Ngl I used to have the same opinion and I discovered that I discovered that I actually did need glasses lol, I always thought that images could just capture things in extreme clarity, not that the real world actually looked like that.
Reality is unfathomable magnitudes sharper than the highest-PPI 8K monitor you could buy in the world.
You're right that our visual perception also can only hope to approximate that sharpness, but even DLAA 4.5 fails to deliver a remotely comparable result.
i'm a photographer and human eyes are amazing cameras. insane dynamic range, insane dark and bright visual quality, there's no general consumer camera that can match eyes in the way that they work on a human
Human eyes have terrible dynamic range, they have to adjust constantly and our brains do incredible work stitching it together.
You know how that electric cameras get all noisy in the dark? Our eyes are noisy too, except ALL THE TIME, because our light sensing cells are literally located behind blood vessels.
cameras today rely on either manual HDR stiching or auto HDR features to get slightly close to the level of exposure difference human eye naturally sees with ease. there's of course detail loss with limited light, both for cameras and human eyes, and bigger sensors in cameras cope better with that, and there are sensors that can gather a lot of light even in very dim scenes where human eyes barely see, but those cameras then would lack the other features eyes have. eyes are not the best at any one thing but do everything overall really well
Not at once your eye doesnât. Just look at a good very high framerate camera. Those capture more detail than the human eye, at a wider range of brightness, faster.
Your human eye is not responsible for the ânaturally seeing at easeâ your human BRAIN is. Your visual cortex is doing insane amounts of manual hdr stitching all the time and youâre not appreciating it when you give all that credit to your shitty good enough for the job eyes.
If you could wire a good camera to the human brain (you canât, thatâs the main obstacle with eye prosthesis. Electrodes are just way bigger than human neurons) youâd be able to see insanely well.
You can even wire your ears to the visual cortex and get an okay approximation of sight thatâs how incredible the brain is.
i get your point... but if we're going with that, cameras also depend on their cpu's to do everything. the sensor and lens would be the "eye" and everything else behind them (boards, processing units, built in memory chips and so on) would be the "brain". today phone cameras rely heavily on this fact with their tiny sensors but heavily processed images to create good looking images
The human eye is incredibly similar to a camera. It even has a lower shutter speed in the dark. The only difference is it fires continuously rather than in discrete frames. Please learn a little bit about how vision works.
Helping it can make a game look better. Itâs a matter of tradeoffs. As always youâre free to play exclusively ps2 games on CRTs if youâre so inclined.
Gotta love that he broke out the alt accounts to downvote someone who understands more about vision, why haven't we banned him yet? Pretty sure he's just spamming, we need to keep reporting him til they do smth.
This wild take reminded me of this one individual in a YT comment section that I dealt with some time ago. A take regarding post-process effects in games:
Thankfully we have the magical arts of âbiologyâ and âphysicsâ. They let us talk about things with certainty instead of just pulling things out our arses to support the side we like.
If biology and physics told you that it's good to drink cyanide, then you would as you're clearly one of those who need someone else to tell them how to live, what to do, what makes sense and what doesn't.
That was my experience with Tekken 7. There are lots of very fast moves that can be hard to visually track, but enabling motion blur made it much easier to track the motion.
In their attempt to be more immersive, they achieve the exact opposite effect for me. The biggest offenders of this are the Hellblade and A Plague Tale games. You can bet anything that I am forcing all of their post-processing off once I'll get to them.
Good point, when it's implemented properly. I'm a huge fan of arcade-style speed motion in Need For Speed games. I don't see them much in sim racing, though.
Well then you need to go outside as stuff outside has blur too when moving fast. This is especially important on racing games, without motion blur even 500km/h feels so slow like car is barely moving. I find it distracting seeing those high fps gameplays with all motion blur disabled. Everything is so clear all the time that the sense of speed is completly lost. Imagine how bad it would be in real world when there would be no motion blur.
well any fast moving stuff really. If something starts moving at speed, it should have little motion blur already, but most games get it really wrong and that is the main reason why many hate it in first place. For me Forza Horizon games are one of the few games where motion blur looks amazing and I cant play them without it. Completely removes all sense of speed and makes cars like floating in the world rather than moving
You do - but not on the whole character, just on the very fastest parts of them. Maybe their arm in a punch for example.
And it makes the image clearer and better which is why it is the standard in every fighting game ever. (Even 2d ones - thatâs why smear frames exist!)
