16x supersampling. the screen is in 540p resolution, but the game is full 4k...

fuck i meant to say 16:9 aspect ratio.

So what you meant was half of 1080p, but in 16:9?
How is that not a meme?

also here is a new picture 64 times down sampling because i rendered it in 8k. it doesn't really look any different

Attached: Screenshot (21).png (960x540, 557K)

>read it in his voice
kek

>literally only 1kb bigger

>16x the detail
Fuck off, Todd

that still looks quite jaggy so you aren't using a good screen scaling filter

Yeah, there's no way it should be that jaggy. That's the whole point of super-sampling.

theres a memory limit on Yea Forums screenshots. so the picture needs to be compressed.

Fucking same.

Because you used a dumb fucking resampling method
and no it has nothing to do with jpg compression

you are right here is a better screen shot

Attached: Screenshot (25).png (1920x1080, 1.95M)

WHAT...WHAT POWER! B-BUT...BUT HOW?!??

Attached: D9D1F940-8D74-4F45-9F09-B640D36A4DE9.jpg (1280x704, 69K)

Latinos keep emulating and moding the PS2 version when the Wii version exists.

Attached: ASPECT RAIDOU (2).jpg (1270x635, 219K)

So what do you do this technology?

Post the highest resolution output you have without stretching and I'll show you a good resampling job

Why not just do 720p x 4?

heres a 8k jpeg

Attached: dbz bt3 goku.jpg (7680x4320, 3.08M)

I said don't use the wrong aspect ratio, but whatever. 200kb yet still looks nice.

Attached: 1.jpg (720x540, 223K)

png

Attached: dbz bt3 goku 720x540.png (720x540, 536K)

the original image is 126MB. just massive.

How about one with no supersampling for comparison.

native resoution. ok

>1920×1080=2,073,600
>960×540=518,400

Just how dumb are you?

On an unrelated note, looks like the developers scaled the model down the Y axis basically making it flat and used a transparent shader to create the shadow - you can see all the transparency artifacts from the body parts intersecting with each other. Really ticks me off

Attached: low resolution.jpg (512x448, 81K)

Attached: gsdx_20170831185913.jpg (7680x5760, 3.66M)

When it comes to downsampling anything passed 4x your output resolution really is unnecessary and generally unnoticeable.

i'm confused

about?

my sexuality

Thats simple you're a faggot.

let me suck your dick daddy

>540p
Why? For what? The Vita?

Attached: native.png (2880x2160, 69K)

Attached: 2x.png (2880x2160, 99K)

Attached: 4x.png (2880x2160, 114K)

Attached: 8x.png (2880x2160, 118K)

Attached: 16x.png (2880x2160, 119K)

Increase the internal rendering resolution for fuck sake.

I did, that's supersampling, what this thread is about.

I'm showing the difference between downsampling from an ever higher internal resolution.

Supersampling seems like a waste of processing power for emulation then. You could just increase the resolution of the emulation itself and not have the blurry as hell while still being aliased look.

>Supersampling seems like a waste
It seems you've missed the point. Supersampling is far from a waste because we all have limits to our output resolutions and it provide the best anti-aliasing possible for your given pixel count, if you were for example outputting to a 480i CRT 2x would see a significant increase in visual fidelity, however beyond 2x sees dramatically diminished returns which is what I was demonstrating.

You can supersample to 4k from 8k and you get a similar benefit but again supersampling beyond 2x your output resolution, for example supersampling 4k from 16k, is unnecessary.

Attached: RAW 16x.png (2880x2160, 209K)

there's diminishing returns but your screens clearly get more refined going past 2x, it's from 8x to 16x where the difference isn't worth it

There will continue being differences all the way through 32x and 64x and beyond, there will likely be a point where all the pixels are so close to their theoretical averages and the difference between say 256x and 512x is so minor that it's down to having a pixel resolve to 224.6 red and 224.7 red which your display can't differentiate between and that's the hardlimit by which there will literally be no difference but where it stops being "worth it" will generally depend on your hardware situation because we can't just run everything at 256x(or whatever that hard limit may be) our native resolutions. Given essentially unlimited power you could say that hard limit is where it stops being "worth it", but 2x provides by far the largest impact, and beyond 2x supersampling suffers from dramatically diminished returns, in most cases you're not going to notice what is 2x native and what is 4x native.

If you flash between them you can say yes 4x looks slightly better than 2x but if I were to take that label off and swap the orders do you think your could accurately label them again?

Attached: native.webm (1440x1080, 236K)

i can definitely tell 4x is higher than 2x but i'm less sure from that point, you could probably fool me mixing 4x, 8x and 16x with each other

I think I could probably fool you easily by just swapping between 2x and 4x pictures at random and having you try to guess which ones are which.

Give it a try if you think you can.

Attached: 2x or 4x.png (5760x4320, 1.49M)

>can't understand the concept of a rectangle

why is this board appearing to get so incredibly stupid in the past 2 years or so

i am honestly worried about you zoomzooms, i am going to be honest and say you are less intelligent and have poorer problem solving than the generation before you

I'm going to bed, here's the answer key.

Attached: 4x.png (5760x4320, 966K)

i could tell the first was 4x, i didn't get a lot further than that before you posted again. takes a while to select and crop them each. i don't appreciate you putting multiple of the exact same image for some you little trickster.

I noticed it was 7am and realized I needed sleep so fuck it. I wasn't going to wait half an hour or more.

good night user.

Bilinear still makes it look hideously smeared. You need a lanczos filter.