Confused with AA and high res

[SimonC 116]

Can someone please clarify: I read every now and then "if you go 4K, you will not need AA".

Technically speaking, 4K is just a specific resolution.

I think the term 4K is being thrown a bit too loosely around here, and way better term would be PPI. Higher PPI would mean "better AA" at the same screen size.

However: doubling your pixels with the monitor (by going from 1920 -> 3840) you are basically doing the same thing as running SGSS with Nvidia Inspector at 2x. Also the same as DSR Factor 2.0. Same as 2x SS in P3D.

And if I technically understand it correctly, all 4 should yield the same picture quality in terms of AA in the simulator. And should also perform the same. And no, I have not tested it. Just a theory.

So, in the end, for the same screen size, it would just simply mean more desktop space, but in the simulator, doesn't really matter?

Or is it just the "coolness" of "ohhhhhhh 4KKKKK"...? 😄

And btw: when you have 4K, you can't go "down" really. With lower resolution you can use on of the upper techniques.

Edited November 9, 2018 by SimonC

[shivers9 1,174]

1 hour ago, SimonC said:

Or is it just the "coolness" of "ohhhhhhh 4KKKKK"...? 😄

Well I am not the guy to discuss the Tech part of it, but in practice you get a very large cockpit with high quality graphics. So yes it is really cool. Some folks are happy with a smaller screen. Heck, some even use a laptop and I have seen some here complain that you can't run P3D on an "😎eyephone"

[SimonC 116]

Yes yes, I am aware that you can get a really big cockpit. That was not the question behind it. Higher res, bigger screens, all fine.

But in essence, say you want a big screen. Say 42''. Pitch dot on 42'' at 4K is about the same as on 27'' 2560x1440.

So that would mean that AA in both cases would be the same really.

[hs118 707]

I run a 44" 4K screen powered by GTX1080. The render still needs AA. I apply 8x AA thru Nvida Control Panel  to sooth the jaggies.

[shivers9 1,174]

2 hours ago, SimonC said:

Yes yes, I am aware that you can get a really big cockpit. That was not the question behind it. Higher res, bigger screens, all fine.

But in essence, say you want a big screen. Say 42''. Pitch dot on 42'' at 4K is about the same as on 27'' 2560x1440.

So that would mean that AA in both cases would be the same really.

I guess we don't get your point. Your numbers sound about right so if you are happy with a 27" screen thats great. I guess for us the larger 4K is a better experience and worth the extra bucks we pay for the equipment.

[fghdgdfdfgfgf 111]

4 hours ago, SimonC said:

Yes yes, I am aware that you can get a really big cockpit. That was not the question behind it. Higher res, bigger screens, all fine.

But in essence, say you want a big screen. Say 42''. Pitch dot on 42'' at 4K is about the same as on 27'' 2560x1440.

So that would mean that AA in both cases would be the same really.

Simon, you're going to take a significant performance hit with 4k. All things being equal (pixel density) and level of AA to maintain same visual quality), the additional processing power required for processing AA at 4k levels is significant -meaning: 1080ti for 2k probably means 1080ti SLI for roughly the same performance in 4k.

I'm just bouncing this back at you, as I think your thought process is on the right track.

edit

Edited November 10, 2018 by FunknNasty
changed dot pitch to pixel density

[Mikelab6 89]

Jaggies are there because not enough dots are used to display the image correctly, and we are using AA to smooth the tings out.  If you are rising the dot pitch (or resolution) on the same screen size, you can lower your AA settings and have the same image quality than lower resolution with AA.  Of course, if your are using a 1080 resolution screen and upgrade to 4K on a bigger screen, you will still need to use AA to have the same picture quality than before depending on the size of screen you are upgrading from.

Mike

[neumanix 113]

Mike is correct.

I'd just like to add that when using SGSS or DSR, the rendering happens in a buffer larger than your screen size, and when resizing this buffer to your monitors resolution you get the AA.

So it's not the same as running a higher monitor resolution without any resizing taking place. But as Mike said, a higher PPI helps, as you can lower your AA settings.

[SKEWR 364]

I'm massively confused with AA. I have a 3440 x 1440 monitor and I suffer from massive jaggies. I, too, thought I wouldn't need any AA but it seems no matter what setting I use, there are jaggies everywhere.

Spoiler

Settings nVidia Control Panel

Anisotropic Filtering 16x, AA Mode:Override: any app setting, AA Setting: 8X, AA transparency 8x (supersampling), Power mgmt mode: prefer max performance, Preferred refresh rate: Highest available, Texture filtering Negative LOD bias: Clamp. Texture filtering Quality: High Quality, 

I also have AA set inP3D using 8xMSAA. 

