@MikeB

Quote:

I think the most rippling should take place when the snake hits the ocean and when the tail goes under.

The rippling takes place while there is a displacement. Yes, the most intense part will happen when the snake hits the ocean but as it is, it seems that the only rippling happens when it hits the ocean, completely ignoring the actual mass of the object going underwater and the fact that some very large protruding parts of the body (the fins) hit the water as it goes down. Moreover, the ripples in the developer video seem to die out completely *way* too fast to be real simulated ripples, they don't look like real waves being propageted. The splashes are particle effects (again, as seen on the videos), not real water displacement effects and are not where they would be in real life. Again, the game looks rather nice but the marketing material is overblown quite a bit, especially the water physics.

Last edited by AMiGR on 15-Apr-2007 at 09:19 PM.
Last edited by AMiGR on 15-Apr-2007 at 09:16 PM.

_________________

@AMiGR

I agree in reality there would probably be a little more rippling, maybe Factor 5 will improve the physics for the final version a little. But I think this shouldn't be overdone. When the snake hits the water there is quite a bit of water displacement would be heavily dependent on the shape of the water creature, but after this there shouldn't be until the tail goes under. The enormous snake can be compared to a tiny little worm in an enormous ocean, as the snake dives the addtional water being displaced would be devided over a much larger surface area.

@ Zerohero

Sorry, done.

Last edited by MikeB on 15-Apr-2007 at 10:02 PM.
Last edited by MikeB on 15-Apr-2007 at 09:59 PM.

Sorry for replying to an old post, I was busy with other things for a while and playing catch-up now!

@GregS

Quote:

1080p cannot suffer from jaggies for the simple reason that such artefacts are below the threshold of human perception (measured at a distance where the ends of the screen fall at the edge of of peripheral vision). From my readings many years ago on HDTV when I was looking at the maximum effective resolution of monitors, this holy grail was seen as fundamentally important not for computers, but the transition between film stock to digital projection.

I read and tried to understand your point, but I can only come to one conclusion: You are absolutely wrong with the beginning sentence of this quoted chapter. I'm sorry if I'm over-simplifying your post (guys, see page 21 for the full post) but I can safely say jaggies at 1080p are not below my thershold of perception and I don't consider myself super-human (nor is my eyesight anywhere near perfect).

The debate whether or not AA is worth it is certainly another issue. RR7 would really, relly need it at 720p, it is a shame the developers didn't deem it worthy. If at 1080p AA is beyond the PS3's graphical capabilities, then I guess that is an acceptable tradeoff for 1080p in this particular game, because I do like the added resolution.

Last edited by jtsiren on 16-Apr-2007 at 05:23 AM.
Last edited by jtsiren on 16-Apr-2007 at 05:22 AM.

@GregS

Quote:

GregS wrote: @jtsiren Quote: Look. The jaggies are there, maybe some don't see them or are bothered by them, but they are still there. At 1080p native the screen does nothing to the image (unless there is some filtering going on). Obviously screen-size contributes as well, small screen watched from a distance definitely shows less jaggies than a large watching near. This would be absolutely true - get close to the screen and there will be jaggies. However 16:9 was designed specifically to fill the centre of vision and the peripheral vision, getting up closer than that defeats the purpose of having wide screen or HDTV resolution. The jaggies don't disappear, they just cannot be seen.

...but I can see them at a usual viewing distance! I didn't look for them, they are plainly obvious. RR7 on PS3 doesn't have AA, so as a result it has more jaggies than it would with AA.

Last edited by jtsiren on 16-Apr-2007 at 05:22 AM.

@Lou

Quote:

Lou wrote: @jiyong Quote: Again my "friend" Lou, you have a strange memory. Care to repeat your accusation again? Where as MikeB is more of a pacifist PS3 supporter, you are just a sick extremist. Rather than analyze my every keystroke, why don't you get a hobby. The PS3 is available to you now. Do you own it yet? If so - play it. Or are you bored already a couple of weeks after launch? If you don't own it yet - what's stopping you? Is it the price?

When Trezzer was extremely aggresive when arguing with MikeB, you didn't seem to have a problem with it that people can get extreme.

[sarcasm] I told you before I don't have a hobby, as I don't own a PS3 [/sarcasm]

Before you will repeat yourself by saying I can't afford a PS3, I will refresh your memory, as I have told you before.

