Do you perfer AA or Res?

[perox]

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.

Obviously if the pixels are smaller then you wouldn't be able notice the jaggies as much... I was under the impression that the pixels were the same size in all monitors, I was wrong. I said the size of the monitor has nothing to do with the visibility of jaggies which is correct, its the size and amount of pixels in the monitor which makes them less or more visible.

 

[kylew]

if the resolution were high enough, you wouldn't see any jagged edges. Resolution will have a cut off point in terms of pixel density, where by increasing the density won't do anything in terms jagged edges as the human eye can only distinguish up to a certain density, although I'm not entirely sure what that is though. It's like those 22" LCDs that have a native res of 3840x2400, the jagged edges would be really small, possibly enough to not be visible. /drivel over

 

[sosrandom]

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??

Id say 4aa, 2aa 1024 is quite small and things like the hud will take up too much space. Plys
On game like C&C and AoE higher res also gives you a larger viewing area (as you cant zoom out enough)

If you open a game at 800x600 IMO it looks awful as does 1024, because there are less pixels which are bigger (on the same size screen).

Without running on native res the image becomes more blurry imo too although its only really noticeably without any AA.

I will post some SS's

 

[Final8y]

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.

Only because we don't measure a screen at DPI.
& the same is true for DPI if it only was at 4DPI you would have big blocks.
DPI is the resolution per inch & its always measured at DPI no matter what the picture size.
Resolution on screens the amount of pixels/dots used for image in regard of the final image size. the only thing what needs to be considered is what resolution you can get away with to make an image look smooth & detailed for intended image size & viewing distance.

And what most people are getting at is the smoothness of image & you get that the higher the res at a given fixed size, the problem is that in the case of monitors they have chosen to increase resolution by making bigger screen thus using the same pixel size but that will start to change.

You also got to look at that there is a difference from text to games as the text is a fixed size where 3D in games are not so even tho a 30" 2560x1600 may have the same pixel size of a 20"1680x1050, the 3D object at the same distance in game will contain more pixels on the 30" screen thus looking more detailed and smoother because of increased object size or you end up with 1:1 pixel mapping with black border.

A 3D sphere would look smoother on the 30" from the same distance in game than on the 20".

 

[sosrandom]

Higher res
http://www.the-nova.co.uk/shot3003.jpg
Lower res
http://www.the-nova.co.uk/shot0008.jpg

At 100% Same/similar size of jaggies however the lower res one would be larger (full screen), to take up the same screen size, so the jaggies increase in size too.

edit:
we do measure screens in dpi however its not a major consideration these days as TFT monitors dont show each pixel as bad as tv's / old crt's (what had a lower dpi, go figure)

 

[Final8y]

Obviously if the pixels are smaller then you wouldn't be able notice the jaggies as much... I was under the impression that the pixels were the same size in all monitors, I was wrong. I said the size of the monitor has nothing to do with the visibility of jaggies which is correct, its the size and amount of pixels in the monitor which makes them less or more visible.

I see what your getting at & things tend to get confusing because LCD TV`s tend to have the same pixel count for a variety of screen sizes & a bigger screen will make more noticeable jaggles .

 

[Final8y]

Higher res
http://www.the-nova.co.uk/shot3003.jpg

Lower res
http://www.the-nova.co.uk/shot0008.jpg

At 100% Same/similar size of jaggies however the lower res one would be larger (full screen), to take up the same screen size, so the jaggies increase in size too.

edit:
we do measure screens in dpi however its not a major consideration these days as TFT monitors dont show each pixel as bad as tv's / old crt's (what had a lower dpi, go figure)

You have to zoom both links to the full size of your screen to see the effect butt i would have chosen a bigger difference in res with the same aspect ratio.

 

[sosrandom]

I edited the pics to show how they would look as 1/4 of your screen (my screen)

Higher res - 1680*1050 no AA

Lower res - 1280*800 no AA

And at 1/2 the resolution again the jumps between the pixels would be twice the size on your screen

 

[titaniumx3]

More to do with pixel pitch (effectively the size of pixels) and the distances you sit from screen. For example, the jagged edges at 1920x1200 (without AA) will look worse on a 28" screen than on a 24" screen, provided you are sitting the same distance away.

As a result the 22" Toshiba LCD with 3840x2400 resolution, probably won't needing much AA at all.

 

[Final8y]

More to do with pixel pitch (effectively the size of pixels) and the distances you sit from screen. For example, the jagged edges at 1920x1200 (without AA) will look worse on a 28" screen than on a 24" screen, provided you are sitting the same distance away.

As a result the 22" Toshiba LCD with 3840x2400 resolution, probably won't needing much AA at all.

