Who wants to be a guinea pig?

John Rambo

I'm going to get a gun, and I'm going to kill myself right now.

__________________
Unless someone like you cares a whole awful lot, nothing is going to get better, its not!
-Dr. Seuss

railven

If only you were only so kind

Just answer my question, do you still see jaggies on your setup?

railven

That is an awful example. Scale the images so they are the same size.

Then you MIGHT understand.

Ironically, the second image is a higher resolution , you proved my point haha.

TwoPlusTwo

If we had stricter gun control laws, you wouldn't be able to exit the argument so easily...

__________________

railven

I adjust the images so that the same size was used, but I changed the resolution for each. Which looks better? I also used the same width for the draw tool (as best I could.)





Which of the two would look better on your already higher resolution screen? Perhaps because I'm using a 1024x768 resolution it is more obvious to me.

John Rambo

Dude, holy shit. I can't believe that you don't understand this. When you see jaggies, its because the asset isn't being rendered at the full resolution that your TV is capable of.
This isn't rocket science.

Look below; 5 of the SAME line, each displayed at different resolutions. The one on the left has like 9 pixels per inch. The pixel size of these decrease from left to right until
you hit the far left, where the pixels are so small, you can't even see them and the line looks smooth.



Key point: My 1080p monitor is 21.5" diagonal, and my eyes are about 35" away right now, which calculates out to a ~30 degree viewing angle, so each pixel is smaller
than one arcminute, which means that technically I can't even see the individual pixels, and thus, the line looks perfectly smooth. So having a 1440p monitor would not
make that line look any smoother; the 1080p monitor has already maxed out how smooth that line can get.

Bottom line: If you increase the ppi of the asset to match the ppi of your monitor, then you really start to "max out" what your eye can see with a 1080p monitor
(unless you sit really close). If you are still seeing aliasing, its because the asset is being rendered like line #4 instead of line #5

__________________
Unless someone like you cares a whole awful lot, nothing is going to get better, its not!
-Dr. Seuss

awol

Gah! Posted the wrong images... Reposting shortly.

jkkyler

I was trying to follow this but I keep getting confused as you use the term 'arcminute' improperly quite a bit - an arcminute is a defined unit of measure and is not subjective.. (A minute of arc, arcminute, or minute arc (MOA), is a unit of angular measurement equal to one sixtieth (1⁄60) of one degree (circle⁄21,600), or (π⁄10,800) radians)

..but to sum up - Increasing resolution of the display does reduce jaggies - BUT it is not the only factor as AA algorithms using intermediate shading further add to the effect by 'softening' edge lines. Increasing screen resolution (from res A which is lesser to res B which is more) will always reduce jaggies provided you have not exceeded the eyes discriminatory point (maximum visual acuity potential) but it is not the only perceptual way to do so.

__________________
HT- Panasonic TH-50PZ800U 1080p plasma, Panasonic PT-AX200u LCD projector, Elite Vmax Electric 100' screen, Onkyo TX-NR905 AVR, Paradigm Titan Monitor v5 fronts, Paradigm CC-190 v6 center, Paradigm Atom Monitors v5 surrounds(x4), HSU research VTF-2 sub, xbox360+hd-dvd player ,Sony BDP-S550 blu-ray, D*tv H21 HD-DVR

Bedroom: Insignia NS-lcd26, Samsung BDP-1400 blu-ray
Den - Vizio 20" 1080p LCD + Samsung BD-p1600

Don't believe everything you read on the internet - Albert Einstein

railven

Sort of busy at work, so I can't get into what I wanted to:

JR your example is using the SSAA method of upscaling. You are rendering higher than the resolution of the screen, just as Awol is doing (without properly scaling the images to be the same size.) Increase the PPI is what I've been asking for.

I can already increase the PPI on my 1080p monitor by using SSAA.

At the same distance, 2xSSA @ 1080p should be roughly equal to 1440p with no AA.

