Does a 1920x1200@120Hz monitor even exist?

[xDezor]

Ah, thanks for clearing that up for me Toasty.

 

[elvn]

As for 120hz, the consensus is that it still blurs.. just not as much. I'm finding the most modern, extremely high resolution texture mapped games , + bumpmapping depth and shaders, make my (60hz ips) lcd screen blur even more obvious and eye wrenching than before since the blur on fast FoV movement washes out that extremely high detail+3d depth my eyes "have a lock on" every time. It strains my eyes and is much more obnoxious to me than more than simpler textured/older games.

Most people seem to agree with this representation of 60hz/120hz *LCD/ CRT blur in games.

So it appears to me that 120hz vs the limitation of LCD pixel response times and retinal retention blur would still not be enough to retain the focus on texture detail (much like fine text scrawled on a surface which gets smudged out) and bump map depth.

Its like you have goggles filled with some liquid-gel and every time you turn quickly, your eyes see all fine detail lost in a blurring. 120hz might replace your goggles with a fluid which has double the viscosity, blurring near half as much.. but its still a lousy prescription compared to clear sight imo.

If I was going to wish for a monitor it would be better than lcd response times on a thin high color, uniform , very high ppi monitor with virtually no bezels. Once you get well beyond 1920x whatever and its ppi and into much higher resolutions and ppi, the vertical shouldn't really matter anymore like the 1920's for desktop work. For games,the main gripe I would have regarding the 1080p resolution being the only 120hz is the ppi once you go over 23" (like a 27"), and the fact that they are TN. LG's QFHD ips panel is supposedly going to be 16:9 at around 27" and 166ppi 3840x2160 .. like a block of four small 1080p 16:9's, yet with a very high ppi and more appropriate screen size for at normal desk viewing distances. Unfortunately it is going to be 60hz, and even if it were 120hz the extreme textures and bumpmapping on the most demanding modern games would still blur and be washed out pretty badly I suspect.

 

[wabbitseason]

3D games are not based on pixels, so how do you decide which resolutions should show more information and which resolutions should show less?

While you are a guru on monitors toasty, 3D games is not an argument.

Deciding which resolutions should show more information is extremely simple. More total pixels should equal more information. All this FoV horiz+ is bullshit. What law of physics states that the vertical field of view must be fixed? It's beyond stupid.

 

[kohan69]

ALRIGHT THEN.

Anyone know any 4:3 crt monitors that do 1920x1200@90+ Hz?

 

[larkin]

that gif is the dumbest thing ever, if u look at the ghosting pics of the newer 120hz they look great. You can only parade that gif around for so many years.

 

[ToastyX]

Deciding which resolutions should show more information is extremely simple. More total pixels should equal more information. All this FoV horiz+ is bullshit. What law of physics states that the vertical field of view must be fixed? It's beyond stupid.

It's not that simple. Ideally, information should be independent from pixels, 3D games or not.

Consider a 24" 1920x1200 monitor vs. a 24" 3840x2400 monitor. In a 3D game, they should show the same field of view. The only difference is the 3840x2400 monitor would be sharper, more detailed, and less pixelated.

The same should apply to user interfaces. If I were using a 24" 3840x2400 monitor, I wouldn't want tiny windows and text. I should be able to scale the interface to the appropriate size.

On the topic of 120 Hz, the same applies to refresh rates. The refresh rate is just temporal resolution. You wouldn't want things to run twice as fast just because you're running at twice the refresh rate. You want twice the temporal detail at the same speed.

 

[elvn]

Most people seem to think that blur representation is fairly accurate and welcome the blur reduction shown on the central 120hz image. And the general consensus of people who don't even reference that image is that 120hz blurs about half as much as 60hz (subjective) - which that gif pretty much shows - the 120hz image representation half as much blur as the 60hz I am familiar with on the left.
..
I only have the 60hz ips and fw900 crt to reference vs the depiction on each end, and I think they are accurate on the extremes. That said, the 120hz lcd representation definitely looks better than the 60hz on fast motion, but my point is that especially when playing the highest end pc games which have such incredible texture detail + bump mapping that even 1/2 as much blur will strain my eyes. The blurring makes my eyes try to refocus(strain), then "lock down" on the fine high detail texture relief and regain the bump mapping depth again and again after each fast FoV movement... Fast FoV movement is when the blur is "global" on all the environment pixels on the screen (other than perhaps the HUD elements) and is the most painfully obvious then. Not when you have a static field of view/viewpoint and race a single image across the screen or show car or airplane in a movie on a screen. FoV "shakes the whole fishbowl" as opposed to a test watching a single fast fish swim across it so to speak :b. It is also more annoying when my screen size, a 27" 16:9, fills my personal eyeball field of view so that full screen blur can give nearly a quasi imax seasick effect in addition to the wrenched-away-focus eyestrain.

