he said PPI not DPI, there is a difference.
(02-05-2011, 03:27 PM)NaturalViolence Wrote: [ -> ]*Begins laughing*
I've seen my friends 2560 x 1440 27" monitor. Aliasing is still extremely prevalent in all games. Only slightly less aliasing than a 24" 1920 x 1200. Shimmering and crappy textures are also just as prevalent at high resolutions.
Your 24" monitor has only 95 PPI
Your friend's display still has way too big pixels (108.7 PPI). I'm talking about 150 PPI displays here (PPI, not DPI).
At 150 PPI, 2560 x 1440 is good only for a tiny
19" monitor.
A
27" 16:9 display should have
3600 x 2025 pixels
On a good 140 PPI display, 2xMSAA + 4xAF removes all aliasing and texture blur.
At 150+ PPI, you won't need any AA.
Quote:he said PPI not DPI, there is a difference.
My mistake.
Quote:At 150+ PPI, you won't need any AA.
I doubt that. It might be less visible but it will still be there. I've seen people game on all kinds of monitors and hdtvs and the difference in how visible aliasing is at close range is always very small. For example comparing my 32" 1366 x 768 hdtv vs. my 24" 1920 x 1200 monitor I was expecting aliasing to be way more noticable on my hdtv at close range since everyone on the internet acts like aliasing depends almost completely on the display you're using. Yet I notice very little difference. Running quake III at 1920 x 1200 on my 24" monitor with 4xmsaa vs. 1366 x 768 on my 32" hdtv with 8x MSAA my hdtv actually shows less aliasing at the same range. Showing that AA > high dpi/ppi display in making aliasing less noticeable. High resolutions will slightly decrease aliasing and higher ppi will make it less visible especially if you're not extremely close to the monitor but it won't completely eliminate/fix it the same way high amounts of AA can. Therefore AA will always be needed since it actually fixed the problem. No matter how high your display resolution or ppi is you will still have aliasing no matter what.
Screen size, or how close it is, makes a difference. Right now I'm half a meter away from my "24 1200p screen, I don't think my eyes are focusing om more than 10% of the pixels at a time, you have to move your eyes around to see everything. Obviously, a lot of the resolution is wasted compared to looking at a DS from half a meter. (Which only fills a small portition of your vision. So if you had 1200p on your DS, I'm sure you'd need insnely good sight to see the aliasing, unless you moved your eyes right next up to the screen (which is beside the point, that's not what you're doing during normal use).
And btw, the eye has a little more than 100 megapixels, which I doubt are all put to full use (you'd need perfect sight for that. When a typical TV is about 5 meters away from me, the detail is way below distinguishable between 480p/720p. (That's bad I know)) So although in theory we can serve our eyes 50-100 times more quality still, I doubt the difference will be anywhere near that big.
(01-30-2011, 12:14 PM)NaturalViolence Wrote: [ -> ]Quote:Too bad it's not really practical to run in realtime.
^And that's precisely why I don't care about it.
You sure come across as rude.
Anyway, regarding the topic, it sure would be nice to have really high resolution monitors available with the same density of pixels like in that iphone 4 lcd. It's all been 1920xX or 2560xX (large displays) for a long time now.
Quote:You sure come across as rude.
But it's true. Why suggest something if you can't use it? I don't mean to be mean to ector (especially since it's ector), just making that point that I only care about AA implementations that can be used in real-time rendering.
Quote:It's all been 1920xX or 2560xX (large displays) for a long time now.
Yeah. Especially the last few years when all monitors became 16:9 just because it's the standard in home theater now. It's sad that monitors got LED backlighting, 120Hz refresh rates, and in-plane switching AFTER hdtvs, it didn't use to be like this.
My bad man.
(02-08-2011, 12:07 PM)NaturalViolence Wrote: [ -> ]Yeah. Especially the last few years when all monitors became 16:9 just because it's the standard in home theater now. It's sad that monitors got LED backlighting, 120Hz refresh rates, and in-plane switching AFTER hdtvs, it didn't use to be like this.
Yeah, it sucks that 16:10 is pretty much gone now, and it looks like 1920x1080 will be the resolution they throw in to 99% of displays for the next couple of years.
*hugs his 1920 x 1200 monitor*
I love playing old 4:3 games in 1600 x 1200 without any modding.