MLAA? No thanks, FXAA please

Just tested Witcher 2

Disabled In-Game AA, and manually enabled (Allowsharpen).

MLAA = Game looks ok* when the render output is static (or the screen is not moving), But it still has some weird...pixelated aliasing. And when you start to move...the pixels look blocky* like its unable to decide what color to put in that location, like take look at some location on the screen like the roof tiles of a building and then move (You will see some of the pixels in a set of square shapes on roof tiles rapidly shifting color, like blocks)

FXAA = Game looks better, even during motion.

Both the MLAA and FXAA settings were taken right out of the box, didn't change anything(in case of FXAA, default values set by [Some_Body]).

Just pure observation...

-Edit-

The blocky unstably image is also seen in MLAA without enabling allow-sharpen..

 

Euh? It does. Just try it! It is unmistakable. You can use MLAA in Firefox.

 

I noticed the same. In motion MLAA is often worse than without any AA due to strong shimmering/aliasing.

 

Yeh i agree, fxaa is superior to amds mlaa. Its also a great complimentry AA for dx10/11.. works great on long edges and doesnt blur as much overall so is better for smaller text fonts. You can use it along with normal msaa etc and use it just for transparent foilage items without too much damage to the rest of the image, unlike mlaa.

 

we need an app to make FXAA work in any game with amd...not 25% of them...

 

No AA (original image) http://images.eurogamer.net/assets/articles//a/1/3/8/0/0/0/0/test2_noAA.png
MLAA http://images.eurogamer.net/assets/articles//a/1/3/8/0/0/0/0/test2_MLAA.png
FXAA http://images.eurogamer.net/assets/articles//a/1/3/8/0/0/0/0/test2_FXAA.png

MLAA in this game seems to retain the original image more.

Edit: If you want to AA transparent/opaque textures, etc then you use Adaptive/Transparent AA. As for shimmering, that can be reduced by lowering the Texture Filtering to Quality. I've not read any information that suggest that post processing aa filtering causes shimmering. Nor have I seen it using just MLAA.

 

Old FXAA version and settings dependent. Try harder. It's basically wrong what you told.

You should test it more cautious. It's true with MLAA the shimmering can be worse, much worse. For example in Tropico 3. There is a Demo available, try it out.

 

How do i go about using FXAA on my 5870's?

 

The information provide is correct. I don't need to try harder just provide the information. And I've not come across any technical documentation about post process aa in general cause shimmering. I would like to know if the texture was shimmering before using it. Like I said earlier a person can tweak their control panel settings to negate it.

 

It is correct but not useful anmyore and basically wrong.

 

So you agree it's correct, lol.

 

Yes but due to an outdated FXAA with console presets (lower quality!) not useful and the amount of sharpness/blurriness is a question of settings. Your opinion is based on console presets with FXAA I/II, you even didn't try it out for yourself to see how it performs against MLAA.

 

I see the pics as a good representation of what post process aa offers. And cannot agree that they are outdated just because you say so. But I get the impression after read a few of your replies this is the best you have to say about it. Which doesn't say much to refute the images you agreed are correct.

 

This is another question. The point was MLAA is worse than FXAA. I tested several games and come to the conclusion FXAA is the better choice. With a tweaked FXAA 3.11 Extreme PC Quality Preset; FXAA is sharper, faster, better in motion and better in smoothing sub-pixel aliasing.

FXAA is still bad in motion no doubt, but at least better than MLAA.

 

With this reply you really aren't making any sense. All that you've done here is show that you are upset about the posts that show:
-what is post process aa filtering. MLAA didn't come from AMD, etc
-limitations of post processing. It can cause blurring, using a separate program needs tweaking, etc
-provided examples of what it looks like vs the original image. Provided in a few of my previous posts.

 

Age of Conan as example has been with FXAA for some time now, even AMD users render with that, but that is based on FXAA 1, as far as I could see on the web.

Comparison between jimenez MLAA and FXAA http://www.eurogamer.dk/videos/teste...s-jimenez-mlaa
Not sure which versions thou, but same can be said for the comparison picture links some users posted, so they aren't really worth anything without telling exact which version that was used. :3eyes:

As for performance, FXAA 3.11 is faster than AMD's MLAA on ATI/AMD hardware.
And it looks better too, specially with additional shaders, unless you prefer the original game shades, which often are blurring instead of enhancing.
Needless to add that AMD's MLAA is absolutely horrid for mmorpg's.

