Will TXAA be ported to other GPUs?

I thought it was common sense that FXAA does in fact blur the image, which is why there is almost no performance hit....I mean just look at BF3. With FXAA enabled the game becomes a huge blur fest.


"TXAA is slower and much higher quality, FXAA is fast and low quality. There is no mixing of FXAA and TXAA (FXAA on top of TXAA would reduce the quality). Yes I'm moving on from FXAA, no plans to update. My goals moving forward are to provide higher IQ making use of hardware features and depending on rendering lower-than-native resolution to scale down to lower performance devices. TXAA relates more to the quality of 4xSGSSAA with a wider filter for cost similar to 4xMSAA. As for "texture quality", as SGSSAA with super-sampling is softer than point-sampling with MSAA, and add on top of this a wider filter as common to CG film industry, TXAA is softer but has much better filtering quality than prior methods. If you'd rather have something sharper with more aliasing, then something like CSAA with transparency super-sampling is probably what you are looking for. However, if you are looking to approach what you'd expect from a Blu Ray video, TXAA is working towards that direction."

When one of the developers (Timothy Lottes) of FXAA even admits it, it pretty much makes your argument invalid...

 

Yeah, this pretty much sums it all up. TXAA is the winner here when it comes to quality. FXAA is and always will be a low end cards AA.

 

I'm aware of this, that does not stop others from complaining, obviously.
We are very good at that.

 

FXAA has been continously developed since it's inception, so many of the issues from earlier versions have been rectified. There is now minimal blurring, no ui problems and an added bonus with FXAA is that it smoothes the edges of alpha textures, or transparent textures, MSAA cannot do this, SSAA does, but the performance impact is huge, since SSAA basically renders everything at a higher resolution.

 

It's not that MSAA can't do it (as Alan Wake demonstrates), it's that not all titles support MSAA, and that's when FXAA is most useful imo.

Regarding TXAA, I believe Timothy used the word "soft" to describe it in one of his articles. To me that implies some level of blur, and perhaps more than other methods we are familiar with. Blur is not necessarily a bad thing however, it's the whole point of AA after all.

 

Even newer titles, if I disable FXAA and force MLAA, the games are instantly sharper.

 

MSAA does not and cannot be applied to transparent textures, it's an inherent weakness of that method. If you want to apply AA to alpha textures, then you use either SSAA or a blur filter like with MLAA or FXAA.

MLAA also applies a blur filter, so either you're experiencing a placebo effect, or, and this is more likely the case, FXAA is more effective on Nvidia hardware and MLAA is better on AMD hardware. Which is hardly surprising tbh, as both Nv and AMD are responsible for their respective development. What game(s) are you using to test and could you post some comparison screenshots? The difference would be interesting to see.

 

I'm using a 22" LED and the FXAA blurring is VERY VERY noticeable on trees, leaves, foliage, etc. Walking through forests, you notice a horrible blurring effect and it really takes me out of the game. I eventually had to just give up on FXAA altogether.

 

http://forums.guru3d.com/showpost.php?p=4357755&postcount=150

Manuel from nVidia offers TXAA is limited to Kepler.

Imho,

Suppose this could change moving forward.

FXAA is welcome, to me, based on its compatibility and small performance hit. Could be a nice setting for extremer high resolutions and multi-monitor resolutions based on the small performance hit, lack of memory foot print and it helps with texture aliasing artifacts, too. It may not be for everyone or a replacement for traditional AA for everyone. Considering the vast subjective tastes and tolerances, choice and flexibility is always welcomed.

The key to TXAA may not be with static examples and one may need to investigate the quality with-in moving environments in worse case examples.

 

Looks like someone needs to google alpha to coverage multisampling. Where do you think multisampling transparency AA came from, or have you not heard of it? I even gave a clear example of a game where this technique is used, a game that requires MSAA to be enabled for this very reason.

 

I agree! Glad that the choice was offered. For compatibility, where a title may have no other option to enhance the screen by curbing aliasing. For where the performance may be too much for someone with their favorite resolution and traditional AA like multi-sampling. For working in conjunction with other enhancements and someone may desire to see some texture aliasing be curbed a bit with a low performance hit.

And if I don't like it -- no one is forcing me to use it. Very welcomed.

 

That's different. I said "MSAA does not and cannot be applied to transparent textures, it's an inherent weakness of that method." Which it is and why they had to come up with a new method that does apply to alpha textures, that's why we now have the TRAA options, they are not MSAA though, MSAA based perhaps, but not MSAA, the fact you have to enable MSAA for it to work shows that, it's separate to MSAA. I had forgotten about that though, prolly because it's so poor i never use it.

 

It depends on how one looks at multi-sampling transparency! It doesn't match the quality of super-sampled but it does offer some enhancement with such a low performance hit. Nice option where super-sampled may be too much for a system and nice to receive some enhancements for ultra resolutions, including multi-monitor platforms.

The original multi-sampling transparency was more-so on the poor side when it was introduced with the 78XX series but around the 8800GT introduction, the multi-sampling transparency quality was improved and very welcomed.

 

It is no placebo friend. FXAA applies a filter to the whole screen, not just the jaggies. MLAA detects just the jaggies and works it's magic.

FXAA blurs the whole image not just edges.

This TXAA sounds like it will be a winner.

 

Sorry, but both FXAA and MLAA work the same way, they use an edge detect algorithm to smooth polygon edges and both apply a blur filter to smooth alpha textures. They are both post process AA filters. Which one you prefer is down to your own personal preference. As i said, if you can actually show the difference with some comparison screenshots, that would go a long way to support what you're saying, here's some links to back what i've said:

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=23995596&postcount=354
http://media.bestofmicro.com/E/8/266192/original/morphological aa comparo.gif

There's a ton of other stuff out there showing how they both blur.

 

Uhm, I don't know why nobody has mentioned it - maybe I'm wrong. But for me I had the best results with downsampling and no **AA. It sharpens edges, even textures and the performance hit (for me) was much less than with any antialiasing method. Or is this just my experience?

 

Did I ever tell you....

 

No buddy, MLAA does not blur the whole screen as a filter like FXAA. They do not work the same way. Get your facts straight, and research a bit better. I've used both. MLAA is sharper by far. A lot has changed for MLAA.
MLAA is a filter yes, but in everything I've used it in, it didn't blur to the same degree as FXAA. Linking me to a forum from 2010 isn't very smart really.
The worst I've seem from MLAA, is "thicker" text.

MSAA is superior to both imo, hits the jaggies and that's about it.

TXAA is the real future of AA here. If they pull it off.

 

MLAA is a shape-based anti-aliasing method that uses post processing filters, and yes it does blur. which is also why someone made a SMLAA version " a less blurry MLAA".

 

FXAA comes in many different versions, and all tend to look different, so not sure how easy it would be to compare to MLAA.

FXAA in-game, through the injector and also forced through the Nvidia drivers don't all look the same.

I'm another who prefers MLAA/FXAA over most forms of MSAA, purely because too often it fails at the Anti side of the AntiAliasing, which is the most important thing, whether it blurs too much or not is more down to personal taste.