- A 40 year old male gamer
- Joined on December 9th 2012, last online 1 hour ago.
- Profile Views: 9,224
- Forum posts: 1,284 times which averages 1 posts per day
Badges: (view all)
Recent Wall PostsView more
Why do you have so much animosity towards FXAA and DOF ?
It destroys litteraly all details in such a game. For me it's a deal breaker, some can't stand jaggies, I can't stand the wrecking effect of FXAA in a game: blurring of 100% of details, Also on motion it creates shimmering on high res textures and high poly geometry.
It's an awful solution which deals with 1% of the image (jaggies) but destroy 99% of the rest of the image.
DOF is a technical legacy because of 20th century limitations of cameras. DOF doesn't exist in real life only in old school photos and movies. When you look on the background/scenery in real life with your eyes you don't see a big blur, do you?
DOF shouldn't be reproduced in a videogame. Videogame should try to mimic real life eyes, not 20th century devices.
Your over exaggerating the blurring effect that comes with FXAA. If that were surely the case then the games that have implemented them would be rendered unplayable due to the fact that users would have trouble resolving every object in the game which are important for progressing the game but as you can see the users simply don't have trouble completing the games despite FXAA being in use. There is blurring but not to the extent that you describe.
FXAA may also blur some textures however your wrong about it distorting high resolution meshes. A part of the reason why textures are distorted is mainly due to the fact that texture mapping itself causes some artifacts. Not enabling texture filtering has a bigger effect on decreasing image quality rather than enabling FXAA.
Jaggies are hardly 1 percent of the image considering the fact that next gen games show a substantial increase in poly count per resolution and FXAA only occasionally affects the textures so most of them are left unchanged.
It's actually not a bad solution seeing as how it has a very little performance hit and can handle transparency too whereas MSAA can't even filter the primitives behind a transparent texture without having to resort to using an alpha coverage mask. These old consoles likely don't support the necessary blend mode to support A2C but they have a pixel shader in which case means that FXAA is possible on them.
BTW the other anti aliasing methods that you so adore such as SMAA and MLAA are also based off FXAA as these methods are also post process while using an edge detection filter.
Actually DOF will occur with any lenses including our eyes. The reasons why we don't notice it alot is due to the fact that we adjust our focal point really fast. Even ray tracing factors in DOF seeing as how it makes the illumination model more accurate.
You are unfortunately wrong or really vague/imprecise on all the points you mentionned (yes, from your first phrase to your last) . I would encourage you to teach yourself seriously on the subject of image quality and AA in games. Good starting point here: http://www.iryoku.com/smaa/
As it would be too long to explain to you, let's just agree to disagree!
Funny how I should teach myself when I'm learning graphics programming. Don't assume that everyone is a layman. All forms of anti aliasing will become obsolete once higher resolutions such as 4K becomes the standard. Anti aliasing has become archaic. It was a band aid solution to low resolution displays but now that we have higher resolution displays coming this isn't a problem anymore.
This wouldn't take long to explain seeing as how I have a fair amount knowledge to dispatch your points very quickly.
-"Just to note there is no such thing as "strong" or "weak" FXAA. FXAA is just an algorithm handled by the pixel shader."
Wrong. FXAA has dozens of possible variation/implementation and settings so in fact there are "strong", "medium" and "slight" (in the blurring effect) FXAAs. Slight would be GTA5 and TombRaider DE and strong would be most AAA titles like Bioshock Infinite, COD ghosts, BF5 next gen, Knack etc...
-"Your over exaggerating the blurring effect that comes with FXAA..."
It depends of people. I can at once recongnize the bad artefacting and blurring of FXAA in a game. It's a deal breaker for me when some people in fact like the softing effect, but me, I want clarity, high resolution, details, etc.
-"FXAA may also blur some textures however your wrong about it distorting high resolution meshes..."
The more detailed a game, and the more FXAA will destroy high frequencies details. It's in the nature of FXAA which can't recognize long edges, only high-contrast between sub-pixels. FXAA can not recognize high contrasted sub-pixels from high resolution details of textures or details from high poly objects. Only morphological AA can do that and they use some render targets to better differentiate textures from edges (when FXAA search and destroy directly on the same frame).
-"Jaggies are hardly 1 percent of the image "
But many jaggies don't need to be dealt with. Most of high poly details with very small "jaggies" shouldn't be blurred because it's too small to be seen as "jaggies" by the eye and those geometry details are needed to bring clarity/visibility in a game. For high poly details the best is to super sample the details by smart use of temporal AA but you then need another 2 fast framebuffers for this.
-"BTW the other anti aliasing methods that you so adore such as SMAA and MLAA are also based off FXAA"
No. they are not. You could say they just both are similar post AA, yes. but how they work is very different. MLAA (Morphological AA) for instance only tries to recognize long edges, not high contrast between 2 pixels. Once the edges identified MLAA will reconstruct them nicely in order to reach an ideal 8xSSAA.
SMAA is a derivative of MLAA, it's cheaper/better and add a sub-pixel part but try to do it very cleverly with the use of a render target. The main purpose of SMAA creators was to keep the high frequencies details of the image, their main purpose was to create a post AA that would not blur the details like FXAA. You can see SMAA like a reaction from the blurring/artefacting effects of FXAA.