Pixels still are not fast enough vs blurring on LCDs, and backlight strobe is not fast enough to prevent retinal retention blur either. People like the reduction on 120hz lcds and I can't blame them, but its still not enough. I may try a 23" 120hz samsung eventually (I don't like 27" 1080p ppi and tn shift)... but I will hold on to my fw900 widescreen crt as long as I can.

 

[evilsofa]

More total pixels should equal more information. All this FoV horiz+ is bullshit. What law of physics states that the vertical field of view must be fixed? It's beyond stupid.

You're not understanding what is meant by "information" in this context.

1920x1200 and 1680x1050 are both 16:10 resolutions and will show the same information in a 3D game if the FOV is set to be the same. 1920x1200 has more pixels than 1680x1050, and will show that information in a more detailed way, but it is still the same information. For example, a crate that can be seen on the very far left edge of the screen can be seen in the same position on both screens, but the 1920x1200 display shows more detail on the crate. The UI changes in size in a lot of games, but the 3D picture does not.

In the next paragraph, I'm going to talk about the display's aspect ratio getting wider. I'm not talking about the number of pixels or the horizontal width in inches of the display. A 17" 1440x900 monitor's aspect ratio is the same as that of a 30" 2560x1600 monitor. As I explained above, in a 3D game, they will show the same information; the information on the 30" will be more detailed, but it will still be the same information.

Hor+ locks the vertical FOV so that as the display's aspect ratio gets wider, more information is shown to the sides. Vert- locks the horizontal FOV so that as the display's aspect ratio gets wider, less information is shown on the top and bottom. Neither Hor+ nor Vert- stretch the picture. As the display's aspect ratio gets wider, Hor+ increases information, while Vert- decreases information.

Where people get all tripped up, confused and turned around is when they compare a 1920x1200 display to a 1920x1080 display, because the number of horizontal pixels happens to be the same. Ignore the number of pixels and think in terms of aspect ratio, and refer to the above paragraph. A 16:9 display's aspect ratio is wider than a 16:10 display, so on a 16:9 display, Hor+ will show more information to the sides than a 16:10 display, and Vert- will show less information on the top and bottom than a 16:10 display.

If you're still not getting it, try an extreme example: a 5760x1080 display. Do you want Hor+ or Vert-? Think it through, work it out.

 

[XTF]

ALRIGHT THEN.

Anyone know any 4:3 crt monitors that do 1920x1200@90+ Hz?

Is 2048 x 1536 @ 80 Hz good enough for you?
Iiyama Vision Master Pro 510

 

[NukeDukem]

I want 2560x1600 at true 120Hz, sigh.

 

[kohan69]

Is 2048 x 1536 @ 80 Hz good enough for you?
Iiyama Vision Master Pro 510

Those should make excellent side monitors to my FW900.
Slight health concern about being surrounded by 3 CRTs 10 hours a day, isn't that like an xray a month?

It's not that simple. Ideally, information should be independent from pixels, 3D games or not.

Consider a 24" 1920x1200 monitor vs. a 24" 3840x2400 monitor. In a 3D game, they should show the same field of view. The only difference is the 3840x2400 monitor would be sharper, more detailed, and less pixelated.

The same should apply to user interfaces. If I were using a 24" 3840x2400 monitor, I wouldn't want tiny windows and text. I should be able to scale the interface to the appropriate size.

That's exactly how it is, if the aspect ratio is the same, all 3D geometry will be the same, the hud might be different, but that's usually for older games, modern games scale the hud or allow themselves to be modified to do it appropriately

On the topic of 120 Hz, the same applies to refresh rates. The refresh rate is just temporal resolution. You wouldn't want things to run twice as fast just because you're running at twice the refresh rate. You want twice the temporal detail at the same speed.

