Rage3D Discussion Area

Rage3D Discussion Area (http://www.rage3d.com/board/index.php)
-   Other Graphics Cards and 3D Technologies (http://www.rage3d.com/board/forumdisplay.php?f=65)
-   -   Nvidia RTX DLSS/Ray Tracing Discussion (http://www.rage3d.com/board/showthread.php?t=34049038)

bill dennison Mar 3, 2020 11:40 AM

getting to be a thing

Quote:

DOOM Eternal ray tracing will happen post-launch
Read more: https://www.tweaktown.com/news/70185...nch/index.html

i'll wait to judge dlss 2.0 till i see a game that did not take three quarters of a year to fine tune RT and DLSS into it like Wolfenstein Youngblood or some old game like deliver us to the moon

lets see a few big games on release day with DLSS 2.0 working from day one and is not very late

NWR_Midnight Mar 3, 2020 12:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Exposed (Post 1338179195)
Yes, you do see only what you want to see. :bleh:



No, DLSS doesn't take away the neon glow. It cleans it up rather nicely so it's not that shimmery, jagged mess it was before.






Even in this compressed snapshot, you can see DLSS cleaning up the sign rather well. Of course feel free to see what you want to see, just as anyone can claim their opinion 2x AA looks better than 4x AA.

As far as the shadow, that appears to be grasping at straws as it's a slightly different angle shown from as you said, "all the other stuff going on". It doesn't "lose it's shadow" as DLSS has nothing to do with lighting, if you wanna nitpick between slight angle/lighting differences be my guest, you're not actually addressing the topic at hand.

What topic at hand are you referring too? My opinion that there is blurriness? DLSS still doesn't look better in my opinion? All though DLSS isn't supposed to have anything to do with lighting, the lighting changes between Native and DLSS? Aren't they all part of DLSS image quality? What this comes down to, is you want me to validate my opinion because you don't agree with it.

This is like arguing about if a woman is beautiful or not. You think she is as beautiful as hell, me, not so much because we both see different things. You can't see past the makeup, but I can. I stand by what my eyes see, and my opinion. It's not my problem if you agree with it or not. I am done having you make me feel like I have to validate my opinion about what I see with my eyes because it is different than what you see. My eyes have always been sensitive to blurriness, which is one of he reasons I don't even use AA in most games because I can't stand the blurriness that AA adds. You trying to tell me that DLSS looks equivalent or better than the native TSSAA T8X is like a person with 30/30 vision trying to tell a person with 20/20 vision that what they see is identical and that their is no way that he can see anything different. I don't know how else to explain it to you, or make it any clearer. Sorry.

Exposed Mar 3, 2020 01:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Higgy10 (Post 1338179234)
im quite disappointed with that, i could really use use the boost of dlss. RTX is largely unplayable for me at 3440x1440 without making large quality sacrifices or console like frame rates

Yeah that was one of the drawbacks of the initial DLSS implementation, no wide screen support.

Hopefully though, perhaps devs will update their older games with the older DLSS implementation into the new version. Maybe even games that don't have RTX but could use DLSS, like Red Dead Redemption 2. Wouldn't hold my breath though.

bill dennison Mar 3, 2020 07:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Exposed (Post 1338179263)
Yeah that was one of the drawbacks of the initial DLSS implementation, no wide screen support.

Hopefully though, perhaps devs will update their older games with the older DLSS implementation into the new version. Maybe even games that don't have RTX but could use DLSS, like Red Dead Redemption 2. Wouldn't hold my breath though.

:lol:

and perhaps it will rain benjamins all next week :bleh:

:p

Exposed Mar 4, 2020 07:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NWR_Midnight (Post 1338179255)
What topic at hand are you referring too? My opinion that there is blurriness? DLSS still doesn't look better in my opinion? All though DLSS isn't supposed to have anything to do with lighting, the lighting changes between Native and DLSS? Aren't they all part of DLSS image quality? What this comes down to, is you want me to validate my opinion because you don't agree with it.

This is like arguing about if a woman is beautiful or not. You think she is as beautiful as hell, me, not so much because we both see different things. You can't see past the makeup, but I can. I stand by what my eyes see, and my opinion. It's not my problem if you agree with it or not. I am done having you make me feel like I have to validate my opinion about what I see with my eyes because it is different than what you see. My eyes have always been sensitive to blurriness, which is one of he reasons I don't even use AA in most games because I can't stand the blurriness that AA adds. You trying to tell me that DLSS looks equivalent or better than the native TSSAA T8X is like a person with 30/30 vision trying to tell a person with 20/20 vision that what they see is identical and that their is no way that he can see anything different. I don't know how else to explain it to you, or make it any clearer. Sorry.

Sorry, but now it's because your eyes are "special" and better than everyone else's? How about it's because you began this argument with a negative predisposition towards DLSS (which is ok) and didn't even bother looking at the newer implementation (which is NOT ok), and now you're grasping at straws to save face? Using the argument that basically only you can see what you see? And women and makeup?:bleh:

It's not that hard to provide solid analytical evidence. You said DLSS 2.0 was still blurrier than native 4k despite evidence and analysis of the contrary, so where is your screenshots and outlines and indepth analysis of side by side comparisons, the way Hardware Unboxed did it? And when I did it when you tried to bring up the Neon and fence argument? Sorry I don't buy "your eyes are sensitive to AA and nobody else can see what I can see" because that is a BS, reaching argument. You've done that style of argument in the past and you always get called on it.

Here's yet another example where DLSS 2.0 was found to be as good as, and often BETTER than native 4k as well. This time from Digital Foundry:



Timestamp 11:20

That's not something subjective like women's makeup. That's an objective analysis using 400% zoom and a good reference point (better than the examples shown in Hardware Unboxed presentation).

Now if your eyes are really sensitive to AA, then it would be the native 4k implementation that would bother you, and the DLSS 2.0 implementation the best choice for you to run, based on your own criteria.

"The qualitative difference between native resolution and the various DLSS modes is ever so slight and in fact, there's a strong argument that in some scenarios, the DLSS image offers more clarity than native equivalents."

"If you look at the monitor above the soldier, DLSS reconstructs the radar circle at an even higher quality than native 4k".

