TXAA Anti-Aliasing Makes Its Debut In Latest Update For The Secret World

[Akantus]

True, but be careful when said crap options draw away from the same dev resource pool that could have been used to implement real MSAA. If this game had MSAA along with FXAA, TXAA etc then fine, I would praise it for giving "options". But its only options are "bad" and "worse" is not good enough.

Yea, that's also true.

 

[BFG10K]

Yes, but that doesn't solve pixel crawling, aliasing in motion and incorrect HDR - all the things that TXAA does solve.

Actually it would “solve” everything you mentioned except HDR because there wouldn’t be any more high frequency data. This is similar to how TXAA’s blur filter is solving them.

I use the term “solve” loosely, though.

It all comes back to a performance/IQ/compatibility trade-off, and having extra options for the customer. More options are always good of course, but let’s not pretend this is some kind of amazing implementation.

 

[BFG10K]

Slight correction BFG. ATI's Temporal AA was not "temporal AA" as we know it (that is, solving temporal artifacts like crawl).

All forms of AA reduce aliasing during movement to different degrees, including standard MSAA and SSSA. This is inherent to their properties, yet nobody refers them as temporal AA.

The “temporal” here refers to the existence of multi-frame AA, which standard modes lack.

The "temporal" factor was that the MSAA sample pattern changed with every frame.

Right, just like TXAA, which also relies on data from multiple frames to convey the total image.

 

[ViRGE]

Right, just like TXAA, which also relies on data from multiple frames to convey the total image.

Which ATI's Temporal AA didn't do. It didn't combine data from multiple frames; it left that task to your eyes (which is why it was never possible to take a meaningful screenshot).

 

[BFG10K]

Which ATI's Temporal AA didn't do. It didn't combine data from multiple frames; it left that task to your eyes (which is why it was never possible to take a meaningful screenshot).

Temporal AA refers to multi-frame AA (which ATi's method was), not a simple reduction in movement induced artifacts. If it was the latter then every form of AA ever invented is “temporal”.

Also you can't take meaningful stills from TXAA either (as per the blog); that's the nature of this form of AA.

 

[Gryz]

Does anyone have an example (or explanation) of what "pixel crawl" is exactly ? Was it known under another name before ? ("Dot crawl", maybe ?) Google doesn't reveal much.

Is it the effect you can see during the Skyrim loading screens (which have a different 3d-render of an in-game item every time) ? I sometimes get a "twinkling white-ish outline" around those items. As if the pixels on the outline of the item twinkle.

 

[ViRGE]

Temporal AA refers to multi-frame AA (which ATi's method was), not a simple reduction in movement induced artifacts. If it was the latter then every form of AA ever invented is “temporal”.

Also you can't take meaningful stills from TXAA either (as per the blog); that's the nature of this form of AA.

Either you're being dense, I'm being dense, or you're trying to drive me insane. I'm not sure which one it is.

The point I'm trying to make is that ATI's Temporal AA was a poor man's MSAA. It wasn't meant to do what TXAA does, it was meant to offer cheap MSAA and that's all it did. Because of that, ATI's temporal AA is temporal AA in the same way that MSAA is temporal AA, which is to say it isn't.

Ultimately it sucked, and more importantly it thankfully has nothing to do with real temporal AA as implemented by TXAA and games that implement it directly (e.g. Crysis 2).

 

[SirPauly]

http://www.geforce.com/whats-new/articles/the-secret-world-txaa/


SSAA never samples outside a pixel, and sampling inside the pixel is done by MSAA.


Where? Post the quote please.

It's also quite funny to see him hailing it is the greatest thing since sliced bread because it blurs games like a Bluray move. Sorry, but that's not high quality. ATi was doing this stuff years ago and it flopped.

nVidia uses the words "softer image" a lot to gloss over this problem.

TXAA will look better in motion than on stills. In motion TXAA super-samples using samples from prior frames, on stills the number of samples is limited.

I am not saying this is traditional or conventional super-sampling. It is the samples from prior frames that offer the temporal super-sampling, and in motion, the effect achieved reminds me of between x4 SSAA and x8 SSAA.

 

[SirPauly]

TXAA has nothing to do with SSAA.
TXAA is a combination of 2/4xMSAA, temporary AA and another downsampling filter.