 

All of this to say I thought I wouldn't need any AA with a 3440x1440 monitor, but it wasn't the case...

[Ted Striker 338]

1 hour ago, SKEWR said:

I'm massively confused with AA.

As is being discussed in this thread, it is not just your resolution that matters but also your screen size. The larger your PPI the better your image will look and the less AA you should need. The PPI is the pixels per inch on your screen and is obtained by dividing the horizontal or vertical resolution by the corresponding screen dimension.

My first monitor was a 19" 4:3 aspect ratio Dell with a resolution of 1280 x 1024 and screen dimensions of 15" wide and 12" tall. My horizontal PPI was 1280/15=85 and vertical was 1024/12=85 also. I wanted a wider horizontal field of view so I got 2 more of the same Dell monitors which gave me a horizontal resolution of 3 x 1280 =3840 and 45" of horizontal screen area. My horizontal PPI remained the same.  As 4k TV prices came down I replaced my triple monitor setup on a 55" UHD Sony 900E TV with a resolution of 3840 x 2160. The screen dimensions are 47" x 27" As you can see the horizontal field of view was about the same as my triple monitor setup but my vertical field of view doubled enabling me to see out the windscreen and also the entire panel without having to scroll up and down. The PPI of my Sony is 3840/47=81.7 horizontally and 2160/27=80. My PPI actually reduced a little with the 4k TV. If I had gotten a 49 inch TV instead, the PPI would have increased and the image would have been a little sharper. I chose the 55" TV because this TV will be going into my living room and I will probably be getting a smaller 4k 42" LG monitor for my sim.

I use the same AA settings with my Sony TV as I did with my old Dell monitors, 8x msss with 16x anio and the jaggies look about the same on both, slight but very tolerable. I expect the image on a smaller 4K monitor will have smaller jaggies. I am planning on taking some 4k screenshots from my sim, putting them on a flash drive, and then going to Best Buy to view them on different size monitors for comparison.

I hope this clarifies things for you and others,

Ted

[fghdgdfdfgfgf 111]

Maybe we can get Rob to test this https://www.asus.com/ROG-Republic-Of-Gamers/ROG-SWIFT-PG27UQ/ out for us.  It's 4k, small with 144Hz ($2000 us)  ...hope the link is forum compliant ...have your people call my people, if not. :-)

[Ray Proudfoot 8,925]

I wrote recently about screen size sharpness versus immersion here.

I've sat 3ft from a 40" Samsung UHD TV and the panel gauges were not as sharp as I would have liked. But it sure was immersive.

I've decided to stay at 32" for my next monitor (not TV). Currently using a Sony 32" Full HD TV and the lack of sharpness is an issue.

I'm buying the BenQ PD3200U 32" UHD monitor which will be a significant increase in quality.

Jaggies used to be a problem on aircraft fuselages especially around the tailplane. These days they're barely noticeable at 1920*1080 and above. It's the speckling in the distance that is more annoying now but UHD should take care of just about all of that.

[dave2013 1,123]

Some folks here have already said this, but basically the more pixels you have per inch, i.e. the higher the resolution, the less AA you should need. 

Personally, I plan to upgrade from 1920x1080 to 2560x1440 on a 27" monitor.  A 4K monitor has over twice as many pixels as a 2560x1440 monitor, which means the graphics card has a lot more pixels to control thus increasing the load on the card.

Dave

Edited November 10, 2018 by dave2013
misspelling

[SimonC 116]

7 hours ago, shivers9 said:

I guess we don't get your point. Your numbers sound about right so if you are happy with a 27" screen thats great. I guess for us the larger 4K is a better experience and worth the extra bucks we pay for the equipment.

Oh, don't get me wrong. It's not about the money. I recently bought 3 screens, along with quite expensive mounts for each separate screen. And I on purpose got 3x 2560x1440. I could have went 4K in 27''. Decided against, for two reasons: Work (I need 3 big screens, but not really more than 27, ergonomic reasons, and 4K would be way too small - and I do hate that windows scaling-feature, I always want to keep it at 100%) and Flightsim (I have quite a few tools which I like to keep visible in flight, so I have them all left, and EFB is right).

What I am about here, and I had hoped that the first message would have expressed that, is that 4K does not necessarily mean less AA needed - as I've seen quite a few wrong (or just imprecise) posts about that.

I did not want to discuss if 4K is worth it, or not.

I only wanted to see if my technical aspect understanding is right - and judging by other replies, it is.

Edited November 10, 2018 by SimonC

[SimonC 116]

3 hours ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

I wrote recently about screen size sharpness versus immersion here.

Thanks Ray, that's exactly what I've been thinking.

I guess now we only need a big screen with high PPI - and a GPU able to drive it. Say 55'' at 8K...