![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Where's all the 1920x1200 monitors?
- Thread starter AjFreimuth
- Start date
What monitor do you use?
Absolutely.
You set your game on "max FOV" and get them on both 1920x1200 and 1920x1080.
If you can't tell from my posts that I know what happens when you apply a 1920x1080 wallpaper on a 1920x1200 monitor, I don't know what to tell you. Either way, I'm out.
Three Soyo 24", one LG L246WP (I think) 24", and a Dell U3011 30", all 16:10 displays.
OK, let me just set that max FOV setting here, uhmm, somewhere here, uhmmm, let me try this other game, hmmm wait, most games don't have an anamorphic display mode? How odd.......
Then how is it that you understand that, yet fail to recognize there is a difference between HOV+ that uses the entire screen, and anamorphic scaling that does not fit the entire screen and has black bars at the top and bottom. Obviously they are not the same thing, and its the same concept with the image getting cut off when you do make it fit the entire vert res.Walker said:
I have one F520 with 5 years on it and one with a little over 2 years on it. Switched to the 2 year old, because I figured I might as well live it up, because some better tech will arrive.
Guess you're more pessimistic.
serpretetsky
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Dec 24, 2008
- Messages
- 2,180
Ducman and albovin... i dont think you guys are arguing about the same thing, and you're kind of trying to pull each other in the other's argument, but your both too stuborn to move.
First thing that needs to be clarified is that FOV is generally referring to the rendered FOV. In other words, the FOV the game is rendering, and not the physical degrees of FOV that you see (which is directly dependant on the physical dimensions of your monitor and how close you are to it)
Albovin, ducman is pointing out that you keep saying the rendered FOV is the same on both 1920x1200 and 1920x1080, but the confusion is that both those screens you posted are showing a rendering of 1920x1080.
You should probably clarify and add that the rendered FOV is the same at 1920x1080 running either on a 1920x1200 monitor or running on a 1920x1080. Because ducman is definitly correct (depending on the game obviously). Games that are hor+ (vertical locked) will give you a higher rendered horizontal FOV if rendered at a 16:9 resolution then a 16:10.
If your comparing hor+ games running at 1920x1200 and 1920x1080 (the game rendering, NOT THE MONITOR) and they are not giving different FOV's, than either you're not testing a hor+ game or they are not being rendered at different aspect ratios.
Obviously in your case, albovin, it doesn't really matter, since 1920x1080 on your 1920x1200 monitor is just as big as on your 1080.
First thing that needs to be clarified is that FOV is generally referring to the rendered FOV. In other words, the FOV the game is rendering, and not the physical degrees of FOV that you see (which is directly dependant on the physical dimensions of your monitor and how close you are to it)
Albovin, ducman is pointing out that you keep saying the rendered FOV is the same on both 1920x1200 and 1920x1080, but the confusion is that both those screens you posted are showing a rendering of 1920x1080.
You should probably clarify and add that the rendered FOV is the same at 1920x1080 running either on a 1920x1200 monitor or running on a 1920x1080. Because ducman is definitly correct (depending on the game obviously). Games that are hor+ (vertical locked) will give you a higher rendered horizontal FOV if rendered at a 16:9 resolution then a 16:10.
If your comparing hor+ games running at 1920x1200 and 1920x1080 (the game rendering, NOT THE MONITOR) and they are not giving different FOV's, than either you're not testing a hor+ game or they are not being rendered at different aspect ratios.
Obviously in your case, albovin, it doesn't really matter, since 1920x1080 on your 1920x1200 monitor is just as big as on your 1080.
daveswantek
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Oct 30, 2007
- Messages
- 1,231
I have one F520 with 5 years on it and one with a little over 2 years on it. Switched to the 2 year old, because I figured I might as well live it up, because some better tech will arrive.
Guess you're more pessimistic.
I got a good laugh on that one. Actually I had 2, but the older one finally bit the dust.
Well, back to the topic at hand...
I got in my Asus VW266H monitors today... Got lucky, no dead pixels or imperfections on any of them...
SuperBiiz.com did a great job packaging them, and two were sequential serial numbers with the third a couple digits away... Colors match great and it is all setup in 6070x1200 (bezel compensated) res...
I got in my Asus VW266H monitors today... Got lucky, no dead pixels or imperfections on any of them...
SuperBiiz.com did a great job packaging them, and two were sequential serial numbers with the third a couple digits away... Colors match great and it is all setup in 6070x1200 (bezel compensated) res...
