Image Quality Comparison: Radeon Gallium3D vs. Catalyst

[Qaridarium]

I get upset every time I see this.
IMO, anyone writing an article about image quality and presents the data (i.e images) using lossy compression (that had nothing to do with the comparison) just makes themselves look silly as it distorts the data.
I have unfortunately seen this on other tech sites as well.
*sigh*

Ironic: he only use jpeg because its opensource and png is bad closed source software!

[mangobrain]

Ironic: he only use jpeg because its opensource and png is bad closed source software!

lolwhut? http://www.libpng.org/

Seriously, that's not even trolling, that's just ignorance.

[Tgui]

lolwhut? http://www.libpng.org/

Seriously, that's not even trolling, that's just ignorance.

Now expect a five page rambling, meandering, and poorly punctuated reply. Just look what you've done.

[Qaridarium]

lolwhut? http://www.libpng.org/

Seriously, that's not even trolling, that's just ignorance.

LOL you don't read the "Ironic" word LOL ...

YOU FAIL!!...

[jakubo]

if you look closely you can see that this blur has the shape of the head and shoulders with these red lights on the helmet.
considering the discussion about webgl some time ago...

[Silverthorn]

I think what's *actually* going here is that both r300g and r600g are rendering the bloom in the wrong place in the "Enemy" scene. It's been shunted down quite a lot, and possibly left a bit, compared to where it's supposed to be. This explains the odd pink glow on the floor, the dim wall pattern overlaid on top of the enemy, and the white glow to the side of the weapon muzzle: none of these are present in the Catalyst rendering, but the areas which *should* be bright are noticeably brighter.

IMHO, this isn't a difference in image quality, it's just a bug in the open-source drivers. Or - possibly, but less likely - a bug in Nexuiz which does not manifest itself when using Catalyst due to differences in driver code.

What we need is a driver which passes all conformance tests. The only thing we can say right now is that no driver renders things correctly. If Nexuiz is following the standard is probably impossible to say right now.

[Qaridarium]

What we need is a driver which passes all conformance tests. The only thing we can say right now is that no driver renders things correctly. If Nexuiz is following the standard is probably impossible to say right now.

really? why it is so hart to pass all tests ?

[mangobrain]

LOL you don't read the "Ironic" word LOL ...

YOU FAIL!!...

It might possibly have been a teensy bit ironic had your statement actually been true, but calling something ironic doesn't magically make it ironic. You're currently failing harder than Michael did when he used lossy compression in the first place. It's like those shops that put up notices in the window titled "POLITE NOTICE". You don't get to tell me it's polite up front, I have to read it and decide whether or not it's polite. Otherwise you might just as well put "POLITE NOTICE: F**K YOU!".

Face it, Q, your posts have been rapidly going downhill of late.

[mangobrain]

really? why it is so hart to pass all tests ?

Why don't you go and write your magical, bug-free driver then come back and tell us how hard it was? Have you ever actually *written* any code?

[smitty3268]

really? why it is so hart to pass all tests ?

The standard is so large, many tests don't even have a full definition of what it is to be correct. Lots of corner cases don't get fully defined, just like in the HTML standards.