Do you perfer AA or Res?

[MumboJumbo]

A bigger screen at the same resolution should hold the same amount as a smaller screen at the same resolution.

I would still be sitting the same way away.

The pixils are smaller. This means the jaggidys get smaller too, because there is lots of small ones it has the effect of smoothing it out.

Zoom in on a picture and it goes all jaggidy. Zoom out and make the pixils smaller and they dissapear.

Noteable you ignored this because it makes sence.

 

[Margaret]

Id by far prefer a high resolution over AA. More things on screen, more detail and means aa isn;t needed as much.

That's not really true, higher res doesn't mean less need for AA, I've gone from 1440x900 to 1680x1050 and finally to 1920x1080, the need for AA is still there.

1440x900 was a 19", 1680x1050 was a 20" and the 1920x1080 is a 37" all screens have needed AA, none more than the other.

Also I sit at the same distance I always have, roughly 50cm away from the screen, some would argue that's way too close for a 37" but I like it and have adjusted, I know if I was further back there would be less need for AA obviously.

Edit: Can easily notice 4xAA on every game.

 

[metalmackey]

Ummm, because we'd rather look at a big screen rather than a little one?, i certainly didn't buy a bigger monitor intending to get rid of jaggies.

Errr mate, I never saiad anything about the size of the screen, I was talking about high reses.

 

[MumboJumbo]

That's not really true, higher res doesn't mean less need for AA, I've gone from 1440x900 to 1680x1050 and finally to 1920x1080, the need for AA is still there.

1440x900 was a 19", 1680x1050 was a 20" and the 1920x1080 is a 37" all screens have needed AA, none more than the other.

Edit: Can easily notice 4xAA on every game.

Umm thast becauase your screen is a 37" with a low resolution in comparison. try it on a 24".


I never said you wouldn't notice aa. I said taht the higher resolution means its not needed as much. The higher resolution im talkign about is a 24" at native resolution. 37" screens are not the majoirty of high res screens and tbh the res is faily low for the size of the screen. which is why you need aa for it. As said about a 22" monitor needs more aa then a 20" because its the same resolution over a bigger area. Well 24" and 37" is an even bigger jump.

 

[perox]

A bigger screen at the same resolution should hold the same amount as a smaller screen at the same resolution.



Noteable you ignored this because it makes sence.

I didn't ignore your reply give me a chance

I suppose you are right, so why don't they just make 22" monitors with a huge resolution for gamers to totally get rid of jaggies?

 

[Margaret]

Umm thast becauase your screen is a 37" with a low resolution in comparison. try it on a 24".


I never said you wouldn't notice aa. I said taht the higher resolution means its not needed as much. The higher resolution im talkign about is a 24" at native resolution. 37" screens are not the majoirty of high res screens and tbh the res is faily low for the size of the screen.

1:1 Pixel mapping, the res is fine for the screen it's extremely sharp.

That's not why I need AA at all, as I said I have not noticed any increase in jaggies since moving from my 20".

Seriously, if I thought the res of the screen was too low for the size of it I would not be using it as a PC monitor, with 1:1 pixel it looks stunning.

Edit: This is the specific reason I went for a 1080P set, they look stunning for PC use, if I had a 1366x768 set I would full on agree with you, it would indeed look very jaggie close up, with 1920x1080 this is not the case.

 

[Phil2008]

Would you notice if you had 2 screens with the same image on, 1 at 1024x768 with 4xaa and the other at 1280x1024 with 2xaa??

 

[queamin]

I didn't ignore your reply give me a chance

I suppose you are right, so why don't they just make 22" monitors with a huge resolution for gamers to totally get rid of jaggies?

Because pixels are a certain size?

 

[MumboJumbo]

I didn't ignore your reply give me a chance

I suppose you are right, so why don't they just make 22" monitors with a huge resolution for gamers to totally get rid of jaggies?

not 100% sure on that answer. I beleive its because its over the top. I do beleive there are some for graphics design with high resolutuions in the 2000s.

1:1 Pixel mapping, the res is fine for the screen it's extremely sharp.

That's not why I need AA at all, as I said I have not noticed any increase in jaggies since moving from my 20".

Seriously, if I thought the res of the screen was too low for the size of it I would not be using it as a PC monitor, with 1:1 pixel it looks stunning.

I never thought about 1:1 pixel mapping.

But i still dont understand why this is even being debated really.