Are you joking?
Who is arguing and about what?
Has anyone said that the FOV on both images of the game on the photo are not the same? No one said that. There is no argument here. Again, I am not "saying". Monitors are showing. Showing, not saying.
Why is it "confusing" when both monitors are displaying the same image which is 1920x1080???
Maybe chronic clinical confusion due to the lack of basic knowledge and practice in monitors? This set of test photos is provided for free for educational purposes. It was said already.
It goes without saying as it's clearly seen on both screens (identical geometry and content on both images of the game) and it's indicated on the photo - what monitor is what.
Who doesn't know that? And why this trash about "games rendered in 16:10" appears?
No 16:10 rendering. Again. No 16:10 rendering. It's out of scope here.
For the test 16:9 rendering is used for max FOV. And both monitors are displaying the same game rendered in its 16:9 format with max FOV.
I guess this may indicate where his strange behavior comes from:
That's why I asked what monitors he used. He used old junk LG and Soyo that were among the most primitive 24" 1920x1200 monitors of the past.
That LG model for sure and probably Soyo also had no 1:1 mapping.
I am afraid that he has never seen a properly functioning 24" 1920x1200 and enjoyed his games vertically distorted or cropped on sides.
If it is correct, it may explain that he cannot believe his eyes when a 24" 1920x1200 simply displays a wide screen game as is with max FOV as seen on the test photo.
But even that confusion cannot justify his insulting posts, trolling and thread crapping with irrelevant "anamorphic, etc." panic.
Last edited:
Albovin, the problem is you don't understand the concepts that are being discussed and have entrenched yourself so deeply in your ignorance its comical.
You didn't understand what HOV+ is. You didn't understand what anamorphic scaling is. BIG DEAL, not the end of the world.
The original statement is that 16:9 displays in HOV+ games, which the majority of games are, will have a wider FOV. Anamorphic scaling, which is rare, will have a reduced screen size on a 16:10 display. So you either lose FOV or you lose screen size.
Not everyone is technical, and its fine if you didn't understand those concepts, but after it was explained to you and the FAQ posted that illustrates it very simply, why you refuse to admit you are wrong is beyond me.
You didn't understand what HOV+ is. You didn't understand what anamorphic scaling is. BIG DEAL, not the end of the world.
The original statement is that 16:9 displays in HOV+ games, which the majority of games are, will have a wider FOV. Anamorphic scaling, which is rare, will have a reduced screen size on a 16:10 display. So you either lose FOV or you lose screen size.
Not everyone is technical, and its fine if you didn't understand those concepts, but after it was explained to you and the FAQ posted that illustrates it very simply, why you refuse to admit you are wrong is beyond me.
This thread is so stupid, needs to end.
Only the Cheap TN market is being affected by the 1080p movement, the trade off is we get better TN panels at nearly half the price. Only those who don't understand that they are getting faster panels with better default color accuracy, contrast and screen uniformity seem to think that having the extra 120 pixels for around 200$ rather than 400$ (2008 16:10 TN) is important.
Only the Cheap TN market is being affected by the 1080p movement, the trade off is we get better TN panels at nearly half the price. Only those who don't understand that they are getting faster panels with better default color accuracy, contrast and screen uniformity seem to think that having the extra 120 pixels for around 200$ rather than 400$ (2008 16:10 TN) is important.
Albovin, the problem is you don't understand the concepts that are being discussed and have entrenched yourself so deeply in your ignorance its comical.
You didn't understand what HOV+ is. You didn't understand what anamorphic scaling is. BIG DEAL, not the end of the world.
The original statement is that 16:9 displays in HOV+ games, which the majority of games are, will have a wider FOV. Anamorphic scaling, which is rare, will have a reduced screen size on a 16:10 display. So you either lose FOV or you lose screen size.
Not everyone is technical, and its fine if you didn't understand those concepts, but after it was explained to you and the FAQ posted that illustrates it very simply, why you refuse to admit you are wrong is beyond me.
It has been said 10 times.
One more time.
Everyone knows but no one cares about what anamorphic scaling is. It's not being discussed. You haven't said anything new to us. Only God knows why you repeat it over and over. This is your irrelevant spam no one pays attention to.
Anyone with basic knowledge in geometry knows what screen sizes are and why.
Wide screen games are displayed on 24" 1920x1200 and 1920x1080 monitors as seen on the test photo:
I see that it's correct that you have never seen a good 24" 1920x1200 monitor.