The key is the motion effect caused by The temporary AA and even Timothy Lottes used x4 SGSSA quality or filter a bit better.

Allocate an extra 2 textures for the temporal component.

 

[BFG10K]

The point I'm trying to make is that ATI's Temporal AA was a poor man's MSAA. It wasn't meant to do what TXAA does, it was meant to offer cheap MSAA and that's all it did.

And the point I’m making is that you’re arguing semantics. It doesn’t matter what it was meant to do or why it was designed. Not to mention that you could also argue that TXAA is just a cheap form of SSAA.

Fact 1: ATi’s version was a multi-frame AA that offered pseudo random sampling, just like TXAA.

Fact 2: It relied on multiple frames to convey the overall experience, just like TXAA. One frame alone couldn’t show the whole story, just like TXAA.

Facts 1 & 2 do not apply to conventional forms of AA, which always use fixed sampling locations. That’s why fact 1 & 2 give the definition of temporal.

Sure, there are differences in the specific implementations with regards to sample positioning and blending, but the two fundamentals above are the same, and that’s why both are temporal.

Because of that, ATI's temporal AA is temporal AA in the same way that MSAA is temporal AA, which is to say it isn't.

Untrue, it varied on a per-frame basis, while MSAA does not.

 

[blackened23]

When to use MSAA over TXAA:

• If you value sharpness above everything(*)
• If you do not like Hollywood CG style AA
• If you don't care about aliasing in motion
• If you are fine with pixel crawling
• If you do not notice incorrect HDR with MSAA
• If white outlines artifacts do not bother you

(*)Head to your display control panel/game console and choose lowest LOD available.
Now you can enjoy your games in all it's sharpness with this ultra-crisp-makeover!

Ah, don't be ridiculous. This is just a rational discussion on the merits of TXAA, most of the people arguing in its favor haven't used it. Anyway, I certainly don't mind TXAA being an option - but so far I am not impressed. The performance hit is too big and the end result is too blurry. As others have mentioned, SSAA produces a similar result without the extreme blurriness - and note that text crispness is very important in this game as many quests rely on investigation / reading. This isn't to say that i'm opposed to TXAA, far from it - if games have this as an option, great. But nvidia definitely needs to work on it because it does have some shortcomings right now, the performance hit is probably worse than MSAA IMHO. I don't see 2X MSAA causing this kind of performance loss, although TSW doesn't have that as an option.

I get around 25-35 fps in heavy combat with 680 sli overclocked to 1325mhz at 2560 resolution. With FXAA HQ I generally stay pinned at 60 fps all the time. Even if it weren't so blurry, that is not acceptable, period.

 

[SirPauly]

Actually it would “solve” everything you mentioned except HDR because there wouldn’t be any more high frequency data. This is similar to how TXAA’s blur filter is solving them.

I use the term “solve” loosely, though.

It all comes back to a performance/IQ/compatibility trade-off, and having extra options for the customer. More options are always good of course, but let’s not pretend this is some kind of amazing implementation.

You have always had a keen eye and if you can find the time would be interested in your thoughts with TXAA - first hand -- in motion.

 

[BFG10K]

I am not saying this is traditional or conventional super-sampling. It is the samples from prior frames that offer the temporal super-sampling, and in motion, the effect achieved reminds me of between x4 SSAA and x8 SSAA.

Right, because that isn’t really super-sampling, it’s a pixel-level blend between frames.

Also this scheme could potentially add input lag like AFR due to the buffering of multiple frames (i.e. your 1st frame is actually frame 1 + 2, making the output one frame behind thereafter).

You have always had a keen eye and if you can find the time would be interested in your thoughts with TXAA - first hand -- in motion.

I’ve no interest in the game whatsoever, but if TXAA becomes driver enforceable I’ll definitely conduct some thorough tests.

 

[Akantus]

Fact 2: It relied on multiple frames to convey the overall experience, just like TXAA. One frame alone couldn’t show the whole story, just like TXAA.

I may be wrong,
but ATI's Temporal AA was dependent on rapid succession of other frames to create the "effect" of AA. So one frame really couldn't show what's happening.

On the other hand with TXAA the effect is the same in one frame or in motion, it's just that in motion the differences between TXAA and MSAA (or others) is more pronounced, because of pixel crawling with MSAA.

