What is this vector based drawing that Vista will use?

[WolverineX]

I was reading through a topic discussing future displays. One post mentioned that eventually resolutions will be done away with since everything will be vector-based.

Could someone explain what this means and how it pertains to removing resolution settings?

Thanks

 

[jasonja]

first of resolutions aren't going anywhere for the final display output.

Think of vector based drawing has instructions of how to draw something rather than storing the pixels for pictures and clipart. The benefit is that when scaled up or down vector graphics look good while pixel based graphics run out of data (when stretched) and therefore look like crap.

I don't know the exact format but say you wanted to draw a star.... vector graphics would contain the actual vectors (lines) that represent the stars borders. You can scale these vectors to any resolution because they aren't "rendered" (converted to pixels) until drawn. Pixel based pictures are a fixed resolution prerendered and saved in a file which may or may not have to be scaled causing you to lose resolution.

 

[BFG10K]

The easiest way to understand the effect of vector vs bit-mapped graphics is to compare truetype (vector) to normal fonts. If the font is truetype it looks smooth regardless of what size it is, unlike normal fonts which become blocky at higher sizes.

 

[xtknight]

It was probably me that said this...and the above two posts pretty much took the cake.

One thing that would be interesting to see is to have the game itself scale to fit that resolution without making everything crap. That way you get the "free" AA, but the texture quality would still be the same, but still I think that would be neat.

 

[BFG10K]

The game already "scales" since internally it operates on vector graphics. The more pixels you have the closer the output is to matching the original internal state.

 

[xtknight]

What I'm saying is the game will output to 1280x1024 (in some "LCD mode"), but will save processing time by not also upping the textures (which usually goes along with higher resolutions), but just scale the triangles. That way we get free AA with little hit. It's like that mode in SS2 (or was it CoD2) called render at half resolution.

 

[BFG10K]

Where does the free AA come from? 1280x1024 is nowhere near enough to remove jagged edges.

As for texture sizes, they generally start with the biggest one and then mip-map for the lower ones in a pre-computed process so all it really does is take a little bit of extra memory.

 

[xtknight]

I thought video cards had a lot of vector power to spare, sort of how they've had a low number of vertex shaders relative to pixel shaders...
In that case what is it that takes such a big hit going from one resolution to the next highest, or am I only seeing this big hit when supersampling is involved?

I suppose what I want is best called multisampling then. But what about that "render at half resolution" option?

 

[jasonja]

Originally posted by: xtknight
What I'm saying is the game will output to 1280x1024 (in some "LCD mode"), but will save processing time by not also upping the textures (which usually goes along with higher resolutions), but just scale the triangles. That way we get free AA with little hit. It's like that mode in SS2 (or was it CoD2) called render at half resolution.

I don't understand what your asking... texture size and resolution are independent. Raising the resolution has no impact on the texture size. A texture quality slider in a game setting menu may control texture size, but not resolution. Resolution only affects the size of the render target(s) and Z buffer(s)

What does AA and textures have to do with each other? Triangles are already scaled to the view matrix which is determined from the resolution.


2 Comments for your other post:

Multisampling and AA are the same thing.

Video cards are generally more loaded on the back end (pixel shaders)... quite simply because the pixel shader has to run for every pixel. The vertex data remains the same independent of resolution. A triangle is always 3 vertices... but it could be one pixel in size (a tree REAL far away) or a the entire screen full (tree REAL close). That screen full could be 320x200 pixels or it could be 1600x1200. When you increase the resolution you increase the pixels and therefore start loading the back end while leaving the vertex shaders with the same load.

 

[WolverineX]

Thanks for the quick responses, just another question that popped up. I have a 19in monitor at this current time and a friend mentioned that using high resolutions such as 16x12 and higher would actually squish the details. It makes sense in the context of taking a large picture and downsizing it to fit a small frame.

My question is, how high of a resolution can 19'' display before getting squished?

Thanks guys

 

[xtknight]

Originally posted by: jasonja
Multisampling and AA are the same thing.

Isn't multisampling just one method of it?

Any idea what the "render at half resolution" option I saw was?

 

[WolverineX]

Anyone know an answer to my last question? Thanks

 

[gsellis]

Your last question depends on the video card, driver, and display. Too generic.

Also, some of the Vector stuff you hear, may be confused with MS' first "Vista" application, Expression. It does vector, and if you go to the page, I think it talks about vector in Vista.

 

[BFG10K]

Any idea what the "render at half resolution" option I saw was?

