The lighting may be making it more apparent, who knows. But at the end of the day, the final rendered image has anti-aliasing issues with jagged lines. By definition this is an anti-aliasing problem. You literally posted an article above describing it. 

As pointed out earlier, even LR has acknowledged this, not sure why you can't.

 

29 minutes ago, brinx said:

The lighting may be making it more apparent, who knows. But at the end of the day, the final rendered image has anti-aliasing issues with jagged lines. By definition this is an anti-aliasing problem. You literally posted an article above describing it. 

As pointed out earlier, even LR has acknowledged this, not sure why you can't.

 

1 pixel deep. That image is massively zoomed in so you can actually see what it is doing.

AA removes the edges caused by 1 pixel.

On the screen at 4K the distance in that picture between the top of one pixel and the bottom of the other measures 0.3mm on a 50 inch display, less on anything smaller.

4x AA reads a grid 2 pixels across and 2 pixels high and blurs them.

I already posted a picture for this but I cant find the thread, but its on imgur

green = AA

red= nothing related to AA in any way shape or form.

there is also these two from another thread showing AA works exactly as it should (zoomed in even less than your shot above)

No AA

with AA

= AA doing exactly what it should (but such a tiny change you wont see it on a 4K screen, where those jagged edges measure 0.3mm tall).

Edited February 10, 20233 yr by mSparks

Again, since you choose to ignore the fact that pixel size has NOTHING to do with this:

https://www.testufo.com/aliasing-visibility#foreground=ffffff&background=000000&antialiasing=0&thickness=4

To quote the developer who made the test to prove why what you are saying is impossible to see is possible to be seen...   Read that last line and stop with the pixel size argument.  

Quote

Description: This test allows you to determine how far away you can get from your display before you can no longer see the benefits of the resolution of your display. This is useful in determining the distance from a 4K display, for a virtually worst-case computer graphics animation, to determine how far away the point is, where you no longer see the benefits of 4K. Computer graphics (lots of sharp lines) is far clearer than video, pushing the limits of human vision acuity, including via indirect effects such as shimmering caused by aliasing, even when individual pixels are too small to be resolved individually by the human eye.

 

Edited February 10, 20233 yr by psolk

24 minutes ago, psolk said:

what you are saying is impossible to see is possible

What distance did you get? I was about 18 inches from the display...

please tell me you are not sitting 18 inches away from a 50 inch monitor... I would count sitting 18 inches away from a 50 inch monitor as

7 hours ago, mSparks said:

further, the 100% fix for aliasing is to render in 4K. all gone, no pixels to see short of looking at the screen through a magnifying glass.

Edited February 10, 20233 yr by mSparks

If you zone in on 1 or 2 lines, maybe you can downplay the significance. But when you have a dynamic screen of thousands of lines, oh boy, you can see it.

It’s another reason I’m still torn about trying XP12. In screenshots it looks very attractive, but in videos…no.

As has been mentioned, it can sometimes be difficult to visualize AA and other issues in screenshots.

Are there perhaps videos available on YouTube or elsewhere that I could watch? Videos where the scenery and cockpits and panels are panned around, etc.? Links would be very helpful in this regard.

Only Msparks could turn a simple issue of poor AA in to a discussion like this. He literally de-rails loads of good topics and just turns them in to arguments of obscure gibberish with frustrated people replying. Bets on how long this one takes to get locked. It’s like that song; another one bites the dust. 

17 minutes ago, OlliePen said:

As has been mentioned, it can sometimes be difficult to visualize AA and other issues in screenshots.

Are there perhaps videos available on YouTube or elsewhere that I could watch? Videos where the scenery and cockpits and panels are panned around, etc.? Links would be very helpful in this regard.

Just get the demo and try for yourself. It’s pretty bad (in my opinion). Some people are not as sensitive to it. 

1 hour ago, mSparks said:

What distance did you get? I was about 18 inches from the display...

please tell me you are not sitting 18 inches away from a 50 inch monitor... I would count sitting 18 inches away from a 50 inch monitor as

LOL, how is looking at anything through a magnifying glass the same as with the naked eye from 18 inches?  OMG you are a funny individual the way you twist a conversation to prove your point.  What happened to the pixels were too small for any anti-aliasing to be seen?  Did we debunk that now so now it's about the distance to the monitor?  All of which is irrelevant when multiple lines on the screen are simultaneously shimmering due to the AA. 

