The output quality of the XVR-4000 vs that of the V12

Irinikus

Member
Dec 16, 2019
85
57
18
South Africa
www.youtube.com
Quake III is in no way optimised to run on this hardware, hence the low frame rate, and the colour palates also seem to differ quite substantially, in that the XVR-4000's is far more bland!

The XVR-4000 employs full screen antialiasing, whereas the V12 offers no antialiasing. (As you will see in this post, there are pros and conns to this, depending on what filter you're using!)

The output quality of the XVR-4000 in Quake3 (Max settings)







The output quality of the V12 in Quake3 (Max settings)







The textures on the V12 do appear to be sharper, as there's no antialiasing being applied to them, so there are pro's and cons to full screen antialiasing.

There are lots of jaggies in the V12's rendering in comparison.

There are also artefacts present around the lava in the V12's rendering that aren't present in the XVR-4000's rendering.

Here's a combined picture:



I have managed to sharpen up the textures rendered by the XVR-4000, by applying a catmall filter. (the right-hand side of this image shows the catmull filter in effect)



These are the filter options available for the XVR-4000 and I think that I was originally using the Mitchell filter.

 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Elf

About us

  • Silicon Graphics User Group (SGUG) is a community for users, developers, and admirers of Silicon Graphics (SGI) products. We aim to be a friendly hobbyist community for discussing all aspects of SGIs, including use, software development, the IRIX Operating System, and troubleshooting, as well as facilitating hardware exchange.

User Menu