This is dead thread.
Last edited:
Cyberbeing
Gawd
- Joined
- Nov 22, 2007
- Messages
- 570
Set the in-game resolution to 1920x1080 instead of 1920x1200. You should get black bars on top and bottom of the screen, if your monitor supports 1:1 pixel mapping. If you monitor doesn't support 1:1 pixel mapping, you would need to have your GPU take care of aspect ratio scaling (adding black bars).
My post had nothing to do with anamorphic scaling, just resolution choice.
I know you're just a trolling, but lol. Your reading comprehension needs work. Please show me where I was claiming any aspect ratio was superior to any other, always, as you seem to be imagining I said.
Which aspect ratio is superior varies depending on resolution, size of each display in question, and your personal needs. That is what my previous post was saying, but it required intelligence and high school level reading comprehension to understand the meaning. Sorry Ducman69, I have no desire to simply my posts to elementary school level just so you'll understand. Your trolls and wild imagination are always good for a laugh though.
When you say "trump" it implies superiority over another.
The point is simple, you were defining any display with a higher resolution and size as "trumping" the other display, but that has nothing to do with aspect ratio which was being discussed. And by that logic, a 4:3 monitor with a larger size and higher resolution "trumps" everything else... but 4:3 sucks in a widescreen world, lets be real.
Here is the ORIGINAL STATEMENT, and if it is not false, then stop arguing against fact:
The point is simple, you were defining any display with a higher resolution and size as "trumping" the other display, but that has nothing to do with aspect ratio which was being discussed. And by that logic, a 4:3 monitor with a larger size and higher resolution "trumps" everything else... but 4:3 sucks in a widescreen world, lets be real.
Here is the ORIGINAL STATEMENT, and if it is not false, then stop arguing against fact:
Ducman69 said:Many games are designed w/ fixed vert and scaling horizontal (hor+), hence a wider FOV on 16:9.
And separately, to reiterate, movies in 16:9 or wider aspect ratio will utilize more of any given screen size on a 16:9 than 16:10 display.
Your choices are lose screen size or lose FOV.
Cyberbeing
Gawd
- Joined
- Nov 22, 2007
- Messages
- 570
It is related as there are multiple aspects. Display size, display resolution, and content resolution.
What I was defining as 'trumping', was a display which displays your content at the largest size with the same or larger resolution on screen.
A 30" 2560x1600 monitor displays a 16:9 image (2560x1440) larger than a theoretical 28.5" 2560x1440 monitor.
In the PC monitor space, the largest 16:10 monitor (30") gives you a larger 16:9 image then the largest 16:9 monitor (28.5"). It a very versatile option, no matter what aspect ratio your content is.
(I am purposefully excluding large 16:9 TVs, as this is a discussion about lack of 16:10 PC monitors and their invading replacement 16:9 monitors)
That 4:3 'sucks' is your personal opinion. I would buy your theoretical 32" 2560x1920 monitor over a 30" 2560x1600 any day, if priced competitively. My personal opinion is that letter-boxing is preferable to pillar-boxing. If I can view 16:9, 16:10, and 2.35:1 with near identical image size and resolution, I have no complaints. Having the added vertical space is an added bonus.
Correct. 16:9 has a wider FOV then 16:10.
Correct, but utilizing the largest portion of your screen size is a personal preference.
I could care less about utilizing less of my screen, as long as the resulting image dimensions are the same size. That is my personal preference.
Fixed that for you. If you don't care about screen utilization, you won't lose FOV.
For example, 24" 1920x1200 vs 23.33" 1920x1080. Displaying 1920x1080 on the 24" 1920x1200 monitor, will result in the same size image and FOV as the native 23.33" 16:9 monitor. You only loose screen utilization, which is only important if you hate letter-boxing. 24" 1920x1200 vs 24" 1920x1080 is a trade-off, but the 24" 16:9 does have a slight advantage (larger image size) for 1920x1080 content.
I agree, if Ducman69 doesn't come to an understanding here.