It could be akin to the pixel doubling option from the olden days of software rendering. Basically the engine would render everything at one quarter size and after it had finished it would double both pixel dimensions effectively quadrupling the size of the final image, kind of like reversed super-sampling.

The option could be for the benefit of LCD owners who want to run at native resolutions but lack the power to do so. That way the game is performing the scaling, not the LCD.

I have a 19in monitor at this current time and a friend mentioned that using high resolutions such as 16x12 and higher would actually squish the details.

In 3D nothing is squished. In 2D it depends entirely on what you're displaying. A 1920x1440 image displayed at 1600x1200 most certainly will be squished (scaled). A 320x240 image will not.

 

[WolverineX]

So, for pictures and movies, the size of the monitor itself doesn't matter just as long as the proper resolution is being used? Is that what you're saying, if so, then I couldn't be happier...

 

[WolverineX]

BFG ... is that what you're saying?

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: BFG10K

I have a 19in monitor at this current time and a friend mentioned that using high resolutions such as 16x12 and higher would actually squish the details.

In 3D nothing is squished. In 2D it depends entirely on what you're displaying. A 1920x1440 image displayed at 1600x1200 most certainly will be squished (scaled). A 320x240 image will not.

well with a crt using vga at high refresh rates and high resolutions you can get signal degradation which makes things less sharp.

but i don't think he was talking about that.

more likely his friend was confusing the 'squish' you get when running 1280x1024 on a monitor that is physically 4:3.

 

[WolverineX]

Here's my friends reply when I asked him through his email...

"Well your monitor can display those resolutions, but not terribly well because it's not really big enough...you'd need a monitor the size of a large-screen television for it to be worth it, otherwise all that detail is squished. People want high resolution so that when they blow it up, it looks great, and if they shrink it to regular...hey that looks good too. Of course when you take a picture that's 10 feet by 10 feet and shrink it to a thumbnail that's 10in by 10in, you're going to obscure details, making it pretty nearly absurd. The dvd's you're playing now are technically good enough for even a bigger tv, the jaggies are a natural result of digital encoding and decoding...."

I just want some clarification if he's right or wrong or half-way. Basically because I prefer a small display over a large screen. If I'm squishing detail then I'll wait for displays to be a reasonable price and get a larger one. Otherwise, if BFG is right in saying as long as the monitor can display the resolution of the source material then no detail will be lost.

I use 85hz for a refresh rate as I have heard that too high and the picture gets a little blurry. Anyone that can clear this up will make my day and rewarded with their weight in cookies...

 

[BFG10K]

I suspect your friend is confusing squishing with natural scaling. A 320x240 2D image displayed at 1920x1440 is going to be smaller than it would be at 1600x1200 but it's not being "squished", it is simply the fact that the pixels are smaller at higher resolutions.

Squished would be displaying a 1600x1200 image at a 320x240 resolution; then you would lose pixels because the display doesn't have enough pixels to replicate the original image.

And again for 3D there is no squishing or scaling involved as it's always the same size.

 

[WolverineX]

Perfect, now I don't have to be concerned over larger displays. Thanks again for everything guys, especially BFG...

 

[jasonja]

Originally posted by: xtknight

Originally posted by: jasonja
Multisampling and AA are the same thing.

Isn't multisampling just one method of it?

Any idea what the "render at half resolution" option I saw was?

Multisampling is the term Microsoft often uses for Anti Aliasing, they are synomous. It's actually the technique used to anti alias in D3D. It describes the process by which you take multiple pixel samples from a larger frame buffer (2X, 4X, 8X the size) and filter it down to the actual resolution you're running at.

 

[WolverineX]

I wonder if he thought that my monitor can display hd-dvd material but since the pixels would be so small that it would obscure detail...

Regardless, thanks again guys, really made my day

 

[xtknight]

Originally posted by: jasonja
Multisampling is the term Microsoft often uses for Anti Aliasing, they are synomous. It's actually the technique used to anti alias in D3D. It describes the process by which you take multiple pixel samples from a larger frame buffer (2X, 4X, 8X the size) and filter it down to the actual resolution you're running at.

You're probably sick of this by now, but,

Multisampling is not just a general term? I'm pretty sure it's used for OpenGL as well.

I thought supersampling was also AA?

 

[makken]

MSAA? whatever happened to FSAA?

 

[xtknight]

Originally posted by: makken
MSAA? whatever happened to FSAA?

FSAA=Supersampling AA as far as I know. The whole scene is antialiased. MSAA just antialiases the lines (not any textures/alpha textures such as trees).