Is 8x antialiasing overkill?

[Nenu]

10240x6400 - when they can cram that many pixels in a 30" monitor there probably will not be any aliasing issues.

see post #22

 

[keithallenlaw]

It depends on how visibly big each of those pixel are . If I'm standing 3 feet away from a 150" 4k plasma screen, you can bet your ass that aliasing artifacts would still be painfully noticeable.

However if the pixels are visibly small, aliasing will become less noticeable, but not completely gone. For example, edge steps will still appear to crawl, which may be perceived as 'wavering' with such small pixels.

Anyways, on my 27" screen, 4xAA just doesn't cut it, especially on high contrast edges. 8XMSAA or better is almost a minimum requirement now :S

I was wondering when someone was going to bring up this always overlooked
important viewing aspect. I sell TV's at Sears and that is always one of my
questions, " how far away will you be viewing the TV".

I'm sitting less than 3 feet away from a 30" 2560x1600 with a water cooled
4870x2...

 

[Bigbacon]

A short, general answer - the lower your resolution, the more AA matters. At 1680x1050, 8xAA isn't overkill - it's necessary. I can't speak for 1920x1200 or 2560x1600 resolutions.

Agreed, remember 1680x1050 (or 1600x1200) is like the new 640x480 of yesteryear, it is almost considered low res IMO. 1280x720 being the minimum accepted.

 

[cannondale06]

Agreed, remember 1680x1050 (or 1600x1200) is like the new 640x480 of yesteryear, it is almost considered low res IMO. 1280x720 being the minimum accepted.

thats just a slight exaggeration. I would put 1680x1050 closer to 1024x768 from yesteryear as you say. 1680x1050 is hardly bottom of the barrel yet. hell there are still more people with 1280x1024 than those with 1920x1200 and 2560x1600 combined.

 

[ballpoint]

It makes a difference at 1920x1080. Mainly improves chain link fences and other transparent textures. Especially on a big screen monitor it`s visible. Problem is even on the rig in my sig there`s too much performance hit so I keep it at 4X inalmost all games.

 

[phide]

Agreed, remember 1680x1050 (or 1600x1200) is like the new 640x480 of yesteryear, it is almost considered low res IMO.

Don't forget that in the days of 640x480 and 800x600, we were all kickin' on CRTs. In the LCD age, things are different. The variance in dot pitch (pixel pitch) between various LCDs isn't massive, and resolution scales pretty much linearly with display size. Ergo, resolution is effectively a "meaningless" concept: the differentiator is pixel pitch.

If we take two displays, one 20" at 1680x1050 and one 30" at 2560x1600, with an identical pixel pitch, do we gain visual fidelity on the 30" due to its higher resolution? Do we negate aliasing or the appearance of poor texture filtering? Unfortunately, no. You don't gain any image fidelity until you start packing in more pixels per inch or until you start adding distance between yourself and the display.

Resolution is dead

 

[ballpoint]

I think the gain going to larger screen and higher resolution with the same dot pitch is rather incredible. The Dell 3007 has .25 dot pitch, better than the average .28.

 

[snaggletooth]

as much AA as you can get is the right amount.

 

[archevilangel]

I thought general rule of thumb is that the higher res you go, the less AA you need.

It's more the resolution:screen size ratio. aka pixel pitch, the smaller the pixels are the less aliasing is noticeable.