NWR_Midnight Mar 5, 2020 03:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Exposed (Post 1338179483)
Sorry, but now it's because your eyes are "special" and better than everyone else's? How about it's because you began this argument with a negative predisposition towards DLSS (which is ok) and didn't even bother looking at the newer implementation (which is NOT ok), and now you're grasping at straws to save face? Using the argument that basically only you can see what you see? And women and makeup?:bleh:

It's not that hard to provide solid analytical evidence. You said DLSS 2.0 was still blurrier than native 4k despite evidence and analysis of the contrary, so where is your screenshots and outlines and indepth analysis of side by side comparisons, the way Hardware Unboxed did it? And when I did it when you tried to bring up the Neon and fence argument? Sorry I don't buy "your eyes are sensitive to AA and nobody else can see what I can see" because that is a BS, reaching argument. You've done that style of argument in the past and you always get called on it.

Here's yet another example where DLSS 2.0 was found to be as good as, and often BETTER than native 4k as well. This time from Digital Foundry:



Timestamp 11:20

That's not something subjective like women's makeup. That's an objective analysis using 400% zoom and a good reference point (better than the examples shown in Hardware Unboxed presentation).

Now if your eyes are really sensitive to AA, then it would be the native 4k implementation that would bother you, and the DLSS 2.0 implementation the best choice for you to run, based on your own criteria.

"The qualitative difference between native resolution and the various DLSS modes is ever so slight and in fact, there's a strong argument that in some scenarios, the DLSS image offers more clarity than native equivalents."

"If you look at the monitor above the soldier, DLSS reconstructs the radar circle at an even higher quality than native 4k".

Still trying to get me to see what you see. And it throwing out assumptions and false accusations while doing it. I'm surprised you haven't attacked me for wearing glasses because I am near sighted. I mean you have tried nearly every other angle, why don't you go ahead with that one too.

End of the day, after all your attacks, attempts to belittle me, and manipulation of what said, I still stand by my opinion, of what I see. It's not because I have special vision, which is not what I said. It's the fact that no one has identical Vision, just like hearing and every other sense, some senses, hear, vision, are more acute than others. It's a scientific fact.

Is DLSS 2.0 better than DLSS 1.0 yep. (Which was never the argument) Is it equivalent or better than Native 4K, to ME , Nope! It is still Blurrier over all.

When DLSS came out, you did the exact same thing, Attacked me and others for saying it didn't look as good and was blurry. Show proof, you have an agenda, you don't own NVidiia, you don't have a right to an opinion, blah blah blah. Well here we are again, you are trying to beat me up over a review(s) of demonstrations that NVidia has spent a lot of time and money making look as good as they can, yet some can still see it still isn't better and struggles with blurriness. If you took the time to read some of the comments under the Hardware unboxed video, you would see that... As one person even said, it does good on straight lines, but struggles everywhere else.

So, stop beating me over the head because I don't agree and don't see the clarity you seem to. Thanks.

Exposed Mar 5, 2020 07:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NWR_Midnight (Post 1338179622)
Still trying to get me to see what you see. And it throwing out assumptions and false accusations while doing it. I'm surprised you haven't attacked me for wearing glasses because I am near sighted. I mean you have tried nearly every other angle, why don't you go ahead with that one too.

End of the day, after all your attacks, attempts to belittle me, and manipulation of what said, I still stand by my opinion, of what I see. It's not because I have special vision, which is not what I said. It's the fact that no one has identical Vision, just like hearing and every other sense, some senses, hear, vision, are more acute than others. It's a scientific fact.

Is DLSS 2.0 better than DLSS 1.0 yep. (Which was never the argument) Is it equivalent or better than Native 4K, to ME , Nope! It is still Blurrier over all.

When DLSS came out, you did the exact same thing, Attacked me and others for saying it didn't look as good and was blurry. Show proof, you have an agenda, you don't own NVidiia, you don't have a right to an opinion, blah blah blah. Well here we are again, you are trying to beat me up over a review(s) of demonstrations that NVidia has spent a lot of time and money making look as good as they can, yet some can still see it still isn't better and struggles with blurriness. If you took the time to read some of the comments under the Hardware unboxed video, you would see that... As one person even said, it does good on straight lines, but struggles everywhere else.

So, stop beating me over the head because I don't agree and don't see the clarity you seem to. Thanks.

Sorry man, but you're the one trying to make this out to be something personal. I've only offered analytical responses, you continue to make subjective analogies (weak ones at that) to "support" your view.

This is what happened: You saw a post about how DLSS 2.0 improved, and you just had to make your opinion that it sucks known without even bothering to look at the evidence.

I mean, THIS was your opening statement: "DLSS 1.0 is crap and useless. Even if 2.0 is better, until it is widely implemented, it won't amount to anything."

Even? That's a clear cut case you didn't even bother to look at the new DLSS video. And you didn't, until you had to actually look at it to try and see if there's any lines you can cherry pick to support your reasoning (and you failed at that).

So, let's just cut to the chase and stick to analytical debates.

Quote:

Is it equivalent or better than Native 4K, to ME , Nope! It is still Blurrier over all.
Ok, what example do you have of this? Can you show where it's blurrier to you? Some screen stills maybe? Something of susbtance, not "women and makeup" type of arguments?

Here's mine. 400% zoom from Digital Foundry's video:



I mean, are you going to seriously tell me DLSS 2.0 (quality mode) is blurrier overall?

You can make your argument about personal attacks (which this is NOT), belittling (which this is NOT), or whatever kind of "manipulation" (again, which this is NOT), but what's really going on here is that you never want to give Nvidia any kind of credit for whatever they do. That includes manipulating arguments and strawman tactics (like your stance now that it's your eyes and you see blurriness in places that others do not). That's your history, and stripes don't change. If anything I'd say you're trying to belittle ME for not seeing with the same "sensitivity" you are, even though I'm the one actually playing in 4k modes on a 65" 4k screen while you're on a 27" 1440p monitor? I'm not that blind man :lol: AA artificacts and "blurriness" is going to be much more apparent on a 65" display than a 27" inch one.

