Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Does the graphics get better if the resolution is higher than the monitor resolution?
#1
My monitor's highest resolution is only 1280x1024. I notice that the graphics is slightly different between 3x (1920x1341) and 4x (2560x1788). But it's not like 4x is better or smoother than 3x. Actually, if FXAA is enabled, I feel 3x is just a little bit smoother than 4x.

Is there any improvement if the resolution is higher than the monitor resolution? What is the optimal setting in this case?
Reply

Sponsored links

#2
Rendering at higher res then scaling down is the simplest (and most costly) form of AA. Optimal setting would be as high as possible without slowdown though there is diminishing returns so just pick a value that's good enough for you.
Reply
#3
http://forums.pcsx2.net/Thread-x2-x6-nat...#pid248221
[i7-3630qm/gt650m-2G/Win-7] [i7-4500u/R.HD8850m/Win-8.1] [2010-MBA/OSX-10.9.x]. Scroll smoothly with SmoothWheel for Firefox.
Reply
#4
(04-12-2013, 11:53 AM)xemnas99 Wrote: My monitor's highest resolution is only 1280x1024. I notice that the graphics is slightly different between 3x (1920x1341) and 4x (2560x1788). But it's not like 4x is better or smoother than 3x. Actually, if FXAA is enabled, I feel 3x is just a little bit smoother than 4x.

Is there any improvement if the resolution is higher than the monitor resolution? What is the optimal setting in this case?

Just remember there is no way (a physical limitation) the monitor could show greater resolution than it is designed for, what happens then is a downscale to it's nominal.

So you have two processes in there, first the upscale where new points are generated and inserted in between the original resolution second a process that blend adjacent points properties. The effect is a smoother image.

But if the final resolution is greater pixel by pixel than the display surface is able to contain, the process is reverted but the smoothness from upscale is still useful.

At the usual values of most nowadays monitor, most desktops around 1080p and laptops around 720p, 2x upscale is a huge change in the image quality, 3x is a tad smaller improvement but still big improvement, 4x is coming already to the other side of the sinus curve (the bell curve) where the image quality vs system stress fall drastically and from 5x and ahead it is just not worthwhile at all.
Imagination is where we are truly real
Reply
#5
Thank you for the explanations.
Reply
#6
Just to add a little to this, remember that each multiple is actually FACTORING overall quality and workload.

2x native is actually 4x as many pixels. An example, 640x480= 307200 pixels. Doubling resolution is 1280x960=1228800 or 4x. Thrice native in that case would then be 1920x1440= 2764800, 9 times as many pixels. This scales the same way up to 6x which is a whopping 36x the amount of pixels the default PS2 resolution would be.

That's why you won't see much difference, but you'll feel a difference in terms of speed. 6x is more than twice as GPU/bandwidth intensive than 4x.
[Image: 2748844.png]
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)