 

[elvn]

aspect ratio in itself is more like a lens.. it does not mean pixels or resolution. A wider virtual lens (not wider pixel count mind you) will show wider field of view at the same virtual viewing distance. This is virtual cinematography using virtual cameras.

Wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_of_view_in_video_games

HOR+ (Horizontal Plus) scaling is the most common scaling method for computer games released after 2005. The FOV in height is fixed while the FOV in width is expandable dependent on aspect ratio of the monitor resolution; a wider aspect ratio gives a wider FOV. The FOV is independent of how high the monitor resolution is. For instance the FOV will be the same for 1366x768 and 1920x1080 because both resolutions are 16:9. Any 16:9 resolution will always have wider and bigger field of view than any 16:10 or 4:3 resolution

======================================================

A rectangle fits inside a box, and a box fits inside a rectangle. That arbitrary FoV vs aspect ratio standard is based on universal aspect height in games. ...

Any 16:10 viewpoint from a virtual camera could be stuck in a 16:9 with more material on the sides whether HOR+ or not. If it were a an open height standard instead of HOR+ (which it is not), any 16:9 viewpoint would be able to be fit in a 16:10 with a little more FoV height top and bottom, but the 16:9 could fit that same viewpoint + sides all over again. It becomes a bit of a chicken and egg thing, and at some point the camera zoom would be too stupid to go any further as you leapfrogged square-rectangle-square in an ever larger virtual camera scene, basically zooming out and making everything incrementally smaller each time.
.
However overall I still think it comes down to virtual cinematography and virtual cameras - which emulate real cameras. And in real cameras, filming with a wider lens is always a wider shot.
..
.. Eyefinity deals with different aspect ratios than just 16:9 and 16:10, and can get a taller and/or wider aspect ratio using multiple monitors. But it still uses HOR+ no matter what the new aspect ratio created by combining monitors turns out to be. A single 16:10 will still likewise use HOR+, and the same basic concept as real lenses/film. The car pictures show the difference. The eyefinity setups shown below the 16:10 and 16:9 car scene are all based on multiple 16:9 displays but it still shows the way FoV works across different aspect ratio "virtual lenses".
..
.. You can always run a 16:10 in 16:9 resolution with bars though, and the bars are slight (unlike the bar size if you ran it on a 4:3 screen for example).
.
16:10, 16:9, and Eyefinity 16:9's car picture
http://www.3dalchemist.com/images/lcds/eyefinity_config-aspects-visualized_sm.jpg

Wiki FoV in games
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_of_view_in_video_games

Common film aspect ratios
http://www.3dalchemist.com/images/lcds/aspect-ratios_2.jpg

 

[elvn]

I actually enjoy smaller window interfaces and text up to a point.. On my 108.8ppi screen at 2' its great. Games like WoW allow a lot of GUI customization but relies heavily on 3rd party addons to do much more than UI scaling out of the box. When I played it, I remember having to load several 3rd party mods in order to get my UI fully customizable, and that was highly dependent on a myriad of 3rd party (and unpaid I believe) dev's keeping up with constant game patch iterations. Not all modern games allow very flexible HUD modification, or even server browser table cell and font size customization on the browser and chat interfaces in some FPS's. This can be particularly troublesome for people using LLL eyefinity setups who want all their GUI and such on the central monitor on a game either doesn't support eyefinity fully or otherwise keeps the HUD spread out across the full monitor array with no ability to move those elements. I even find it preferable to "huddle" my action bars, buff bar, and some other notifications around my character on a single 27" monitor at 2'... playing Rift, which similar to WoW but with modern graphics that have a system crushing graphics ceiling, and notably has extensive GUI modification capability built into the game with no need for mods. I haven't looked into how capable Skyrim or BF3 are in regard to GUI customization as i don't own either. I might buy skyrim soon though.
..
.. I wouldn't mind flanking my fw900 with a 120hz 23" samsung on each side for a 85hz eyefinity LLL setup. I just can't stomach the exorbatant cost of two 23" 120hz TNs. The side monitors in an LLL setup are designed to be peripheral for immersion, so the LCD blur on fast FoV movement wouldn't really be noticeable in the periphery anyway. If I could get mixed refresh rates to work I'd just use 60hz ones on the sides, and the FW900 in the middle at a higher refresh rate - which has been done by at least one person, but not consistently across different rigs.

