MSAA or SMAA

The great debate.

Which do you prefer if these two are your only options, and why?

Off

I prefer not playing video games.

I have a 2 k monitor so I don't actually need any kind of AA. I always have it off because turning it on takes away like 1fps and it doesn't do anything since my resolution has enough pixels to not have to cram everything in and create jaggies.

Why haven't you fags gotten a 2 k monitor yet.

>takes away 1 fps for rendering objects at 2-4-6-8 times more res

Have you tried anything else besides fxaa? Because at 2k res every decent aa option is gonna tank your fps like hell, if we're talking about graphically intensive games.

What part of "if these two are your only options" did you interpret as "there is a third option you can make up as you want"?

Come on now, this is the "would you rather" of video game graphics discussion.

>1fps and it doesn't do anything since my resolution has enough pixels to not have to cram everything in

I'm going to need a Moron-to-English translation of this.

SMAA, because:

-Most game engines do not "support" MSAA anymore, thanks to deferred shading (=it does nothing).
-SMAA is still lighter weight.
-Does not rape the image quality like (poorly implemented) FXAA, pretty well ignores 2D elements like fonts and menus even when simply injected, and yet manages to demolish worst jaggies effectively, even at 1x setting.

Define "2K".
I have had 1200p monitor (1920x1200) for over 6 years now, and I can still tell the jaggies in most games instantly. Sometimes I ignore them and get used to the looks, but often I do try some AA methods.

So my "excuse"? Cost of those screens + my current still serving me well.

Put some AA on the font m8.

m8 even 4K shows slight jaggies without any kind of AA enabled.

yes I know it's bait and yes I fell for it hard

>FXAA

I remember when I got my computer and I experimented with having FXAA on or off.

I was blown away by how good FXAA looked.

Why does FXAA even exist as an option in 2016?

2k is 1920x1080

Are you familiar with the concept of baiting, user?

On higher resolutions (higher than 1080p) jaggies are so tiny you don't really need AA.

Im technical noob, what the point? Second pic looks obviously better.

I think he is legitimately retarded.
Otherwise no one would create such a weak bait.
Who would even get mad at that?

Temporal Filtering

I would rather make my own option for shitposting purposes.

I have quotas to meet user. It's nothing personal.

Neither, I use DSR.

>Why does FXAA even exist as an option in 2016?
Because it's the lightest weight and simplest post-processing AA algorithm around, and you can implement it to your projects and just say special thanks to the creator in your credits.

Hell, UE, Unity, etc, all tend to have FXAA shader as one of the stock options you can apply to the in-game camera from a simple menu.

When done right (there's plenty of tweaks you can apply to FXAA + different versions of the algorithm too), the effect is indeed pretty nice and eliminates worst jaggies effectively. However, some games seem to just slap it on their screen, totally butchering the image quality with pointless vaseline. Talos Principle is a good, recent example of the FXAA being used well (it even has quality options for it!), while Killing Floor 2 has shitty and blurry FXAA with mere ON/OFF options.

The second pic is a LOT more demanding. The real question is how much you can "get away with".

Like, from a distance, will you ever really notice jaggies on grass?

because there is

That totally depends on the pixel density, the playing resolution, your eye sight and standards, etc.

>The second pic is a LOT more demanding.
Nope. SMAA is still lighter than MSAA, since nothing's being rendered at higher resolution.

ultra textures
1920x1080
vsync

EVERYTHING ELSE OFF

EVERYTHING ELSE IS A FUCKING MEME TO GET YOU TO SPEND MORE THAN $200 ON SOME SHITTY ACCESSORY

DO YOU ACTUALLY STILL FALL FOR THIS SHIT IN CURRENT YEAR

MSAA is superior, it's just not implemented correctly in the OP image Alpha mask should be filtered and applied as coverage, not as a clip in the pixel shader.

I don't even know how to turn on smaa.

If a game forces shit like that without any way to disable it, its not worth playing.

if the game has no option for it, the only choice is to inject it with one of the many graphical injector tools available online (SweetFX, ReShade, InjectSMAA...)