But you have multiple sources reporting that DLSS 2.0 is the very least equivalent to native 4k and in many cases BETTER, like the example above. I don't buy your argument NWR, we both know why you're in this argument in the first place even if you won't admit it.

the_sextein Mar 5, 2020 07:37 PM

Hey exposed, I've got a question. Is it possible to use 8K DLSS in native 4K mode without owning an 8K monitor and then let it downs sample or would I just be better off using DSR? Can it be used in combination with 8K DSR? Do you need an actual 4K monitor to use 4K DLSS or does it work on lower res monitors via down sampling of some sort? Or is there simply no 8K DLSS option at this point? I don't own an RTX card currently so I don't know what the options are. Just trying to get a feel for what it's possibilities are if you are already 4K native capable and you don't own an 8K monitor.

My take away from this so far is that DLSS won't be able to match native quality no matter what it does in terms of upscaling and sharpening but if the AI can see the image and enhance areas that could use improvement then it's possible for the DLSS total package to look as good or even go beyond native res if it's done just right. These AI improvements could possibly even be applied without upscaling in the future.

Either way, if you have native 4K capability then it's more of a backup option in case your card can't handle native 4K toward the end of it's lifespan on the newest games. It's better to have it than not. Even if it's worse than native 4K, as long as it looks better than native 1440P it would still be a feature worth having in your arsenal of visual upgrade options in combination with various AA methods and sharpening, DSR, texture upscaling ect.

the_sextein Mar 5, 2020 08:16 PM

I guess I wasn't paying attention to Daz studio's beta. I just learned that Daz studio's newish 4.12 version supports path tracing and opti X. I didn't even realize that the RTX series uses it's tensor cores for IRAY rendering in combination with it's cuda cores. According to daz it allows a 2080TI to render 140% faster than a 1080TI. If they increase RTX capability substantially in combination with more cuda cores I could see some serious decreases in rendering times with a 3080TI! I'm starting to get hyped. Possibly 300% or more performance over my 1080TI's in IRAY renders would greatly help me out. I was considering going with 4X 980TI's or even 4X 1080TI's but I decided to ditch my liquid cooling setup and go with 2X 3080TI's instead. I'm now very glad I chose to go that route.

https://blogs.nvidia.com/blog/2019/0...io-nvidia-rtx/

Exposed Mar 5, 2020 10:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the_sextein (Post 1338179666)
Hey exposed, I've got a question. Is it possible to use 8K DLSS in native 4K mode without owning an 8K monitor and then let it downs sample or would I just be better off using DSR? Can it be used in combination with 8K DSR? Do you need an actual 4K monitor to use 4K DLSS or does it work on lower res monitors via down sampling of some sort? Or is there simply no 8K DLSS option at this point? I don't own an RTX card currently so I don't know what the options are. Just trying to get a feel for what it's possibilities are if you are already 4K native capable and you don't own an 8K monitor.

My take away from this so far is that DLSS won't be able to match native quality no matter what it does in terms of upscaling and sharpening but if the AI can see the image and enhance areas that could use improvement then it's possible for the DLSS total package to look as good or even go beyond native res if it's done just right. These AI improvements could possibly even be applied without upscaling in the future.

Either way, if you have native 4K capability then it's more of a backup option in case your card can't handle native 4K toward the end of it's lifespan on the newest games. It's better to have it than not. Even if it's worse than native 4K, as long as it looks better than native 1440P it would still be a feature worth having in your arsenal of visual upgrade options in combination with various AA methods and sharpening, DSR, texture upscaling ect.

There's no such thing as 8k DLSS. At least not yet, probably not for a while.


You do need a 4k display to use 4k DLSS. However, you don't need 4k for DLSS. You can run DLSS in 1440p, it just uses 1080p as the base resolution for reconstruction.

DLSS 2.0 is promising because if you can get native 4k image quality with 1440p performance, that will extend the life your graphics card.

DLSS 1.0 had potential but it was poorly executed and rushed. Only Metro Exodus (and Final Fantasy actually) really benefited from DLSS 1.0, the other games that had it wasn't worth turning on.

NWR_Midnight Mar 5, 2020 11:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Exposed (Post 1338179663)
Sorry man, but you're the one trying to make this out to be something personal. I've only offered analytical responses, you continue to make subjective analogies (weak ones at that) to "support" your view.

This is what happened: You saw a post about how DLSS 2.0 improved, and you just had to make your opinion that it sucks known without even bothering to look at the evidence.

I mean, THIS was your opening statement: "DLSS 1.0 is crap and useless. Even if 2.0 is better, until it is widely implemented, it won't amount to anything."

Even? That's a clear cut case you didn't even bother to look at the new DLSS video. And you didn't, until you had to actually look at it to try and see if there's any lines you can cherry pick to support your reasoning (and you failed at that).

So, let's just cut to the chase and stick to analytical debates.

Ok, what example do you have of this? Can you show where it's blurrier to you? Some screen stills maybe? Something of susbtance, not "women and makeup" type of arguments?

Here's mine. 400% zoom from Digital Foundry's video:



I mean, are you going to seriously tell me DLSS 2.0 (quality mode) is blurrier overall?

You can make your argument about personal attacks (which this is NOT), belittling (which this is NOT), or whatever kind of "manipulation" (again, which this is NOT), but what's really going on here is that you never want to give Nvidia any kind of credit for whatever they do. That includes manipulating arguments and strawman tactics (like your stance now that it's your eyes and you see blurriness in places that others do not). That's your history, and stripes don't change. If anything I'd say you're trying to belittle ME for not seeing with the same "sensitivity" you are, even though I'm the one actually playing in 4k modes on a 65" 4k screen while you're on a 27" 1440p monitor? I'm not that blind man :lol: AA artificacts and "blurriness" is going to be much more apparent on a 65" display than a 27" inch one.

But you have multiple sources reporting that DLSS 2.0 is the very least equivalent to native 4k and in many cases BETTER, like the example above. I don't buy your argument NWR, we both know why you're in this argument in the first place even if you won't admit it.