 

[wabbitseason]

Where people get all tripped up, confused and turned around is when they compare a 1920x1200 display to a 1920x1080 display, because the number of horizontal pixels happens to be the same. Ignore the number of pixels and think in terms of aspect ratio, and refer to the above paragraph. A 16:9 display's aspect ratio is wider than a 16:10 display, so on a 16:9 display, Hor+ will show more information to the sides than a 16:10 display, and Vert- will show less information on the top and bottom than a 16:10 display.

I fully understand that higher aspect ratios have a larger field of view in Hor+ games. I simply think that that is ridiculous. Why is the vertical field of view fixed? It's insanity. If anything, there should be a "maximum field of view" that is distributed differently according to resolution.

For example, a 1:1 1600x1600 display would have a square field of view. A 16:9 would have a broad rectangular field of view, extending the sides but reducing the height of the field of view by the same percentage. That same 16:9, flipped into portrait mode to become 9:16, would have a tall rectangular field of view that is shrunken horizontally and expanded vertically.

That way every single display out there would display the exact same field of view AREA, and differ only in how that area is distributed. As it stands now, having an infinite aspect ratio is the best case scenario for gamers, and we can point all the blame directly at the programmers.

 

[DDuckMan]

It doesn't bother me that Eyefinity landscape setups may have some slight advantage in peripheral vision with a Hor+ system. The alternative of sacrificing vertical FoV would be a deal breaker in any game with significant vertical elements. Who wants to play a flight sim, Tribes, TF2, or even a driving sim when you have to look through Cyclop's slit lens glasses? Let the eyefinity guys have their fun. As far as 16:9 vs. 16:10, we are splitting hairs.

Nicely explained by the way evilsofa.

 

[Ramza]

I fully understand that higher aspect ratios have a larger field of view in Hor+ games. I simply think that that is ridiculous. Why is the vertical field of view fixed? It's insanity. If anything, there should be a "maximum field of view" that is distributed differently according to resolution.

For example, a 1:1 1600x1600 display would have a square field of view. A 16:9 would have a broad rectangular field of view, extending the sides but reducing the height of the field of view by the same percentage. That same 16:9, flipped into portrait mode to become 9:16, would have a tall rectangular field of view that is shrunken horizontally and expanded vertically.

That way every single display out there would display the exact same field of view AREA, and differ only in how that area is distributed. As it stands now, having an infinite aspect ratio is the best case scenario for gamers, and we can point all the blame directly at the programmers.

You can blame us if you'd like, but it's not really our fault for continuing to use a system that works well for a huge majority of the end-users. Most people playing video games do so on either a 4:3 TV/monitor (less and less common, and less desire to support primarily) or a 16:9. 16:10 and 5:4 users are dropping lower and lower steadily. You can blame manufacturers or whatever for the trends, but as software developers we cater to the masses. Our design documents tell us what to support first and foremost, and these days it's almost universally targeted for 16:9 first.

Your proposed solution is one of many that people have offered as an alternative to the current ones, but is not likely to pick up steam due to the higher complexity. Developers take the easiest route possible when it comes to solutions usually, and HOR+ fits well in kind. Not saying that what you proposed is impossible or will never happen, but is very unlikely compared to how things are now is all.

All things being said, I personally prefer 16:10 as a single monitor solution, but moved to using a few 16:9s due to preferring having a natively wider view in games. You can always manually letterbox your games to get the same effect on a 16:10, but since I play most things in borderless window it ends up looking bad.

I'm kinda confused, though. You said "A 1920x400 screen displays three times the information of a 1920x1200 screen? Are you listening to yourself?" but you seem to understand why wider aspect ratios display more information in the above post. While I agree playing a game like that is ridiculous (not to mention static elements like the HUD would be terrible) it doesn't change the fact that the camera viewport would indeed show 3 times as much information, despite having a third of the physical pixels.

While you can be upset with how it works, it doesn't alter the fact of HOW it works, which as an oversimplification is simply that the wider the ratio, the more of the game shown, regardless of pixels. a 1600x900 screen shows more of a game than a 1600x1200 in current games. That's just how HOR+ works, and why I mentioned that 120hz monitors (which are mostly marketed for 3D vision in games and movies) are targeted for 16:9, the resolution that games (and some movies, with others being even wider) are targeted for, in the first place.

