Msi True Pixel

[Marketta Filipovich]

Ithink what would give you the best possible smoothing would be to update the objects position as you would normally, but keep that in a separate Vector3 position variable. That variable would always change smoothly as if it was a non-pixel smoothed transform.position.

its possible, but extremely hard. Doing pixel perfect in unity is self flagelation, you should just use an engine that is not 3d if you want pixel perfect in its truest form. Trying to do it in unity is possible but it is going to break your head if you are not a pro coder.

now this is the 2nd part of the post where i say that you can just do semi pixel perfect to the point where ppl wont even notice its not, see stardew valley ( while not made in unity its a non pixel perfect game that could easily have been done in unity)

The concept of True Pixel Processing aims to preserve all pixel information from initial exposure to final data products, while maintaining the exceptional image geometry UltraCams are renowned for. By precisely and holistically modeling the relative path and intensity of light rays passing through the camera's optical system - considering factors such as motion blur, lens blur, and shutter behavior - and utilizing state-of-the-art algorithms, True Pixel Processing produces sharper images with less noise in shaded areas, all while preserving fine details. This innovative, hybrid approach fully incorporates the well-established Adaptive Motion Compensation technique (AMC) in a multidirectional manner, further improving image quality.

In today's fast-paced processing environments, producing high-quality products within a reasonable time frame is essential. That's why all the algorithms used in True Pixel Processing are designed to fully leverage the capabilities of the CPU, including advanced memory management techniques that enhance scalability.

With this new technology, we are confident that our customers will be able to produce even better-quality and natural-looking RGB images with minimal noise, while maintaining the superior geometry that they have come to expect from Vexcel Imaging.

Scene depth and pixel depth are camera based, rather than world position based, and this creates problems when looking around because things with fade in and out in the center of the screen because the edges of the screen read a different depth

Has anyone else discovered this issue or know of a workaround? Switching to Pixel Preview displays it to scale, but for me, this is unusable in terms of performance. When not in Pixel Preview, displaying artwork at 66.67% is actually to scale...

From my question: "Switching to Pixel Preview displays it to scale, but for me, this is unusable in terms of performance.". I have a new 15" MacBook Pro outputting to a %k monitor - the size of the files we generally work with makes this not an option. .

Also, I don't want to work in a pixelated view. A huge percentage of the devices we design for are retina. I'd just love to be able to display artwork at 1:1, which Illustrator has done for as long as I can remember when using pixels as a unit.

It seems to me they have fixed the issue of print related artwork not displaying correctly at scale and in the process have broken web related artwork. Arguably pixels are more important (and certainly easier as the artwork is being displayed on pixels!) as there is no way to 'measure' a pixel in the same way we have been measuring print artwork on screen for decades!

I just wanted to ensure other people were experiencing this and that there was no way to fix the problem in settings. Pixel preview does in indeed sort out the issue and artwork is display at the correct size, but as I said, I don't really want to work in a pixelated view. Moreover, with my setup the performance is just completely unusable.

Hey! I thought I was alone in the universe... After last update, Illustrator has been driving me nuts with my web mock-up projects. I thought I was working on bad size, as visualy everything was bigger, but objects and font sizes were typed correct in pixels... also actual size was 100% (something that illustrator has been exact always). By the way, for all who work on Windows, try to make a test screen capture, and paste it on Illustrator or photoshop... it will be pasted almost the triple of the real size. It's obvious that the copy of the screen is made in real monitor pixels (on my iMac 27 retina running Windows, a 1920px wide web page capture, is pasted as a 4080px image width size)

It seems that the fix print visualization (now exact), has been done at expenses of pixel scale preview. I suppose that the easy way to solve it, should be a new option button to set the resolution of the end product when create a new document. I mean... if 100% pixel, let it as 1:1... if for print, 300ppi, 175ppi, etc, let Illustrator make the calculations for us (I rather prefer to click the cmd+1, than create custom views and always acces them by clicking the view menu)

By the way... I don't know if it happens on Mac OS, but I read somewhere, that the current october update of windows 10 is managing the retina displays -and in general hi density screens- with new tools (also read that new Windows would ship with a new Snipping-tool update, suppose to correct such issues). Maybe is this new Windows management of screen resolutions that fools adobe system of size conversion.

Hey olioconnor, how did you the calculations to get these 66.67%? I suppose it should be calculated based on our monitor pixel density or resolution. I've get a 70% on my 27 retina iMac, with a trial error switching on and off with presentation mode on Illustrator.

Hey, Flandres, for me I took a screenshot of my display and used as a reference, setting the zoom level manually until I found a perfect fit. For it was 72%. I image that on different screens it may vary. Creating an artboard of the same size of the screen may be useful as a reference, by using CTRL+0, then fine tune manually.

thanks Leo! its a good "analogic" way to get the numbers I remember doing the same trick many years ago in an electronic music project. I calculated the beats per minute of a MP3 song using a screenshot of the song's waveform, and then stretching it in Photoshop to match another with known BPM in a lower layer... the result percentage of the stretch were enough to calculate the MP3 speed

Hi - I was wondering in cryoSPARC where to see what the system is calculating the refined pixel size and Cs values at? I know those values will refine from what you put in at setup based on the jobs, but I was wondering where that information can be pulled from. Thanks

When you do refinements, with CTF refinement options turned on, information for some of the CTF groups (number to plot) will be shown in the event log but at the third or second to last checkpoint. If you have several groups I would recommend opening up the .cs file and averaging the group Cs values, to compute the real pixel size.

The formula is true pixel size = (wrong pixel size) * (true Cs / refined Cs)^1/4 [1]. If you have images with gold in them, I recommend magCalEM [2] to estimate the pixel size. On our Krios with the correct pixel size, I see Cs refine to 2.70004 or something like that, within a micron or few microns of the true value.

If you have the resources, you can estimate the best Cs (maybe it is not exactly 2.7) and reprocess (Import, Patch Motion, Patch CTF, curate) with different Cs from the import. Then to really determine differences extract the same particles (reassign particles job) and see if the different Cs does indeed impact your data. Large deviations could be wrong pixel size, but with .eer upsampling the Import job should account for all of this.

I know windows display resolution is nominally 96dpi, but for my purposes I want a better guess. I understand this information may not always be available or accurate (e.g. older CRT displays), but I imagine with the prevelance of LCD displays that this should be possible!

Oh, wait! You wanted actual, hold a ruler up to the monitor and measure, size?! No. Not possible using any OS services. The OS doesn't know the actual dimensions of the monitor, or how the user has it calibrated. Some of this information is theoretically detectable, but it's not deterministic enough for the OS to use it reliably, so it doesn't.

Once you know (or think you know) what the monitor's diagonal size and physical aspect ratio are, then you you can calculate it's physical width and height. A2 + B2 = C2, so a few calculations will give it to you good:

Of course, all of this is invalid if the user doesn't have a suitable resolution, the monitor has wacky non-square pixels, or it's an older analog monitor and the controls aren't adjusted properly for the display to fill the entire physical screen. Or worse, it could be a projector.

3a8082e126