Are you still going at it. And you are still trying to spin that I didn't watch the video when I first posted because I chose to post a non confrontational post using the words "even if 2.0 is better" knowing that if I just straight up said my opinion you would get triggered like you always do. But you got triggered anyways, and started attacking me. So yeah, I expressed my opinion on what I saw in Hardware Unboxed video, and you got triggered more and kept on with the attacks.

Now you posted a screen shot of a comparison that has a 4k native in it that looks like they took at 1080p, upscaled it to 4k and then blew it up to 400%, with NO information on what seetings that Native 4K comparison was taken at. Heck, I have 720P stuff that scaled to 4k that looks 10 times better than that. At least Hardware unboxed had the professionalism to show the setting in every comparison. But you win, in that comparison, the DLSS looks better. But that isn't saying much, and doesn't change my current opinion on DLSS 2.0. Specially since it looks like they took the worse possible 4K native they could find with no settings information what so ever.

It's sad, now you have degraded to attacking what monitor I have, why because I now have an RTX and you can't use that against me? I also have a 65" 4k screen, as well as a 55" 4k screen.. so what's your point? You think you are the only person who plays on a large 4K screens? Just more stupid and wrong assumptions.

This is the same song and dance you did when DLSS 1.0 was released, I said it was blurry, and you argued that it wasn't, based off of Nvidia's optimized and controlled examples, videos, and screen shots. Once people started releasing examples that where not optimized and controlled by Nvidia, we finally saw how bad it really was. DLSS 2.0 is better than DLSS 1.0, based off of a game that Nvidia has optimized the crap out of to sell DLSS 2.0. But to me, it still isn't better than the 4K Native screens that Hardware Unboxed used with max quality settings. read that again, to me it still isn't better. That is my opinion, and you have yours.. They are different, and that if fine.

I don't see what you see, I don't agree, and I don't have too. So stop trying to get me too. I will say it again, it's time to agree to disagree.. NOW STOP!

Exposed Mar 6, 2020 12:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NWR_Midnight (Post 1338179698)
Are you still going at it. And you are still trying to spin that I didn't watch the video when I first posted because I chose to post a non confrontational post using the words "even if 2.0 is better" knowing that if I just straight up said my opinion you would get triggered like you always do. But you got triggered anyways, and started attacking me. So yeah, I expressed my opinion on what I saw in Hardware Unboxed video, and you got triggered more and kept on with the attacks.

Now you posted a screen shot of a comparison that has a 4k native in it that looks like they took at 1080p, upscaled it to 4k and then blew it up to 400%, with NO information on what seetings that Native 4K comparison was taken at. Heck, I have 720P stuff that scaled to 4k that looks 10 times better than that. At least Hardware unboxed had the professionalism to show the setting in every comparison. But you win, in that comparison, the DLSS looks better. But that isn't saying much, and doesn't change my current opinion on DLSS 2.0. Specially since it looks like they took the worse possible 4K native they could find with no settings information what so ever.

It's sad, now you have degraded to attacking what monitor I have, why because I now have an RTX and you can't use that against me? I also have a 65" 4k screen, as well as a 55" 4k screen.. so what's your point? You think you are the only person who plays on a large 4K screens? Just more stupid and wrong assumptions.

This is the same song and dance you did when DLSS 1.0 was released, I said it was blurry, and you argued that it wasn't, based off of Nvidia's optimized and controlled examples, videos, and screen shots. Once people started releasing examples that where not optimized and controlled by Nvidia, we finally saw how bad it really was. DLSS 2.0 is better than DLSS 1.0, based off of a game that Nvidia has optimized the crap out of to sell DLSS 2.0. But to me, it still isn't better than the 4K Native screens that Hardware Unboxed used with max quality settings. read that again, to me it still isn't better. That is my opinion, and you have yours.. They are different, and that if fine.

I don't see what you see, I don't agree, and I don't have too. So stop trying to get me too. I will say it again, it's time to agree to disagree.. NOW STOP!

Watch the video again. Native 4k is... native 4k. :bleh:

DLSS Quality mode is 1440p upscaled. DLSS Performance mode is 1080p upscaled.

Seriously, your arguments are crumbling apart because you're so desperate to dig up a counter point. Now you're just plain wrong in everything you post because you're not taking the time to watch and understand the video.

NWR_Midnight Mar 6, 2020 12:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Exposed (Post 1338179701)
Watch the video again. Native 4k is... native 4k. :bleh:

DLSS Quality mode is 1440p upscaled. DLSS Performance mode is 1080p upscaled.

Seriously, your arguments are crumbling apart because you're so desperate to dig up a counter point. Now you're just plain wrong in everything you post because you're not taking the time to watch and understand the video.

4K Native is 4K Native.. really? I never knew that. You must think I'm some hill billy hick from the sticks. /sarcasm

You have 4K native with No AA, 4K Native with low quality AA, 4k native with High Quality AA, etc (settings matter). Yet you want to say I am wrong on every point, and I am not watching the video or understanding it. When It was pretty obvious what I was referring to when I said that Hardware Unboxed showed their settings with every comparison, where Digital Founder does not, and didn't where you took that screen shot from, he didn't even say it verbally. Way to cherry pick and manipulate. You just don't know when to quit.

This pretty much sums up using Young Blood to try and say DLSS is equivalent or better:

Quote:

We’re hesitant to say that the image quality DLSS provides is better than native, because Youngblood’s existing anti-aliasing techniques like SMAA T1x and TSSAA T8X aren’t great, and produce a bit of blur across what should be a very sharp native 4K image. When comparing DLSS directly to, say, TSSAA T8X, the DLSS image is sharper, and we should note here the results we’re showing now are with the game’s built in sharpening setting turned off.
https://www.techspot.com/article/1992-nvidia-dlss-2020/

I don't agree it's even equivalent or better. But hey, That's my opinion only, not yours, and I am not telling you to agree. if you want to go on thinking it is, based off of a game that doesn't have great standard AA techniques, by all means, go for it. Enjoy your game!

SIrPauly Mar 6, 2020 01:22 AM

Considering Dlss utilizes a x64 jittered ability there may be some softer but smoother aspects while static or dynamically moving. If this is the case a gamer may adjust the clarity with a simple adjustment from the sharpening filter.