My profile indicates I live in The Netherlands, but because I have 6 month gig on Manhattan, I was too lazy too update the profile. My contract ends at the end of June and after that I'll probably take July off. After that I don't know yet where I'll be. It could be I go back to New York, Bangkok is still in the cards, or I might end up back in Europe.

And remember how I disputed your claim the PS3 was sitting on shelves all over the US right after X-Mas? Remember how I told you there wasn't any PS3 to be found on Manhattan until halfway February?

As my roommate doesn't own a HD TV, I decided to postpone buying the PS3. What would I do with a US PS3 and 1080p TV when I go back to Europe? Not to mention the lousy stereo of my roommate and I definitely not going to bring back a multi-channel audio setup with me. Although I could afford it easily, I think the money and risk involved is just too high. As I mentioned before, $1000 won't cover the rent for a month of my sublet. It's not that much higher, but still way below my anticipated $2000. So taken from that calculation, I can even spend almost $1000 more per month than I expected.

Again, I am not making this up, just take a look here: Me looking for an appartment in New York

I decided to buy a PSP and recently I bought a Sony VAIO UX 280p. With these products at least I know they will do exactly the things I want them to do, everywhere in the world. WIth the PS3 it depends on where I'll be in the world.

At the moment I am pondering if I should wait for a Canon 40D, or just go for the 400D with nice zoom lens and big and fast memory cards. It's not as if I have run out of options to spend my money.

Quote:

Since you are assuming "Premium", it's an assumption and that is in a way putting words in my mouth, I gave no specifics. You hunt me down for casual comments I make about the cost of Blu-ray players come this Christmas. Remember, they are already $600 standalone players and there are $700 B-R burners for the PC. The Xbox Elite is to be $480... So is a B-R player going to cost $300, $400 or $480 by this Christmas? Only you will actually care.

Exactly, you gave no specifics and I even gave you some slack by mentioning I assumed you meant the Premium. And I would say I made it very clear it was my assumption, so blaming me for putting words into your mouths is just plain pathetic. At that time the Elite was still just a rumour and also wasn't mentioned in that thread in regard to your predictions.

But I'll be happy to keep you to your exact words. That means you said XBOX, no 360 and that means $129. And it even could be the price of the XBOX drops even further for X-Mas.

Quote:

And this is my point - why do you care so much what I said? Like I said, get a hobby. Do you think you'll change my opinion of Sony and the PS3? Not going to happen. So what do you hope to gain?

This isn't our first clash Lou. You have annoyed me before and that's when I decided to make you see what you are doing and how you are behaving in this forum.

You keep making bold statements, off-topic remarks to make Sony look bad and as soon as we start criticizing you, you retract statements, blame us of going off-topic and try to twitch and turn your way out of your own created mess.

So all of a sudden you claim nobody cares about the future price of a BR player, but you are the one that brought it up. So if you are not interested in it, why did you bring it up?

We start criticizing you and voila, you start twitching and turning to get you out of a mess you created yourself. Just be a man and admit you made a foolish remark, instead of just trying to get rid of your own statements by saying you only made one prediction for 1-1-2008, or all of a sudden claim nobody is interested in the future price.

So I have one piece of advise to you when you respond. Other than the fact that I have hunted you down in threads where you made bold statements and downplayed on Sony, I don't see any reason why you should discuss my behaviour before you have started to look in the mirror. And also, don't bother discussing Sony, just be a man and look in the mirror.

When I make a stupid remark, I am a man about it and I will admit it. Remember how I admitted I read something wrong about the composite connection, as I thought you said component? Have you seen I apologized to Trezzer when I made a wrong assumption?

You want me off your back? Just tone down and admit you have made silly remarks in the past. So far I have all the evidence about your behaviour and remarks on my side. Did you also notice I left you alone in the Wii backwards compatibility thread? So it's not that I have something against you personally or against the Wii, I have something against your stupid bold remarks and your twitching and turning.

Quote:

I have owned Sony hardware. It sucked. I had NO problems with Nintendo hardware. Reading this thread about the lawsuits for poor hardware that Sony put out hasn't sunk in yet has it? Sure the PS3 is running great today. Tell me how it's running in a year or 2 then we'll see if anything's really change with Sony's quality...

I own a lot of Sony hardware. So far they haven't failed on me. I also have a chipped PS2 (besides an original PSTwo, for DL media games like GT4). Rumours are backup media can strain the laser of the PS2. Perhaps I was lucky, perhaps it was a good a thing I don't economize on my backup media and buy mostly TDK and recently Philips, as there is a rumour PS2 lasers can get strained by "cheap" backup media.