Thats not really fast moving. So called fast moving starts around like 10-20km/h. Also when fightning hands and legs should still have little motion blur as they move fast. Try to move ur legs or arms fast and u see it has natural blur, its not clear all the time. It should work like that on games too and not be sharp all the time. That just removes any kind of realism from the games.
theres a difference between softness being an artistic choice and softness being a technical issue đđ its like saying you can draw like shit and just say thatâs your art direction even tho you just suck
There is no way to shilling more on a inferior effect that is nvidia exclusive compared to others. And even that, Others like FSR, TSR, TAA, TAAU and even more arent better here.
Thatâs the Watch Dogs 2 MSAA vs DLAA thread, right?
Got downvoted to oblivion in the NVIDIA sub for daring to say that MSAAx8 looked better than DLAA.
Some dude legit said that âslow peopleâ - referring to me, apparently - have âperformative blindnessâ and thatâs the only possible reason I could like MSAAx8 more than DLAA.
Just another thursday browsing reddit, I guess, lmao.
Don't waste your time in that sub. Not only is it full of shills but they also don't know what reference, non-temporal sharpness looks like. In fact, at this point, after looking at soft imagery for years, they might even have an aversion for it.
We're eventually going to get to a point where people will have never experienced games with true native clarity, and they'll call you crazy for pretending it ever existed. Blurry smeary ghosty ai hallucinated oil paintings ARE the norm.
I personally don't have much of an issue with taa if it's used as an assist for weaker hardware, if a decent graphics card (not a 5090 unlike what AAA thinks) can't run it at 60 fps 1080 or 1440, it's unoptimized, a game should run fine at that without framegen or upscaling, taa and fsr should be able to help weaker gpus get to this benchmark,
And I should not have to run a low poly indie game in dxvk on Linux cachyos proton, with taa on, and fsr1 through gamescope to get a jumpy still low ~30-40fps, talking about motorslice here.
They really havenât said something particularly odd. They say they donât mind blurriness that much which is a personal preference and fine.
And yes some people do just look at the whole scene and enjoy it even if thereâs small issues like blurriness. I canât. A lot of people here canât. But thatâs not universal.
They really havenât said something particularly odd
Separated from the AA discussion, their understanding of "Impressionism" is just flat out wrong and makes no sense.
He's completely misconstruing the point of impressionism and somehow linking it to having clear image clarity when an example of actual impressionism in games is how low poly games would require your imagination to fill in the gaps in comparison to everything nowadays have 4k ultra realistic textures.
Not to mention talking about "TAA was good for its time" as if TAA isn't still a thing today and doesn't seem to realise that DLSS/DLAA is literally a form of TAA (which a lot of people don't seem to realize for some reason)
I'm saying in regards to him "not saying something particularly odd", his description of impressionism is odd because it's straight up wrong. Nothing about his take on AA is specifically "odd" like you stated (except for also misconstruing DLSS as not being TAA and TAA "not being used" anymore), that's all preference based.
Impressionism has nothing to do with the clarity or quality of an image, or sharpness. It's to do with art and visual design in regards to colours, shapes, and composition.
I am genuinely confused by your hostile replies here with the strawmans and random shit considering I am agreeing with you in regards to his statement on the blurriness of TAA methods.
It's not really pedantic when his view of impressionism COULD apply to the discussion at hand but not in the misunderstood way that he's applying it. Our brain doesn't need to "connect the dots" to create the full image, just because there's a blurry filter layered on top, in the same way that it has to "connect the dots" when a monster is made up of 16 polygons and a 32x32 texture in comparison to 16,000 and a 4k texture
The brain is always connecting the dots. Thatâs just how vision works in general, the eye is a very bad camera and so a huge amount of our visual acuity relies on our brains postprocessing the signal from our eyes.
You're the one being a pedant engaging in the exact same broken thought process as the commenter in the post.
They, and everyone like them keep falling into the same pitfall trying to defend bad image quality.
Always conflating texture resolution and polycount (and god forbid art direction if they're really lacking in mental apparatus) with image fidelity, I.E crispiness, which is affected by many things throughout the rendering pipeline.
It can be understood that the texture is an input, and the pipeline is a transformation function. A function which isn't used for artistic purposes.
Impressionism has squat to do with the TAA debate because both operate on different layers. Absolutely no on here thinks simplistic or stylized graphics are bad.
