree, it depends on the game. It appears to fit well with Killzone 2's post-processing - at least, it doesn't detract.

 

[SG79]

I actually don't mind QAA that much, to be honest. I mean, I see that the games do look less sharp than on the 360 (very noticable on Chris' arm/shoulder in RE5), but the difference isn't sky high as many make it out to be (not here obviously).

But I guess, it really depends on what game you want to use it on. "Realistic" games, like Gran Turismo might suffer from the slight vaseline but others, more "comic-like" games, like Uncharted (didn't use it, afaik), Assassins Creed or even Resident Evil don't suffer that much, especially since there is less AA than otherwise (2xMSAA or even no MSAA at all).

Maybe Sony put it into the TRC after realising that no AA is actually MUCH worse and it looks subjectivly better than 2xMSAA. Maybe the V-Lock is also mandatory to some, as many multiplatform games today have it on PS3, but not on 360 (I remember a story, that Sony also made V-Lock mandatory on PS1 or PS2, except only some developers closer to them).

Maybe I'm overly picky or perhaps I had the chance to try both versions of RE5, I'm not a fan of QAA and much prefer temporal like DMC4 and MGS4. Of course, that was the least of the PS3 version's issues, but the sharper image quality really stood out as texture detail popped a bit more. Heck, I'd prefer no AA to QAA because of that.

The recent QAA implementation could be a coincidence. After all, if a developer managed to get 2X MSAA in a game without sacrificing other areas, why would Sony object? Uncharted used that too. A V-lock requirement would be bizarre considering that some of the best performing console games out there do have tearing. Including Sony's old PS2 games like the first two God of War games.

 

[assurdum]

Maybe I'm overly picky or perhaps I had the chance to try both versions of RE5, I'm not a fan of QAA and much prefer temporal like DMC4 and MGS4. Of course, that was the least of the PS3 version's issues, but the sharper image quality really stood out as texture detail popped a bit more. Heck, I'd prefer no AA to QAA because of that.

The recent QAA implementation could be a coincidence. After all, if a developer managed to get 2X MSAA in a game without sacrificing other areas, why would Sony object? Uncharted used that too. A V-lock requirement would be bizarre considering that some of the best performing console games out there do have tearing. Including Sony's old PS2 games like the first two God of War games.

I never understood this hate to qaa , forgive me, really. It is a an excellent filter but slightly blurry , similar 4x AA edge but more economic, what is the problem for a slight blur? It's only visible in a shots comparison and maybe more evident with a component cable but really not so perceivable. Better no AA to QAA? Absolutely no. Did you see the jaggies in yakuza 3? Atrocious. However I have another question, why someone said QAA requer vsync when ubisoft games use this and they have a huge amount of tearing?

 

[SonComet]

I never understood this hate to qaa , forgive me, really. It is a an excellent filter but slightly blurry , similar 4x AA edge but more economic, what is the problem for a slight blur? It's only visible in a shots comparison and maybe more evident with a component cable but really not so perceivable. Better no AA to QAA? Absolutely no. Did you see the jaggies in yakuza 3? Atrocious. However I have another question, why someone said QAA requer vsync when ubisoft games use this and they have a huge amount of tearing?

The hate stems from the fact that 2XAA looks better than QAA and the cost is the same. I personally wish that devs allowed you to swap between QAA and 2XAA in the options menu.

 

[Boxercide]

It makes no sense to use if the "cost" is the same. It's accepted fact that QAA results in a blurrier image for approx the same AA.

I find it hard to believe that developers would purposely blur their graphics after working so hard to make them as pristine as possible. There has to be some trade-off that makes it an acceptable proposition.

I would postulate that it must "cost" less in certain resources to be such a popular alternative.

 

[djskribbles]

Doesn't QAA do a better job than 2xMSAA, in terms of hiding jaggies?

There are a few games with QAA that look good, mainly Sony exclusives (Resistance 2, Killzone 2 to name a few). This may be due to the fact that there's nothing else to compare it to.

I'm not a big fan of QAA, but I don't mind it either, as long as it doesn't make the game look too soft.

 

[Boxercide]

I'd say it's debatable whether it's better. My main complaint is that if it truly is the same cost, why use it when you get (arguably) the same reduction of jaggies with no blur effect whatsoever?

 

[Thowllly]

I'd say it's debatable whether it's better. My main complaint is that if it truly is the same cost, why use it when you get (arguably) the same reduction of jaggies with no blur effect whatsoever?

