Quote:On the other hand, in the same year, 4K TV demand and sales continued to grow and by an astounding margin, with shipments expanding by a whopping 173% in the same year as HD TV sales dropped by 4%. This still totaled out to only 32 million TV sold for the year but the growth is nonetheless impressive given the general market conditions for TVs.

(03-11-2016, 12:55 AM)SteelCrysis Wrote: http://4k.com/news/while-tv-shipments-fall-4-in-2015-4k-tv-sales-bucked-the-trend-and-continue-to-do-so-12971/

Quote:On the other hand, in the same year, 4K TV demand and sales continued to grow and by an astounding margin, with shipments expanding by a whopping 173% in the same year as HD TV sales dropped by 4%. This still totaled out to only 32 million TV sold for the year but the growth is nonetheless impressive given the general market conditions for TVs.

Quote:Given content available, this baffles me.

*IF* you were buying a TV right now and *didn't* get a 4K set I'd tell you you were a complete jackass

(03-11-2016, 08:42 PM)BenSkywalker Wrote:

Quote:Given content available, this baffles me.

Really? I haven't once tried talking you into a 4K set, you are all set right now, I get that. 

*IF* you were buying a TV right now and *didn't* get a 4K set I'd tell you you were a complete jackass

Quote:This is pretty random for you. I didn't say you, or anyone was trying to convince me of it.

Heh, sorry about that, wasn't trying to imply anything at all, was just prefacing my comments so anyone who read them would understand where I was coming from. The thrust of what I was trying to say is that overall TV sales are down, but 4K sales are skyrocketing which makes perfect sense. Less people may be buying a TV, but if you are buying one anyway, why not pay the rather small price premium for a much higher resolution display

(03-12-2016, 07:26 AM)BenSkywalker Wrote:

Quote:This is pretty random for you. I didn't say you, or anyone was trying to convince me of it.

Heh, sorry about that, wasn't trying to imply anything at all, was just prefacing my comments so anyone who read them would understand where I was coming from. The thrust of what I was trying to say is that overall TV sales are down, but 4K sales are skyrocketing which makes perfect sense. Less people may be buying a TV, but if you are buying one anyway, why not pay the rather small price premium for a much higher resolution display

(03-12-2016, 09:04 AM)RolloTheGreat Wrote:

(03-12-2016, 07:26 AM)BenSkywalker Wrote:

Quote:This is pretty random for you. I didn't say you, or anyone was trying to convince me of it.

Heh, sorry about that, wasn't trying to imply anything at all, was just prefacing my comments so anyone who read them would understand where I was coming from. The thrust of what I was trying to say is that overall TV sales are down, but 4K sales are skyrocketing which makes perfect sense. Less people may be buying a TV, but if you are buying one anyway, why not pay the rather small price premium for a much higher resolution display

No problem. I believe tv sales are down, everyone has 50-60" 1080p tvs they're basically happy with.

TV makers need to convince networks to film sports in 4K, that would drive sales of 4x tvs better than anything.

(03-12-2016, 08:56 PM)SickBeast Wrote: I thought about buying a 65" 1080p LED TV last week, it was on sale at Costco here for $699CAD (about $530USD) but then I thought about it and I think I want 4k.  That being said, if all you do is watch TV, 1080p TVs are a really good deal right now because it seems like they are clearing a lot of them out, particularly at the larger sizes.

(03-12-2016, 10:52 PM)RolloTheGreat Wrote:

(03-12-2016, 08:56 PM)SickBeast Wrote: I thought about buying a 65" 1080p LED TV last week, it was on sale at Costco here for $699CAD (about $530USD) but then I thought about it and I think I want 4k.  That being said, if all you do is watch TV, 1080p TVs are a really good deal right now because it seems like they are clearing a lot of them out, particularly at the larger sizes.

If I saw a 70" 1080p for $1000 shipped I might jump. Sell my 60" Sharp for $400-$500, watch $70" for a year or two cheap.

TVs aren't meant to be lifelong investments in my opinion, you buy what serves your needs at present at price you're willing to pay.

Sort of like video cards, you can't buy for future games.

(03-13-2016, 03:09 AM)SickBeast Wrote:

(03-12-2016, 10:52 PM)RolloTheGreat Wrote:

(03-12-2016, 08:56 PM)SickBeast Wrote: I thought about buying a 65" 1080p LED TV last week, it was on sale at Costco here for $699CAD (about $530USD) but then I thought about it and I think I want 4k.  That being said, if all you do is watch TV, 1080p TVs are a really good deal right now because it seems like they are clearing a lot of them out, particularly at the larger sizes.

If I saw a 70" 1080p for $1000 shipped I might jump. Sell my 60" Sharp for $400-$500, watch $70" for a year or two cheap.