Exposed Mar 6, 2020 01:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NWR_Midnight (Post 1338179702)
You have 4K native with No AA, 4K Native with low quality AA, You have 4k native with High Quality AA (settings matter). Yet you want to say I am wrong on every point, and I am not watching the video or understanding it. When It was pretty obvious what I was referring to when I said that Hardware Unboxed showed their settings with every comparison, where Digital Founder does not, and didn't where you took that screen shot from. Way to cherry pick and manipulate.

And yet you disagreed with Hardware Unboxed where you ran off on a rant about "your eyes", you even stressed their findings was their opinion only. :lol:

Now you run to quote a single line you THINK "supports" your argument but yet again shows you really don't understand what you're reading and just desperate of a counterpoint.

So which one is it? You agree with them or not?


Because you seemed to have ignored the line before:

Despite DLSS rendering at an actual resolution below 4K, the final results are as good as or in some circumstances better than the native 4K image.


Or immediately after:

And while it may not be always superior to native 4K, being at worst equivalent to 4K, is a huge step forward for DLSS. As we talked about extensively in previous features, older DLSS implementations were only good enough to produce an 1800p-like image, often with weird artifacts like thin wires and tree branches getting ‘thickened’, along with a general oil painting effect that we didn’t like. None of those issues are present here, this just straight up looks like a native image.


https://www.techspot.com/article/1992-nvidia-dlss-2020/

That line you posted was in reference to the temporal AA comparisons, because they were concerned the temporal component would mitigate a direct comparison. That would indicate they were concerned the DLSS image would be sharper just because of that.

Yet, YOU think DLSS is blurrier, even though every single screenshot shows otherwise. Again, you can't even keep your argument straight, you're so desperate for a counterpoint.

Now, when taking the temporal factor out, and comparing native 4k:

However, when putting DLSS up against SMAA without a temporal component, so just regular SMAA, the level of clarity and sharpness DLSS provides is quite similar to the SMAA image. Again, there are advantages here – SMAA does have a fair few remaining jagged edges and some shimmering, which is generally cleaned up with DLSS – but when comparing detail levels we’d say both native 4K and DLSS are similar.




Quote:

I don't agree it's even equivalent or better. But hey, That's my opinion only, not yours, and I am not telling you to agree. if you want to go on thinking it is, based off of a game that doesn't have great standard AA techniques, by all means, go for it. Enjoy your game!
Feel free to agree or disagree or whatever. It's just amusing how every major site is seeing vast improvements with DLSS 2.0 yet YOU contends its still blurrier. After countless screenshots and videos posted. :lol:

BTW, Digital Foundry was running UBER settings for native 4k, it even states so in the overlay. Uber enables TSSAA 8X (the best AA method) by default. Grasping at straws much?

Regardless, it doesn't matter if no AA or the best AA is used, DLSS 2.0 is providing the best image quality overall. You wanna nitpick with Digital Foundry, well then your only course is to fall back to Hardware Unboxed who comes up with the same conclusions with all their settings tested.


But who cares what they think, right? It's your eyes after all? So, show me where you see DLSS 2.0 being "blurrier' than native 4k. Heck download the game, you have a 2080 don't you? Where's your examples/screenshots, videos, etc.??

Exposed Mar 6, 2020 01:56 AM

Also, don't expect older games to switch from DLSS 1.0 to DLSS 2.0 anytime soon. There's enough of a significant difference where the elements of the game need to be reworked.

Metro Exodus devs on DLSS 2.0: "We may implement it in the future, but for now, no. There are some systems that we would have to rework in order to support the new priorities of the updated DLSS."

https://www.reddit.com/r/metro/comme...s_ama/fixv61n/

Metro had a good DLSS implementation to begin with, so they don't need to switch imo.

SIrPauly Mar 6, 2020 03:35 AM

Considering how critical Hardware Unboxed was of earlier iterations of Dlss and now sees the potential with Dlss maturity, speaks volumes of improved quality and flexibility.

the_sextein Mar 6, 2020 05:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Exposed (Post 1338179692)
There's no such thing as 8k DLSS. At least not yet, probably not for a while.


You do need a 4k display to use 4k DLSS. However, you don't need 4k for DLSS. You can run DLSS in 1440p, it just uses 1080p as the base resolution for reconstruction.

DLSS 2.0 is promising because if you can get native 4k image quality with 1440p performance, that will extend the life your graphics card.

DLSS 1.0 had potential but it was poorly executed and rushed. Only Metro Exodus (and Final Fantasy actually) really benefited from DLSS 1.0, the other games that had it wasn't worth turning on.

Ok, thanks for taking the time to clarify it. Personally, I didn't like DLSS 1.0 even in Metro. It was really blurry compared to native 4K. I'm glad they went back to the drawing board. I haven't spent a lot of time looking at 2.0 but from what I have seen, it looks much better in terms of fine clarity without looking over sharpened.

NWR_Midnight Mar 6, 2020 08:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Exposed (Post 1338179707)
And yet you disagreed with Hardware Unboxed where you ran off on a rant about "your eyes", you even stressed their findings was their opinion only. :lol:

Now you run to quote a single line you THINK "supports" your argument but yet again shows you really don't understand what you're reading and just desperate of a counterpoint.

So which one is it? You agree with them or not?


Because you seemed to have ignored the line before:

Despite DLSS rendering at an actual resolution below 4K, the final results are as good as or in some circumstances better than the native 4K image.


Or immediately after:

And while it may not be always superior to native 4K, being at worst equivalent to 4K, is a huge step forward for DLSS. As we talked about extensively in previous features, older DLSS implementations were only good enough to produce an 1800p-like image, often with weird artifacts like thin wires and tree branches getting ‘thickened’, along with a general oil painting effect that we didn’t like. None of those issues are present here, this just straight up looks like a native image.


https://www.techspot.com/article/1992-nvidia-dlss-2020/

That line you posted was in reference to the temporal AA comparisons, because they were concerned the temporal component would mitigate a direct comparison. That would indicate they were concerned the DLSS image would be sharper just because of that.

Yet, YOU think DLSS is blurrier, even though every single screenshot shows otherwise. Again, you can't even keep your argument straight, you're so desperate for a counterpoint.