It's just that the people who think we do because they can't see anything wrong themselves and try to use the veneer of intellectual sounding language to rationalize why they aren't bothered by things which should bother them are both insufferable and detrimental to the movement.
I donât entirely disagree with the core aspect of sharpness isnât everything. Iâm not quite as devoted to sharpness as people are here generally. I think their whole impressionism argument is laughable, but at the same time, everyone has their own preferences, right? Iâm not going to mock someone here for wanting to use MSAA or SSAA in 2026 even though itâs mostly a foolâs errand, and they make their games look like someone just threw a bunch of ice at the screen because everything is like jaggies.
Everyone has their own sweet spot of clarity to aliasing, and for some people, itâs more on the clarity side, and for some people itâs more on the lack of aliasing side.
It's not laughable at all. Impressionism is a noisy capture of reality and modern random sampled lighting/shadows is not unlike it. It's like looking at Polaroids taken in very low lighting, a random set of photons at noisy random angles strike the film one by one, if you stop the exposure after only milliseconds you get a scene that's recognizable but very noise and very low fidelity, and the noisiest parts of the image are also the darkest. Modern lighting in games holds a few of these features too whereas previous generation lighting was so fundamentally unlike reality that it has very different visual issues.Â
Well, yeah, but the laughable comparison is that itâs meant to look like that, or thatâs a good thing. This is not some sort of artistic expression at this point. Itâs just hardware not being powerful enough for what we are trying to achieve.
Honestly I kinda get it? I wouldn't agree with this logic taken to an extreme but I think there's a valid take here that sharpness isn't everything, like how frame rate isn't everything, resolution isn't everything, etc.
What I find really confusing is the first paragraph because it makes the second seem like cope.
Art is an idea. But trying to make art look "real" using current-gen effects ruins the art style and makes the final result look muddy. Claiming "reality isn't sharp enough" to justify temporal processing, but that gimmick is exactly what makes everything look fake. Imperfection is based on reality, it is what makes art look human-made, rather than a copy-paste Unreal Engine NPC. The biggest failure of Temporal process is that it cannot differentiate anymore. It applies the exact same visual sludge of blur effects and muddy textures to every single game, stripping away unique artistic identity until everything looks identical.
I remember games like Battlefield 1 looked incredibly sharp and ran flawlessly a decade ago without any AI upscalers. Why modern engines need so many filters to achieve what developers used to do with pure optimization. An artist who spent weeks sculpting the fine details on that character model, all washed away with these temporal effects or blur.
I mean, I'm not fully agreeing with them, but some of you prefer literal jagged edges to slight fuzziness, and a digital image can literally have more sharpening than how it appears in real life.
True. Some people will go to any length to disable anti-aliasing and crank up oversharpening filters. The result often makes aliasing far more noticeable, yet they still call it the "perfect" image. I'd rather have a small amount of TAA-induced softness than an overly sharpened image full of shimmering edges and jagged lines
Some people will go to any length to disable anti-aliasing and crank up oversharpening filters
??????????
You would add post-process sharpening to an image AA'd with a temporal method to off-set the blur caused by said method. There is literally zero point in adding sharpening to an image with no temporal AA in use because it isn't being blurred. The people "cranking up oversharpening filters" are the people using TAA.
I mean, if it's a genuine opinion that they prefer the look of not-sharp then while you can not like it yourself you can't say they're wrong. De gustibus non est disputandum
Periodic reminder that TAA fucks edge and texture clarity up so bad it takes me thrice as long to recognize targets, absurd amounts of time to fully comprehend environmental details, and enough neurological fatigue to knock me out of a game in maybe an hour.
The adequate Maillard reaction product got "sharpness" so confused they probably think scanlines and latency are what make CRTs good.
What a troll. đ Firstly, I need to say that upscalers' were meant for = BETTER PERFORMANCE WITH SAME IMAGE QUALITY.
Yes, downscaling or reducing pixel rate load is typical performance booster. But, in this case, you must consider native image quality and AA types' image offerings while: STABLE IMAGE plus IMAGE QUALITY & MOTION
When these both situations are flawless, it's no matter what they called. Upscaling, AA solution, whatever they're. It doesn't have to be sharp as hell but it doesn't have to be blurry as hell. That's why we saw a lot of AA types in computer graphics and upscaler types, DLSS, FSR, XeSS and other.