Pitch is not the size of the pixel, but the gap between them as they do not touch each other.
The bigger the pitch the more grid like image & not to be confused with pixelated image.
If get close enough to your LCD you can see the vertical lines which is the pitch between matching sub pixel.
The pitch horizontally is the same but much harder to see because of the non matching coloured sub pixel above it.

 

[fraps]

I edited the pics to show how they would look as 1/4 of your screen (my screen)

Higher res - 1680*1050 no AA

Lower res - 1280*800 no AA

And at 1/2 the resolution again the jumps between the pixels would be twice the size on your screen

good shots, the jaggies are less noticeable on the higher res

 

[Rezident]

I prefer high res first then AA if needed, but I rarely seem to need it at 1680 x 1050.

 

[Darkwave]

To people who keep asking: Yes I can notice AA at 1600x1200 and above, most people probably can.

 

[FooAtari]

I'm not really sure why anyone wouldn't play at the native res just to use AA. An LCD displaying an image at less than the native res looks pretty awful imo.

I play at the native res then add AA if I can.

 

[Streeteh]

Native res isn't really something i would call an indicator of whether you will notice jaggies or not. For example, i own a 20" monitor with a native res of 1680x1050, however the majority of 22" screens also have the same native res. Due to the screen being larger, but there being the same amount of pixels this means each pixel is bigger and thus jaggies will be more obvious to the eye.

This is why i bought a 20" instead of a 22" - it may be smaller but the picture quality is typically better without anti-aliasing.

Newer monitors these days tend to have much better scaling, so non-native looks a hell of a lot better on my new monitor than my last one. In crysis i tried native res and then the resolution a step below that, performance increased and aside from slightly more jaggies it looked pretty much exactly the same. So, if in a crunch, i would pick a lower res with some anti aliasing applied.

 

[aeT]

Depends on the monitor. I generally play in 1280x1024 so AA is nice for me. If my native res was enormous it'd be a different kettle of fish.

 

[james.miller]

More to do with pixel pitch (effectively the size of pixels) and the distances you sit from screen. For example, the jagged edges at 1920x1200 (without AA) will look worse on a 28" screen than on a 24" screen, provided you are sitting the same distance away.

As a result the 22" Toshiba LCD with 3840x2400 resolution, probably won't needing much AA at all.

Pitch is not the size of the pixel, but the gap between them as they do not touch each other.
The bigger the pitch the more grid like image & not to be confused with pixelated image.
If get close enough to your LCD you can see the vertical lines which is the pitch between matching sub pixel.
The pitch horizontally is the same but much harder to see because of the non matching coloured sub pixel above it.

its pixel density actually, which is a combination of pitch AND pixel size. pixel density being the number of pixels squeezed into an area, normally in2.

the more pixels you squeeze in to the same area, the more detailed that area becomes. lines look more like lines than the do stairs, and so less AA is required. it really has very little to do with screen size.

** A lesson in screen size Vs pixel density **

take a look at this:, a link to the ever useful tvcalculator site. it shows the 3 main sizes of widescreen tft's - 20,22,24 and 30 inch.

look at the pixel density of the displays, the 30" has the highest pixel density of the lot which is why people will tell you they dont need to use a lot of AA. the 24" monitor is actually 3rd, behind the 20" so its interesting to see what those 20" owners have to say...but anyway yes, the smaller and closer the pixels are, the less AA you'd have to use

to answer the question, i'll push both as high as possible but the AA is the one to be scaled back first. luckily ive not had to run at a lower res with this card yet

 

[pastymuncher]

No way would i sacrifice the native res of my monitor (1280x1024). I do like as much AA and AF as i can get away with though. 4x AA is the least i would run with. Have'nt got Crysis yet though i could run 8x AA in the demo and it ran smoothly enough.

 

[james.miller]

No way would i sacrifice the native res of my monitor (1280x1024). I do like as much AA and AF as i can get away with though. 4x AA is the least i would run with. Have'nt got Crysis yet though i could run 8x AA in the demo and it ran smoothly enough.

yeah see, thats the thing. i find at 1920x1200 im able to get away with less AA than i was at 1680x1050. i actually only normally run 2xAA now, and the performance hit was negligible really

 

[StevenG]

ive always been a fan of AA no matter what res i ran at. it shows the difference between pc and console i think. consoles (ps3 and 360) still show blocky edges compared to a decent pc with AA turned on or maxed.

when it comes to res vs aa i think i'd chose which ever looked better, im not too bothered about FPS as long as its playable so i'd rather have aa on at all res's if possible. but id probably just turn the aa off to get to native res (which helps with games anyway, non native res has ALWAYS looked a lot worse imo)

StevenG