![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Fair enough, but if you are sharing your media, your audience more and more is going to be using 16:9 as the current standard. Not 16:10 and not 4:3. Its not to say that 16:9 is inferior or superior to those, its merely different, but it is the trend of things. To purchase a 16:10 or 4:3 now, no matter your feelings about image ratios, is investing in technology that is on a standard that is going away.
If you are using a mainstream recent camera and photoediting, you're working with 16:9 footage. For book layout and writing, if you have a sufficient size 16:9 monitor and office 2010, you'd probably appreciate dual page layout which works well with wide resolutions. Excel scales fine as well.
Thousand dollar cameras are a bit of a niche market, and are usually such high resolution and quality that image editing and cropping is expected before sharing regardless, and it makes sense to crop the image for your average viewer which will be on a 16:9 already, and even more so in years to come.
Wow, defensive much? Of course the latter statement is subjective, but I haven't dealt with any photographers that publish raw unedited photos for their customers including the recent wedding images (all cropped to 16:9 amongst other things). I have an expensive DSLR as well, congradulate you on a very nice piece of pro-grade equipment, but just like the 460hp Corvette in my garage, I'm not going to kid myself and pretend those are average mainstream machines. You're grasping at straws here, even making claims about looking at birds out of windows or something as if thats relevant to the future of aspect ratios.
Perhaps you should read again. The first statement is still wrong. You will NOT have a wider FOV. You will just have a wider physical picture. If you want a larger picture, buy a television.
Sadly for you, it makes more sense than what you're saying. A majority of 1080 monitors are less than 24 inch. 1920 are however all 24 inch or more.
Yes, this is true. However, the screen size utlization increase is incredibly marginal at best. You buy a monitor because you intend to use it with a computer. If you just want physical space I say again, why are you bothering with a 24" monitor? Just buy a television.
A 16:10 display is superior when working with 16:9 footage, as those extra 120 pixel lines are where the tools go.
Can someone else please explain hor+ scaling in games to deadgye, I don't know how else to word it.
Uh, wot?
It is not inevitable, it has already happened.
*facepalm* Your choices are lose screen size or lose FOV. You will NOT NOT have a wider FOV on 1920x1080.It has been explained 100 times. How many times more?? You will NOT have a wider FOV on 1920x1080. FOV is the same on both monitors.
Hor+ game:
*facepalm* Your choices are lose screen size or lose FOV. You will NOT NOT have a wider FOV on 1920x1080.
(edited for color enhancement)
This is not that complicated, you either lose screen size or you lose FOV, thats how vertical locked scaling works. *double-facepalm*
I have run out of palms for my face. Someone lend a hand, er, palm?daveswantek said:
The answer is: 1920x1080 monitor has no 1200 horizontal line capability. Its capability is 1080 MAX. Images with higher native resolution will have to be modified or will be displayed interpolated (less sharp).
Two heads are not always better than one. I can't tell if you're really not getting it, or if you're just getting your lulz playing along.
The extra FOV will not be as pronounced as in their 4:3 vs 16:9 example obviously, but it holds true all the same. 16:9 provides a wider FOV in most games.
Please read the FAQ I linked. You have black bars in your "m-o-n-i-t-o-r" on the left, correct? What kind of scaling does that represent? Hint, the answer is in the FAQ that I linked you and starts with "a" and ends in "namorphic". That is not hor+ scaling, is it? Please acknowledge you understand now by committing seppuku as penance for your shame.
