R520 preview on some site.

[kylebisme]

Well of couse it has to interpolate for anything other than it's native resolution, that goes for all digital displays. But all the same, my display does support a 2048x1536@60hz signal and it may work even higher if I had something that would support it. Point being, it wouldn't shock me if there were HDTVs out there that could work with r520s max resolution.

 

[ArchAngel777]

Originally posted by: TheSnowman
Well of couse it has to interpolate for anything other than it's native resolution, that goes for all digital displays. But all the same, my display does support a 2048x1536@60hz signal and it may work even higher if I had something that would support it. Point being, it wouldn't shock me if there were HDTVs out there that could work with r520s max resolution.

Support and work properly are two different thigns. If 20 X 15 looks no better than say, 16 X 1200, what would be the point? I am absolutely sure your plasma display is not using 1536 vertical pixels. It is probably using either 1024 or 768 vertical pixels. Most likely the latter...

Edit ** Please provide a link of your Plasma display. I would like to review its features.

 

[unfalliblekrutch]

rendering a game at 25x16 and having the tv sample it down to native will have much less jaggies than if you simply ran the game at 10x7, right?

 

[ArchAngel777]

Originally posted by: unfalliblekrutch
rendering a game at 25x16 and having the tv sample it down to native will have much less jaggies than if you simply ran the game at 10x7, right?

That is a good point. In that respect, yes, you are right.

 

[xtknight]

Originally posted by: ArchAngel777

Originally posted by: unfalliblekrutch
rendering a game at 25x16 and having the tv sample it down to native will have much less jaggies than if you simply ran the game at 10x7, right?

That is a good point. In that respect, yes, you are right.

No, not at all. Jaggies will likely be worse because of interpolation processing artifacts, and turning on AA over that will just make them even worse.

 

[ArchAngel777]

Originally posted by: xtknight

Originally posted by: ArchAngel777

Originally posted by: unfalliblekrutch
rendering a game at 25x16 and having the tv sample it down to native will have much less jaggies than if you simply ran the game at 10x7, right?

That is a good point. In that respect, yes, you are right.

No, not at all. Jaggies will likely be worse because of interpolation processing artifacts, and turning on AA over that will just make them worse.

How would it not?

Edit ** Did not see the second sentance there until I hit reply. Anyway, you are right in that respect, but rendering someone at a higher resolution and downscaling it if it is correct pixel mapping will result in less jagged edges. But if you factor in interpolation, then you are definitely correct. Overall, it would be rather worthless to run a high resolution on a TV that just has to downscale it improperly.

Thanks for the clarification on interpolation. Something I did not consider when I responded.

 

[xtknight]

Originally posted by: ArchAngel777

Originally posted by: xtknight

Originally posted by: ArchAngel777

Originally posted by: unfalliblekrutch
rendering a game at 25x16 and having the tv sample it down to native will have much less jaggies than if you simply ran the game at 10x7, right?

That is a good point. In that respect, yes, you are right.

No, not at all. Jaggies will likely be worse because of interpolation processing artifacts, and turning on AA over that will just make them worse.

How would it not?

Because, AA is being applied at the wrong "drawing" stage. If you apply AA and downsample it, it's going to look crappy at best. AA blends x amount of pixels around a line. Those blended pixels are by no means perfect and usually form (albeit mild) artifacts. It's always better to run at a really high resolution. The reason lines are jaggy is because of the pixels. The smaller the dot pitch (and assuming same monitor size: higher resolution) allows more dots to be packed in to one space, making the jaggies far less significant.

 

[xtknight]

Originally posted by: ArchAngel777

Originally posted by: xtknight

Originally posted by: ArchAngel777

Originally posted by: unfalliblekrutch
rendering a game at 25x16 and having the tv sample it down to native will have much less jaggies than if you simply ran the game at 10x7, right?

That is a good point. In that respect, yes, you are right.

No, not at all. Jaggies will likely be worse because of interpolation processing artifacts, and turning on AA over that will just make them worse.

How would it not?

Edit ** Did not see the second sentance there until I hit reply. Anyway, you are right in that respect, but rendering someone at a higher resolution and downscaling it if it is correct pixel mapping will result in less jagged edges. But if you factor in interpolation, then you are definitely correct. Overall, it would be rather worthless to run a high resolution on a TV that just has to downscale it improperly.

