I tried 4xAA and it was difficult to tell the difference visually but the frame rate was slightly better with FXAA. 8xAA looks a little better but it resulted in significant reduction of frame rate, particularly in areas like Markarth and Riften.
29 posts
• Page 2 of 2 • 1, 2
I cant tell the difference between x4 AA and no AA
» Tue May 29, 2012 6:50 am
I tried 4xAA and it was difficult to tell the difference visually but the frame rate was slightly better with FXAA. 8xAA looks a little better but it resulted in significant reduction of frame rate, particularly in areas like Markarth and Riften.
-
P PoLlo - Posts: 3408
- Joined: Wed Oct 31, 2007 10:05 am
» Tue May 29, 2012 12:17 pm
There are so many different things one can tweak. What i found to be the BIGGEST change for the Shimmering Objects....was a setting in my TV.
"Dynamic Contrast"....turn it OFF if you have that setting. (or very low).
Using a 32 " HDTV (toshiba) and for the life of me I could not get rid if that Shimmer. It was maddening. One day I stopped at a spot where i could see it, by barely moving my mouse, Went into the TV settings and fiddled with every setting i could find. Found IT "Dynamic Contrast" by turning this down I got rid of all the Shimmering on edges I had. Turn it back up and it is hideous...
I know this thread was about AA but the shimmer gets mentioned along with AA.
"Dynamic Contrast"....turn it OFF if you have that setting. (or very low).
Using a 32 " HDTV (toshiba) and for the life of me I could not get rid if that Shimmer. It was maddening. One day I stopped at a spot where i could see it, by barely moving my mouse, Went into the TV settings and fiddled with every setting i could find. Found IT "Dynamic Contrast" by turning this down I got rid of all the Shimmering on edges I had. Turn it back up and it is hideous...
I know this thread was about AA but the shimmer gets mentioned along with AA.
i have this tv aswell. i am gonna give that a try. thanks!
-
Stephanie Nieves - Posts: 3407
- Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2007 10:52 pm
» Tue May 29, 2012 8:52 am
Not sure if this helps, but:
On a 30" monitor at 2560x1600 resolution, I prefer the look of 2xAA (transparency supersampling) over FXAA due to the blurring caused by FXAA. I see no visual improvement at 4xAA over 2xAA at this resolution on this monitor. The aliasing is visible, particularly along the tops of buildings, with no AA of any kind enabled and 2xAA results in no perceivable performance hit.
As others have noticed, the display size is just as important as the resolution and it all comes down to absolute pixel density. If you're using a 25-27" monitor at 1920 horizontal resolution, you will need more antialiasing than you would with a 30" at 2560 or a 22" at 1920. Also as others have noticed, it's all highly subjective.
On a 30" monitor at 2560x1600 resolution, I prefer the look of 2xAA (transparency supersampling) over FXAA due to the blurring caused by FXAA. I see no visual improvement at 4xAA over 2xAA at this resolution on this monitor. The aliasing is visible, particularly along the tops of buildings, with no AA of any kind enabled and 2xAA results in no perceivable performance hit.
As others have noticed, the display size is just as important as the resolution and it all comes down to absolute pixel density. If you're using a 25-27" monitor at 1920 horizontal resolution, you will need more antialiasing than you would with a 30" at 2560 or a 22" at 1920. Also as others have noticed, it's all highly subjective.
-
Facebook me - Posts: 3442
- Joined: Wed Nov 08, 2006 8:05 am
» Tue May 29, 2012 1:58 pm
it's the pixel to screen size that dictates the clarity of the image and how much FSAA will benefit you...
among other caculators that figure out DPI or PPI or dot pitch or whatever...
this one i recent found that does a lot
http://members.ping.de/~sven/dpi.html
anything with a PPI lower than lets say 50 is going to notice more of a significant amount of improvement with FSAA... anything higher than lets say 100 is going to see less of a difference... specially above 2x fsaa.... just a touch of fsaa should make a difference unless your eye are just unable to notice.
Sitting distance also plays a huge roll... if your using a screen that is say 70ppi, sitting a distance of lets say 5 feet or more, is going to have a very hard time even with a good eye, from 2x to 4x fsaa..... some may even claim they see no significant differences.. with any FSAA applied.
