![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
-
Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.
Bigger Display = Increase Aliasing ?
- Thread starter senna89
- Start date
Yes you'll notice aliasing more, especially if you stand at the same distance from the display. If you adapt your distance you may not notice a difference but then what's the point of a bigger display?
That's the reason I prefer to have a low dot pitch myself (don't care about text size). Anti aliasing is very demanding and doesn't smoothes out everything either so I find games to look much better on a low pitch display with a tiny bit of anti aliasing (2x is usually more than enough)
That's the reason I prefer to have a low dot pitch myself (don't care about text size). Anti aliasing is very demanding and doesn't smoothes out everything either so I find games to look much better on a low pitch display with a tiny bit of anti aliasing (2x is usually more than enough)
KamelRed
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2007
- Messages
- 1,182
Size matters.
Plus with today's hardware you can run most games with a decent amount of Anti-Aliasing without much of a performance hit.
because at 24" you can get to 1920x1200, which has more pixels which means less aliasing
To answer your question...
Aliasing occurs when you have higher frequency information trying to be displayed on a lower frequency screen. So you have a line that takes more pixels than is possible on your screen, thus jaggies occur... aliasing.
It used to be that if you went to 1920x1200 you would need little to no aliasing. But graphics have advanced over the years and now depending on where you sit it might be necessary. The general rule I keep is the higher the resolution over 1080p the less aliasing you would need. Someone who is running 2560x1600 and 16x AA will not get the same benefit as someone running 1080p and 16x AA because I believe that 2560x1600 has a capable amount of pixels for many games and thus 16x AA is just a performance degradation, but that is my opinion.
Aliasing occurs when you have higher frequency information trying to be displayed on a lower frequency screen. So you have a line that takes more pixels than is possible on your screen, thus jaggies occur... aliasing.
It used to be that if you went to 1920x1200 you would need little to no aliasing. But graphics have advanced over the years and now depending on where you sit it might be necessary. The general rule I keep is the higher the resolution over 1080p the less aliasing you would need. Someone who is running 2560x1600 and 16x AA will not get the same benefit as someone running 1080p and 16x AA because I believe that 2560x1600 has a capable amount of pixels for many games and thus 16x AA is just a performance degradation, but that is my opinion.
DemonDiablo
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2004
- Messages
- 1,767
I'm pretty sure you're opinion is correct. But I think you also have to take into account screen size along with the resolution used.
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2004
- Messages
- 33,092
Yeah, it's about dot pitch, too.
Larger display + same resolution = larger pixels
Larger pixels = more obvious aliasing
More obvious aliasing doesn't make it more aliasing. Just to clarify, its the same amount of jaggies/aliasing that would occur on a smaller screen but just easier to see.
Before the stupidity that has been the trend of monitor makers to make everything 16:9 1080p that is 21+ inches, going up in screen size meant with every couple inches there was a boost in resolution. This still holds true for monitors of 16:10 form factor, true computer monitors. 22" is 1680x1050, 24" is 1920x1200, 30" is 2560x1600.
I am currently looking into purchasing a new monitor, I currently have a 24" Viewsonic that is 1920x1200 (16:10) and am dreading going to 16:9 or dreading the price hike of staying with a 16:10. I personally don't see why 16:10 is such a price hike over 16:9.
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2004
- Messages
- 33,092
No, I know. But what you see is really all that you care about in terms of a display, right?
Also, regarding 16:10, there's a price hike because 1080p is the standard these days for mainstream media, and because that's what all manufacturers are putting out, new 16:10 displays are becoming more rare and thus more expensive.
Yeah but what I am saying is that I don't see a manufacturing difference that is as large as the price hike. And companies that are designing computer monitors should be designing them for computer resolutions at 16:10 not mainstream media, these aren't HDTVs, (tvs have tuners, monitors don't).
Sorry I guess its just a rant of mine, computer users who go 1920x1080 are giving up 120 lines of pixels. 1920x120.. thats a lot of pixels. I don't think people comprehend that nor do most gamers comprehend how much of a UI can fit in those 120 pixels and thus leave the remainder for everything else.