Sure we have to see how good the PS3 has been build. Sure there is a risk as BR involves a new type of laser. But as you say, we'll just wait and see.

@MikeB

Quote:

I was just adding another point of view, I agree your picture looks jaggie, I was just pointing out that with regard to experiencing jaggies people are having different experiences, overall though almost everyone seems to agree RR7 is visulally a step upwards from RR6.

You seem to miss one crucial point: RR7 doesn't, verified, period, use AA. I don't think anyone disagrees on this. Hence it will and does have jaggies in the sense they have been understood in the console world. No matter how many user experiences (without being able to assess their trustworthiness either) we quote, that fact will not change - unless a software update changes it.

You seem to be relatively new to the console scene, so I guess you weren't there when the last-generation jaggie discussions took place but this was a significant issue at PS2 launch and something Xbox consistently beat PS2 at, even in later titles where PS2 did improve somewhat. The higher resolution does make jaggies less obvious (OTOH, at the same time average screen size has gone ways up so more resolution is needed to compensate), but without AA there are still jaggies. (With AA there are still jaggies too, of course because pixel-edges will always be sharp, but AA helps a lot.)

Let us also not forget all those people running PS3 at 720p. RR7 is very jagged at that level. At 1080p, like I said, I can deal with the jaggies because the resolution in this game IMHO is a bigger benefit. In my opinion the PS3 has a better RR than Xbox 360, clearly and obviously. Nevertheless... RR6 especially at 720p is less jagged than RR7 and I don't think that is a matter of opinion.

Edit NOTE: I'm not saying everyone is or should be bothered by the jaggies. I'm just saying I don't think it is a matter of opinion if they are there or not. It is certainly a personal preference (as well as a configuration question, say screen size vs. sitting distance, eyesight etc.) whether or not one is bothered by them. How much they bother someone also tends to reflect how easily they see them.

This is like vertical banding, SDE or something like that on projectors. Some people will say it isn't there just because they are not sensitive to it, or because they don't know how to look for it, but that doesn't necessarily mean the issue wouldn't be there. In fact, in many of such cases people with instructions on what to look (and people who have no agenda to muddy waters) will have found the issue later on even if they have first posted adamantly that the issue wasn't there.

Quote:

Your experiences aren't per se worth more or less than than any other PS3 user experience and if people have a different take on things wouldn't make them just a fanboy per se.

Obviously. But you can't just take random quotes here and there and say, hey look, people disagree. On the Internet you can find quotes to support pretty much anything. To really asses this situation you have to look where those quotes are coming from, do those people have the means to really asses the situation properly. I think reviews and expert commentary would generally seem to agree RR7 has jaggies because it doesn't have AA, OTOH there are other things that are more contested which I wouldn't call so clear cut. But jaggies, I don't see why debate it because clearly AA is something that was cut out from the PS3 version.

Quote:

I prefer different writing style approaches as compared to you, you don't like that I post information which backs up my perspectives, some dissing them solely as PR or fanboyism.

I do think you style of posting and selecting quotes to support your perspective is very biased and you could pursue and benefit your "perspective" more with a more balanced posting and quoting style. You just seem to take too much at face value (that supports your perspective) and I guess you don't really have enough technical and historical experience in these matters to asses the value of the things you quote. That would be fine if you weren't so adamant about many things, but since you are... well, I don't wonder why so many people get frustrated at talking to you.

I know you don't agree, and we've been around that issue many times.

I did value Trezzer's input more and he seemed more reasonable and articulate (also technically) in his responses. Even when I disagreed I could IMHO better at least see why he felt like he did. You are more ambiguos and hard issues are not really easy to discuss with you, because you don't really discuss them but selectively choose few parts to comment and add a few, at times very irrelevant, third party quotes to the mix.

One example:

Compare your general posting style for example to the posting where I asked Trezzer about 1080p, see posting below this one... the message starting with "Well, basically I have the same view still: In some cases 1080p will work great because there are relatively few things going on - or because you simply don't need extra effects. In those cases 1080p will of course be fine..."

http://amigaworld.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?mode=viewtopic&topic_id=22772&forum=17&start=300&viewmode=flat&order=0#369646

In that posting Trezzer (now Anonymous) posts his position well and IMHO in a way that matches with my understanding of the technical realities and the overall feeling I have gathered from a multitude of sources. To put it short: my common-sense tells me that what Trezzer is saying is reasonable given all I know about these things, I can see no reason to attack his style there. So the thing to debate about Trezzer's 1080p stance isn't his way of articulating it - at least not after that explanation, and this goes for many things he has posted IMHO, it is solely the content.