Last edited:
Also, isn't it ironic that "widescreen" monitors are supposed to be wider, not *shorter* than their less-wide counterparts, but it seems to apply only for 4:3->16:10, not 16:10->16:9?
i.e. 1600x1200 -> 1920x1200 -> 1920x1080
2133x1600 -> 2560x1600 -> 2560x1440
How many 2133x1200 (16:9) or 2844x1600 (16:9) monitors have you heard of, anyway? Thought so. >_>
i.e. 1600x1200 -> 1920x1200 -> 1920x1080
2133x1600 -> 2560x1600 -> 2560x1440
How many 2133x1200 (16:9) or 2844x1600 (16:9) monitors have you heard of, anyway? Thought so. >_>
King of Heroes
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Mar 26, 2008
- Messages
- 2,006
If your monitor has 1:1 pixel mapping, or if you set to graphics card to automatically insert black bars, then you don't lose anything. This technically (though I personally don't entirely agree with that statement) could make 'bigger resolution is better' true. When you're not playing games, you get a much bigger resolution to work with. When you are playing games, you get the maximum FOV EVEN WITH HOR+ scaling because the game has no idea that your monitor or graphics card is using black bars or some other method to correct the aspect ratio. Black bars for 16:10 -> 16:9 conversion are incredibly easy to ignore since they are inserted vertically, and humans tend to pay more attention to the horizontal than the vertical (or so I've heard). 4:3 -> 16:9 might be a tad more difficult, but the fact is you aren't losing anything FOV-wise. As far as 'maximum screen utilization' is concerned, how much that matters depends on the person. Frankly, the fact that the entire screen is not being filled is about as easy to ignore as the black bars (and as albovin's picture shows, a 24-inch 16:10 screen with the bars winds up having the same screen utilization as a 24-inch 16:9 monitor anyway, if I'm seeing the image correctly, and all 1920x1200 monitors are 24-inches or bigger).
I have the graphics card deal with the aspect ratio myself since my monitor doesn't have 1:1 scaling (it does have a static 4:3 aspect ratio mode, just not 16:9). So even if a game I play uses HOR+ scaling, I'll still be getting the max FOV and the game will be completely ignorant of it.
EDIT:
Err, well, I should say I USED TO have the graphics card deal with it. I can't anymore since I switched to VGA, but since the vast majority are using DVI/HDMI/DisplayPort now it still applies for them.
Last edited:
You are absolutely right.
This is what ducman69 dont get, bringing monitors that doesnt exist. In REAL world monitors get shorter instead of keep the vertical resolution.
daveswantek
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Oct 30, 2007
- Messages
- 1,231
I tryed to make this point 2 or 3 pages back. loosing resolution in the vertical direction is a big deal for those of us that develop software, because both Dreamweaver and Visual Studio splid code and presentation vertically. With all of the toolbars and properity/object lists switching to portrait mode is not an option. I don't even want to think about all of the side scrooling with a 16:9 in portrait mode. Multipal screens helps, but then you have to move your head arround to much.
Even in gaming having additional vertical resolution helps with accurace how often does one need to shoot at the edge of the screen.
For some of us the extra 1920 x 120 pixels is worth the additional cost.
Dave
Funkmaster_A
Weaksauce
- Joined
- Nov 22, 2007
- Messages
- 84
The problem is with your own definitions, sort of.
You could look at it from the point of view that 1680x1050 today is probably as common as 1280x1024 a few years ago. Or 1920x1200 today is the equivalent of 1600x1200 a few years ago.
On another note, those two guys aren't even arguing about the same thing, and I have no clue why they're still spamming this thread.
I will say that if 1920x1080 is better because of the higher FOV, then the perfect monitor would be 1920x300 with FOV=360 support. The fact that no one ever says this is proof that FOV isn't all that matters. Some people (such as me) just like the shape of 16:10 better than 16:9. Then there's the fact that one has better support for old games @1600x1200.....
Last edited:
lancelot48
Weaksauce
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2010
- Messages
- 127
This is like a "Which came first, the chicken or the egg". There is no winner.
I think it all comes down to personal preference. The pro-1920X1200 will always maintain its superiority, if for no other reason, than they have used that resolution all their lives. They are usually the "older" crowd, more set in their ways and still use Windows 98, do not tweet and text, like the larger Cadillacs with steel bumpers. They are the "Why must things change" generation.
The anti-1920x1200 are the younger generation who have never seen 1900X1200 (except on their fathers desk), tweet and text and generally are irritated with "things are not like they used to be" stories told them by their "wiser" elders. They disagree, sometimes just to be disagreeable and will never listen to their "more experienced" elders.
But I think this thread makes excellent reading. BTW I use 1900X1200, if for no other reason than I like the resolution.