Now, when taking the temporal factor out, and comparing native 4k:

However, when putting DLSS up against SMAA without a temporal component, so just regular SMAA, the level of clarity and sharpness DLSS provides is quite similar to the SMAA image. Again, there are advantages here – SMAA does have a fair few remaining jagged edges and some shimmering, which is generally cleaned up with DLSS – but when comparing detail levels we’d say both native 4K and DLSS are similar.






Feel free to agree or disagree or whatever. It's just amusing how every major site is seeing vast improvements with DLSS 2.0 yet YOU contends its still blurrier. After countless screenshots and videos posted. :lol:

BTW, Digital Foundry was running UBER settings for native 4k, it even states so in the overlay. Uber enables TSSAA 8X (the best AA method) by default. Grasping at straws much?

Regardless, it doesn't matter if no AA or the best AA is used, DLSS 2.0 is providing the best image quality overall. You wanna nitpick with Digital Foundry, well then your only course is to fall back to Hardware Unboxed who comes up with the same conclusions with all their settings tested.


But who cares what they think, right? It's your eyes after all? So, show me where you see DLSS 2.0 being "blurrier' than native 4k. Heck download the game, you have a 2080 don't you? Where's your examples/screenshots, videos, etc.??

My response or the quote rather wasn't about my opinion, or even to support my opinion. Which in that response I already said I don't agree with it being equivalent or better. So I already answered if I do or don't.

That quote was about YOUR rant and argument that it's equivalent or even better at times. Which I am not saying isn't how you see it. However, even thought I don't even agree with that, it shows that it's another PR stunt from Nvidia, They have released DLSS 2.0 in the best light possible, which every manufacture does, it's called business. In this case they are put all their time and optimization in a game were the standard AA is not so great. What that means, is it's being compared to standard AA formats in this game, that because of how the game render's AA (makes it blurry per the quote), puts a thumb on the scale in DLSS 2.0's favor. All of Hardware Unboxed video clips, and the screen shots where with TSSAA 8X. So when it starts being implemented, in other games that have better implementations of standard AA formats, it MAY not end up looking equivalent are sometimes better as you, and reviewers state. That's all that quote was to point out. NOTHING to do with my opinion.

I never said DLSS 2.0 wasn't a huge step forward. Does it look a whole lot better than DLSS 1.0, Yep! I never disagreed with that.

Comparing just SMAA to DLSS (most likely quality setting) is not relevant, because SMAA is the lowest setting for SMAA. Which keeps the thump on the scale.

DLSS is another form of AA, so how can it be said it doesn't matter if AA is used or not when comparing?


As for Digital Founder's.. Where does it show it on the clip they use to zoom in to 400%. There is NOTHING in the overlay about what settings they are using at that time. a few clips earlier, they show something to the nature of Uber settings streaming 1440p when showing Ray Tracing. or just before when they are showing different setting comparisions with DLSS, and such, But nothing at that time on the overlay showing what the settings are.

Exposed Mar 6, 2020 09:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NWR_Midnight (Post 1338179729)
My response or the quote rather wasn't about my opinion, or even to support my opinion. Which in that response I already said I don't agree with it being equivalent or better. So I already answered if I do or don't.

That quote was about YOUR rant and argument that it's equivalent or even better at times. Which I am not saying isn't how you see it. However, even thought I don't even agree with that, it shows that it's another PR stunt from Nvidia, They have released DLSS 2.0 in the best light possible, which every manufacture does, it's called business. In this case they are put all their time and optimization in a game were the standard AA is not so great. What that means, is it's being compared to standard AA in this game, that because of how the game render's standard AA (makes it blurry per the quote), puts a thumb on the scale in DLSS 2.0's favor. All of Hardware Unboxed video clips, and the screen shots where with TSSAA 8X. So when it starts being implemented, in other games that have better implementations of standard AA, it's MAY not end up looking equivalent are sometimes better as you, and reviewers state. That's all that quote was to point it. NOTHING to do with my opinion.

TSSAA 8x is the best method of AA to remove jaggies outside of DLSS. DLSS does this better without sacrificing image quality.

You also conveniently ignored the entire section where SMAA was used and DLSS still delivered the better, sharper image while doing a better job than TSSAA 8x for removing aliasing.

As the screenshots clearly shows. If you disagree, please post your own analysis with screen stills.

Quote:


I never said DLSS 2.0 wasn't a huge step forward. Does it look a whole lot better than DLSS 1.0, Yep! I never disagreed with that.
You said DLSS 2.0 still looked blurrier than native 4k.

Still waiting for you to demonstrate that, please.


Quote:


As for Digital Founder's.. Where does it show it on the clip they use to zoom in to 400%. There is NOTHING in the overlay about what settings they are using at that time. a few clips earlier, they show something to the nature of Uber settings streaming 1440p when showing Ray Tracing. or just before when they are showing different setting comparisions with DLSS. But nothing at that time.
They were using Uber settings across the board. Why are you denial about this? Makes you look desperate to be honest.

What's funny is that you continue to ignore the point that it doesn't matter what AA was used for the native 4k image, HU showed DLSS 2.0 still delivered the better image regardless of setting.

This is a fact you can't seem to accept. All you're left with is desperate arguments like "well my eyes sees this" and "my eyes are more sensitive than yours". Complete and utter BS.

You keep going down this rabbit hole and everyone sees how desperate you are for a counterpoint. You don't offer any analytical, objective arguments or demonstrations. If you can show me one example where DLSS 2.0 in either Wolfenstein or Deliver us to the moon is "blurrier" than native 4k, you'd have something to stand on. But you can't, because apparently no on else can see it except for you. So please, keep this digging this hole.

bittermann Mar 6, 2020 09:41 AM

If this debate is actual software vs. what one person sees differently then there is no point in arguing. Lets agree to disagree and move on.

NWR_Midnight Mar 6, 2020 09:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bittermann (Post 1338179753)
If this debate is actual software vs. what one person sees differently then there is no point in arguing. Lets agree to disagree and move on.

I agree. I have already said lets agree to disagree multiple times. Which, I am partly to blame because it's hard to stand down and not respond when the attacks continue right after.