Thanks for the clarification on interpolation. Something I did not consider when I responded.

If it was a perfect downsample, it would result in the same as the original 1024x768 rendering. There is nothing but the dot pitch itself that makes lines less jagged.

 

[kylebisme]

It does look noteably better as downsampling at the display has exactly the same effect as supersample antialisng on a videocard. My plasma is only 852x480 native, higher resolution are still useful all the same.

 

[xtknight]

Originally posted by: TheSnowman
It does look noteably better as downsampling at the display has exactly the same effect as supersample antialisng on a videocard. My plasma is only 852x480 native, higher resolution are still useful all the same.

Except for the fact that the monitors at least 50% of the time have to deal with a resolution that's not a perfect multiple. Actually 1024x768 is 4x as small as 2048x1536, so you're right in this situation. I still don't understand how that's going to make the lines any less jagged? The graphics adapter supersampling is probably far superior than anything the monitor can do in the 16.6ms. (60 Hz) or less it has to draw the image. Plus keep in mind that the monitor is doing raster downsampling whereas the video card has vectors at its disposal.

 

[ArchAngel777]

Originally posted by: TheSnowman
It does look noteably better as downsampling at the display has exactly the same effect as supersample antialisng on a videocard. My plasma is only 852x480 native, higher resolution are still useful all the same.

QFT! Which is why I reject the post above yours. It will not look the same as 1024 X 768 and dot pitch has nothing to do with it. Else a 480P DVD would have jaggies...

Anyway, that is essentially what video cards do when enabling AA.

A CRT can downsample perfectly... A plasman? Probably have some issues and much of it would have to do with the pixel processor.

 

[xtknight]

Originally posted by: ArchAngel777

Originally posted by: TheSnowman
It does look noteably better as downsampling at the display has exactly the same effect as supersample antialisng on a videocard. My plasma is only 852x480 native, higher resolution are still useful all the same.

QFT! Which is why I reject the post above yours. It will not look the same as 1024 X 768 and dot pitch has nothing to do with it. Else a 480P DVD would have jaggies...

Everything has jaggies, even real life. They are just VERY small. I'm not an optometrist by any stretch of terms, but last I checked didn't your eyes also work by small dots? Maybe I've been using monitors for too long.

 

[ArchAngel777]

Originally posted by: xtknight

Originally posted by: ArchAngel777

Originally posted by: TheSnowman
It does look noteably better as downsampling at the display has exactly the same effect as supersample antialisng on a videocard. My plasma is only 852x480 native, higher resolution are still useful all the same.

QFT! Which is why I reject the post above yours. It will not look the same as 1024 X 768 and dot pitch has nothing to do with it. Else a 480P DVD would have jaggies...

Everything has jaggies, even real life. They are just VERY small.

Lets not get technical... Otherwise we can say a circle is a bunch of lines on the microscoptic level... But, saying such is ridiculous.

 

[xtknight]

Originally posted by: ArchAngel777
A CRT can downsample perfectly... A plasman? Probably have some issues and much of it would have to do with the pixel processor.

No, a CRT cannot downsample "perfectly". I believe it's a gaussian blur type of effect.

 

[ArchAngel777]

Originally posted by: xtknight

Originally posted by: ArchAngel777
A CRT can downsample perfectly... A plasman? Probably have some issues and much of it would have to do with the pixel processor.

No, a CRT cannot downsample "perfectly". I believe it's a gaussian blur type of effect.

We might have a clash of terms at this point. If you are referring to the device not being able to display any resolution properly, then you are wrong. If you are referring a picture that is normally 1280 X 768 full screen attempted to be scaled down to 800 X 600 stretched, then you would be correct. But that is not the displays problem, that is just a problem with downscaling in general.

 

[xtknight]

Jaggies on a 480P DVD would be clear as day. You were talking about jaggies on 1024x768?

 

[ArchAngel777]

Originally posted by: xtknight
Jaggies on a 480P DVD would be clear as day. You were talking about jaggies on 1024x768?

