Personal computing discussed
Moderators: renee, morphine, SecretSquirrel
Melvar wrote:This would probably be true at extremely high resolutions assuming all texture data was similarly extreme. You'd need a high enough resolution for all of the different types of aliasing and moire patterns to average out to smooth rather than sparkly. We're not talking Retina here, we're talking literally microscopic pixels. IMO 4K isn't much closer to this than 1080p in terms of total distance from goal, it's that far from where we are now.
You'd still need MIP-mapping unless you got rid of textures and just went with flat shaded polygons. You wouldn't need AF if the resolution was high enough that you couldn't see the MIP level transitions.
Forge wrote:I'm with Morphine. I got a Retina Macbook Pro from work, and if I run a simple game on it, so that the 'Iris 5100' graphics can actually keep up, the lines look PHENOMENAL. With just a little bit of light edge AA for particularly high-contrast borders and some texture filtering, I'd say the actual delivery-of-picture-to-screen-to-eyes part of the toolchain was effectively perfect, just make it bigger until everyone was satisfied that their FOV was full enough.
ozzuneoj wrote:Sounds like a good subject for the next auxy investigative report! (*‘∀‘)I do wonder though, what impact does texture filtering and AF have on modern graphics cards with super high resolution textures?
Kougar wrote:Sort of a side-topic to this discussion. Correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't 4x AA been built into modern GPUs for a few generations now? Specifically there's no performance hit for enabling 4x AA on a modern GPU?
I ask partly to make sure I remembered that right, and also because I'm curious just how much AA we're discussing here. Off my very limited knowledge on the subject if we are just discussing AA then I'd agree with morphine. But texture filtering includes other things like Anisotropic Filtering, so I think the real question is just what kinds of texture filtering would uber resolutions make obsolete, if any?
Kougar wrote:Sort of a side-topic to this discussion. Correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't 4x AA been built into modern GPUs for a few generations now? Specifically there's no performance hit for enabling 4x AA on a modern GPU?
Melvar wrote:Kougar wrote:Sort of a side-topic to this discussion. Correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't 4x AA been built into modern GPUs for a few generations now? Specifically there's no performance hit for enabling 4x AA on a modern GPU?
Are you sure you aren't thinking of anisotropic filtering? That used to be a big performance hit on old GPUs, but even 16x AF is practically free on modern GPUs.
Captain Ned wrote:Well, has anyone ever tried to estimate the "PPI" of human vision? Can it even be done?
Damage wrote:cray cray
morphine wrote:.I postulated (and promptly got mocked by our Glorious Leader), that with insanely high PPI, you wouldn't need any anti-aliasing or more importantly, any texture filtering at all. Point sampling would be enough. I also say that we don't even need to get into nano-scale pixels for that, as long as we're talking a hypothetical monitor at your regular viewing distance (and not VR goggles).
Let's talk about this, even if just for gerbil feces and giggles.