>wanting to sacrifice kickass dynamic lighting and shadow effects + parallax mapping
>2000+16
jesus christ son, it's like you WANT games to look all flat and dark! Those ain't even too demanding to use!

The SMAA you get with Reshade
is it good?

is that half-life 2?
looks like it desu

maybe the "simple english" option from Wikipedia is what you're looking for

No, its like shitty FXAA

No. Talos Principle.

>play PS3 game
>it uses quincunx

Dunno about ReShade, but I used SweetFX' SMAA on STALKER games couple years ago, and it was very nice. MUCH sharper and less obscuring than the driver-injected FXAA.

2k is 2048x1080, 1920x1080 is FHD

heavy msaa.

post processing solutions blur the shit out of everything.

I would rather play with no AA no motion blur and most of the time no depth of field. Also while screen tearing is annoying the mouse lag introducing in menus in some games with vsync forces me to turn it off as well.

I think playing on high resolution is the best anti aliasing solution.

Fuck off with your false dichotomy.

you would have to be very anal and play 5 cm away from the screen for the jaggies to be a problem. Hell they dont bother me on 1080. aliasing is natural on grids with visible pixels. Its natural. Il take the sharper image over anti aliased blur any day

You forgot DSR on. That shit is amazing.

I always get a massive performance hit with AA, so I always turn it off. I hardly even notice it in motion.

SMAA
I always turn AA off.
Seems like adding very slight blur and I feel like I'm seeing edges that aren't actually there.

>post processing solutions blur the shit out of everything.
Only poorly implemented ones.
Some games, like Witcher 2, actually become SHARPER looking with their AA enabled.

Are you for real? You made the game look like fucking ass.

There's major differences in performance hit between the "traditional" AA methods (MSAA, SSAA) and the newer, post-processing based methods (FXAA, SMAA...), with latter usually causing a drop of maybe one or two frames tops.

thats because witcher 2 used a sharpening filter with the solution to offset the blur. It made the game unnaturally sharp. Witcher 3 has the filter but its optional this time.

SMAA > MSAA

preach it brother

>It made the game unnaturally sharp.
I'm not seeing anything "unnatural" with it. In fact, the walls and such look BETTER to me.

>motion blur

This and "depth of field" are 2 effects I never really understood the need for in video games.

You eyes already give you depth of field on the house, and motion blur just makes it harder to actually SEE things when a lot of movement is going on.

>not understanding how aliasing works
>not realizing there's a reason aliasing literally never happens in real-world video, even if it's really low resolution

Super Eagle Filter

>not HQ4x

Seize.

it looks unnatural in motion and with bright high contrast surfaces. If you like it thats ok, im not opposed to optional filters but that is NOT anti aliasing alone which was the point of the thread

SMAA because it doesn't cost nearly as much and it does a solid enough job that jaggies don't really bother me, especially in games with lots of foliage.

depth of field depends on the implementation.
A progressive blur with things far off in the distance can simulate atmospheric scattering and make things look better.

However there are some depth of fields that blur shit that is not even 10 meters ahead of your character and irritates the shit out if me. Worst offenders actually blur objects close to the camera on top of that.

Guys, what is anisotropic filtering?

Like, if you had to explain it with words and not google an image, how would you go about it?

I've always put it on in every game I've played but I've never really known what it does.

>>not realizing there's a reason aliasing literally never happens in real-world video, even if it's really low resolution


cameras blend the shit of pixels what else is new. vector polygons will always be rendered this way on visible grids. You can blur the shit out of the result if it bothers you but high resolution grid on a smaller screen works well enough for me

Yeah, but like I said, DOF is already on the house. Your eye does that shit naturally.

Do we really need an in-game effect to emulate it? I mean, even now, as you read my words your eyes have blurred everything around my text slightly for your convenience.

Does it have something to do with our eye interpreting what's going on on-screen as a 2D image or something?

I'm genuinely curious.