NWR_Midnight Mar 6, 2020 10:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Exposed (Post 1338179747)
TSSAA 8x is the best method of AA to remove jaggies outside of DLSS. DLSS does this better without sacrificing image quality.

You also conveniently ignored the entire section where SMAA was used and DLSS still delivered the better, sharper image while doing a better job than TSSAA 8x for removing aliasing.

As the screenshots clearly shows. If you disagree, please post your own analysis with screen stills.

You said DLSS 2.0 still looked blurrier than native 4k.

Still waiting for you to demonstrate that, please.


They were using Uber settings across the board. Why are you denial about this? Makes you look desperate to be honest.

What's funny is that you continue to ignore the point that it doesn't matter what AA was used for the native 4k image, HU showed DLSS 2.0 still delivered the better image regardless of setting.

This is a fact you can't seem to accept. All you're left with is desperate arguments like "well my eyes sees this" and "my eyes are more sensitive than yours". Complete and utter BS.

You keep going down this rabbit hole and everyone sees how desperate you are for a counterpoint. You don't offer any analytical, objective arguments or demonstrations. If you can show me one example where DLSS 2.0 in either Wolfenstein or Deliver us to the moon is "blurrier" than native 4k, you'd have something to stand on. But you can't, because apparently no on else can see it except for you. So please, keep this digging this hole.

I didn't ignore anything, go re-read my edits made while you where typing this. Then agree to disagree and stop.

Exposed Mar 6, 2020 10:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NWR_Midnight (Post 1338179759)
I didn't ignore anything, go re-read my edits made while you where typing this. Then agree to disagree and stop.

I am requesting an xample of what looks blurry compared to native. I'm being sincere here, if there's a screenshot or video that you can provide that demonstrates this, where you circle and show where its occurring, I can then understand where you're coming from. But everything we've seen from multiple sources from various people shows DLSS 2.0 is indeed quite up to par with native 4k quality, sometimes better, regardless of aa used.

NWR_Midnight Mar 6, 2020 10:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Exposed (Post 1338179779)
I am requesting an xample of what looks blurry compared to native. I'm being sincere here, if there's a screenshot or video that you can provide that demonstrates this, where you circle and show where its occurring, I can then understand where you're coming from. But everything we've seen from multiple sources from various people shows DLSS 2.0 is indeed quite up to par with native 4k quality, sometimes better, regardless of aa used.

You are asking for something that I already said is impossible to do, because you want an example of what my eyes tell me. Your opinion is based off of what your eyes tell you. I already pointed out blurriness in the Hardware unboxed screen shot and you immediately discounted it with your explanation because that is how you see it thru your eyes. So that really leaves us with only one satisfactory option. To agree to disagree.

Exposed Mar 6, 2020 11:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NWR_Midnight (Post 1338179784)
You are asking for something that I already said is impossible to do, because you want an example of what my eyes tell me. Your opinion is based off of what your eyes tell you. I already pointed out blurriness in the Hardware unboxed screen shot and you immediately discounted it with your explanation because that is how you see it thru your eyes. So that really leaves us with only one satisfactory option. To agree to disagree.



It is not impossible to do. This example shows where DLSS is better than native 4k in terms of addressing aliasing and image clarity.

Now, if you're seeing the opposite, it shouldn't be that hard to do a similar side by side analysis.

OverclockN' Mar 6, 2020 11:11 AM

Something goofy about those images. I don't recall ever seeing a game in 4k where it was blurry like that. Only when FXAA was turned on. I'm on board with trying out DLSS and seeing it for myself, buy that image comparison seems a bit suspicious.

Exposed Mar 6, 2020 12:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OverclockN' (Post 1338179794)
Something goofy about those images. I don't recall ever seeing a game in 4k where it was blurry like that. Only when FXAA was turned on. I'm on board with trying out DLSS and seeing it for myself, buy that image comparison seems a bit suspicious.

Well, how would a native 4k snapshot look compared to the same 4k image with a sharpening filter? That's basically what you're seeing, but it's not a sharpening filter, it's DLSS reconstructing the image with greater clarity than 4k in this case.

You can see the same thing with Deliver Us to the Moon. Extraordinary quality coming from this new version of DLSS, pretty much indistinguishable from native 4k (and sometimes better, just like in this case):

Since you have a 4k display you can watch the video in full 4k.







It's a bit odd that the best DLSS implementation is found in an indie game that's been out for like a year, but that's what happened. Originally launched back in October 2019, Deliver us the Moon got a massive DLSS and ray tracing patch back at CES 2020, and it really took the game to the next level.
It also marked the first game that implemented the technology in three tiers: Performance, Balanced and Quality. And, we can tell you first hand that when it's in Quality mode, you will not be able to tell the difference between that and the game running at native resolution without DLSS – beyond the massive 38% boost to fps at least.

https://www.techradar.com/news/does-...across-5-games

bill dennison Mar 6, 2020 01:24 PM

it's about like adding RT & DLSS to half life 2 :bleh:

NWR_Midnight Mar 6, 2020 02:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Exposed (Post 1338179788)


It is not impossible to do. This example shows where DLSS is better than native 4k in terms of addressing aliasing and image clarity.

Now, if you're seeing the opposite, it shouldn't be that hard to do a similar side by side analysis.

Rehashing those pictures again? I already gave my thoughts on those. Maybe you should go read my answer again.

What's impossible is to give you an example that allows you to see what I see. I already gave you an example and you don't see it. Because you can't see it, meaning your vision isn't that acute, you don't believe it's there. And that's because you believe everyone has the same vision and sees the same thing. Even my son saw what pointed out to you, before I even told him to look there. So, what you ask for is impossible to do.

Exposed Mar 6, 2020 02:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NWR_Midnight (Post 1338179848)
Rehashing those pictures again? I already gave my thoughts on those. Maybe you should go read my answer again.

You said DLSS 2.0 still looked blurrier than native 4k.

Still waiting for you to demonstrate that, please.

NWR_Midnight Mar 6, 2020 02:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Exposed (Post 1338179851)
You said DLSS 2.0 still looked blurrier than native 4k.

Still waiting for you to demonstrate that, please.