I think it all comes down to personal preference. The pro-1920X1200 will always maintain its superiority, if for no other reason, than they have used that resolution all their lives. They are usually the "older" crowd, more set in their ways and still use Windows 98, do not tweet and text, like the larger Cadillacs with steel bumpers. They are the "Why must things change" generation.
The anti-1920x1200 are the younger generation who have never seen 1900X1200 (except on their fathers desk), tweet and text and generally are irritated with "things are not like they used to be" stories told them by their "wiser" elders. They disagree, sometimes just to be disagreeable and will never listen to their "more experienced" elders.
But I think this thread makes excellent reading. BTW I use 1900X1200, if for no other reason than I like the resolution.
daveswantek
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Oct 30, 2007
- Messages
- 1,231
It's really all about price. A lot of gmaers are kids with a limited budget and they have not learned about all of the other interesting things you can do with a computer. If any of these guys/gals get into editing music or video to name just a couple, then they will realize that max screen space is important after all.
This is not possable, because 1920:1200 has not been arround long enough. The truth is those of us that were arround at the beginning have adapted to an unbelievable amount of change. I started out with punched cards and a teletype console. We waited in lines to get at this stuff. Eventually we had CRTs which in many ways are still the best display tech ever made. They did not have a fixed or native resolution. Get real with Win98 even my 85 year old mom is using XP. When I was a teenager I thought I know it all too; boy did I have a lot to learn
I hope the younger folks here do as well as I have, but you need to know that you will get there by playing games.
Dave
This is not possable, because 1920:1200 has not been arround long enough. The truth is those of us that were arround at the beginning have adapted to an unbelievable amount of change. I started out with punched cards and a teletype console. We waited in lines to get at this stuff. Eventually we had CRTs which in many ways are still the best display tech ever made. They did not have a fixed or native resolution. Get real with Win98 even my 85 year old mom is using XP. When I was a teenager I thought I know it all too; boy did I have a lot to learn
I hope the younger folks here do as well as I have, but you need to know that you will get there by playing games.
Dave
I've got a 2707. Picked it up as a refirb as well, with a coupon code that put it just under $500. This is an absolutely fantastic monitor. I picked it up because my work laptops did not have a dual link DVI output, so the max rez I could deal with was 1920x1200. While working, I have it paired with a 30" 2560x1600 monitor.
A quick example - side by side - shows the same text editor, same number of pixels, but the different size.
http://heelix.multiply.com/photos/album/18/Hardware_updates#photo=37
This is a very comfortable monitor to work on all day.
daveswantek
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Oct 30, 2007
- Messages
- 1,231
I have the newer 2709W and like it, but it should be said that it has a lot of input lag. About 3 frames.
Honestly, the best screen ratio: 16:9 or 16:10 or 4:3 for a user depends on many objective and subjective things.
What is the screen used for? Games? Photoshop? Video Editing? Coding? Word Processing?
If only Games? What games? Games that were originally designed for 4:3 screens? 16:10? 16:9?
It's true that many modern games allow FOV adjustments, but IMHO, the game will look best on the monitor with the same aspect ratio and size that the game was developed on, since that's where the developers, playtesters, graphic artists did their tweaking on. (Which unfortunately for us PC Gamers, means that a lot of console ports were tweaked for 16:9 displays viewed at a viewing distance of >3x the diagonal size of the "TV".)
However, that does not mean that Dude A can't prefer to stretch things to a 270 degree Horizontal POV on a 4:3 monitor because it gives him/her extra peripheral vision that allows him/her to win more multiplayer sessions. He/she's entitled to his/her own opinion and is 100% correct in saying that it's what he/she prefers. But saying that anybody who disagrees with this opinion is "wrong" is total cr*p.
I prefer a 1920x1200 screen over a 1920x1080 screen for working on documents if I had only one screen, but I definitely like my 3240x1920 three monitor setup better. Would I like a 3600x1920 bettter?... probably not. But for somebody working on editing HD videos, my 3x1 portrait setup would be utterly useless since a 1920x1080 video would span two monitors.
What is the screen used for? Games? Photoshop? Video Editing? Coding? Word Processing?
If only Games? What games? Games that were originally designed for 4:3 screens? 16:10? 16:9?
It's true that many modern games allow FOV adjustments, but IMHO, the game will look best on the monitor with the same aspect ratio and size that the game was developed on, since that's where the developers, playtesters, graphic artists did their tweaking on. (Which unfortunately for us PC Gamers, means that a lot of console ports were tweaked for 16:9 displays viewed at a viewing distance of >3x the diagonal size of the "TV".)