But it is the same cost. Or, if there is a difference, QAA is actually more expensive. Both 2xAA and QAA is rendered the same way, the only difference is how you display it. QAA does give you more inbetween shades on edges, it's basically the same as AMDs tent filter, only AMD gpus gives you an option of 4 or 6 sample tent filters for 2xAA, while nvidia uses 5 sample tent filter.

 

[assurdum]

I'd say it's debatable whether it's better. My main complaint is that if it truly is the same cost, why use it when you get (arguably) the same reduction of jaggies with no blur effect whatsoever?

No, it isn't debatable. QAA it's better of 2x MSAA , no way, in the edge. The developers aren't so idiot if prefer that. All Ubisoft titles have QAA and anyone notice that or very few users and the blur effect is hardly perceivable. Minor costs but better results to a 'medium' AA filter. One thing it's true, not every games do a good use of this (Chronicles of Riddick for example is terrible, I don't understood if the cause is the QAA or the resolution). RE 5 however for the most part not have AA , anyone notice terribile difference in the sharpness when there isn't? Honestly no in my opinion. But compared to 360 probably is surely evident.

 

[_phil_]

For everything alpha test it's much better with QAA.

 

[Iron Tiger]

I'd say it's debatable whether it's better. My main complaint is that if it truly is the same cost, why use it when you get (arguably) the same reduction of jaggies with no blur effect whatsoever?

Well, the "debate" seems to lean more to it being nearly as good as 4xMSAA for smoothing out aliasing. Results will vary with adjustment to the LOD bias, but when it starts looking more like 2xAA, then the texture blurring isn't so bad. QAA seems like a great solution for consoles, because the developer should be able to script in where on-the-fly LOD bias adjustments for optimal IQ, especially in cut scenes.

 

[Dargakis]

I rather have jaggies then blurred out textures.
Of course, this being the internet, john wil not agree and flint will hate my opinion.
That's why they should have the option to disable this 'fullscreen blur'. That way everybody will have his opinion respected, even the people that has different opinions
We payed two to three times more for the ps3. So we do not deserve to have the image blurred out, in my opinion.

 

[AlNom]

Another spin-off for folks to voice their personal preferences outside of the Technology Forum.

 

[vanquish]

Ratchet and Clank on PS3 was one game where QAA made the game look horrible.

But the implementation in KZ2 works ok (however there is a lot of blur/post-processing going on in KZ2, which is probably why it fits in)

 

[Thowllly]

AHEM.

[*]Talk should remain technical all the time. What you personally prefer is not the topic at all. Start a new thread, or try to fit that in an existing thread. Just not this one.

Evidently, certain folks have a tough time with sticking to the topic and forum rules... Offending posts have been moved here: http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php?t=53558

Further violations will result in more yellow or red cards being handed out! Please be mindful of the difference between Technical Discussion and your own preferences (which may in fact be wildly different from others!)

Another spin-off for folks to voice their personal preferences outside of the Technology Forum.

AHEM yourself. I deliberately left my subjective opinion out of my post, and only stuck with objective fact. I can only assume you moved it to keep the context, not because of any imagined personal opinion. I'm only posting this because of the "offending posts have been moved" line, since it implies that my post was one of the offending ones. If I broke a rule by replying to a post that broke the rules, then I'm sorry for that.



But now that I'm in a different thread, I can say that I thought the blurring in R&C actually looked good. (but I think it might have used a wider filter than QAA, if my memory is not fooling me)

 

[djskribbles]

Ratchet and Clank on PS3 was one game where QAA made the game look horrible.

But the implementation in KZ2 works ok (however there is a lot of blur/post-processing going on in KZ2, which is probably why it fits in)

In the sticky, it says R&C uses 2xAA, so I'm assuming that means it's not using QAA.

 

[DrJay24]

Ratchet and Clank on PS3 was one game where QAA made the game look horrible.

R&C is a great looking title, I suggest you take another look at it. I popped it in the other night and was very surprised how it held up, I'd put it in the top 5% of PS360 games.

This thread is nuts, QAA is always just a proxy for the console war. The opinions here are just over the top hyperbole IMO.

 

[djskribbles]

+1. I think R&C looks great, very clean looking.

 

[vanquish]

In the sticky, it says R&C uses 2xAA, so I'm assuming that means it's not using QAA.

Are we sure it's using 2xAA? It could be a mistake as both Resistance games use QAA, it seems unlikely that Insomniac would change the tech.

And R&C is probably the blurriest looking PS3 game i've played.