You also never answered my question - do you still see Jaggies on your setup? I have to use 4xSSAA in most games to get rid of jaggies, and this is rendering higher than 1440p. I should just take screen shots of my monitor, using the proper distance forumal for a 27" what is it, like 30 inches distance? 2+2 asked me the other day how far I sit from my monitor, I measured (since I had a tap on hand) I sit 2.5 FT away. Isn't it something like size of the display/.84?

jkkyler

Something is up with that - with a fixed number of pixels as your PPI increases the size of your image should decrease not increase -

__________________
HT- Panasonic TH-50PZ800U 1080p plasma, Panasonic PT-AX200u LCD projector, Elite Vmax Electric 100' screen, Onkyo TX-NR905 AVR, Paradigm Titan Monitor v5 fronts, Paradigm CC-190 v6 center, Paradigm Atom Monitors v5 surrounds(x4), HSU research VTF-2 sub, xbox360+hd-dvd player ,Sony BDP-S550 blu-ray, D*tv H21 HD-DVR

Bedroom: Insignia NS-lcd26, Samsung BDP-1400 blu-ray
Den - Vizio 20" 1080p LCD + Samsung BD-p1600

Don't believe everything you read on the internet - Albert Einstein

John Rambo

I've been equating an arcminute to the width of one pixel of a 1080p display viewed from a 30 degree viewing angle. If there are 1920 horizontal pixels and the screen envelopes 30 degrees, and our eyes can see 1/60th of 1 degree, then there are 1.0667 pixels per arcminute. (1920 horizontal pixels % 30 % 60 = 1.0667)

If your 1080p display is a 50", and your eyes are at a distance of 6'9" from the screen, each pixel is almost exactly one arcminute across. If your 1080p display is 27", the distance for the example would be about 3'8". I'm assuming that most people view their screen at a 30 degree viewing angle, which is pretty close to being true in most cases.


Maybe you will understand this. The only way its possible to see jaggies is if the asset (whatever object shows the jagged lines) is using larger pixels than one arcminute. Look back at my line photo above; your screen is capable of producing #5 smoothness, but you're seeing #4, and that's because the resolution of the actual asset (nevermind the game's output resolution) is not as high as your display is capable of. So upping your display's resolution won't help a thing; you're already not using its potential, and I argue that this is d/t a lack of computing power.

__________________
Unless someone like you cares a whole awful lot, nothing is going to get better, its not!
-Dr. Seuss

John Rambo

Why does this require a display with a higher resolution than 1080p? Seeing as though it works on my screen, clearly it doesn't.



Of course; more on some than others, and worst on console games, like Uncharted. Less on jacked up high resolution PC games, but without AA, they usually still exist, if not at least difficult to detect. But my point is that if I can see the edge of the pixel with my own eyes, then it means that those edges aren't as fine as my display would allow them to be. If I can see the stairstep, then the stairs aren't as small as they could be on my display.

That's pretty close; that's like a 43 degree viewing angle, so the pixels are like 25% larger from that distance.

__________________
Unless someone like you cares a whole awful lot, nothing is going to get better, its not!
-Dr. Seuss

railven

You don't need a higher resolution screen, I never said you did. I said you'd benefit from having one. Before you were saying the Elite Kuro was the best display (I'm not even doubting that), all I said is if it came in a higher resolution you'd benefit from it for Gaming.

Using your above images, what is the pixel density of the first image? I can tell you right now the pixel density of the 5th image is higher, a megaton higher. My images above use the same pixel density (why it got smaller, and as it got smaller the jagged edges got smaller.)

Jkk pointed it out. If I draw a 1x8 line on a 10x10 grid that is 1"x 1" that line is going to be HUGE. If I then draw that same 1x8 line on a 1000x1000 grid that is still 1"x1" that line is almost not viewable.

This is the purpose of higher resolution. Using a higher native PPI texture would look better but it won't prevent jaggies. Rage is a great example of what textures do in games. The game isn't a jagged mess either (least I don't remember it being one.)