 

[wabbitseason]

You seem to be a pretty reasonable guy so my earlier tone towards you might not have been justified.

But you game developers go much farther than simply targetting 16:9 first. To target 16:9 you could design games that present the most important information in the same FoV that 16:9 users experience. For example, have most of the enemies in a single-player shooter appear within the vertical band of a 16:9 FoV, without locking the vertical FoV for other aspect ratios. That way, even though other aspect ratios wouldn't be ideal, they'd still display the same area of FoV.

Currently you don't just target 16:9 with Hor+. You mandate that gamers migrate to the widest aspect ratio possible, regardless of its absurdity or the work environment implications.

 

[illli]

why dont more companies just insert a black frame every other frame (or whatever it was that they did) to simulate 120hz or more?
i remember reading about that stuff like 6yrs ago, but i hardly see anything about it these days

 

[XoR]

why dont more companies just insert a black frame every other frame (or whatever it was that they did) to simulate 120hz or more?
i remember reading about that stuff like 6yrs ago, but i hardly see anything about it these days

they stopped using it because it was stupid idea to insert black frame with 60Hz as it made screen flicker like 60Hz CRT It would have it's uses if they make at least 85Hz monitor with that tech.

Now 120Hz + BFI would be killer

 

[Acer_Sheep]

These threads are getting pointless because they are leading to nowhere.
To get it right it should be understood that aspect ratio and actual resolution are different things. There can be many different resolutions available in one aspect ratio.

It's like a scaling in fact, for example:

16:10 - 1440x900, 1680x1050, 1920x1200
16:9 - 1366x768, 1600x900, 1920x1080

But the difference is in 16:10 is always larger than 16:9 because it has more vertical space(notice the number after x is always higher on 16:10 than 16:9), so any comparing of such an aspect ratios should be done only with their closest resolutions(such as 1920x1080 comparing with 1920x1200 only).

Some important hints:

- 16:9 has no advantage over 16:10, due to fact it is physically smaller
- 120 Hz screens for 16:10 are not yet made probably due the earlier mentioned technical limitations
- Graphics card is scaling game's rendering engine with your current resolution, including HUD and interface or UI. The games where the picture is cut-off or the game look stretched must be greatly old. No new games will do such an effects(probably some of the very few crap ones yes)
- Larger resolution means: more detail
- Larger aspect ratio means: more information
- Although 16:9 is smaller than 16:10, in practical use the difference is small and you shall game the same way on both.

Possible solutions for the OP:

- Buy some 16:9@120Hz
- Get some FW900 instead
- Wait if something will be available later

 

[XTF]

You seem to be a pretty reasonable guy so my earlier For example, have most of the enemies in a single-player shooter appear within the vertical band of a 16:9 FoV, without locking the vertical FoV for other aspect ratios. That way, even though other aspect ratios wouldn't be ideal, they'd still display the same area of FoV.

So you're asking for games to decrease the vertical FoV instead of increasing the horizontal one?

 

[Inu]

So, 16:16 is more information than 1:1, or are they the same /joke.

I understand what you mean i just wish there was a better way of saying it in fewer words.

 

[SuperSubZero]

- 120 Hz screens for 16:10 are not yet made probably due the earlier mentioned technical limitations

In my cynical "we really want 16:10 to go away" thinking, I like to believe there's no technical reason for the lack of 120hz 16:10 screens, but manufacturers simply don't want to make them so they can continue shoveling the (cheaper to make) FULL HD experience on us.

- Although 16:9 is smaller than 16:10, in practical use the difference is small and you shall game the same way on both.

Stepping away from gaming, I gnash my teeth at the double-pronged attack of "let's shave off them horizontal pixels" with "let's make aspects of the OS taller" in Windows and some Linux variants. Kill 10% of my vertical height and then make the title bars bigger. How quaint.

I'm loathing the day Apple jumps on the 1920x1080 bandwagon, if for no other reason than cost savings. I already can't upgrade my PC laptop because there is literally no upgrade path left with a 1920x1200 display.

But hey, FULL HD.

 

[wabbitseason]

So you're asking for games to decrease the vertical FoV instead of increasing the horizontal one?

No, but I wouldn't expect someone like you to see beyond the inside of your own thick skull. Since you so clearly failed to comprehend my point, I'll just say this:

Hor+ and Vert- ARE NOT THE ONLY POSSIBLE METHODS OF CONTROLLING FIELD OF VIEW.