Looking at the content of that 1080p posting, I can say I don't necessarily agree. I am more open to the possibility of 1080p exploited in ways that games are quite spectacular enough. I have said so in the past here as well. Of course that may not happen either, it is also just as possible the trade-offs will mean that 1080p this generation will always lack something 720p could give and we might see some more spectacular 720p games (compared to 1080p) even late in this generation. Common-sense and my technical understanding clearly and unequivocally says that at 720p you can do more than at 1080p. OTOH 1080p gives you the added benefit of more resolution so it comes down to trade-offs. What will the end-result be? Who knows. I hope 1080p prevails because that'd be great, but we'll see.

Has Trezzer said things I would object to? Probably. But what I'm trying to explain to you is that most of the time what he says matches better with my common-sense understanding of the console domain. I may not agree with everything of course, and have disagreed with him publicly, but it doesn't generate the same kind of negative backlash in me that some of the things you say (and the way you say them) does. If you don't understand why that is, it is because you don't understand what myself and some others object to in your posting style and apparently there is no easy way I can either get you to see that (let alone agree with or even change that).

Obviously there are trolls many times worse that I have just ignored, but that is simply because I haven't been having a discussion with them and they just haven't been worthy of attention.

Last edited by jtsiren on 16-Apr-2007 at 06:12 AM.
Last edited by jtsiren on 16-Apr-2007 at 06:10 AM.
Last edited by jtsiren on 16-Apr-2007 at 06:04 AM.

@jtsiren

Quote:

Let us also not forget all those people running PS3 at 720p. RR7 is very jagged at that level. At 1080p, like I said, I can deal with the jaggies because the resolution in this game IMHO is a bigger benefit. In my opinion the PS3 has a better RR than Xbox 360, clearly and obviously. Nevertheless... RR6 especially at 720p is less jagged than RR7 and I don't think that is a matter of opinion.

Most XBox 360 versions are much darker than the PS3 version. If you darken everything all color values will be closer to each other and you will notice fewer jaggies.

If you darken the whole image output, like is done in many XBox 360 versions it's harder to distinguish individual pixels. IMO many XBox 360 games are too dark.

Quote:

In that posting Trezzer (now Anonymous) posts his position well and IMHO in a way that matches with my understanding of the technical realities

Personally I don't see anything wrong with my clarification and provided insight for example provided above. IMO you can't claim any high ground with regard to objectivity. Please don't divert the discussion towards posting styles yet again.

Last edited by MikeB on 16-Apr-2007 at 08:46 AM.
Last edited by MikeB on 16-Apr-2007 at 08:42 AM.

@MikeB

Quote:

Most XBox 360 versions are much darker than the PS3 version. If you darken everything all color values will be closer to each other and you will notice fewer jaggies.

Perhaps, but RR6 on Xbox 360 uses AA and RR7 on PS3 doesn't. For the life of me I don't understand why you'd want to argue that or try to muddy the issue. Brightening Xbox 360 image doesn't remove the anti-aliasing because factually there are less contrast in the line between coloured areas (artificial contrast) because of AA. I have played with colour settings, darkening PS3 image doesn't make it anti-aliased.

Quote:

IMO you can't claim any high ground with regard to objectivity.

I think I am more objective than you are, but obviously I suffer from subjectivity like anyone. Obviously it is up to others to judge and compare our styles and what they think about them.

@jtsiren

Quote:

Perhaps, but RR6 on Xbox 360 uses AA and RR7 on PS3 doesn't. For the life of me I don't understand why you'd want to argue that or try to muddy the issue.

IMO, you try to muddy the issue. So does RR7 look better on your 1080p display or not? Yes or no? That was the core of the original discussion.

Sure AA, can significantly improve the image quality, I never stated anything else and of course the PS3 is more than powerful enough to have this added to RR7, but Namco's RR7 game engine did not include AA, if they thought this was much of an issue I am sure they would have put more effort into this. AA is more needed when there is more color contrast present in your game.

I understand Gregs's take though, if you would draw a single image in 1080p no AA would be needed. However there are seperate images in a game and for instance a car may look more or less jaggier with different background colors.