However, that does not mean that Dude A can't prefer to stretch things to a 270 degree Horizontal POV on a 4:3 monitor because it gives him/her extra peripheral vision that allows him/her to win more multiplayer sessions. He/she's entitled to his/her own opinion and is 100% correct in saying that it's what he/she prefers. But saying that anybody who disagrees with this opinion is "wrong" is total cr*p.
I prefer a 1920x1200 screen over a 1920x1080 screen for working on documents if I had only one screen, but I definitely like my 3240x1920 three monitor setup better. Would I like a 3600x1920 bettter?... probably not. But for somebody working on editing HD videos, my 3x1 portrait setup would be utterly useless since a 1920x1080 video would span two monitors.
serpretetsky
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Dec 24, 2008
- Messages
- 2,180
Wow, that comparison is so unfair. It keeps the vertical height the same. It's like comparing a 24" 16:9 monitor vs. 22.2" 16:10 vs. 19.6" 4:3.
Why not keep the diagonal size the same, since that is what LCD monitors are being sold by.
Because his comparison is not related physical dimensions. Regardless of how big your monitor is, if you are running 16:9 on hor+ (vertical locked) game, you will see more of the gameworld (you will have a higher rendered FOV) than on a 16:10 resolution. And on a 16:10 resolution, you will more than on 4:3 resolution. This has nothing to do with how big your monitor is.
His entire example has nothing to do with monitors at all, simply what resolution the game is being rendered at.
serpretetsky
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Dec 24, 2008
- Messages
- 2,180
First of all your first image (the Hor+ one) is labeled 1920x1200 on one monitor and 1920x1080 on another monitor. I dont know if you noticed this, but your left monitor you can barely tell there are black bars. In fact, i didn't see the black bars at first and get very confused by your example. This is misleading.Again, I am not "saying". Monitors are showing. Showing, not saying.
Why is it "confusing" when both monitors are displaying the same image which is 1920x1080???
this sentence kind of implies in relation to 1920x1200, this is misleading.
in most of your other posts you are telling people simply to refer back to your original misleading image instead of clarifying.
You are once again telling people that hor+ game will have the same FOV on two different aspect ratios.
This one you at least clarify that you are refering to the monitor, i will forgive you here, although it's still not perfectly clear honestly.
k, better, but you still never come out and clearly state that both screens are running the same resolution game.
I dont know what scope you are referring to, im simply pointing something out why you guys are not agreeing.
There is no right or wrong. Some people are fine with blackbars and extra FOV, some people prefer fullscreen.I guess this may indicate where his strange behavior comes from:
That's why I asked what monitors he used. He used old junk LG and Soyo that were among the most primitive 24" 1920x1200 monitors of the past.
That LG model for sure and probably Soyo also had no 1:1 mapping.
I am afraid that he has never seen a properly functioning 24" 1920x1200 and enjoyed his games vertically distorted or cropped on sides.
If it is correct, it may explain that he cannot believe his eyes when a 24" 1920x1200 simply displays a wide screen game as is with max FOV as seen on the test photo.
But even that confusion cannot justify his insulting posts, trolling and thread crapping with irrelevant "anamorphic, etc." panic.
edit: erased some unecessary phrases.
There is nothing to fix.
I have said time and time again that what importance you place and usage is completely subjective. What is NOT subjective is the fact that:
1) There are many advantages to having a single unified standard to produce media for, and it is much more probable that this will be 16:9 rather than 16:10 as it already is today.
2) The vast majority of games available today use HOR+ scaling and are designed for 16:9 aspect ratios, this is not a matter of opinion. That means w/ HOR+ scaling you will lose FOV on a narrower aspect ratio.
3) When you have black bars on the top and bottom of your 16:10 display, this is NOT HOR+ scaling, this is anamorphic scaling. No, they are NOT the same thing. Anamorphic scaling is the equivalent of reducing the size of the screen. You lose effective screen size, your 24" monitor is now effectively a 23" monitor used in 16:9.