 

[evilsofa]

I fully understand that higher aspect ratios have a larger field of view in Hor+ games. I simply think that that is ridiculous. Why is the vertical field of view fixed? It's insanity.

Because, as the aspect ratio gets larger, Hor+ does not lose any information. It only gains it. Why do you want to lose information?

For example, a 1:1 1600x1600 display would have a square field of view. A 16:9 would have a broad rectangular field of view, extending the sides but reducing the height of the field of view by the same percentage.

Let's go back to my example of a 5760x1080 display to see if this makes sense. How will it be different if you do it the way you want to instead of Hor+? Compared to a 1920x1080 display, The width of the FOV will be increased by 3 times, but the height of the field of view will be reduced to a third. Why would we want to do that?

 

[evilsofa]

Hor+ and Vert- ARE NOT THE ONLY POSSIBLE METHODS OF CONTROLLING FIELD OF VIEW.

The other two methods I am aware of are anamorphic and pixel-based. You can see all four methods here. What other methods are there? The method you were describing earlier seemed most similar to pixel-based.

 

[wabbitseason]

Because, as the aspect ratio gets larger, Hor+ does not lose any information. It only gains it. Why do you want to lose information?



Let's go back to my example of a 5760x1080 display to see if this makes sense. How will it be different if you do it the way you want to instead of Hor+? Compared to a 1920x1080 display, The width of the FOV will be increased by 3 times, but the height of the field of view will be reduced to a third. Why would we want to do that?

I don't want to lose information. I want equality between aspect ratios, and to not be pigeon-holed into the "newest FULL HD" outrageously widescreen aspect ratio every couple of years. As I've said before, right now the ideal case for gamers is to have a display with an infinite aspect ratio, and that is just stupid.

Is it too much to ask to be able to game on a display that's useful for...gasp...a task other than gaming? Watch the current trend continue and then try to get any work--or simple internet browsing--done on a future 24" 2:1 display.

Hor+ is an atrocious concept that mandates that all gamers migrate to the widest aspect ratio currently available. Fixing the area of the field of view, and having different aspect ratios distribute that fixed area differently, is the only fair (and sustainable) solution.

The method I'm describing is NOT pixel-based. 2560x1600 would NOT present more information than 800x600. I propose a fixed AREA of field of view, with monitors distributing that area differently according to aspect ratio.

 

[elvn]

Going forward from zero on a tech like QFHD , there is no pixels shaved, its just a 16:9 with an abundance of both horizontal and vertical resolution. A 16:10 "box" fits inside a 16:9 "rectangle" , and vice versa. The pixel cuts are arbitrary, and due to production savings and that they fit the HD movie aspect. There is no reason a 16:9 can't have as much vertical pixels PLUS more horizontal pixels than some comparable 16:10, its just that they don't make them that way. There is no reason you couldn't make 16:10's by cutting the sides of comparable 16:9's either. When talking about aspect ratio in itself, resolution is not higher on either until you arbitrarily choose which and make it so. We are just forced into the near-resolution "pairs" we now have.
.
The HOR+ in gaming is again much like CGI ~ 3d modelling and animation, special FX film production i.e. you are using a virtual camera. The whole concept, process and skill set is called virtual cinematography. In emulating a real camera, any wider aspect ratio will show a greater FoV. It makes perfect sense.

.............................................

And again, if you unlock the height, you can just go the next few "degrees" wider again - use the unlocked 16:10 "A" height you are at, zoom out slightly and box it as 16:9 on the 16:10 screen... the 16:9 "B" FoV is wider at the same FoV height all over again.. but wait, you can zoom out slightly again and make that B version of 16:9 into a new 16:10 C version... ok zoom out slightly again and 16:9 C ... leap frogging.. of course eventually it would be zoomed out too much, and this whole idea is kind of silly. Using a virtual camera standard in regards to aspect ratio makes the most sense to me. Your game view is a virtual camera. I do think games should support 16:10 aspect ratio and 16:9 on a 16:10 , but the 16:10 will show less, and the 16:9 option would have slight letterboxing. Just like showing widescreen content on a 4:3 screen, though that difference and letterboxing is drastic.
.
By the way, using a 27" 16:9 screen as a basis, a 16:10 at the same ppi and horizontal pixel count running a game in 16:9 mode would have a bar on top and bottom only about the diameter of a dime coin each.