"it prevents textures from losing details and blurring with distance."

Makes distant terrain and objects look smoother

So, it essentially forces the game to render things that are far away as if they were up close?

>Yeah, but like I said, DOF is already on the house. Your eye does that shit naturally.


to your eyes the screen is a 2d plane 30 cm ahead of you, its not gonna blurr anything there other than fast moving images.

Motion blur can make those blurs look nicer if the fps is high enough but more often than not the implementation is nausea inducing.


You are probably thinking of focus blur which is the other type of "blurring that the eyes do where things not at the center fall out of focus and you would be right there is no need for that kind of "DoF" in games other than to guide the eyes during cutscenes (like movies do) but during gameplay its really annoying.

>Yeah, but like I said, DOF is already on the house. Your eye does that shit naturally.
That's what i hate about modern graphics. This shit need so much power and just looks shit/unnatural.

Atleast 50% of effects are useless shit that make everything worse looking. Bloom, DOF, sometimes HDR, Lense Effects, most Postprocessing bullshit etc.

>Turning on vsync
Enjoy your input lag, faggot.

HQx got worse over time, everybody should know that.

no.
see pic related, though.
also it's almost free and makes everything look better.

at some angles,think not parallel, like floor tiles on a road heading into the distance will blur very easily without af.

Oh. I appreciate the explanation user, and will remember it before running my mouth about the topic in the future.

Well, the screen is what, like, a meter away, on average? That's not gonna cause a solid blur or any kinda simulation of distance when looking at an image. It's done in movies, art - everything. You're right - the eyes focus on the object they're looking at, but when taking in a full view or playing a game, it can add a little bit of depth to scenes which make them more believable.

I think it's over-used for sure, but can be a neat stylistic choice. I, for one, really like how it's used in Doom, when reloading or picking up a new weapon etc.

It's still used in the wrong way by developers though - specifically early access/indie dudes who think Bloom and DoF are more important than good models and textures.

Off top tier

Skimmin those frames boi

>people ITT hating on bloom

I bet you faggots like to SEE things too, huh?

Bloom Master Race reporting in.

It filters out details at a distance that just produce noise when there isn't enough screen resolution to reproduce them.

It also deals with artefacts when viewing textures at a distance.

This is apposed to just slapping bilinear filtering of different amounts at some radius away from the camera. like on the left here Your eye does not do it to a 2D plane like your screen, whatever you're looking at is the focal point, that's why everything else is blurred.

Your eye can do motion blur on its own, but you really since you can't really break up IRL movement into descreet frames, your best bet is to run a game at like 144 hz or even more and let your eyes do it.

I'm pretty sure you can look up videos of sonic generations where its been run at 120 hz, then Temporally downsampled to 24fps or 30fps and the motion blur is mathematically accurate to a real camera or eye.


Generally any discrete sampling of a set number a frames, you want to start with at least 2x the samples of your final product, then downsample to the final result.

This is why CD's are 44.1 Khz, because 44.1/2 = 22.05, and human hearing taps out at around 20Khz, so 44.1 accurately captures ALL possible frequencies the human ear can perceive. Despite retard-Audiophiles's (not the sensible ones) claims to the contrary

>cameras blend the shit of pixels
You imply that this is an active process, as if the sensor or software deliberately does it. It's not. Your eyes are subject to the same "blurring," as you call it. It's actually kind of amazing that a perceptually smooth image can be generated with as little as four samples per pixel.

I assume you want a more technical explanation since the difference is pretty apparent with comparison pics. Basically as flat surfaces become further away from you in space, they get more "distorted." Traditional mipmapping and sampling techniques don't account for this distortion and start to break down as you get further away. AF, in its most basic implementation, "pre-distorts" the mipmaps before sampling them to correct for the discrepancy.

>Despite retard-Audiophiles's (not the sensible ones) claims to the contrary

This pisses me off, as a sound engineer. I've had to deal with so many hipster arseholes that think they know better.

yeah i agree it depends on the implementation, i liked how alien isolation used it with the radar thing for example. More like a stylistic choice.