Yep, I said that. No please read my edit. If you don't get it after that, then I don't know what to tell you. This is where you need to agree to disagree instead of beating a dead horse.

Exposed Mar 6, 2020 02:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NWR_Midnight (Post 1338179856)
Yep, I said that. No please read my edit. If you don't get it after that, then I don't know what to tell you. This is where you need to agree to disagree instead of beating a dead horse.

I'm not beating a dead horse, but you're definitely beating around the bush.

I'm just looking for a concrete example (from your eyes as you say) where you see DLSS 2.0 is blurrier than native 4k. This is not an attack, or belittlement, or anything of malice. It's just genuine curiosity so maybe I can understand your point of view. Understand you're not going to get that across with "I see things differently than you", or by invoking bad analogies, but you can with some examples like I have done here. You have 3 different sources now (Hardware Unboxed, Digital Foundry, Tech Radar) who have done an analysis on DLSS 2.0 and your statement on the matter "Well it's still blurrier than native 4k" without anything to back it up with other than stating it's your opinion is a bit underwhelming, to say the least.

bill dennison Mar 6, 2020 02:56 PM

Still waiting for a game that matters

and is not a NV test case that they pored over to make it look best


........

also wonder how they will do with the RT that microsoft and AMD are putting out xbox and sony with AMD
and if this DLSS 2.0 will work with it at all

https://www.pcgamesn.com/amd/ray-tra...r-co-developed

Exposed Mar 6, 2020 02:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bill dennison (Post 1338179860)
Still waiting for a game that matters

and is now a NV test case


........

also wonder how they will do with the RT that microsoft and AMD are putting out xbox and sony with AMD
and if this DLSS 2.0 will work with it at all

https://www.pcgamesn.com/amd/ray-tra...r-co-developed

Cyberpunk 2077?

bill dennison Mar 6, 2020 03:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Exposed (Post 1338179861)
Cyberpunk 2077?

NV will be all over that

or they better be :lol: :hmm:


i wonder how well this will work on a RTX card
Quote:

AMD hints at PS5 and Xbox Series X having the same ray tracing-focused graphics card
https://www.gamesradar.com/amd-hints...graphics-card/

and all new AMD cards ( Navi 2x ) will be the same RT system

i know if NV had the xbox and ps5 it would not work with AMD stuff at all

with AMD i don't know how far they will push it

NWR_Midnight Mar 6, 2020 04:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Exposed (Post 1338179857)
I'm not beating a dead horse, but you're definitely beating around the bush.

I'm just looking for a concrete example (from your eyes as you say) where you see DLSS 2.0 is blurrier than native 4k. This is not an attack, or belittlement, or anything of malice. It's just genuine curiosity so maybe I can understand your point of view. Understand you're not going to get that across with "I see things differently than you", or by invoking bad analogies, but you can with some examples like I have done here. You have 3 different sources now (Hardware Unboxed, Digital Foundry, Tech Radar) who have done an analysis on DLSS 2.0 and your statement on the matter "Well it's still blurrier than native 4k" without anything to back it up with other than stating it's your opinion is a bit underwhelming, to say the least.

I already did that and you didn't see it. So, you want me to find an example that zooms in down to the zoom level or pixels that will allow you to see and critique it. Just to prove to you I see something you can't. Not worth my time, and not sure if anyone ever will zoom into that level.

Exposed Mar 6, 2020 04:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NWR_Midnight (Post 1338179874)
I already did that and you didn't see it. So, you want me to find an example that zooms in down to the zoom level or pixels that will allow you to see and critique it. Got it! Not going to happen.

No, you haven't done that. And it's not a hard request either.

You said DLSS 2.0 still looked blurrier than native 4k. Still waiting for you to demonstrate that, please. So far all the evidence regarding DLSS 2.0 (Wolfenstein Youngblood, Deliver Us To The Moon) from 3 different tech sites points to the contrary.

Screenshots, video, give us SOMETHING objective.

NWR_Midnight Mar 6, 2020 04:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Exposed (Post 1338179875)
No, you haven't done that. And it's not a hard request either.

You said DLSS 2.0 still looked blurrier than native 4k. Still waiting for you to demonstrate that, please. So far all the evidence regarding DLSS 2.0 (Wolfenstein Youngblood, Deliver Us To The Moon) from 3 different tech sites points to the contrary.

Screenshots, video, give us SOMETHING objective.

Yes I did. Hardware unboxed, screenshots with the car, above the bike rack, the end the fence and the top of the pole right below it. You disagreed and made some excuses. Which I have already explained. There are many other such instances of blurriness in those same screen shots.. but you won't see it, so it's pointless to point them out to you.

There is no US, there is only You. But you can't drop it because you don't have that acute of eye sight, so the only option is to find a screen shot that zooms into the level that allows you to look at every pixel. Not going to happen.

Your a broken record. I state my opinion on what I see, you holler show me proof. Time to move on.

Exposed Mar 6, 2020 05:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NWR_Midnight (Post 1338179877)
Yes I did. Hardware unboxed, screenshots with the car, above the bike rack, the end the fence and the top of the pole right below it. You disagreed and made some excuses. Which I have already explained. There are many other such instances of blurriness in those same screen shots.. but you won't see it, so it's pointless to point them out to you.

There is no US, there is only You. But you can't drop it because you don't have that acute of eye sight, so the only option is to find a screen shot that zooms into the level that allows you to look at every pixel. Not going to happen.

Your a broken record. I state my opinion on what I see, you holler show me proof. Time to move on.

Please elaborate






I looked over every square inch of that screenshot. The bike rack is actually slightly sharper in DLSS quality mode. In fact, that dirt on the side of the car (just below the chrome line) is also slightly sharper and more detailed in DLSS quality mode. In further fact, I couldn't spot a section where the DLSS version was more "blurrier" than its native counterpart. Look at the bottom ground textures, also slightly more clear with DLSS mode. Care to elaborate what you're seeing?

What fence and pole are you talking about? Care to elaborate?

Are you sure you didn't confuse the two? They were very quick screenshots in succession.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:27 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
All trademarks used are properties of their respective owners. Copyright 1998-2011 Rage3D.com