Ultra AA problem?

[TidalStorm]

Im not exactly sure if anything is wrong, but recently things don't seem to be very good quality when I do a test render for example at 640x480, with ultra AA on, normally that would create a decent enough quality image, but obviously too small for anything. What I noticed is using ultra AA takes the same/less time than with it unchecked on the specific image. I rendered one on a very high res, with ultra on, and it only took 2 hours, which is very fast for that size compared to previous renders. Im using a 2048 terrain so detail isnt the problem.

Any suggestions to whether there is a problem or not are appreciated.

[joshbakr]

Im not exactly sure if anything is wrong, but recently things don't seem to be very good quality when I do a test render for example at 640x480, with ultra AA on, normally that would create a decent enough quality image, but obviously too small for anything. What I noticed is using ultra AA takes the same/less time than with it unchecked on the specific image. I rendered one on a very high res, with ultra on, and it only took 2 hours, which is very fast for that size compared to previous renders. Im using a 2048 terrain so detail isnt the problem.

Any suggestions to whether there is a problem or not are appreciated.

Hard to tell without a image samples to see?

[TidalStorm]

Well, this is standard settings:

http://i28.tinypic.com/314pfdy.jpg

And with ultra AA on:

http://i27.tinypic.com/r9eb9j.jpg

Its obviously smoother with AA to some extent, its just odd the times are so similar, when normally AA would increase the render time by quite a lot.

[joshbakr]

Yeah I can a little difference between the two. From experience what most people do is render very large 6500 x whatever and downsize in your favorite image editing app. That being the case using ultra or extra blended detail isn't really needed and renders go much faster without them.   But I must tell you I have rendered 4500x3000 with all quality setting enabled and I had one render with transparent water and underwater textures take 8 days. Like in this Image  http://buzzzzz.deviantart.com/art/10-7-06-41103020

So I think you need to render a little larger to see much difference between the 2 images.

[Oshyan]

Actually because of how TG renders and performs AA, the render time impact of even Ultra AA is a lot less than you might expect from other applications. Now if you're saying that TG itself *used* to take longer and produce higher quality, that's another matter. But I've certainly never heard of that kind of problem so I can't really suggest anything. But from your test renders I can say AA definitely appears to be working.

- Oshyan

[TidalStorm]

Ok thanks, Ive always used ultra for large renders, so I cant compare without it on large sizes. I presume having a very simple atmo may decrease it somewhat. I may have used EBD in the past though, I cant remember, but I dont bother now because I read somewhere the difference isnt really noticable if you are downsizing a lot anyway. If you are only using one, and not both at once, would EBD result in a much longer rendering time? Also, is it worth using when rendering at sizes around 6400x5000?

[Oshyan]

EBD increases render time much more significantly than UltraAA. EBD is about 3x (300%) longer render time whereas UAA is about a 25% increase. EBD can be useful if you're rendering at large sizes *and* you don't intend to downsample significantly. However if your overall workflow involves rendering at 2x, 3x, or even 4x the size of your intended final image, then EBD won't give you much benefit in the end.

- Oshyan