ABSOLUTELY!bbf said:
What is "best" is subjective. Definitions of HOR+, anamorphic scaling, or fact that fitting 16:9 media on a 16:10 display results in reduced FOV or reduced screen size are not a matter of "best", not subjective, and matters of absolute fact. That is my beef, as there were some that were (and apparently still are) completely confused by concepts and definitions, and thus making statements that were patently WRONG. Weigh that as you wish, I have no problem with that, and I went w/ a 16:10 display with my very recent purchase, a Dell U3011, because it was an attractive monitor from a quality, size, and resolution standpoint.
daveswantek
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Oct 30, 2007
- Messages
- 1,231
The comparison is not related to physical size, but it is related to the number of pixels in width and height. In the case of 16:9 as compared to 16:10 the width remains constant at 16 and the height is reduced by 1 from 10 to 9, so the amnimation is bogus, because it does not show the true difference. If it was actaally wider you would have something like 18:10. In the real world there is a scale factor involved and that is the value that should remain constant. For example lets compare 1920:1080 to 1920:1200. Before you go screeming that not fare, lets look at the common scale factor. 1920 = 120 x 16, so our scale factor is 120. Now multiply 120 x 10 = 1200 and 120 x 9 =1080 so we are in fact using the same scale factor in both cases. In the case of 2550:1440 our scale factor is 160 because 160 x 16 = 2560 this gives 160 x 9 = 1440 and 160 by 10 = 1600.
This shows without doubt that both in theory and in the real world the animation is bogus.
As far as games are concerned bbf has it right
Dave
*facepalm*
Its not reduced by a factor of 1. 16:9 and 16:10 are aspect ratios. And what is this nonsense about scale factor, acting as if that isn't related to screen size. I can only think you're confused by dot pitch of something, but really now, cmon already, lol! I give up, this is like trying to teach a cat to rollover. Its so simple, yet apparently so complicated, and likewise not only does the cat not know what you're talking about but is completely unmotivated to learn.
daveswantek
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Oct 30, 2007
- Messages
- 1,231
What media? TV maybe. Do you have a collection of media? Mine include movies in at least 4 different aspect ratios. How about home video? None of mine is 1080. How about a picture collection that extends back for generations, or even the latest and greatest DSLR.
There is no standard, get over it.
Dave
daveswantek
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Oct 30, 2007
- Messages
- 1,231
*facepalm*
Its not reduced by a factor of 1. 16:9 and 16:10 are aspect ratios. And what is this nonsense about scale factor, acting as if that isn't related to screen size. I can only think you're confused by dot pitch of something, but really now, cmon already, lol! I give up, this is like trying to teach a cat to rollover. Its so simple, yet apparently so complicated, and likewise not only does the cat not know what you're talking about but is completely unmotivated to learn.
Careful you might heart yourself. If you do not understand scale factors then you really should go back to school.
wabbitseason
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2010
- Messages
- 1,511
Anybody who is arguing with albovin is an idiot. He knows more about monitors than the rest of you combined. /thread
serpretetsky
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Dec 24, 2008
- Messages
- 2,180
I'm not entirely following you here.
Are you implying that there is difference between 16:9 and 32:18 and 64:36?
His animation isn't showcasing that 16:9 monitors are wider. It may appear that way, but trust me, that is NOT what the animation is showing. His animation has NOTHING TO DO WITH PHYSICAL SIZE. Before i said it's related to resolution, but i was actually wrong, im sorry. It has nothing to do with resolution either. No, it doesn't not refer to the number of pixels wide and high. There is a reason that his animation has a video game being rendered. There is also a reason that game is starcraft2.
His animation is showcasing these two things:
1) Hor+ locked games
2) different aspect ratios of rendered resolutions (NOT the resolutions themselves, and NOT the aspect ratio of the monitor).
If you do not know what Hor+ means, please carefully research this, because his animation is showing a property of Hor+ games, NOTHING ELSE. IT IS NOT SHOWING DIFFERENCES IN RESOLUTION, IT IS NOT SHOWING DIFFERENCES IN PHYSICAL SIZE.
IT IS SHOWING DIFFERENCES IN Field Of View (FOV) FOR HOR+ (vertically locked) GAMES AT DIFFERENT RENDERED ASPECT RATIOS.
daveswantek
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Oct 30, 2007
- Messages
- 1,231
No I am saying that you do not gain info by loosing pixels. The part you and others are purposely leaving out is that when you lock the virtical part of the aspect ratio then you loose resolution to gain FOV. Albovin has shown you clearly that a 16:9 display can be emulated exactly on a 16:10 display using 1 to 1 pixel mapping.
Rant on all you want. The only advantage to a 16:9 display is price and absolutely nothing else.
Dave