As for arguments regarding game differences, did anyone check if AMD doesn't add specific settings into the drivers/CAP for MLAA and certain exe's?

@Eastofcandle
Here, download an test instead of basing your opinion on what others claim.
http://www.assembla.com/spaces/fxaa...r4j8EeJe5cbCb/download/bpH-sKX4Wr4j8EeJe5cbCb

As for games, you do know that FXAA can be implemented to a games code?

 

Your assumptions are wrong. I'm only upset about people who did not try anything, don't give the source they are claiming about when asked and coming with outdated FXAA versions over and over again which can't represent the current offerings for both console and PC.

Still waiting for you proof...

Oh and be sure I'm well aware of Post Processing AA like MLAA and FXAA. I don't need any of your explanations. My claim stands, FXAA is better than MLAA and the better choice. MLAA comes from Intel and was later implemented by AMD. As an AMD user why I should upset about it? This is nonsense. (or just a stupid flame attempt)

 

Go visit the link I posted earlier about FXAA injector.
Don't worry about the site being in German; the README included is in English, including instructions.
Basically you just put the modified d3d9.dll to your game's .exe folder along with the shader files; simple, really.

Anyhoo...

MLAA also isn't an ideal solution for every games out there, and yet can't be tweaked as easily as FXAA, therefore MLAA still isn't better than FXAA in that regard.
Hence my point about FXAA's (current) advantage : flexibility.

And with that you're comparing MLAA to an older version of FXAA, while you protested when people are comparing FXAA to 'older' versions of MLAA; double standards much?
(already two users doing this in the same thread in one page? Wow...)

In any case, regarding the 'back to OP' bit, I was responding to this post :

Were you referring to TheHunter's mention of FXAA being open source?
If that is so, then I apologize for assuming things out of context.
But then again that opened a new can of worms.

You're sure that in most cases FXAA will still be slower on AMD hardware.
Where's your proof?
I can provide proof (a bit).
Just look at the link from [H] that I posted.
You'll notice under the same settings AMD cards tend to be slower by a few FPS on average.

But here's a bit food for thought : NV cards do tend to be stronger on shader processing power.

NV's SIMD-based GPU is much more suited for shader processing due to its GPGPU-oriented design, while AMD still retains its VLIW architecture for the 6 series.
On the next generation, though, AMD might give NV a run for its money with its 7 series due to a migration to SIMD-based design.

So, no, it's not because it's from an NV guy that FXAA tends to be slower, but not slow, on AMD cards.
It's just that NV cards, at the moment, still have a stronger shader processing power compared to AMD cards (at the expense of a higher TDP).

Because to the users, it's still AA, it's still what removes 'jaggies'.
And who wouldn't want an AA that's about as strong as 4xMSAA but with a performance hit less than a 2xMSAA?

Can you say the same thing with MLAA?

So tell me how to custom fit MLAA then, aside from having to acquire Jimenez' source code and compile it myself for every tweak I've made for each game.

I didn't say MLAA isn't tweakable, is just that at the moment it's easier to tweak an FXAA implementation compared to MLAA.
Hence, more flexible.

Says the one who dissected every post of mine; I was actually referring to Lavans' posts.
At least I was being honest about misconstrued conclusions being one of my pet peeves.

But that's okay, everybody makes mistakes.

'All over the map'?
Any link to said article(s)?

In any case, why don't you try FXAA for yourself using the injector?
Personal experience is always worth more than reading up articles.
Just don't say it'd be like comparing apples and oranges again because you'd compare a driver level AA versus hacked .dll AA.

 

Thanks

I did not get it to work in Fallout: New Vegas unfortunately, but will try more games later :banana:

Im curious how it will work in dead space 2 and GTA IV

 

Really?
I got it working on Fallout 3 GOTY; not the newer NV, though.
But it really shouldn't make a difference as it uses the same engine.

Make sure to turn off in-game AA (though it shouldn't matter, but it's to feel the difference between in-game AA & FXAA) and don't use any optimizations like the alternate D3D9 fix from D3DGen.