Although i am currently gaming on an equivilent 70-80 PPI screen which is SIGNIFICANTLY more than it's comparible single screen size at the same distances.... which would be lets say a 55" Samsung UN55D6420 1080p (1920x1080) screen which has a 40PPI
a 17" laptop sporting a 1920x1080 screen has a PPI of over 130... which is incredibly sharp clean crisp picture with such tiny pixels and low dot pitch makes for noticing stair casing effects without FSAA much much more difficult to even notice let alone find.
The graphics card doesn't know or care what screen your using and cannot determine how closely your sitting to your screen, nor can skyrim.... so FSAA is mostly a user function... skyrim is kinda rediculious in setting utterly stupid FSAA values.... even with a 5770 1gb card, it tries to set everything to absalutely max with 8x fsaa ..... even though that would produce the least amount of benefit at the huge cost of performance on say standard 22-24 monitors most commonly sold today.
Quality of your screen also plays a huge factor.... I've seen a LOT of terrible quality tvs.. and terrible monitors.... most of the tvs/monitors bought by the majority today are using pretty bad screens unable to show the clarity that high resolutions can give, explaining why fsaa has no clear benefit. Sadly it's rare to know many people willing to fork out the money for a great quality tv/monitor.. something that uses IPS rather than TN... although my monitors are TN.. they are a good quality TN panel... there are many quality levels of TN.. i'd put them in the range of being in the mid~>highend making FSAA less beneficial...
a UN55D6420 55" 1080 Samsung LED backlit High quality tv even sitting within 5 feet of it, shows a huge difference in graphics quality with FSAA 4x and even 8x....
The "demo" products able to jam 2160p (4x the definition of 1080) into a 55" screen still is able to show benefit even though it has an 80dpi/ppi rating... similare to what my triple monitor setup can do. A good quality model with 2x FSAA would be utterly phenominal.... My eyeballs would *censored* if they could.
among other caculators that figure out DPI or PPI or dot pitch or whatever...
this one i recent found that does a lot
http://members.ping.de/~sven/dpi.html
anything with a PPI lower than lets say 50 is going to notice more of a significant amount of improvement with FSAA... anything higher than lets say 100 is going to see less of a difference... specially above 2x fsaa.... just a touch of fsaa should make a difference unless your eye are just unable to notice.
Sitting distance also plays a huge roll... if your using a screen that is say 70ppi, sitting a distance of lets say 5 feet or more, is going to have a very hard time even with a good eye, from 2x to 4x fsaa..... some may even claim they see no significant differences.. with any FSAA applied.
Although i am currently gaming on an equivilent 70-80 PPI screen which is SIGNIFICANTLY more than it's comparible single screen size at the same distances.... which would be lets say a 55" Samsung UN55D6420 1080p (1920x1080) screen which has a 40PPI
a 17" laptop sporting a 1920x1080 screen has a PPI of over 130... which is incredibly sharp clean crisp picture with such tiny pixels and low dot pitch makes for noticing stair casing effects without FSAA much much more difficult to even notice let alone find.
The graphics card doesn't know or care what screen your using and cannot determine how closely your sitting to your screen, nor can skyrim.... so FSAA is mostly a user function... skyrim is kinda rediculious in setting utterly stupid FSAA values.... even with a 5770 1gb card, it tries to set everything to absalutely max with 8x fsaa ..... even though that would produce the least amount of benefit at the huge cost of performance on say standard 22-24 monitors most commonly sold today.
Quality of your screen also plays a huge factor.... I've seen a LOT of terrible quality tvs.. and terrible monitors.... most of the tvs/monitors bought by the majority today are using pretty bad screens unable to show the clarity that high resolutions can give, explaining why fsaa has no clear benefit. Sadly it's rare to know many people willing to fork out the money for a great quality tv/monitor.. something that uses IPS rather than TN... although my monitors are TN.. they are a good quality TN panel... there are many quality levels of TN.. i'd put them in the range of being in the mid~>highend making FSAA less beneficial...
a UN55D6420 55" 1080 Samsung LED backlit High quality tv even sitting within 5 feet of it, shows a huge difference in graphics quality with FSAA 4x and even 8x....
The "demo" products able to jam 2160p (4x the definition of 1080) into a 55" screen still is able to show benefit even though it has an 80dpi/ppi rating... similare to what my triple monitor setup can do. A good quality model with 2x FSAA would be utterly phenominal.... My eyeballs would *censored* if they could.
-
Trevi - Posts: 3404
- Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2007 8:26 pm
29 posts
• Page 2 of 2 • 1, 2