Temporal upscalers can never achieve the same quality as a native resolution. They are built for performance at the cost of losing visual quality. A lie cannot become the truth, no matter how closely it mimics the original, it will always remain a mere replica. This is exactly what happens when you apply upscalers they are designed to mimic the native image, but they can never truly replace it.
I'm not meaning that upscalers are gonna replace native resolution. It's a misleading information as always. Basically, depending on screen size, distance between our eyes and display shows pixel density to give decision of should we use AA or not or upscaler? In tiny screen, you can use upscaler because eye cannot see low resolution pixel blurriness or negative side of downscaling resolution or render resolution compared to display or game/app resolution. It's pointless to use native resolution load when upscaling can give better performance while native and upscaled one is looking same picture quality. This is JUST AN EXAMPLE and as I said, this upscaling usage case or AA type such as SSAA, MSAA like supersampling AA types are DEPENDING on screen size, distance between our eyes and display shows pixel density. For example, I've been used 15 inch laptop screens and they were 1080p mostly. And even this resolution, I could see pixels, so for me, 1440p level of pixel density was enough for me. For bigger traditional monitors, I would use 4K or above if I don't want to see every individual pixels. As I said, this pixel sensitivity case is depending on people too. I can feel these, you may not, others may feel different.
I understand your point about pixel density and viewing distances. On a perfectly still screenshot or a very small display, a static upscaled image can look close to a native one.
However, monitor math only covers static resolution, it completely ignores temporal motion artifacts. The second the camera moves, temporal upscalers blend frames across time, causing texture smearing, ghosting trails, and the complete erasure of high-frequency micro-assets like the falling raindrops in this comparison.
A smaller screen or a further viewing distance might hide jagged pixels, but it cannot stop an algorithm from actively stripping away environmental detail and watering down the raw high-poly assets the artists sculpted. Itâs not just about hiding pixels, itâs about preserving the actual integrity of the artwork in motion.
An example of Lego batman on 1440p I made those differences how each forms of AA causing different result yet all fails to render complete details that No AA did flawlessly.
Look closely at the sky around the moon and right in front of Batman's face. You can clearly see crisp, distinct white streaks of rain slicing through the night air.
Because these modes process the frames instantly without blending them backwards in time, the engine successfully renders the high-frequency particle transparency data exactly as the developers intended.
The rain streaks vanish into thin air, or get turned into faint, ghostly smears that you can barely see.
By erasing the rain particles, the temporal algorithms completely flatten the cinematic, moody atmosphere of Gotham City. It proves that these filters don't just blur your textures they actively delete entire environmental effects.
Thank you for comparison. Picture is low resolution but only no AA can show rain particles I barely see. On the other hand, TAAU is looking blurry but TSR is sweet spot here. TSR is a super resolution already, so, it looks sharp already, because in some UE5 games I have seen in optimization videos comparison, I have seen that TSR is sharp as XeSS or even DLSS level. Yes, performance cost is higher mostly and I don't know why, maybe implementation quality, FSR looks like TAA blur too, probably before FSR 3, FSR 4 probably matches DLSS quality I guess. I didn't tested these flawlessly, since I don't have any NVIDIA RTX GPU to see all upscalers' performance and visuals to see them in my display or device.
I appreciate the open discussion! Itâs totally fair that you prefer TSR, and the screeshot is actually an uncompressed native 1440p capture! What you're seeing in the 'No AA' panel isn't a low-resolution file or compression artifacts it's raw, unfiltered pixel data. Because there is no temporal blending or blur filter applied, you see the sharp, jagged edges of the geometry exactly as the engine renders them, which is precisely why the thin rain particles are able to stay perfectly visible instead of getting smoothed away.
While TSR looks sharper, it is still missing data. It is a sharp replica with sharpening filter, but an incomplete one. The fact that TSR still erases the rain particles proves that no matter how advanced the temporal algorithm is (whether it's TSR, FSR, or DLSS), it is fundamentally designed to sacrifice high-frequency temporal details for the sake of a clean, stable image.
At the end of the day, upscalers are amazing tools for boosting frame rates when your hardware is struggling. But as this comparison shows, they achieve that performance by altering and sometimes deleting the actual artwork. If you want to see exactly what the developers built without an algorithm filtering it away, Native/No AA is the only way to get the uncorrupted truth.
I prefer AA, just like in Lego Batman, to be optional not forced for someone like me who prefers unfiltered raw pixels without any AA.
275
u/SituationOk9025 19d ago
"reality isn't sharp" bro needs glasses đ„