Nope, I was talking about 480P. Last I checked LOTR on my Dads plasma looks just fine on 480p.

 

[xtknight]

Originally posted by: ArchAngel777

Originally posted by: xtknight

Originally posted by: ArchAngel777
A CRT can downsample perfectly... A plasman? Probably have some issues and much of it would have to do with the pixel processor.

No, a CRT cannot downsample "perfectly". I believe it's a gaussian blur type of effect.

We might have a clash of terms at this point. If you are referring to the device not being able to display any resolution properly, then you are wrong. If you are referring a picture that is normally 1280 X 768 full screen attempted to be scaled down to 800 X 600 stretched, then you would be correct. But that is not the displays problem, that is just a problem with downscaling in general.

When the number of pixels on the high-res divided by the number on the lower-res is a floating point number, a "perfect" downsample is only subjective.

OK, the other guy was talking 1024x768.

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: xtknight

Originally posted by: TheSnowman
It does look noteably better as downsampling at the display has exactly the same effect as supersample antialisng on a videocard. My plasma is only 852x480 native, higher resolution are still useful all the same.

Except for the fact that the monitors at least 50% of the time have to deal with a resolution that's not a perfect multiple. Actually 1024x768 is 4x as small as 2048x1536, so you're right in this situation. I still don't understand how that's going to make the lines any less jagged? The graphics adapter supersampling is probably far superior than anything the monitor can do in the 16.6ms. (60 Hz) or less it has to draw the image. Plus keep in mind that the monitor is doing raster downsampling whereas the video card has vectors at its disposal.

It doesn't have to be a prefect ratio to benift from supersampling and the videocard does the exactly same thing with supersampling in 16.6ms that the scaler on the display does.

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: ArchAngel777

Originally posted by: TheSnowman
It does look noteably better as downsampling at the display has exactly the same effect as supersample antialisng on a videocard. My plasma is only 852x480 native, higher resolution are still useful all the same.

QFT! Which is why I reject the post above yours.

I take it you mean xknight's post?

 

[ArchAngel777]

Originally posted by: TheSnowman

Originally posted by: ArchAngel777

Originally posted by: TheSnowman
It does look noteably better as downsampling at the display has exactly the same effect as supersample antialisng on a videocard. My plasma is only 852x480 native, higher resolution are still useful all the same.

QFT! Which is why I reject the post above yours.

I take it you mean xknight's post?

Correct.

 

[xtknight]

Originally posted by: TheSnowman

Originally posted by: xtknight

Originally posted by: TheSnowman
It does look noteably better as downsampling at the display has exactly the same effect as supersample antialisng on a videocard. My plasma is only 852x480 native, higher resolution are still useful all the same.

Except for the fact that the monitors at least 50% of the time have to deal with a resolution that's not a perfect multiple. Actually 1024x768 is 4x as small as 2048x1536, so you're right in this situation. I still don't understand how that's going to make the lines any less jagged? The graphics adapter supersampling is probably far superior than anything the monitor can do in the 16.6ms. (60 Hz) or less it has to draw the image. Plus keep in mind that the monitor is doing raster downsampling whereas the video card has vectors at its disposal.

It doesn't have to be a prefect ratio to benift from supersampling and the videocard does the exactly same thing with supersampling in 16.6ms that the scaler on the display does.

The bottom line is it depends on the algorithm. Supersampling will perhaps make it look better downscaled, where a linear downscale will make it look exactly the same.

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: xtknight
Everything has jaggies, even real life. They are just VERY small. I'm not an optometrist by any stretch of terms, but last I checked didn't your eyes also work by small dots? Maybe I've been using monitors for too long.

Huh, I have never heard of square atoms.

*edited for the right quote

 

[xtknight]

Originally posted by: TheSnowman

Originally posted by: xtknight
Jaggies on a 480P DVD would be clear as day. You were talking about jaggies on 1024x768?

Huh, I have never heard of square atoms.

lol, what? Obviously we do have a clash of terms here.

 

[ArchAngel777]

Originally posted by: TheSnowman

Originally posted by: xtknight
Jaggies on a 480P DVD would be clear as day. You were talking about jaggies on 1024x768?

Huh, I have never heard of square atoms.

You lost me here...