Do you dissagree that decreasing the resolution is the same as zooming in on a picture where it starts getting more and more pixilated. The result is any bumps are magnified and yous ee them clearer. Zooming out is the same as increasing the amount of pixils and therefore resolution, the bumps are smoothed out and you dont notice them as badly.

Do you not agree? if so then surely increasing the resolution of your monitor decreases the need for as much aa.

 

[Margaret]

I never thought about 1:1 pixel mapping.

But i still dont understand why this is even being debated really.

Do you dissagree that decreasing the resolution is the same as zooming in on a picture where it starts getting more and more pixilated. The result is any bumps are magnified and yous ee them clearer. Zooming out is the same as increasing the amount of pixils and therefore resolution, the bumps are smoothed out and you dont notice them as badly.

Do you not agree? if so then surely increasing the resolution of your monitor decreases the need for as much aa.

All I'm saying is that throughout all my res changes I've not noticed any decrease in jaggies.

But I guess this might be different person to person, just my experience.

 

[fraps]

Id by far prefer a high resolution over AA. More things on screen, more detail and means aa isn;t needed as much.

agreed, at 1600 x 1200 and above who needs AA that much? You have to actively look at edges to notice them and they are minimal at that res, textures, AF and lighting are the important things at that res

 

[muon]

Resolution doesnt remove jaggedies but is simply an illusion as you move up resolutions on a fixed sized screen.

For example, a PSP has a low resolution but is on a small screen so the jaggedies arent too bad.

You can also test that reducing the size of the pixels does remove jaggedies by taking a screen capture of a game at 2560*1600 with no AA and then shrinking it to a 1280*800 pic. It will look as if it has perfect AA.

 

[fraps]

I have played Quake 4 at 2000 x 1500 (approx) and you need a microscope to see the jaggies, and also when you a flying across the screen in an fps shooting, etc do you stop and check for jaggies?

I guess half of this is in the individual's mind...

 

[muon]

I have played Quake 4 at 2000 x 1500 (approx) and you need a microscope to see the jaggies, and also when you a flying across the screen in an fps shooting, etc do you stop and check for jaggies?

I guess half of this is in the individual's mind...

Depends on the screen size. You'd need a microscope to see jaggedies on a 3 inch 320*240 screen.

 

[muon]

A better way to explain this would be to say, you're drawing a thick circle.

Drawing that on a 10 x 10 grid with 1mm2 pixels wont be a pretty sight. If then you pick a 100x100 grid, it would be a much better picture overall if you stand back. Otherwise its just as jaggedy as before if you look compare adjacent pixels at the same distance. However, if you shrink that 100x100 grid to smaller pixels, for a fixed distance from the screen it will be less jaggedy.

edit: shrinking the 10x10 grid may not work because our eyesights are pretty good. but if you shrink it small enough, even the letter o in my username looks pretty damn good.

edit2: there is another illusion which may be occurring here. This circle in a 10x10 grid may only be 2 pixels thick. In which case, the jaggedy edges of this circle are very apparent as a proportion of the thickness of the circle. However, in the 100x100 grid the circle may be 15 pixels thick. In which case the jaggedies at the edge of the circle stand out less as a proportion of the circle. However, if you compare adjacent pixels at the edge, its just as jaggedy as before.

However, this illusion is very acceptable unless you actually loook very carefully.

 

[matt100]

I like a balance, I play at 1680x1050 unscaled on my 24" so I can have effects up high and aa on to make it nice and smooth but then I sit quite close so I do see the jaggies.

 

[Final8y]

Why wouldn't you be able to? Can you notice above 4xAA at 800x600? Yes! The resolution of a monitor doesn't effect how jaggies appear at all.

Man you are so wrong.
I run a res at 2560x1600 on a 30" monitor & i don't need more than x2 AA most of the time on the rare occasion.
Now then a monitor 24" at 2560x1600 would have smaller pixels than a 30" at the same res plus because its a computer monitor on a desk the view distance will be about the same & i can tell you that the jiggles will be much less noticeable on the 24" at the same res because of smaller needed pixels & bot pitch.
Its no different from the DPI in printing industry in which i have worked in all my life.

 

[muon]

Its no different from the DPI in printing industry in which i have worked in all my life.

But DPI is very different to simply pixels. In fact it confirms his comments about density of pixels (size of pixels controlling for resolution) rather than the absolute number.

 

[tsinc80697]

I play at everything 24" native, so 1920*1200 with 2x on, 4x if it can handle but normally 2x

 

[Shocky-FM]

High resolutions with AA are prefered but it depends, sometimes a lower resolution with AA will look and run allot better then a higher resolution without AA.