2015 PC Screenshot Thread of the Only Place Where Compression Isn't

17356830189_89fe8a3822_o.jpg


17355626880_8faceab078_o.jpg
 
Project Cars (4K, FXAA (High), all other settings High)

cuvb.jpg


euvb.jpg


The above settings are as high as my 970 SLI rig will allow me to go @4K and maintain 60fps in all weathers and 20 cars per race and replays.
 
I'm surprised FXAA isn't doing a better job at 4k resolution? Could it be that FXAA isn't build for 4k? You sure it's working there? It's usually doing quite a good job at resolutions above 1080p from my experince.

Edit1:
If you see jaggies in the downsampled image (so the 1080p version of a 4K image), it's not the source's AA (so the AA in the 4K image) but the downsampling which is off. Personally I think something is wrong when you see a downsampled image with no AA whatsoever like in this one. Like the original image was 1080p, not 4K. (reason is that downsampling always uses some form of approximation, like bilinear filtering which would smooth things out)

I'm aware of that, but the non-downsampled 4k screenshot look like there is barely any AA present. It maybe is all sub-pixel aliasing and 4k amplifies this? I have no idea really. My hardware is not capable of running 4k with acceptable framarate so I never went above 3200x1800.

Edit2:
Whatever it looks like in the compressed image, you will not see any jaggies whilst playing the game, and 4k with FXAA looks far better than 1080/1440p with lashings of MSAA (to my eyes anyway).

I don't doubt that, a still image just tends to be under close scrunity over a moving image. I like to watch pictures displayed 1:1 and so every little imperfection sticks out. While playing I wouldn't notice much of it I believe.
 
I'm surprised FXAA isn't doing a better job at 4k resolution? Could it be that FXAA isn't build for 4k? You sure it's working there? It's usually doing quite a good job at resolutions above 1080p from my experince.
If you see jaggies in the downsampled image (so the 1080p version of a 4K image), it's not the source's AA (so the AA in the 4K image) but the downsampling which is off. Personally I think something is wrong when you see a downsampled image with no AA whatsoever like in this one. Like the original image was 1080p, not 4K. (reason is that downsampling always uses some form of approximation, like bilinear filtering which would smooth things out)
 
Idea to try: instead of jumping straight to that specific point in the rockstar recorded video, try starting from the beginning and fast forwarding to the exact point.

I found that if I didn't let the actual action play out, the effects of said action didnt appear.

As an example, if I jumped straight to a shot of my character with an exploding car behind them, I would just see a car behind floating in the air. but if I let it play out to that point, the explosion itself would render in, looking exactly as the realtime scene did.
Thanks for the input, I'll keep it in mind!
 
I'm surprised FXAA isn't doing a better job at 4k resolution? Could it be that FXAA isn't build for 4k? You sure it's working there? It's usually doing quite a good job at resolutions above 1080p from my experince.

Whatever it looks like in the compressed image, you will not see any jaggies whilst playing the game, and 4k with FXAA looks far better than 1080/1440p with lashings of MSAA (to my eyes anyway).
 
This happen because some people here still upload their stuff in oversize .png format. -_-'

.png has a higher quality than the highest quality jpg as this thread has shown. Now whether this quality difference is worht the size difference... is a whole other question.

I personally have no problem letting the page a load a wee bit longer.
 
Those Alan Wake-style claws^H^H^H^H Hands though.... ;)

Happens a lot in video games \ aniimation. They make hands big so that animations can be more noticeable and expressive. Also, when you make hands to scale, sometimes they actually appear to be too small on character models. It's weird. But I don't even notice it anymore.
 
.png has a higher quality than the highest quality jpg as this thread has shown. Now whether this quality difference is worht the size difference... is a whole other question.

I personally have no problem letting the page a load a wee bit longer.

I started converting my png's to high quality jpegs just because I figured it's probably taking a while to download 8-9 mb's per shot.


Wolfenstein : The old blood

wolfoldblood_x642015-cyuea.jpg

Fantastic.
 
Wow that is a gorgeous shot.

What did jim2point0 do to get banned?

Arguing in the Witcher 3 Review Thread, most likely.

Someone said he was "Shitting up the thread" for passive-aggressively complaining about images being too small for normal wallpaper use, and so when someone else similarly complained, he sarcastically said "Hey, stop shitting up the thread"


Only thing I could find that might get someone banned, as in arguing in threads not meant for arguing. Seems a bit much, but meh.
 
Arguing in the Witcher 3 Review Thread, most likely.

Someone said he was "Shitting up the thread" for passive-aggressively complaining about images being too small for normal wallpaper use, and so when someone else similarly complained, he sarcastically said "Hey, stop shitting up the thread"


Only thing I could find that might get someone banned, as in arguing in threads not meant for arguing. Seems a bit much, but meh.

That's a shame. I thought he was always helpful, on this thread anyway.
 
Wait wtf jim got banned? In the Witcher review thread? On the day that the reviews for that game came out and were all spectacular? Today is a bittersweet day.
 
Top Bottom