7 comments on “When Anti-Aliasing Is No Longer Needed

  1. Very interesting article, but I would like to make a small correction. If you increase the resolution from 1920×1080 to 5760×3240 there are actually 9 times more pixels to display, not 3.

  2. Did some calculations… for a 24″ monitor to no longer need AA… you would need a staggering resolution of 6300 x 3544. Compared to 4k which is 3840 pixels × 2160… yeah that’s a huge difference… most high end graphics card set ups today can barley handle the 8294400 pixels that 4k demands on medium details let alone the insane 22327200 pixels that 6k(i believe that is what that would be called) would require. Nvidia and AMD need to step up there game so we can have stupid things like this. Who wouldn’t love to game at 60fps with that sort of resolution on maxed settings of crysis 3?(just imagine running three of those in eyfinity or nvidia surround if the first image wasn’t cool enough)

    • There just isn’t much demand for it right now. Eventually, resolution will be a thing of the past. Every screen will be so crisp and clear, people won’t buy just for that. TVs are already starting to branch out with the connected stuff like web browsers, social network integration, etc. I think 3D will be like this too. Eventually, it will be so cheap, it will just be included with every display. Most people won’t use it. Some people will like it though.

  3. You need to take the view distance into the consideration. What we are really talking about here is the human eyes’ optical resolution to distinguish individual pixels, and the pixel size and viewing distance both matter. The viewing distance is about 1 feet for using a tablet and 2-3 feet for a desktop monitor. You may not be able to see the individual pixels at lower pixel density at a typical desktop monitor view distance. I believe a 28 inch 4K monitor, which costs as low as UDS700, is enough to get rid of most jagged edges.

  4. “That is not high enough for looking at the screen two to three feet away but definitely enough for one foot or less.” This part of your post puzzled me for over 5 minutes, and I think could be clearer.

    Something up close allows you to see every pixel. When you step back, things blur together. For images or video games, this is usually a good thing. For pixelated text (not anti-aliased), this is generally a good thing. For small text (where anti-aliasing is needed to help you see the shape), this is a very bad thing; and I think this is to what you were referring. For me small text is just a small use case for a screen, design-wise you avoid this as much as possible for the most important text; I wasn’t sure from what perspective you were speaking, now I think I do.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s