I laugh at people who say you don't need anti-aliasing and the full amount of anti-aliasing at 4k.

Let's have an either/or count.

1. You sit too far away from your monitor/TV. That crap should be on your lap and not as far away as some douche bag in an article said it needs to be.

2. You need to get your eyes checked

3. You have glaucoma

4. You have cataracts

5. you're a smooth brain

People said the same thing about 1080p. "Y0u d0N'T n33d anti-aliasing @ ten eighty pee!"

When I upgraded from my CRT to a 900p monitor I needed the full amount of anti-aliasing available. When I upgraded from my 900p monitor to a 1080p monitor I still needed the full amount of anti-aliasing(8xMSAA, FXAA on high, etc).

I got a chance to play games on a 4k monitor. Guess what? I needed anti-aliasing and the full amount. Turned TAA on in Squad and now had the ability to shoot ever enemy pixel.

 

If somebody tells you that, just send them to this test:

https://www.testufo.com/aliasing-vi...&background=000000&antialiasing=0&thickness=4

The only displays right now that actually don't need anti-aliasing are some mobile phones with ultra high DPI displays. The Sony Xperia 1 II for example has a 6.5" 4K display with a pixel density of 643DPI. But that's just the display. I doubt that such phones actually make use of these resolutions. They mostly run at lower res and upscale.

With a monitor or TV, you'd need something like a 34" 8K display to get pixel densities that might not require anti-aliasing. And I'm not sure it would be enough even then.

How much pixel density do you need to actually not need anti-aliasing anymore? Not sure. But it's safe to say that once it becomes so high as to make each individual pixel so small as to not be perceptible anymore, then you don't need anti-aliasing anymore.

But even if we had such monitors, good luck running games at 8K (or 10K, or whatever "K" is required to reach the needed pixel density.) Anti-aliasing will be required for many years to come.

 

I never favor AA. I prefer AF almost all of the time @ 8/16x. AMD(ATI) has always offered very good AF image quality. It all depends on your preferences and what works best at the time.

 

That is like tell people if vsync is OFF you get tearing, even IF your running 120hz fps or higher it just tend to be hard to see, i lost count how many friend claim they dont run vsync and dont see tear. until I "pointed" it out to them and they started seeing it.. or how some saying you dont need 4k on 32" just like the said you dont 1080p on 32" back in the day vs 40" or 50" I can see clear difference between 1080p on 32" vs 40-50" and bigger just like I see clear difference from 27~32" 4 vs 40~50" and bigger, smaller screen much higher PPI much clearer/sharper image. only problem is Scaling need to be done right or thing get hard to read.

Anyway I like AA some games REALLY need other dont, seeing I tend game on 55" 10 feet away from screen less game has horrible bad aliasing I dont use (less the game support in game AA that FXAA or some other form NOT TA. IF game dont support AA in some form in game I dont use, MSAA is lost art these days. still prefer it over most forms but not compatible with alot thing .

AF is these days x16 time globally

 

I think its largely subjective, my eyes aren't terrible, aliasing has never bothered me, even at <1080p. perhaps having grown up with computers from an early age has tainted my perception. I almost prefer it to be painfully sharp, I have disdain for blurring of any kind.

 

Whenever I play a game that doesn't have AA, or only useless AA like FXAA (as in this example,) at first I'm like "this isn't so bad, I can live with it." Then 10 minutes later I come across some sort of monstrosity like this:



(And it's ten times worse during motion compared to a static screenshot.)

I then race to the "NVidia anti-aliasing bits" thread to find out how to force MSAA:

 

I see your point, though i will say, i feel like that's more of an issue with the assets than the resolution/aa, a pattern like that is just asking for problems. , thin lines are best avoided entirely aa or not.

 

I don't ever use aa, really fail to see what business it is of anyone elses tho?
can't you just enjoy your own crap and let others do same?

 

I agree with Danny here, it is nobodies damn business why Im in AA.

Enjoy your 4th.

 

FXAA is the worse for image quality. No one uses it.

 

Yeah, all the temporal effects in newer games makes a form of temporal anti aliasing necessary. Like in red dead redemption 2, even if downsample from 10k to 4k, there is alot of nasty aliasing without TAA enabled.

 

You don't need AA at 4k on a 27" PC monitor. You will need AA on a 4k 65" TV sat a metre away from your eyes. You also won't need AA on the same TV sat 5 metres away from your eyes.

What even is this thread?

 

Yes you do. Seen it for myself. No PPI currently is high enough to hide jaggies. Needing a high PPI is just a theory anyway.

I had a 2k res phone(Galaxy s8+) also. I still saw aliasing in mobile games.

 

This thread isn't about you.

 

Yeah, and your eyes cant see more than 24 fps...

Either you haven't actually tried a 4k 27" monitor, or you need to visit an optician.

 

I have an LG OLED 4k TV right behind me, as I type this, and an Odyssey G9 monitor right in front of me. 240hz, just for your information. I also have a couple of 1440p monitors in the cupboard. One is a 120hz Qnix and the other one is a 165hz GSYNC monitor. Both IPS. Maybe if you upgraded from your 2133mhz ram and your ancient CPU, your input about acknowledging high refresh rates and 4k at 27" would be more reasonable.

If you can't distinguish between having a 27" 4k monitor in your face and a 4k TV 6ft from your face, I think you need to...

1. take a chill pill
2. take another one

I'm typing this on my PC that has a Odyssey G9 about a meter from my face. 5120x1440 at 240hz. I know my crap. Do you know yours?

 

You're right, that's why I'm typing this from a 240hz monitor. Because I can't see more than 24 fps.

Go get yourself a medal, Chad.

 

It comes down to what is acceptable to you. 4k 27" will be plenty sharp for the vast majority of people. But if you're not one of them, fair play, throw some AA at it. Generally speaking though, 4k 27" will be pretty sweet. Will it not have any jaggies? No. Of course not. Also depends on how far you sit from your screen. It's not an exact science.

 

Your mother was a hamster, and your father smelt of elderberries... is the vibe this thread gives of. haha.