-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
TAA - Best AA method ever?
- Thread starter Peterthumpa
- Start date
Braag
Member
Yeah shimmering is still an issue with SMAA.
I added a bit of sharpening to Fallout 4 with ReShade yesterday and the result was very good. Not only is there barely any aliasing with TAA but it doesn't look too blurry either.
Bethesda should've given us a sharpening option like CDPR did with TW3.
I haven't noticed any personally, even toggling it. But to be fair, I have read that in other games that Lumasharpen introduces a single-digit percentage dip on average. So YMMV but I wouldn't worry in most cases.
SeeNoWeevil
Member
What's the deal with the sudden fondness of injecting sharpening filters? Are they really beneficial? Do any games do this in addition to their TAA solution?
Well TAA blurs the image, so the sharpening helps bring some of the detail back. I personally hate how text looks while sharpened so I stick to some SMAA.
SeeNoWeevil
Member
Isn't downsampling a better option though? Assuming you have the resource.
And if you don't?
OFC downsampling always provides the best results, but you don't always have the budget to use it, particularly in newer games.
Braag
Member
Downsampling is great if you have a beefy enough machine to use it.
Though some games don't scale properly with downsampling, there can be issues with text becoming tiny and unreadable or the HUD not scaling and looking too small.
Some games like Dying Light or TW2 add sharpening when you enable AA or TW3 which gives you an option in game to add sharpening.
It bring some of the detail back which is lost due to the vaseline filter which most AA solutions these days have.
Though some games don't scale properly with downsampling, there can be issues with text becoming tiny and unreadable or the HUD not scaling and looking too small.
Some games like Dying Light or TW2 add sharpening when you enable AA or TW3 which gives you an option in game to add sharpening.
It bring some of the detail back which is lost due to the vaseline filter which most AA solutions these days have.
Boulotaur2024
Member
Any paper out there explaining TAA implementation details ?
I can't find anything right now after a quick search. I guess both UE4 and Crytek implementations are proprietary and closed-source (?)
EDIT : this is the best I could come up with.
Yeah you need control over the engine projection matrices for this to work which eliminates the option of injecting TAA via a generic injector :/
I can't find anything right now after a quick search. I guess both UE4 and Crytek implementations are proprietary and closed-source (?)
EDIT : this is the best I could come up with.
Yeah you need control over the engine projection matrices for this to work which eliminates the option of injecting TAA via a generic injector :/
SeeNoWeevil
Member
Sharpening has always had a bad reputation though, I was merely pointing out that this doesn't seem to be the case any more. People keep saying it's 'adding detail back', but that can't be the case, surely?
Nothing about UE4 is closed source
(well, almost, there's the interacting with proprietary console APIs part).But yeah, you can't generically inject temporal AA by simply looking at final rendered images.
Not really, no. That's impossible. What it does do is make the existing detail more visible, and many people seem to like that.
dgrdsv
Member
It still has a bad reputation. If there is a need to add sharpening then it's always better to remove the reason for blur and use another AA method instead. Sharpening doesn't "add back" any details.
potatohead
Member
Yea I've noticed it's not good for taking screenshots.
Battlefront in motion looks so much better than when I take screencaps of it.
dgrdsv
Member
If there are no oversampling then there are no subpixels.
Peterthumpa
Member
SMAA is usually better than FXAA but I'm honestly unable to spot big differences between both when injected.
sorry for the bump but I read through this thread and found it very interesting...so many differing opinions regarding TAA vs SMAA...I recently finished Rise of the Tomb Raider on PC and ran into the problem of which AA method to use...in-game SMAA appears to be broken so I went with ReShade injectable SMAA and it looked fantastic...SSAA adds too much of a performance hit...couple of general questions regarding games in general and not specific to any 1 title...
1) which offers the best image quality- SMAA vs TAA (with ReShade LumaSharpen enabled)?
2) are TAA and TXAA the same thing?...with TXAA just being the Nvidia exclusive version of TAA?
1) which offers the best image quality- SMAA vs TAA (with ReShade LumaSharpen enabled)?
2) are TAA and TXAA the same thing?...with TXAA just being the Nvidia exclusive version of TAA?
dgrdsv
Member
1. Depends on implementation. TAA term is too broad to describe what exactly is happening under it. And SMAA T2x has temporal accumulation as well so they are not mutually exclusive. The biggest difference in general is that SMAA 1x doesn't blur the picture much while any TAA introduce some kind of blurring usually which helps with AA.
2. Not really. TXAA is TAA running on top of MSAA among other things. TXAA is closer to MFAA which is a h/w assisted implementation of MSAA+TAA on Maxwell chips. TXAA however does introduce a lot of blur in general while MFAA doesn't.
thanks but in terms of standard SMAA with no injectors like ReShade versus TAA with ReShade LumaSharpen...meaning the LumaSharpen would remove a lot of the blur...so basically it's SMAA with no blur but with shimmering and some aliasing versus TAA with no aliasing but with blur (but the blur removed with ReShade LumaSharpen)...seems like TAA would be the clear winner in this case right?
Dictator93
Member
SMAA via injector does should really not blur at all in a noticable capacity (beyond what it does to HUDs usually) and the luma sharpen is more of a stylistic subjective choice.
Like Dr. Rus stated, TAA is still to broad a word IMO to encapsulate the variety of different things that could be happening. But in general, something that is working beyond the immediate frame information (as all TAA should in some way) will always offer more complete results: whether you like that result always is a personal question really. Injectors really cannot do that atm.
JumpCancel
Banned
The best form of AA is downsampling. Just render more pixels!
I normally play with smaa at 1080, but if I can go higher in resolution I will without AA.
I normally play with smaa at 1080, but if I can go higher in resolution I will without AA.
icecold1983
Member
its the best when done properly, but like every other technique theres good, bad and awful implementations.
epic and crytek have developed the best approach hands down. nvidias txaa has been broken in nearly every game its shipped with in the last 2 years.
the taa in frostbite 3 is awful. it has the most blur and ghosting ive ever seen from a taa solution
epic and crytek have developed the best approach hands down. nvidias txaa has been broken in nearly every game its shipped with in the last 2 years.
the taa in frostbite 3 is awful. it has the most blur and ghosting ive ever seen from a taa solution
dgrdsv
Member
You really can't remove temporal blurring with a postprocessing pass running on the final frame as this blurring is happening over several frames. As for what's better this is mostly a personal preference really. I personally can't stand any kind of needless blur of the final image and thus even the best implementations of TAA are usually worse than SMAA 1x in my eyes.
And as for what AA method is the best it's pretty simple -- a 4x4 SGSSAA would be better than anything else out there.