TVs aren't meant to be lifelong investments in my opinion, you buy what serves your needs at present at price you're willing to pay.

Sort of like video cards, you can't buy for future games.

I try to get at least 5 years out of a TV and I have learned to wait for all the technologies in them to become mainstream.  4k is not mainstream yet.  There is no content and the TVs cost way more for a feature that you can't even use outside of high end PC gaming.  Not only that but I would have to redo my entire entertainment setup to accommodate a bigger TV.  I'm just not ready yet.  I figure in a couple more years we will have way better GPUs for cheap that can handle 4k.  gstanford says that GTX 970s in SLI are not enough for 4k.  We need better GPUs and we need cheaper TVs.  Plus we need content.  I just don't see the point right now unless you have a ton of money and you're a hardcore gamer with a powerful setup.

(03-13-2016, 05:02 AM)SickBeast Wrote: I don't think gstanford could live with 45fps.  He says that the GTX 970s are just not optimized for 4k, he says it would not be a good experience.

(03-13-2016, 07:43 AM)gstanford Wrote: I'm not wasting money on GSync.  I'll wait for freesync to be in everything including TV's.

Once again I'm not a shill or a syphocant for any company even if I like their products.

Some (mostly older games) work fine at 4K on 970 SLI.  I find the sweet spot with my 970's for DSR is 1440p though.

4K has a long way to go yet before it is mainstream and a default resolution.

(03-13-2016, 05:38 PM)gstanford Wrote: It might make the game look smoother but it won't be able to reduce the input lag which is the main thing I notice and what makes the games unplayable.

It is why I like things like MFAA.  it actually reduces the time it takes to render the frame (because less AA samples fetched per frame).  It doesn't dick around with the frame timing.

(03-14-2016, 06:40 AM)gstanford Wrote: Why would I use 0x AA?  Unlike you I can see jaggies at 4k.  I prefer 4x AA at least and won't hesitate to lower the resolution to get it.

For me framerates too low are always associated with lag or loss of input control.

Quote:In actual gameplay, 2x MSAA is just as good at 3840×2160 as 8x is for 1920×1080. Our tests in other games bear this out — while some titles need AA more than others, it’s just not as necessary at 4K as it was in 1080p.

(03-14-2016, 09:05 AM)gstanford Wrote: All you are saying is that you have trouble distinguishing detail as PPI increases.  That is your problem, not one I suffer from.  My eyesight is fine in that regard, it is just small UI text rendered tiny by high resolutions that I dislike.  That and anything that doesn't scale its UI properly ends up unusable.

(03-14-2016, 09:22 AM)gstanford Wrote: LIke I said -  your (and the reviewers) problem, not mine.  Everyones eyes are different.  Yours apparently don't cope will with fine detail, mine do (it is distance vision that I have trouble with).

(03-14-2016, 09:11 PM)gstanford Wrote: and at 1600p on my own hardware not to mention using other peoples machines with 4K monitor attached.

Regardless of which there isn't any AA going on with 4K monitors other than pixels blurring together in peoples eyes.

(03-15-2016, 05:58 AM)gstanford Wrote: I've used 4K monitors, I don't need to own one and I have no intention of wasting money on one.  Go fuck yourself Mr blur lover (on both PC and CrapBOX)!

Quote:You aren't seeing AA, you are seeing blurred together pixels because your eyesight isn't good enough to resolve them individually on the small monitor.

Odds are close to 100% that if you walk up to the edge of any wall in your house and put your nose to it you will notice that there is aliasing style bumps and pocks in the paint on the walls. Even high gloss paint, which almost no one uses, has them. Do you notice aliasing on your walls as you walk around? Waxing, polishing and buffing would remove it for you, but for some reason I doubt you do that

(03-15-2016, 11:14 AM)BenSkywalker Wrote:

Quote:You aren't seeing AA, you are seeing blurred together pixels because your eyesight isn't good enough to resolve them individually on the small monitor.

Odds are close to 100% that if you walk up to the edge of any wall in your house and put your nose to it you will notice that there is aliasing style bumps and pocks in the paint on the walls. Even high gloss paint, which almost no one uses, has them. Do you notice aliasing on your walls as you walk around? Waxing, polishing and buffing would remove it for you, but for some reason I doubt you do that

Aliasing becomes *significantly* less noticeable with increased pixel density. If you are comparing 1080p w/4x AA to 4K without AA, 4K is superior- and it truly isn't even remotely close(edge aliasing is somewhat close, texture filtering is *vastly* superior with increased resolution).

Compare 800x600 w/4x AA to 1600x1200- it is a joke of course, quadrupling pixel density slaughters shitty AA(even stochastic super sampling wouldn't hold up very well).

