R520 preview on some site.

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: xtknight
The bottom line is it depends on the algorithm. Supersampling will perhaps make it look better downscaled, where a linear downscale will make it look exactly the same.

That isn't the bottom line when it comes to real time 3d rendering, which is exactly why CG like in LoTR and such is rendered at insane resolutions.

 

[kylebisme]

Doh, I meant to quote:

Originally posted by: xtknight
Everything has jaggies, even real life. They are just VERY small. I'm not an optometrist by any stretch of terms, but last I checked didn't your eyes also work by small dots? Maybe I've been using monitors for too long. 😛

I'll edit my previous post.

 

[xtknight]

Originally posted by: TheSnowman

Originally posted by: xtknight
The bottom line is it depends on the algorithm. Supersampling will perhaps make it look better downscaled, where a linear downscale will make it look exactly the same.

That isn't the bottom line when it comes to real time 3d rendering, which is exactly why CG like in LoTR and such is rendered at insane resolutions.

Isn't that supersampling, not linear downscaling?

ArchAngel777: If the scaler uses supersampling then his original statement was correct.

 

[kylebisme]

d/p

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: xtknight
Everything has jaggies, even real life. They are just VERY small. I'm not an optometrist by any stretch of terms, but last I checked didn't your eyes also work by small dots? Maybe I've been using monitors for too long. 😛

Huh, I have never heard of square atoms.[/quote]

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: xtknight

Originally posted by: TheSnowman

Originally posted by: xtknight
The bottom line is it depends on the algorithm. Supersampling will perhaps make it look better downscaled, where a linear downscale will make it look exactly the same.

That isn't the bottom line when it comes to real time 3d rendering, which is exactly why CG like in LoTR and such is rendered at insane resolutions.

Isn't that supersampling, not linear downscaling?

ArchAngel777: If the scaler uses supersampling then his original statement was correct.

Supersampling is quite simply rendering at a higher resolution and then displaying at a lower one.

 

[xtknight]

That being said I highly doubt my HD tuner uses supersampling. The quality is quite disappointing. When it's not a perfect aspect ratio, it can be a nightmare. Snowman: rememeber the quite evident jaggies in that Matrix picture?

 

[ArchAngel777]

Originally posted by: xtknight

Originally posted by: TheSnowman

Originally posted by: xtknight
The bottom line is it depends on the algorithm. Supersampling will perhaps make it look better downscaled, where a linear downscale will make it look exactly the same.

That isn't the bottom line when it comes to real time 3d rendering, which is exactly why CG like in LoTR and such is rendered at insane resolutions.

Isn't that supersampling, not linear downscaling?

ArchAngel777: If the scaler uses supersampling then his original statement was correct.

Huh? I keep getting more lost as this continues. I never dissagreed with Snowman... At least in this thread 😀

 

[xtknight]

Originally posted by: TheSnowman

Originally posted by: xtknight

Originally posted by: TheSnowman

Originally posted by: xtknight
The bottom line is it depends on the algorithm. Supersampling will perhaps make it look better downscaled, where a linear downscale will make it look exactly the same.

That isn't the bottom line when it comes to real time 3d rendering, which is exactly why CG like in LoTR and such is rendered at insane resolutions.

Isn't that supersampling, not linear downscaling?

ArchAngel777: If the scaler uses supersampling then his original statement was correct.

Supersampling is quite simply rendering at a higher resolution and then displaying at a lower one.

Not according to this site, unless I read/understood it wrong (may be the case):

http://www.neoseeker.com/Hardware/faqs/kb/10,72.html

The results from these "samples" are combined to determine the final color of the pixel. These samples are essentially additional pixels, used to increase the effective resolution of the image to be displayed. If the edge of an object falls partially inside the area of a pixel, its color and the color of another object that partially fills the "area" of the pixel can both be used to calculate the final color.

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: xtknight
That being said I highly doubt my HD tuner uses supersampling. The quality is quite disappointing. When it's not a perfect aspect ratio, it can be a nightmare. Snowman: rememeber the quite evident jaggies in that Matrix picture?

Those jaggies are from upscaling, that is a whole other subject. And again, all displays that alow for resolutions above native are effectively useing supersampling.

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: xtknight

Originally posted by: TheSnowman

Originally posted by: xtknight

Originally posted by: TheSnowman

Originally posted by: xtknight
The bottom line is it depends on the algorithm. Supersampling will perhaps make it look better downscaled, where a linear downscale will make it look exactly the same.

That isn't the bottom line when it comes to real time 3d rendering, which is exactly why CG like in LoTR and such is rendered at insane resolutions.

Isn't that supersampling, not linear downscaling?

ArchAngel777: If the scaler uses supersampling then his original statement was correct.

Supersampling is quite simply rendering at a higher resolution and then displaying at a lower one.

Not according to this site, unless I read/understood it wrong (may be the case):

http://www.neoseeker.com/Hardware/faqs/kb/10,72.html

The results from these "samples" are combined to determine the final color of the pixel. These samples are essentially additional pixels, used to increase the effective resolution of the image to be displayed. If the edge of an object falls partially inside the area of a pixel, its color and the color of another object that partially fills the "area" of the pixel can both be used to calculate the final color.

The site is correct, you are just missing the fact that the rendered resolution has those "additional pixels" which are then mixed down to the native resolution of the display.

 

[xtknight]

Alright-got ya.

 

[kylebisme]

If you want to see an example in action just take screenshot of a game at 1600x1200 and use an image editing program to scale it down to 640x480. Compare that to a screenshot of the game running at 640x480 and you will see the difference quite clearly. Granted you can use different methods of downsampling the screenshots and different displays use different methods to downsample the signal, but all the same the supersampled image is going to better than the one rendered at the display resolution.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: TheSnowman
If you want to see an example in action just take screenshot of a game at 1600x1200 and use an image editing program to scale it down to 640x480. Compare that to a screenshot of the game running at 640x480 and you will see the difference quite clearly. Granted you can use different methods of downsampling the screenshots and different displays use different methods to downsample the signal, but all the same the supersampled image is going to better than the one rendered at the display resolution.

that's merely how nvidia and (afaik) ati ss aa work. 3dfx's wasn't quite the same. the analogy for that would be taking 4 screenshots at 640x480, randomly moving each pixel a tiny bit, and then averaging all 4 frame.

i'm no math major but i would think that randomly moving each pixel a little bit would result in slightly better edge antialiasing than the rigid high resolution then downsample method.

 

[shabby]

Pink psu?

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: ElFenix
that's merely how nvidia and (afaik) ati ss aa work.

Nah, ATI does it the same way, but they only offer supersampling on Macs for whatever reason. Also PowerVR and S3 used the same method, and some 3d applications own software AA is done the same way as well. I simply referred to it as super sampling as it is by far the most comon method, but it is more specificly called ordered grid super sampling.

Originally posted by: ElFenix
3dfx's wasn't quite the same. the analogy for that would be taking 4 screenshots at 640x480, randomly moving each pixel a tiny bit, and then averaging all 4 frame.


i'm no math major but i would think that randomly moving each pixel a little bit would result in slightly better edge antialiasing than the rigid high resolution then downsample method.

Rotated grid super sampling is what 3dfx used, and yes that does provide notably better results but unfortunatly hasn't been supported by any hardware since the Voodoo5.