The fog and distance blur is kind of nice actually.
I can see why some would want to turn it off - but having it on adds some level or realism.
At the risk of being an unbearable pedant...
The "fog" is still the same in all the pictures, you haven't reduced that. The de-saturation and blue-tint is the same in all pictures - this is fog. Makes sense that it is not a post-process, it can be done in the vertex/pixel shaders when the geometry is rendered.
What does disappear when you disable post-processing look to include:
- Depth-of-Field. This is what makes the things in the distance blurrier.
- Bloom. This is what makes the bright areas of the image glow even brighter but softer, and creep into neighbouring darker areas (e.g. see how the pale-blue-ness of the sky bleeds into the trunks of the palm-trees in the background on the far-right.)
Those things are typical full-screen post-process effects.
Also, despite looking long and hard with my "trained-eye", I don't see any evidence of super-sampling in your second set of shots compared to the first. What I do see different is ground-clutter objects on/off. Super-sampling doesn't "add shiny things to the world", it's a method of anti-aliasing - it removes unsightly jagged edges and pixel crawling/flickering etc.
Nice images though.
Sweet FX injector set up right will let you keep all your post processing, edit it a bit how you like, and do away with the 'fog', which is really just desaturated color.
So you need third-party hack to do such basic things as full-screen post-processing, bloom & co.?
How do you manage to make full screen screenshots though?
Is there some button that disabled the interface? Because i'm yet to find it.
Alvarez Thanks for explaining. I really do not understand any of these settings. I have tried to read wiki but since it is English I can not get what these settings _really_ do. I see that some make edges smoother, others change lightning... but when I try to get idea what is best combination of settings I just get more confused. ._.
I took more pictures. Now I'm starting to see what post-processing does for light, but I really can not see any real the difference between native and supersample. What should I look?
Supersample and post-processing high:
Supersample and post-processing none:
Native and post-processing high:
Subsample and post-processing high:
Subsample and post-processing none:
It looks to me like your "native" shots still contain some sort of Anti-aliasing. What GFX card do you have? It's possible that you have hardware MSAA or something happening.
Based on your screenshots - don't bother with super-sampling as you are not getting much quality difference but you will be paying a hefty price in terms of wasted GPU performance. (This doesn't apply to everyone!!! Your mileage may vary!!!!)
Avoid "sub-sampling". This just blurs the whole screen.
Good comparison/explanation of super-sampling here :-
---------- Post added 2012-10-20 at 02:20 PM ----------
3rd party "injectors" are very clever, but I would personally tend to stick with the games-own implementations of post-processing if they exist.
Thanks for the link, helped a bit to understand the difference of these things. ^_^
My whole computer is this:
CPU: i5 2500k (no overclock done)
CPU Cooler: Noctua NH-D14
MoBo: ASROCK Z68 EXTREME4 GEN3
Memory: 8GB Corsair Vengeance Low Profile
Hard Drive: 1TB Western Digital Caviar Black
SSD: 120GB Corsair Force Series GT
Video Card: AMD Radeon HD 7970
Power Supply: Corsair TX650W V2