BTW- Blurred together pixels is exactly what AA does, that is what you are seeing with AA, not without(not being able to discern individual pixels is a limitation of the eyes, not a function of the display).

Quote:When you see bumps and pocks in wall paint you are seeing detail meant to be there

Quote:you aren't seeing rendering artifacts that exist (even at 4K) because there isn't enough resolution in the signal to prevent them from appearing.

Quote:One of the biggest causes of aliasing in modern games is normal mapping and shader operations on textures.

Quote: Increasing the screen resolution does little or nothing to remove them, the way to do that is higher resolution normal maps using lossless compression.

Quote:Blur based AA where everything is blurred is crude and undesirable.

Quote:We only want to AA edges and artifacts that require it, not everything.

Getting granularity on your calculations to a point where you eliminate visible errata is in essence what I do for a living, this is the same math used in a different fashion

(03-15-2016, 02:28 PM)gstanford Wrote: MSAA + SG:AA does a good enough job especially for consumer space.  and I've been around for quite a while, learnt computing on the schools DEC PDP8, my first machine was a Commodore C64, my first 3D graphics card (excluding S3 Virge derivatives) was a Permedia 2 + Voodoo 1.

(03-15-2016, 05:26 PM)gstanford Wrote:

(03-15-2016, 04:49 PM)RolloTheGreat Wrote:

(03-15-2016, 02:28 PM)gstanford Wrote: MSAA + SG:AA does a good enough job especially for consumer space.  and I've been around for quite a while, learnt computing on the schools DEC PDP8, my first machine was a Commodore C64, my first 3D graphics card (excluding S3 Virge derivatives) was a Permedia 2 + Voodoo 1.

Yet you totally discount the effect of pixel density on aliasing when no one else does. Go figure.

Because this method of "anti-aliasing" is like taking a photo with a professional glass plate camera then printing the result onto a postcard sized print with an amateur enlarger.

In other words it is a ridiculous "solution" to the problem (actually it isn't a solution at all - the aliasing is still there, but the dot pitch is too small for you to notice it along with most of the other fine detail that is also being hidden).

I'd almost compare it to voodoo 1/2 rendering where everything got smoothed to hell (the voodoo "vaseline screen" effect).

If the dot pitch is so high that you can't resolve each pixel with your eye then the monitor is worthless in my opinion.  Why?  because if you can't resolve each pixel you don't actually have a 4K monitor you have something with an effective resolution of less than 4K.

(03-16-2016, 04:52 AM)gstanford Wrote: Not at the expense of not being able to see the indvidual pixels.  You haven't really got a 4K display if you can't resolve all of the pixels that make it up.  You have something like a 2K display instead.

Quote:MSAA + SG:AA does a good enough job especially for consumer space.

Quote:and I've been around for quite a while

Quote:I'd almost compare it to voodoo 1/2 rendering where everything got smoothed to hell (the voodoo "vaseline screen" effect).

Quote:If the dot pitch is so high that you can't resolve each pixel with your eye then the monitor is worthless in my opinion.

Quote:You haven't really got a 4K display if you can't resolve all of the pixels that make it up. You have something like a 2K display instead.

Quote:If you have a large 4K monitor/TV and if you have the GPU power to push 4K at the same sorts of IQ levels you would push 1080p with then sure, it is very nice and desirable.

Quote:If you have to resort to no AA and rely on a tiny monitor to provide AA through blur then you are better off sticking with 2K (1440p/1600p) and enjoying real AA and better IQ.

Quote:Quit being an idiotic troll!

Quote:As for SG:SSAA, no it doesn't suck - you need to set a negative texture LOD with it though otherwise it does cause a loss of sharpness in textures.  Not my fault you didn't know about that.

Quote:Voodoo 1 & 2 intentionally set blurry LOD for texturing

(03-16-2016, 02:39 PM)BenSkywalker Wrote:

Quote:Quit being an idiotic troll!

Insults out? OK.

I've forgotten more about this subject than you could hope to learn in your fucking life you half witted ignorant shit.

Quote:As for SG:SSAA, no it doesn't suck - you need to set a negative texture LOD with it though otherwise it does cause a loss of sharpness in textures.  Not my fault you didn't know about that.

If your retarded ass would have bothered to look it the fuck up- the exact problem I warned 3dfx engineers about with their particular implementation of AA on the VSA-100 is that they were using a default LOD bias calculation when they needed to drop it to negative for the 4x sampling of the same visual space. I knew that by reading a fucking white paper you helmet head. You think you know jack shit about rendering? Really? Again, this shit is public record- I looked at a mathematical representation of what their hardware was going to be doing and told them what visual anomalies they would have and how to fix it looking at a fucking equation, but no, your half witted ass is trying to explain things to me, and you call me an ignorant troll...... 