 

[XTF]

No, but I wouldn't expect someone like you to see beyond the inside of your own thick skull. Since you so clearly failed to comprehend my point, I'll just say this:

Hor+ and Vert- ARE NOT THE ONLY POSSIBLE METHODS OF CONTROLLING FIELD OF VIEW.

So you want a distorted image?

 

[wabbitseason]

Are you really so deluded as to think that any FoV method other than Hor+ and Vert- creates a distorted image? Pathetic. The real tragedy is that there are so many like you.

I propose a fixed AREA of field of view, with monitors distributing that area differently according to aspect ratio.

 

[evilsofa]

Fixing the area of the field of view, and having different aspect ratios distribute that fixed area differently, is the only fair (and sustainable) solution.

The method I'm describing is NOT pixel-based. 2560x1600 would NOT present more information than 800x600. I propose a fixed AREA of field of view, with monitors distributing that area differently according to aspect ratio.

I'm sorry, I'm just not getting it. I don't understand what you are proposing. Do you have some pictorial examples?

 

[elvn]

He's proposing what I outlined in my "leap frog" scenario.. unlocking the FoV height and throwing away the virtual lens horizontally based FoV standard. He's saying add the vertical FoV info he considers "missing" on the black bars in letterboxed 16:9, but as I outlined two posts ago you could again zoom to the nearest larger 16:9 FoV, etc.. The fact is a wider "lens" will always be able to produce larger FoV. I think the reasoning and functionality as it is, as I outlined two posts ago, makes the most sense. I'm not going to repeat it again more than I just did two posts later :b

 

[larkin]

"deluded" "Pathetic" lol

Ratchet down the asperger for civility sake. We're talking aspect ratios here. Your outrage is uncalled for.

 

[wabbitseason]

I'm sorry, I'm just not getting it. I don't understand what you are proposing. Do you have some pictorial examples?

I don't, but let me try to restate the idea:

Imagine the field of view of a 1600x1600 1:1 monitor in some game as being a square X "game feet" by X "game feet". Under my proposed FoV method, all aspect ratios display X^2 "game feet" of area. For example, a monitor with a 2:1 aspect ratio would display a field of view 2X "game feet" wide and X/2 "game feet tall, with the resultant area of field of view remaining a constant X^2.

 

[wabbitseason]

"deluded" "Pathetic" lol

Ratchet down the asperger for civility sake. We're talking aspect ratios here. Your outrage is uncalled for.

Yeah, up yours. Talking about civility and then referencing a form of down's syndrome as an insult like some 6th grade child. Please carry on the discussion folks.

 

[larkin]

My observation of your outrage is of course met with outrage from you. If you admitted to having down's syndrome I would sympathize but you're just deflecting and taking no responsibility for being overly divisive during a technical debate.

"up yours" "6th grade child" "deluded" and "Pathetic" is the rhetoric you have chosen in this thread about aspect ratios. I have to admit you're part of the reason I come to [H] so don't stop doing what you're doing.

 

[Ramza]

I don't, but let me try to restate the idea:

Imagine the field of view of a 1600x1600 1:1 monitor in some game as being a square X "game feet" by X "game feet". Under my proposed FoV method, all aspect ratios display X^2 "game feet" of area. For example, a monitor with a 2:1 aspect ratio would display a field of view 2X "game feet" wide and X/2 "game feet tall, with the resultant area of field of view remaining a constant X^2.

I understand the concept you are trying to get across, but then the argument that comes up is "what should the standard X and Y be that we go up and down from". Which kinda then just rolls back to the "what aspect ratio is perfect" argument.

You have to start from something for that method, whether it's 1:1 or 16:10 or 2.35:1 or whatever. And at that point, the argument that will carry the most favor is the one that people can convince makes the most sense as a "natural" ratio for the majority of people to use, perhaps something close to a normal human eye FoV or something.

Your solution could work, but it would require the same issues that people are having now to be resolved and one good aspect ratio to be designated as the best starting point for all future displays. Apart from this not being likely across a ton of manufacturers (at least as of now), you'd have to convince everyone from every current aspect ratio fanboy club why yours (or a brand new one) was better than all of them.