@MikeB

Quote:

IMO, you try to muddy the issue. So does RR7 look better on your 1080p display or not? Yes or no? That was the core of the original discussion.

At 1080p, yes. I have said this countless times.

No, I do not try to muddy the issue. The AA issue is separate from other issues concerning Ridge Racer. At 720p it looks worse because of lacking AA.

No, I don't think that was the core of the original discussion either. I think it was to compare in detail differences between the platforms (or this game in particular), for some reason you want to gloss over this one (amongst few) difference where Xbox 360 version actually is better.

Quote:

Sure AA, can significantly improve the image quality, I never stated anything else and of course the PS3 is more than powerful enough to have this added to RR7, but Namco's RR7 game engine did not include AA, if they thought this was much of an issue I am sure they would have put more effort into this. AA is more needed when there is more color contrast present in your game.

On RR6 there is anti-aliasing, though.

Quote:

I understand Gregs's take though, if you would draw a single image in 1080p no AA would be needed. However there are seperate images in a game and for instance a car may look more or less jaggier with different background colors.

I don't quite get Greg's take. Rendering a single image at 1080p without anti-aliasing non-straight lines separating coloured areas would still result in jaggies. In nature there aren't pixels between things, that is why you need to anti-alias so that non-straight lines don't look pixellated = jagged. 1080p is not that high of a resolution that it would eliminate visible pixels completely. This is why fonts are anti-aliased on modern desktops too, many boasting far better resolutions than 1080p (although looked at closer).

Last edited by jtsiren on 16-Apr-2007 at 09:06 AM.
Last edited by jtsiren on 16-Apr-2007 at 09:04 AM.

@jtsiren

Quote:

On RR6 there is anti-aliasing, though

The RR6 game engine apparently does not include anti-aliasing, the XBox 360 does some image filtering by default on all games regardless of the game engine.

Quote:

think it was to compare in detail differences between the platforms (or this game in particular), for some reason you want to gloss over this one (amongst few) difference where Xbox 360 version actually is better.

I am sorry, but overall Namco added a lot of additional detail to Ridge Racer 7. Image filtering does not add details.

Quote:

I don't quite get Greg's take. Rendering a single image at 1080p without anti-aliasing non-straight lines separating coloured areas would still result in jaggies.

No, if you hand draw an image you can hand pick the colors for every pixel. Performing AA on the image could degrade the originally intended image.

Quote:

1080p is not that high of a resolution that it would eliminate visible pixels completely. This is why fonts are anti-aliased on modern desktops too, many boasting far better resolutions than 1080p (although looked at closer).

The reason to use AA is mainly due to variations in background color.

Last edited by MikeB on 16-Apr-2007 at 10:03 AM.

@MikeB

Quote:

The RR6 game engine apparently does not include anti-aliasing, the XBox 360 does some image filtering by default on all games regardless of the game engine.

Links? Xbox 360 does seem to offer some built-in benefits on the graphics front, perhaps this is linked to those. Clearly the end result is anti-aliased, for whatever reason using whatever technique - I don't claim to know about the engine, so it may be something else doing it too. Trezzer discussed some of the ways this was done on PGR3.

Quote:

Quote: think it was to compare in detail differences between the platforms (or this game in particular), for some reason you want to gloss over this one (amongst few) difference where Xbox 360 version actually is better. I am sorry, but overall Namco added a lot of additional detail to Ridge Racer 7. Image filtering does not add details.

Of course it does not add details. Where did I claim it did? All I said is that this is one *difference* where the Xbox 360 version is actually better than the PS3 version, as in it has something useful the PS3 version does not. One other is rumble which is helpful, but not crucial as I said. It also seems to load faster than the PS3 version, but I haven't measured it. RR7 also has a few more graphical glitches and frame-rate issues as far as I can tell. Other than that, RR7 is either equal or superior in every other way (at least from what I've seen so far). Over all, RR7 is the better game.

I thought you wanted honest, thorough comparisons? I know I do.

Quote:

No, if you hand draw an image you can hand pick the colors for every pixel. Performing AA on the image could degrade the originally intended image.

Well, yes, you would then "anti-alias" it manually, but nevertheless you need to do something to make sharp edges look more natural.

Quote:

The reason to use AA is mainly due to variations in background color.