I just cant stand when during normal full view gameplay where you are supossed to see things 100m ahead of you you cant see anything because its all completely blurred or when things close to the camera get blurry as well. Like when trying to get a good look at your characters model face and the screen just blurs the shit out of it.

I feel the best kind of DoF simulates natural blur from things like atmospheric scattering with things that are really far away such as mountains.

What was that AA that was developed by some dude from nVidia?

That does pretty well, though you had to manually inject it into games.

What do people with consoles do when they hate the way the games they play looks? Is there ever graphic options?

>read through thread
>people actually seem to know what they're talking about, giving detailed explanations of graphical concepts in games

This is actually not a bad thread.

MSAA is retarded as it doesn't even cover everything. The best for of AA (and forever will be) is SSAA. Failing that SMAA is decent.

Sup Forums is at its best when not talking about actual video games.

The tech behind video games, porn, movies, whatever. It's always better than trying to discuss vidya.

Finally someone who knows his shit. I bet you're a developer.

It might not be b8. So many people don't know 1080p is "2K" and mistakenly believe that a 1440p monitor is actually "2K".

>You imply that this is an active process, as if the sensor or software deliberately does it. It's not. Your eyes are subject to the same "blurring," as you call it.


No you are right Im fully aware this also happens with our eyes, its just that it doesnt bother me on games at 1080 and specially not at 4k on a normal sized screen. Or even downsampling from 4k to 1080, its like you mentioned with the audio sampling i guess.

TAA+edge sharpening, easily the best option

never ever ever post processing

My problem is that because of them its hard to get people to push for decent audio quality because it all sounds like snake oil.

There's zero good reason for the skyrim remaster to have such shitty compressed sounds, when opus or vorbis are available. I hated that shit in the vanilla game as the music was compressed to shit.

Exactly. There are so many games that use it, when the setting doesn't ask for it. If you're in a city or something, it's really not necessary. When there are mountains or distant light sources, then it can add to the experience massively. If they're going for a super cinematic thing, I can understand it a little bit.

What bugs me are FPS games that ram on lens flares, camera dust/specks/water droplets and then a suffocating amount of DoF effects, when you're supposed to be playing as a normal dude.

I don't have glasses, there sure as fuck aren't camera scratches and shit in my fucking eyeballs, what are you doing.

There are a lot of MMOs abusing it as well, where it'll blur everything around your character if you try and look at their face. A lot of games also use it heavily to mask stuff like shitty background textures that they know you'll never reach, like mountains that act as a map border etc.

I love Witcher 3 so much, but the distant mountain textures in Toussaint are rank and the DoF helps mask that, but granted there's a lot of open space in that game where the DoF works pretty well.

Again, Doom's use when reloading etc makes sense, as it's kinda giving the impression that his eyes are down there, focusing, but it's not so crippling that you can't see enemies/whatever else is going on in the background.

TXAA is a straight up blur filter.

I used to not like the blur, but whatever method they've got going in new Doom is really good.

Though I've never minded having an intentionally soft image as long as its trying to imitate film.

Hell, when I watch the new Ghost in the Shell series, I almost want a grain filter just because early digitally composited animation looks like shit.

All AA is blur tbqh

Ram on a limiter and then boost up the compression, so it makes people dizzy m8; good to go bois.

In this day and age, there's no excuse for anything but CD grade audio that's well produced.

But the audio side of games is probably the most overlooked sector and taken for granted far too much and - on top of that - it's the one taken for granted the most as well. Nobody knows shit about audio, so why bother trying.


"Just recompress the rips from the original m8" - Todd

lmao why dont they just not make jaggy models instead, kek

retard developers

By definition supersampling/downsampling are not.

Both. Enable 2x MSAA in-game, then inject SMAA. No jaggies.

>"Just recompress the rips from the original m8" - Todd
This physically hurts me and I barely know anything about sound design.

Yeah but we don't wanna blow up people's machines now do we

this