Quote:Voodoo 1 & 2 intentionally set blurry LOD for texturing

No, they didn't you ignorant fucktard, they used the standard calculations based on the screen space and angles they were displaying at.

http://www.amazon.com/Computer-Graphics-Principles-John-Hughes-ebook/dp/B00GMVFC0O/ref=mt_kindle?_encoding=UTF8&me=

That's shit I was reading years before you were anywhere near a tech forum. Study that book for a few years, and when you are done with that I will start to answer the beginner level fucking questions you would be worthy of asking.

(03-16-2016, 05:52 PM)gstanford Wrote: For all Bens supposed and flaunted knowledge he didn't have the first fucking clue about SG:SSAA and said it looked bad, yet all he had to do was take his own advice about negative LOD and apply some when using it.  I'll bet he still doesn't know how to properly do it (there is a certain step you need to take in addition to setting the negative LOD in nvidia inspector) and I'll bet he can't expand the "SG" part of SG:SSAA without googling it either!

Quote:Voodoo 1 & 2's did use blurry LOD's to hide the effects of their filtering and the low resolution of the textures.

Quote:Is it engineering or some kind of math?

Quote:For all Bens supposed and flaunted knowledge he didn't have the first fucking clue about SG:SSAA and said it looked bad, yet all he had to do was take his own advice about negative LOD and apply some when using it.

Quote:and I'll bet he can't expand the "SG" part of SG:SSAA without googling it either!

(03-17-2016, 03:40 AM)BenSkywalker Wrote: You are right, but I'd be willing to wager not for the reason you think. Firing it up stochastic was instantly ruled out because it looked like absolute shite. It was abhorrent. That left two possibilities, scattered grid or sparse grid. Both of them are shitty vaseline style blur fixes, and without playing around with it for a while and using some test cases it would have taken me a while to figure out which shitty version of "SG" they were using. 

Quote:No, I just know what the fuck I am talking about, whereas you and Ben haven't the first clue!

Quote:Don' worry you weren't the first and you won't be the last.

Quote:Baumann lost to me with his GeforceFX and DirectX 9 partial precision propaganda and responded by banning me from B3D.

Quote:What you all of you think about this?

(03-17-2016, 06:56 PM)BenSkywalker Wrote:

Quote:No, I just know what the fuck I am talking about, whereas you and Ben haven't the first clue!

Break it down then. So far you have given me the impression you have no clue what I am talking about- change that perspective, please. At this point you sound like you know as little as some of the viral marketers AMD uses. "It's pretty" isn't knowing a fucking thing- break it down. 

Quote:Don' worry you weren't the first and you won't be the last.

To violently sodomize your..... I can't even say arguments. You haven't argued, you have pulled a straight three year old temper tantrum shoving your fingers in your ears and screaming you win. I've broken it down for you, you haven't said a fucking thing in defense outside of pretending you understand elementary levels of rendering and horribly fucking up your thoughts on those. 

Quote:Baumann lost to me with his GeforceFX and DirectX 9 partial precision propaganda and responded by banning me from B3D.

Wavey banned you? He was a really laid back guy- if you were dealing with him the way you are presenting yourself in this thread @B3D I can understand- you are coming across like you are winning a theoretical astro physics debate by screaming you shit your pants- and you seriously seem to think that is valid.

Quote:What you all of you think about this?

Took me about an hour to think of a *potential* use for it that any of us would have, came up with one though. If you were running Morrowind with extreme mods and *MASSIVE* textures placing memory at a premium utilizing this approach could be viable. On a computation side this approach is kind of an interesting take on using an IMR shaders to gain some of the benefits of a TBDR.

I want to get that out of the way because, seriously, I am not trying to bash the guys that wrote this paper. Looking at what they were trying to do they succeeded, not only that but they seemed to iterate  several levels out of what we would typically expect to see at a first generation technique such as this.

This method of AA is so obscenely shader intensive it will not be viable outside of some extreme case situations with *very* narrow parameters. Ray tracing is cheaper then what they are doing. To compound the issue, it is simply giving you superior edge AA(versus normal MSAA) while doing fuck all for the rest of the scene. Again, I'm not trying to bash this implementation- what they were trying to do they did- figured out a way to get very high quality edge AA while using a significantly smaller memory footprint then any of our current approaches- they get a mission accomplished and some kudos for how much evolution of the technique they did prior to publishing- it is simply a *very* narrow window where this will be useful at all.

Quote:You are right, but I'd be willing to wager not for the reason you think. Firing it up stochastic was instantly ruled out because it looked like absolute shite. It was abhorrent. That left two possibilities, scattered grid or sparse grid. Both of them are shitty vaseline style blur fixes, and without playing around with it for a while and using some test cases it would have taken me a while to figure out which shitty version of "SG" they were using.