 

[Pottuvoi]

I’ve no interest in the game whatsoever, but if TXAA becomes driver enforceable I’ll definitely conduct some thorough tests.

There is pretty much no change of that.
TXAA needs buffer with motion vectors to work, there is no easy way to force the creation of it from drivers.

I may be wrong,
but ATI's Temporal AA was dependent on rapid succession of other frames to create the "effect" of AA. So one frame really couldn't show what's happening.

It did just as you describe, blending of frames happened on human eye, thus it was impossible to screen grap.

On the other hand with TXAA the effect is the same in one frame or in motion, it's just that in motion the differences between TXAA and MSAA (or others) is more pronounced, because of pixel crawling with MSAA.

TXAA tracks position on pixel to from previous frame/s? and blends it, just by the fact that it is very hard to sample same point on moving surface gives form of super sampling.
Additionally you can jitter sample positions/frame which gives additional information for pixel without a camera movement.

 

[BallaTheFeared]

If SGSSAA is done right it should not cause any blurring. I honestly don't know if that's a LoD problem or a quirk in NVIDIA's implementation; AMD's SSAA certainly doesn't do that.

Its like that for me in the titles I've tried it, such as PoE as shown here, and Skyrim. I haven't played with it too much so my experience is pretty limited.

 

[SirPauly]

@BFG,

I don't know about that -- maybe a more efficient implementation to receive super-sampled strengths. This can get semantic!

You're correct about AFR:

2.) Given that TXAA is a temporal method, SLI scaling can be reduced compared to non-temporal methods.

If you find the time would definitely enjoy reading about your subjective evaluations of TXAA first hand.

 

[f1sherman]

I'll add my opinion to this discussion.

I absolutely hate pixel crawling, but TXAA has too much of a tradeoff in terms of severe blur. It looks like there's subtle fog all over the place. (Well at least this implementation, I'm not saying it can't get better like FXAA in MP3, and I hope it does)

Having pretty much perfect eyes, for me blur like this is even worse than aliasing(And I hate that), because they are used to seeing clearly, while this is like putting on friends glasses.
For example, default FXAA in skyrim makes my eyes hurt, because they are constantly trying to focus something which can't be focused, and in about half an hour I get headaches. And this TXAA has much more blur than skyrim's FXAA. :\

So, while I appreciate the absence of pretty much any aliasing (especially pixel crawling in motion), the tradeoff is too severe.
So, as I already said, I hope it gets better like FXAA in MP3 which is phenomenal (very little of blur, aliasing and performance penalty^_^), but for now "I personally" wouldn't use it, but I like it being an option so everyone can try for themselves, if it suits them or not.
Having more options is always better than having less options.:thumbsup:

So good job Nvidia, but some work is still needed.
And I hope next technology they make will be to move image quality forward, because image quality is the reason why I play on PC and buy expensive hardware.

My feelings exactly. At least for this TSW implementation.

Please chime in here.

 

[BFG10K]

I may be wrong,
but ATI's Temporal AA was dependent on rapid succession of other frames to create the "effect" of AA. So one frame really couldn't show what's happening.

On the other hand with TXAA the effect is the same in one frame or in motion, it's just that in motion the differences between TXAA and MSAA (or others) is more pronounced, because of pixel crawling with MSAA.

According to the blog, the sample count is reduced in stills, which weakens the overall result. That makes sense if TXAA can't do multi-frame sampling when there's no movement.

So in stills you'd just have your base multi-sampling plus the tent filter, but be missing the temporal component.

There is pretty much no change of that.
TXAA needs buffer with motion vectors to work, there is no easy way to force the creation of it from drivers.

You could well be correct with that one, and it's disappointing if true.

One of the great things about FXAA is that it can forced anywhere, and it's a great fallback for this reason.

 

[Pottuvoi]

One of the great things about FXAA is that it can forced anywhere, and it's a great fallback for this reason.

Indeed, love to use it with old dos games.. (Wing Commander 3 with FXAA is a blast. )

 

[Grooveriding]

I'll add my opinion to this discussion.

