1 minute ago, VFXSimmer said:

The author is wrong

great, write it up a rebuttle, publish it and send it to LR to impliment.

I wont be waiting for it.

1 minute ago, mSparks said:

great, write it up a rebuttle, publish it and send it to LR to impliment.

I wont be waiting for it.

I did.  My last post is a rebuttable.  Voila.

On 2/11/2023 at 3:56 AM, Colonel X said:

Wow this escalated quickly. 

I came to your defense, but was summarily deleted.

23 hours ago, VFXSimmer said:

I did.  My last post is a rebuttable.  Voila.

Oh well in that case, it was deleted in peer review along with all the other bug reports complaining AA doesnt work. Because they couldnt recreate it.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review

2 hours ago, mSparks said:

Oh well in that case, it was deleted in peer review along with all the other bug reports complaining AA doesnt work. Because they couldnt recreate it.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review

Is that you Chatbot AI? 

19 minutes ago, VFXSimmer said:

Is that you Chatbot AI? 

Nah, AI infers intelligence.  Maybe AO, Artificial Obstinance... 🤷‍♂️ 🤷‍♂️  Welcome to the "Did I really get sucked into that" club LOL 

that kind of talk wont fix artifacts larger than an AA sample area either.

But it is the time honored traditional method to admit being wrong without admitting being wrong.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Edited February 15, 20233 yr by mSparks

15 hours ago, mSparks said:

that kind of talk wont fix artifacts larger than an AA sample area either.

But it is the time honored traditional method to admit being wrong without admitting being wrong.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

We’ll I’m glad you admit you’re wrong then 🙂

1 hour ago, VFXSimmer said:

We’ll I’m glad you admit you’re wrong then 🙂

You habe that the wrong way round, Ad-hominem arguments are the time honored traditional method to admit being wrong without admitting being wrong.

You know, its when you can't find anything substantively wrong with the premise, so decide the best method of undermining the premise is to try and insult the person presenting it.

AA resolves issues such as

On 2/10/2023 at 10:56 PM, brinx said:

 

 

 

 

It doesn't resolve other issues.

So unless your artifact looks exactly like this image, and can be fixed exactly the same way the atefacts are fixed in this image no amount of changing the AA is going to fix your artefact. 

All good.  I explained why you were wrong in my first post, and this most recent follow up shows you still don’t understand.  The good news is you admitted you were wrong with whatever that ad-hominem detour was - that’s progress.  Now we all know that pixel sampling is not the only “sampling” that causes aliasing and thus the issue needs to be addressed in the graphics engine in more places than the just stair stepping example you just showed. Since you now understand your error, you can reread my first post more carefully and gain some insight.  

As I said, the good news is that I’m sure Ben and his team at LR are more informed on the issue and know how best to address the multiple places aliasing occurs so hopefully this is all just an academic discussion anyway 😉 

@mSparks I think you already lost the argument here. At this point you are arguing about the solution to the problem and how many pixels high. I think most user don't care how it is fixed, as long as it is fixed. We know there are anti-aliasing problems aka jaggies in the final rendered frame. It can be quite distracting when panning the camera around.

You keep posting the same image to show anti-aliasing is working. Yes, it works to some extent, but it needs to be a lot better. I was never saying anti-aliasing does not work at all. Again, the image below illustrates this point. Within the same image you can see sections where it looks like anti-aliasing is effective, and sections where it is not. In the green section I can see the effect of anti-aliasing but in the red section of the image it is not effective. If it can be done in the green section, why can't it be done in the red section? It is the same image.

 

Are we still arguing AA can't have any effect on 4K because you can't see an individual pixel or is there another video from a TV show coming to try and deflect coming?  What's the latest argument now to explain why everyone else is wrong?  

2 hours ago, brinx said:

@mSparks I think you already lost the argument here

I think yall just havent noticed the worst of the artifacts waiting to be fixed yet...

 

Edited February 16, 20233 yr by mSparks

You didn't really answer my question but that is cool. I can move on.

1 hour ago, brinx said:

You didn't really answer my question but that is cool. I can move on.

is that screenshot zoomed in or actual size?

how does it compare with aa on vs off.

How should it reduce the contrast between the two edges anyway, they are already almost the same color save what looks like a wierd lighting artifact 

Edited February 16, 20233 yr by mSparks