3 ms·

Dumb question ... but isn't the easiest AA method rendering at a higher resolution and downsampling the result? I see that it's not feasible for a lot of compl

• ishitatsuyuki 6y ago
  piet-gpu contributor here. You're right that supersampling is the easiest way to achieve AA. However, its scalability issues are immense: for 2D rendering it's typically recommended to use 32x for a decent quality AA, but as the cost of supersampling scales linearly (actually superlinearly due to memory/register pressure), it becomes more than a magnitude slower than the baseline. So if you want to do anything that is real-time (e.g. smooth page zoom without resorting to prerendered textures which becomes blurry), supersampling is mostly an unacceptable choice. What is more practical is some form of adaptive supersampling: a lot of pixels are filled by only one path and don't require supersampling. There's also some more heuristics that can be used: one that I want to try out in piet-gpu is to exploit the fact that in 2D graphics, most pixels are only covered by at most two paths. So as a base line we can track only two values per pixel plus a coverage mask, then in rare occasions of three or more shapes overlapping, fall back to full supersampling. This should keep the cost amplification more under control.
• deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
• Const-me 6y ago
  The short answer — it depends. What you described is called super-sampling. Supersampling is indeed not terribly hard to implement, the problem is performance overhead. Many parts of graphics pipeline scale linearly with count of pixels. If you render at 16x16 upscaled resolution, that gonna result in 256x more pixel shader invocations, and 256x the fill rate. There’s a good middle ground called MSAA https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multisample_anti-aliasing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multisample_anti-aliasing In practice, 16x MSAA often delivers very good results for both 3D and 2D. In case of 2D, even low-end PC GPUs are fast enough with 8x or 16x MSAA level. Initial versions of my library used that method. The problem was, Raspberry Pi 4 GPU is way slower than PC GPUs. The performance with 4x or 2x MSAA was too low for 1920x1080 resolution, even just for 2D. Maybe the problem is actual hardware, maybe it’s a performance bug in Linux kernel or GPU drivers, I have no idea. I didn’t want to mess with the kernel, I wanted a library that works fast on officially supported 32-bit Debian Linux. That’s why I bothered to implement my own method for antialiasing.
  • esperent 6y ago
    > Maybe the problem is actual hardware I think it is - as far as I know most modern GPUd implement MSAA at the hardware level, and that's why even a mobile GPU can handle. 8x MSAA at 1080p. I don't know anything about the Raspberry Pi GPU, but maybe you'd have better results switching to FXAA or SMAA there (by which I mean faster, not visually better).
    • Const-me 6y ago
      > maybe you'd have better results switching to FXAA or SMAA there I’ve thought about that, but decided I want to prioritize the quality. 16x MSAA was almost perfect in my tests, 8x MSAA was still good. With levels lower than that, the output quality was noticeably worse than Direct2D, which was my baseline. And another thing. I have found out stroked lines much thinner than 1px after transforms need special handling, otherwise they don’t look good: too aliased, too thick, and/or causing temporal artifacts while zooming continuously. Some real-world vector art, like that ghostscript’s tiger from Wikipedia, has quite a lot of such lines.
• dahart 6y ago
  High quality supersampling is about equally hard in 2D and 3D, since the result is 2D. It is also the most common solution in both 2D and 3D graphics, so your instinct is reasonably good. But, font and path rendering, for example in web browsers and/or with PDF or SVG - these things can benefit in both efficiency and in quality from using analytic antialiasing methods. 2D vector rendering is a place where doing something harder has real payoffs. Just a fun aside - not all supersampling algorithms are equally good. If you use the wrong filter, it's can be very surprising to discover that there are ways you can take a million samples per pixel or more and never succeed in getting rid of aliasing artifacts. (An example is if you just average the samples, aka use a Box Filter.) I have a 2D digital art project to render mathematical functions that can have arbitrarily high frequencies. I spent money making large format prints of them, so I care a lot about getting rid of aliasing problems. I've ended up with a Gaussian filter, which is a tad blurrier than experts tend to like, because everything else ends up giving me visible aliasing somewhere.
  • ghusbands 6y ago
    Aside to the aside - you might find that applying a sharpening filter after the Gaussian gives a good result, as it won't reintroduce every kind of aliasing, and can reduce the appearance of blurriness.