-"Actually DOF will occur with any lenses including our eyes. "
Incorrect. Not when you focus on the world around you which is 99.99% of the conscious time if you have normal 10/10 vision. DOF is a byproduct of 20th century devices. If your videogame is DOFed even on the part you focus on (when you want to look at the background in lego game to see details), it's anormal and not realistic. You could say it's cinematic. But in the future technology will allow movie makers to do movies without DOF. I believe such DOF-free cameras already exist.
I tried to answered most of your points. Don't forget that's it's just my opinion and that I am particularly sensitive (allergic) to any blur in videogames.
There is no such thing as strong or weak FXAA. Even if you can tweak the settings they wouldn't be much different in functionality seeing as how making it less aggressive basically means that you won't get any sort of meaningful anti aliasing. Hence FXAA being required to be very rigid. "Strong" FXAA wouldn't look all that much different from "weak" FXAA.
No, you WERE over exaggerating the blurring effect that FXAA poses. There is no it depends because what you've literally described is unplayable.
Once again FXAA can't "destroy" a bunch of primitives.
What are you saying when FXAA can't recognize "long edges" ? MLAA also only detects high contrasted edges ... How else can all of these anti aliasing methods work ? BTW MLAA will also blur textures too if you didn't know.
Most of the games today DON'T have very small polygons. I would say that most games are under tessellated. Your point on this is moot.
Yes, they are! MLAA =/= 8x SSAA All these post process anti aliasing methods don't even come close to super sampling.
SMAA may be the best post process anti aliasing method. I'll give you that but it's also marginally more expensive than FXAA or MLAA. Even then SMAA will also have some artifacts too.
The one incorrect is you as all lenses can only precisely focus one distance at a time. We cannot focus the world around us with our eyes. Much like cameras we can only focus one distance at a time. There still DOF in every lenses even if the focus is extremely shallow.
Yes this is clearly your opinion seeing as how you have a clear lack in understanding the graphics pipeline.
This part totally tells me you don't understand anti-aliasing methods as much a you'd like. MLAA and SMAA are morphological AA, they try to identify big edge/patterns in the whole image when FXAA is a sub-pixel only algorithm and deals only locally on a much smaller area.
To illustrate my argument I made a comparison between a slight FXAA versus MLAA in TombRaider X360 (left, FXAA) VS PS3 (right, MLAA):
BTW FXAA doesn't deal subpixel only as it too has a sophisticated edge detection filter much like MLAA and SMAA. What you say about FXAA is simply false for the most part.
Your lack of understanding on the graphics pipeline really shows your how small your scope is.
Seriously? the future is with combined post AA methods, even with 4K displays so you better perfectly understand each of the available AA methods individually.
Understanding the graphic pipeline will not help you use the best AA solution in a game. Of course if you focus only on the graphic pipeline you'll only choose the cheaper algorithm good enough for the job. Welcome to the club of developers who don't care about image quality.
You will probably add good amount of motion blur, DOF, useless HBAO because you know it's standard for a 3D graphic pipeline... but everything will be blurred by a cheap and dirty FXAA which is also probably standard solution in the industry...
Please let's just strongly agree to disagree here I already lost too much time trying to explain my views here.
Understanding the graphics pipeline is completely essential in determining which anti aliasing method works best on the specific hardware. A graphics programmer would never consider MSAA on old consoles because of the memory overheads introduced alongside deferred rendering. You wouldn't know the job of a graphics programmer at all so don't go around assuming that they'll only put in a computationally cost effective solution. Nice attack right there. /sarcasm
You consider ambient occlusion to be useless ?! I'm not sure if any graphics programmer could take you seriously. If you believe everything will get blurred by FXAA then no amount of enlightenment will help you understand the mechanics of image quality.
Yes let's just agree to disagree but don't forget that your holding on to a myth rather than reality.
Recent ActivityView more
This list only shows a selection of games from this user's favourite games.View all games
Recent Forum PostsView more
It's not even a clickbait article from Polygon It's a troll article: "Look how bad this game run on PS4!" Just after the DF troll article about how to run the game better on PRO by switching to the 1080p mode. "Look how low this game run on PRO in the 4K mode! it's the minimum fps we found on 12 hours of gameplay but we want you to believe the game constantly run at 25fps on PRO in the 4K...
I mostly agree with you OP. ...
Eye colour: Brown
Hair colour: Brown
Zodiac sign: Sagittarious
Favourite Games: Another world, Half life 1 & 2, Portal 1 & 2, Super mario bros 2 & 3, Batman NES, Super mario world, Zelda Link to the past, Super mario kart Snes & n64, Zelda Link's awakening, Mario 64, Ocarina of time, Golden Eye 007, Donkey kong country 1 & 2 & returns, Rayman origins, Super monkey ball 1 & 2, Mario galaxy 1 & 2, Ico & Shadow of the Colossus.
Favourite Music: Joe Satriani, Beethoven
Favourite Films: Silver linings playbook
Favourite Books: Franck herbert Dune serie, Isaac Asimov Foundation serie, Vernor Vinge Books.
Favourite Food: Lemon pie
Hobbies: Playing piano, listening music, reading books, writing stuff & Hiking.