I am 24.5 inches from a 49 inch ultrawide at 5K with TrackIR.  Wanna know a fun fact.  From my eyeball in my helmet to the windscreen in my racecar (which ironically is also 50 inches wide) is also 24.5 inches.  So yeah, there is a reason for that...    What do you expect me to be across the room from a 49 inch ultrawide monitor at 5k?  

Shall we play another game?  Do you think it would be necessary if I was 3 feet away?  Survey says:  Yes...  In visual acuity the average person would have to be 4.5 feet from a 5k monitor to "not" see individual pixels but that goes out the window when you have lines of pixels shimmering on a screen which is what everyone in this thread is describing.  So what was that about not needing anti-aliasing on a 4k monitor due to the eye not being able to see the invisible pixels because AA had no effect on a 4k monitor?  Oh yes, that would be factually incorrect.  

NVIDIA Automotive Screen Density Calculator

The perceived "visual density" of a screen—and thus the amount of anti-aliasing possibly needed to make computer graphics look convincing and smooth—is dependent on the pixel density of the screen (the "ppi") and the distance from the user's eyes.
Adjust values below to calculate the visual density, or select a different value to control and instead enter the desired ppd.

Quote

62.6 ppd is above the 20/20 vision threshold of 60 ppd, but below the average vision of ~20/15. Most people will be able to see individual pixels. You likely need moderate anti-aliasing.

http://phrogz.net/tmp/ScreenDens2In.html#find:density,pxW:3840,pxH:2160,size:43,sizeUnit:in,axis:diag,distance:3,distUnit:ft

 

 

Edited February 10, 20233 yr by psolk

4 hours ago, mSparks said:

what @brinx posted isn't an AA issue though.

Its one of lighting/SSR/Performance optimisation or several other issues that are being worked on.

most likely the perf one, top of known issues, where distant objects are rendered at a lower resolution and part of how hard render distance is as a problem to solve, but there seems to be others that are just "simple" issues to do with finding and fixing where and why resolution quality is being lost unnecessarily (e.g. shadows).

There is also a whole category of similar "looking" issues that are actually just bad art assets with unperfected LOD.

 

1 hour ago, Ianrivaldosmith said:

Only Msparks could turn a simple issue of poor AA in to a discussion like this. He literally de-rails loads of good topics and just turns them in to arguments of obscure gibberish with frustrated people replying. Bets on how long this one takes to get locked. It’s like that song; another one bites the dust. 

It is not at all a simple issue/discussion.  I find mSparks point here informative and can see how there can be down resolution issues that AA cannot fix.  The overall Jaggy/shimmering issue clearly needs to be attacked in multiple areas.  And in theory, imperfect AA may not be the most important area to attack for the most incremental gains.

3 hours ago, Ianrivaldosmith said:

Just get the demo and try for yourself. It’s pretty bad (in my opinion). Some people are not as sensitive to it. 

It appears to be worse on nvidia GPU's.  I've posted several screenshots from my M1 MBP, and it looks far smoother than other images posted from people with nvidia GPU's, under the same settings.

It can be minimized through the settings, obviously.  But there are differences.

But as I said, LR are aware of it.  They've fixed certain areas of it in the incremental updates, but the big fix is still being worked on.

Edited February 11, 20233 yr by GoranM

7 hours ago, psolk said:

LOL, how is looking at anything through a magnifying glass the same as with the naked eye from 18 inches?

because sitting 18 inches from a 50 inch monitor is the same as looking through a magnifying glass at 6 inches from an 15 inch monitor. 

because you generally need to zoom in several times from normal viewing to see individual pixels on a high resolution display.

and all completely irrelevant because 2x, 4x and 8x AA works exactly as it should in XP12.

They wont fix artifacts that are not caused by AA and span multiple pixels however, and if you are waiting for changes to AA that do you will be waiting forever. 64x AA is not planned or expected imho. 

"because sitting 18 inches from a 50 inch monitor is the same as looking through a magnifying glass at 6 inches from an 15 inch monitor."

It most definitely is not..

 

2 minutes ago, Brian Mackie said:

"because sitting 18 inches from a 50 inch monitor is the same as looking through a magnifying glass at 6 inches from an 15 inch monitor."

It most definitely is not..

 

 

 

He uses the comedian and actor Hugh Laurie to support his hypothesis, in a work of TV fiction.

I rest my case.