And if that optimum ratio that the others could alter themselves from was decided upon, why would there be any need to create displays in any other ratio? Other aspect ratios would only be supported as backwards compatibility, with most/all new displays coming out being the new one... almost sounds like what 16:9 is doing at the moment, eh?

Again, I'm not saying that 16:9 is the best aspect ratio. Just saying what current trends are doing. And yes, while you're right about "the wider you go the better" for gaming that honestly only matters for people who enjoy wider FoVs or want a competitive edge. All games should be designed to be perfectly playable and enjoyable at 16:9 and 16:10. Technically, 4:3 as well... but it's a pretty big handicap these days if it's a competitive game.

You said "Is it too much to ask to be able to game on a display that's useful for...gasp...a task other than gaming?" Of course it isn't. And if gaming isn't a primary usage of your monitor, you should be perfectly fine with 16:10. You're only losing like ~10% display information from 16:9, which would be a tradeoff for more vertical space for other display usage. No matter the display, unless it becomes mandated for everyone to use one size, there's always gonna be tradeoffs.

P.S. I personally have started enjoying using my monitors for desktop usage in portrait. 1080x1920 feel great for webpage browsing and coding to be honest, and with three of them I can span them in Eyefinity for gaming for a mostly-normal aspect ratio haha. Comes out to being around 1.85:1 with bezel correction.

 

[wabbitseason]

taking no responsibility for being overly divisive during a technical debate.

[H] is the place where people who know something about technology come to discuss it. We cannot abide complacent sheep who welcome the introduction and subsequent predominance of wider and wider aspect ratios. That's what will happen; the public wills it. But [H] should never condone it.

You bring up some good points Ramza, but I believe that continuing down the path of Hor+ games will lead to ever-wider displays, making us all eventually have to buy two monitors: one for gaming/movies and one for everything else. Except that there won't be any monitors good for "anything else" by then.

 

[elvn]

H lite sorry but you don't speak for H, and I don't presume to either. That comes off as insolent.

I've seen no-one refute or directly comment on the plain reasoning I have shown regarding aspect ratios in this thread. I've clearly shown why HOR+ makes sense, how a wider lens or wider "virtual lens" will always have a larger FoV, and that unlocking the height standard allows leap frogging aspect ratios (unnecessarily imo). I've also shown how tiny the bars are when you run 16:9 on a 16:10 screen of the same ppi at the same horizontal pixel count, which makes the outcry seem overblown, especially on higher resolution monitors of today and higher in future.

http://hardforum.com/showpost.php?p=1038022948&postcount=52

http://hardforum.com/showpost.php?p=1038029264&postcount=68

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_of_view_in_video_games

http://www.3dalchemist.com/images/lcds/eyefinity_config-aspects-visualized_sm.jpg

http://www.3dalchemist.com/images/lcds/aspect-ratios_2.jpg

Additonally, going forward QuadFullHD QFHD is not an ever wider aspect ratio, its 16:9. 4k screens have +256px more width but are geared for movies, and most of those displays I've seen are VA for the blacklevel and VA is typically laggy for pc monitors, not to mention they are lsted to sell for $36k at launch lol. Eyefinity lets you build width or height or both. As it is now you should already have one display for movies ( a large living room VA or plasma for the blacklevels+detail in blacks), and a different one for pc gaming (IPS for image quality and very high ppi/rez, or TN 120hz for less blur, or CRT for no blur).

 

[wabbitseason]

H lite sorry but you don't speak for H, and I don't presume to either. That comes off as insolent.

I've also shown how tiny the bars are when you run 16:9 on a 16:10 screen of the same ppi at the same horizontal pixel count, which makes the outcry seem overblown, especially on higher resolution monitors of today and higher in future.

I certainly wasn't referring to you in my statement. You don't seem to understand that the issue is not about little black bars when running 16:9 content on a 16:10 display. The issue is this:

Productive, useful aspect ratio displays are disappearing. 4:3 is gone and 16:10 will be completely gone in less than two years. I understand that you all think it's great that games and movies look the best on the widest possible display, but look where it's driving the industry. Some of you are going to look back one day and wish you could have grabbed a 4:3 or 16:10 monitor while they were still around, but by then it will be entirely too late. I've got my 16:10 desktop monitor and recently acquired one of the very last 16:10 laptops ever made. I'm good for quite some time. But what about the future? What about other people who aren't as fortunate or knowledgable (yet)?