I absolutely hate pixel crawling, but TXAA has too much of a tradeoff in terms of severe blur. It looks like there's subtle fog all over the place. (Well at least this implementation, I'm not saying it can't get better like FXAA in MP3, and I hope it does)

Having pretty much perfect eyes, for me blur like this is even worse than aliasing(And I hate that), because they are used to seeing clearly, while this is like putting on friends glasses.
For example, default FXAA in skyrim makes my eyes hurt, because they are constantly trying to focus something which can't be focused, and in about half an hour I get headaches. And this TXAA has much more blur than skyrim's FXAA. :\

So, while I appreciate the absence of pretty much any aliasing (especially pixel crawling in motion), the tradeoff is too severe.
So, as I already said, I hope it gets better like FXAA in MP3 which is phenomenal (very little of blur, aliasing and performance penalty^_^), but for now "I personally" wouldn't use it, but I like it being an option so everyone can try for themselves, if it suits them or not.
Having more options is always better than having less options.:thumbsup:

So good job Nvidia, but some work is still needed.
And I hope next technology they make will be to move image quality forward, because image quality is the reason why I play on PC and buy expensive hardware.

This sort of hits on where I see this. An idea that doesn't look to be ready for prime time and doesn't deliver an experience that lives up to the hype. Something I've seen with some other features nvidia touts.

Also, that Thimothy fellow is playing it fast and loose with his language on his blog. He says TXAA is more expensive than MSAA but refers to it as a little. Yet we have Blackened saying his framerate is halved to 30fps, that is a massive performance hit, a lot more than 4xMSAA generally costs. Turning on 4xMSAA in Battlefield 3, a deferred rendering DX11 engine, only has about a 15-20% cost. He also repeatedly uses 'soft' 'blu-ray' 'movie quality' as catch-phrases to describe the heavy blurring effect TXAA is causing. Why not just say it blurs the image rather starkly, rather than trying to make the negatives sound like a positive ?

Just made me chuckle the way the biggest negative is trying to be passed off as something good. Personally I use a PC for beautiful IQ. I don't want high quality and resolution textures to be anything but crisp so I can see all their fidelity. The idea of blurring them out and reducing IQ to make use of a method that has better options available without those negatives just doesn't make sense.

You can use SGSSAA with LOD adjustments in a alot of games for a far superior image. Skyrim is beautiful with 4xSGSSAA and the 10C1 bit and exhibits no aliasing in motion as well as lacking any blur.

From the screenshots and videos it looks like a one step forward, two steps back implementation. We're going to see this used again in Borderlands 2, a game I will be buying, hoping it also has standard AA options. It's nice to give options, but it sucks when it becomes your only option. I hope BL2 is not relegated to just having FXAA and TXAA with no proper high IQ AA options available. Its cell shading style really begs for AA from my experience.

 

[f1sherman]

THe also repeatedly uses 'soft' 'blu-ray' 'movie quality' as catch-phrases to describe the heavy blurring effect TXAA is causing. Why not just say it blurs the image rather starkly,
rather than trying to make the negatives sound like a positive ?

That's a lie.

For many of you, the first response will be to judge TXAA compared to other AA or no-AA filters using still images,
and then remark how TXAA does look less aliased, but also looks less sharp.

This is the correct response too, because it is physically impossible to remove aliasing,
especially temporal aliasing, without resulting in a perceptual reduction of sharpness.

Motion however is where the real battle for AA is fought,
and where TXAA really starts to shine compared to all prior methods.

 

[boxleitnerb]

He says, reduction of sharpness comes with the removal of aliasing, but SGSSAA proves him wrong. I too think he is trying to sugarcoat the severe shortcomings of TXAA. I don't blame him - he wrote the damn thing and works for Nvidia. Still, it leaves a very bitter taste.

 

[Akantus]

He says TXAA is more expensive than MSAA but refers to it as a little. Yet we have Blackened saying his framerate is halved to 30fps, that is a massive performance hit, a lot more than 4xMSAA generally costs.

Well, don't forget that he's playing at 1440p where AA usually carries big penalty.

The performance hit isn't what worries me, it's more of the IQ/performance where it falls short.
Edit: to clarify - This performance hit with less (lot less) blurring would be ok for me.

But I won't be condemning it this soon after launch.

 

[SirPauly]

It's nice to give options, but it sucks when it becomes your only option.

Actually agree with this part. The cinematic look may not be for everyone, personally welcome the feature but since it is using multi-sampling; it would be also welcomed to see a multi-sampling + transparency ability as well, for the gamers that really enjoy sharper images.