Exactly, now imagine if your monitor had a tad more resolution. That's all I said. You'd benefit from it. We all would. Up to the point where we're so far away from the screen PPI won't matter, but I know on my setup I'm not at that point yet, and I was a tad disappointed when 1440p for my monitor didn't magical make all jaggies go away. But I can tell you 2xSSAA 1440p looks a shit ton nicer than 4xSSAA 1080p. Unfortunately screen grabs won't do it justice since i'd have to scale the images and taking flat out pictures of my screen would put me at the mercy of the resolution of my camera (ahhh the digital world.)

Remember, I openly say I don't have the best vision. Leaning back I'd be about 3FT away, either way, I can still see jaggies in certain spots haha.

John Rambo

I still don't see how; the pixels are too small to see as it is. Wouldn't we be better to just render stuff at 3840p and downscale it do 1080p? I don't see how shrinking the pixels on a display that already has pixels smaller than the naked eye can see, will change anything. You're making the invisible more invisible.

I would buy a 4K TV if it was over like 70". That would be sweet. Tons of those at CES this year. But I don't have ten grand for a television right now

Actually the pixel density is 300ppi in all of them, I cheated and applied a mosiac pixelation filter to illustrate a point, and the point is that upping the pixel density removes the jagged line, and that when the pixel density is jacked up, the jaggies go away. Which hilariously is the same thing you're saying; I'm just saying that this can be done on a 1080p display provided your viewing angle is right

[quote]Exactly, now imagine if your monitor had a tad more resolution. That's all I said. You'd benefit from it. We all would. Up to the point where we're so far away from the screen PPI won't matter, but I know on my setup I'm not at that point yet, and I was a tad disappointed when 1440p for my monitor didn't magical make all jaggies go away. But I can tell you 2xSSAA 1440p looks a shit ton nicer than 4xSSAA 1080p. Unfortunately screen grabs won't do it justice since i'd have to scale the images and taking flat out pictures of my screen would put me at the mercy of the resolution of my camera (ahhh the digital world.)

The pixels on my screen are already too small to see. I don't see how making them smaller will help.

What they need to do is make the assets in video games have a higher pixel density

If the display has pixels that are too small to see, then the display is capable of producing a 100% jaggie free image, is it not? If so, then its up to the game code to make an image that is of a high enough resolution to take advantage of those small pixels.

Right, and what I'm trying to say is that you're probably seeing jaggies because those line boundaries that are getting all stair-steppy aren't as fine as your display actually would allow.

This is like getting an HDTV when there was no such thing as Blu Ray or HD OTA. Its not gonna make Mario Kart 64 look any better; in fact probably worse, because now you're stretching the pixels. And just because you turn warcraft up to 1440p doesn't mean that every asset is detailed with that same pixel density.

__________________
Unless someone like you cares a whole awful lot, nothing is going to get better, its not!
-Dr. Seuss

jkkyler

- AH I see then you are ostensibly using an arcminute as an approximation your viewing distance by some derived trigonometry (that I get). - however you must also remember that you are only looking at horizontal pixel density and not vertical pixel density (1920x1080) which will be different and as a jagged line encompasses both of those and that the physical pixels are rectangular rather than square. If the resolution of your display exceeds the resolving power of your eye then you wont see jaggies; 20/20 eyes can see 1 arcminute but not everybody has 20/20 vision and higher order abberrations such as coma, trefoil, tetrafoil and also things such as chromatic abberation all lend an aspect to this.
Also don't forget that AA encompasses more than resolution by finding intermediate values of surrounding areas and partially shading them - I think you are both right to some degree.

__________________
HT- Panasonic TH-50PZ800U 1080p plasma, Panasonic PT-AX200u LCD projector, Elite Vmax Electric 100' screen, Onkyo TX-NR905 AVR, Paradigm Titan Monitor v5 fronts, Paradigm CC-190 v6 center, Paradigm Atom Monitors v5 surrounds(x4), HSU research VTF-2 sub, xbox360+hd-dvd player ,Sony BDP-S550 blu-ray, D*tv H21 HD-DVR

Bedroom: Insignia NS-lcd26, Samsung BDP-1400 blu-ray
Den - Vizio 20" 1080p LCD + Samsung BD-p1600

Don't believe everything you read on the internet - Albert Einstein