Come again? AA is used to smoothen unnaturally sharp edges. Of course high contrast makes AA more necessary than low, but at this very moment I am looking at a 1600x1200 pixel Windows screen with different fonts on different backgrounds (some anti-aliased and some not) and the anti-aliased fonts look more natural and beautiful and individual pixels are clearly visible in non-antialiased fonts.

@jtsiren

Quote:

Come again? AA is used to smoothen unnaturally sharp edges. Of course high contrast makes AA more necessary than low, but at this very moment I am looking at a 1600x1200 pixel Windows screen with different fonts on different backgrounds (some anti-aliased and some not) and the anti-aliased fonts look more natural and beautiful and individual pixels are clearly visible in non-antialiased fonts.

Like I said before an artist can hand pick the colors. However with changing background colors the used shades may not suit the end result, so you could spot the individual pixels. For example on a red background shades of black and red may look better than shades of black and yellow, on a yellow background the opposite may be the case.

And you are right the more high quality the display is in terms of data transfer the more relevant AA becomes, however the higher the resolution the less relevant. With the digital transmission of data the exact color of the pixel is being shown, using analog methods could already serve as some kind of filter as the signal peaks often get distorted.

BTW, have you tried to adjust the brightness and contrast of your screen to look more like the XBox 360 version? Do you notice fewer jaggies?

Last edited by MikeB on 16-Apr-2007 at 10:29 AM.

@MikeB

Quote:

Like I said before an artist can hand pick the colors. However with changing background colors the used shades may not suit the end result, so you could spot the individual pixels. For example on a red background shades of black and red may look better than shades of black and yellow, on a yellow background the opposite may be the case.

Of course. This then comes down to different anti-aliasing and sampling techniques as well as alpha channels etc. where the color of the background can be taken into consideration. Obviously there are different levels of anti-aliasing out there, some better than the other.

Quote:

BTW, have you tried to adjust the brightness and contrast of your screen to look more like the XBox 360 version? Do you notice fewer jaggies?

I have to see what it exactly does. I have played enough to know that anti-aliasing (it has a distinct quality) is visible on Xbox 360 independent of the range of my tried brightness/contrast, but I will have to see how PS3 vs. PS3 compares when using different levels of brightness/contrast. I can imagine brightness having some effect, I'll have to see what that is. Of course that won't anti-alias per se, but it might make contrast differences less and thus lessen the perception of jaggies.

I do prefer the brightness of PS3 in Ridge Racer with the exception of some shadow/lightning scenes where Xbox 360 has more depth and character. Maybe this has to do with my background of playing RR on the PSP, which looks more like RR7 than RR6 in terms of brightness and colour. OTOH, one could probably calibrate both to look pretty much the same with display's colour, gamma etc. controls... but as is, I do prefer the PS3 look in this game.

Last edited by jtsiren on 16-Apr-2007 at 10:48 AM.
Last edited by jtsiren on 16-Apr-2007 at 10:47 AM.

@MikeB

Quote:

And you are right the more high quality the display is in terms of data transfer the more relevant AA becomes, however the higher the resolution the less relevant. With the digital transmission of data the exact color of the pixel is being shown, using analog methods could already serve as some kind of filter as the signal peaks often get distorted.

Oh and credit where credit is due. I think that was a reasonable statement. I'm glad our discussion evolved to gather some understanding.

@jtsiren

Color contrast is very important with regard to jaggie perception. Two XBox 360 screenshots, equal level of zoom to highlight the pixels:





Although the amount of jaggyness is about the same, the red car looks less jaggie as the darker colors are closer in perception to the black pixels than the yellow used for the other car.

Quote:

I think that was a reasonable statement.

Thanks, but I don't write messages with the intend to upset people.

Last edited by MikeB on 16-Apr-2007 at 11:21 AM.

@MikeB

Quote:

Thanks, but I don't write messages with the intend to upset people.

Oh, I never thought you would. At least not all the time. I just thought it would be good to acknowledge where we agree.

Thanks for the screenshots, I'll play with the settings.

@MikeB

Quote:

Although the amount of jaggyness is about the same, the red car looks less jaggie as the darker colors are closer in perception to the black pixels than the yellow used for the other car.

LOL, all that I can see are JPEG-artifacts.

@hatschi

Such JPG artifacts would be smaller than the pixels being shown here, the original was a high quality screenshot. Both pictures have the same level of compression and came from the same source.

@MikeB

And are useless due to JPG artifacts. The JPG artifacts *are* what you see there.

_________________