Most used AA Filter

[pixelstudio]

Hi there people,

I was wondering what the most used filter is, seperated in two a couple of categories:

Still images - Interior
Still images - exterior
Animation

------------------
We use this the most:
Interior > Catmull-rom or Mitchell
Exterior > Catmull-rom or Mitchell
Animation > area

I i'm trying out some filters and hope to see some pro's and con's. perhaps people can share knowledge? what about the vray-sinc filter? what value is generaly good for a sharp image?

Cheers

[sv]

I always use Quadratic. Animation / Stills.
Just after many years of trialling and error, i've found this to be the best all round.

The other filters will undoubtedly have advantages - soften can be good for AA on bright highlights, VraySinc is a sharpening filter and can be good for stills...

I've just personally found Quadratic is good all round, but would have thought people use a wide variety.

Although i used it for a while, I've given up though on Catmull as i don't like black lines around highlights....

[Joost Ink]

I also use quadratic for animation and stills, like SV.
If I remember right, somewhere I read that sharpening filters can cause problem especially in combination with LC.

[Neilg]

None, for everything.

[pixelstudio]

hmm none you say, so you do shaperning as a post process, either in photoshop or in a video program. well i'm very curious about the reason you choose to use none...
is there an advantage in speed or quality?

[Morbid Angel]

quadratic indeed. One of the best.

[victor.nsy]

Been using area for a while then switch to catmull or mitchell ... after reading this I think
I wanna try quadratic ...

[beestee]

We have jumped around quite a bit with this, and have been using area for quite some time now for everything due to it's simplicity. I guess we could use none, but it is nice to have the raw render in a "ready for client viewing" format.

We usually extend our resolution quite a bit and handle sharpening in photoshop, processing with bi-cubic sharper for the down scale. There is just something about the rendertime AA that can never replicate the nice detail you can get from a post render down-scale. Maybe I need to take another look at quadratic though as it could save us a little render time.

[davision]

Isn't quadratic slower than 'area'?

[^Lele^]

hmm none you say, so you do shaperning as a post process, either in photoshop or in a video program. well i'm very curious about the reason you choose to use none...
is there an advantage in speed or quality?

I use none for stills either.
I found out that the filtering does have an impact on rendertimes.
I should say HAD, as it's been a while since I tried this, and the speed hit may not be as big as it used to be.
Still, without filtering and DMC AA I can generally up one or two max subdivs for the same render time as with filtering on.
Anything the picture needs is then done in post.
Note that for animation filtering may be required to smooth out some noise issues that are unimportant (invisible) in stills.

[Aldaryn]

None for stills here too.

Best regards,
A.

[giraffe]

I was using catmull-rom for stills.
but after starting using Apple LCD display, things start to look sharper than it is with my older monitor.
All my older renders looked TOO sharp on my new monitor.
So I changed to mitchell.

(Honestly I dont know which is more correct.. and is confusion for me that people see d
fferemtly with different monitors and hard to know what to do. which monitor to trust )

[pixelstudio]

Hmm my next interior i'm also going to none, and see if i can get the same "sharp" result as with filtering on.

i tested a simple torrus with two filter and one with none, rendertimes were:

None:2m 25.8s
Catmull-rom:2m 56.3s
VraySinc :2m 37.0s

seems it has an impact on render speed. however i also see some difference in the shadow parts, i used reasonable low GI so perhaps thats the case but i'm also wondering if any1 else has seens other difference then the sharpness when using thos AA filters?

and indeed it's confusing Giraffe, not only the sharpness wich is way differend on each lcd monitor but also the whole color. but well

[invisiblecities]

None also,
For animations we put Reelsmart blur and dof on so its seems unnecessary. Stilll.... Im not a big fan of that soopa sharp cg look. Cameras dont make images like that and thats the "look " we try to get.

Adam

[beestee]

After some small tests it seems that area gives me a slightly sharper result than quadratic, plus it is a little faster...sticking with area for the time being. I would also note that quadratic seems to remove a lot of surface noise, something that would definately be desireable for an animation but probably not so much for stills.