serpretetsky
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Dec 24, 2008
- Messages
- 2,180
yeah, can't really disagree with you there.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Where's all the 1920x1200 monitors?
- Thread starter AjFreimuth
- Start date
Yes, actually, you do with HOR+ scaling. Please read the FAQ linked dozens of times and stop talking. If you have a 1920x1200 monitor and a 1920x1080 monitor, and you use HOR+ scaling, the 1920x1080 monitor has an increase FOV.
And dot pitch has nothing to do with what is displayed while gaming, do you not get this? Do you really think that if I reduce my resolution on my Dell U3011 from 2560x1600 to 1920x1200 that the FOV in games changes? *facepalm* This is about aspect ratios, not resolution.
Albovin believes that is HOR+ scaling. It is not. He believes the image size on two identical size monitors would be the same size. They can not. This has been explained dozens of times what the difference is. You can put a 50" QFHD monitor in portrait mode and emulate a 1080p display, no duh. Guess what, that 50" monitor displaying 16:9 footage in portrait is about a 26" monitor now with massive black bars.
When you use anamorphic scaling, YOU LOSE EFFECTIVE SCREEN SIZE.
First off, 16:9 is an aspect ratio, not a resolution.
The Dell U2711 has a 2560 x 1440 resolution. This is a 16:9 format. If you think you can fit 16:9 media on a 27" 16:10 w/ anamorphic scaling in there without losing screen size, you're wrong (and not particularly bright by still not understanding this).
Again, most games use HOR+ scaling. Do you dispute this?
When you use anamorphic scaling for 16:9 footage, be it gaming or pictures or videos, you lose effective screen size. Do you dispute this?
The advantage of 16:9 is maximum utilized screen size for any particular size monitor w/ anamorphic scaling and increased FOV for HOR+ scaling.
There are 1080p 16:9 monitors, 1440p 16:9 monitors, and even 2160p 16:9 monitors, and represent the most efficient use of screen realestate w/ media today that is overwhelmingly 16:9 (or wider) format.
Cyberbeing
Gawd
- Joined
- Nov 22, 2007
- Messages
- 570
Fact: You can fit an entire 1920x1080 frame on a 1920x1200 monitor.
Fact: Most 16:10 monitors support displaying a wide range of input resolutions.
Fact: Games allow you choose a wide range of rendering (output) resolutions.
Fact: Games determine FOV by the rendering (output) resolution.
Fact: Games ignore the true native resolution of your monitor. Games assume your monitor's native resolution is whichever resolution you chose to output from the game.
Fact: When you choose 1920x1080 as your display resolution in game, you will have the same FOV on any display capable of 1:1 pixel mapping or aspect ratio scaling.
Fact: When rendering a HOR+ game at 1920x1080 on a 1920x1200 monitor, the game sends a 1920x1080 frame as-is to the monitor without any anamorphic scaling (no stretching or black bars)
Fact: It's up to the monitor (or GPU) how to display non-native resolutions. The preferred methods are 1:1 pixel mapping (original frame size, add letter-boxing/pillar-boxing as needed, FOV maintained) and aspect ratio scaling (scale the input frame while maintaining aspect ratio, add letter-boxing/pillar-boxing as needed, FOV maintained).
1) Movies: 16:9 or wider is already standard. Games: Normally support 16:9 or wider FOV. Photos: 4:3 (point&shoot cameras), 3:2 (digital slr aps-c), Documents: 3:4 to 10:16. Websites: Vertical scrolling (1:∞ aspect ratio).
A single unified standard for all these things is just wishful thinking.
2) As I previously stated, you have two options with games designed for 16:9 a 1920x1200 monitor. You can play games at 1920x1200 and lose FOV. Or you can play games at 1920x1080, lose display utilization, and keep 16:9 FOV (game outputs a HOR+ scaled 1920x1080 frame, and the 1920x1200 monitor takes the 1920x1080 HOR+ frame and adds letter-boxing).
3) When you output 1920x1080 on a 1920x1200 monitor and you have black bars on the top and bottom of your 16:10 display, this is HOR+ scaling by the game and aspect ratio scaling by the monitor. This is not anamorphic scaling!
If all you do is play games and watch movies, a 16:9 1920x1080 monitor is the preferred option, assuming a single display.
If you are actually creating content, editing photos, viewing documents, and/or browsing the web, in addition to playing games and watching movies, 16:10 is better suited.
WRONG. Try fitting a 24" 1920x1080 frame on a 24" 1920x1200 monitor. It can't be done. The image size has to be reduced to around 23" to fit.
There is no 16:9 aspect ratio available in any of my games for a 2560 horizontal resolution, and that is still anamorphic scaling w/ black bars on the top and bottom of the monitor were you to go into the INI, meaning screen size is lost.
You will have black bars. You will have lost screen size. YOU LOSE SCREEN SIZE OR LOSE FOV. Pick one, or go w/ a 16:9 display.
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs.asp
Almost every point and shoot is capable of shooting in 16:9 now (I'm sure there is an exception, but I can't think of one available for sale today), and is also the format for video (typically 720p), just like on my Panasonic Lumix. 4:3 standard ratios are falling more and more out of favor every year, for obvious reasons. I know of no cameras with a 16:10 mode.
Regarding which is "better" is a decision only an individual can make, I was only concerned w/ factual issues.
Last edited:
spicoli256
n00b
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2006
- Messages
- 5
191920
This thread is my new morning gossip read. Who knew wasting my time watching other people waste their time could be so satisfying?
To the original intent of this thread, I also prefer 16:10. I wish I had begun my research a month sooner when the vw266h was still available. Now the choices seem to be the iH 282hpb for $250 or the HP zr24w for $340 refurbished, $410 new.
I'm going to a local tigerdirect to view the 282hpb in person. If I like it I'll buy it. Size isn't important to me, just the 1920x1200 resolution. If I'm forced to play a game in 16:9 I still can, and the physically reduced picture compared to a native 16:9 screen is of no concern to me.
To the original intent of this thread, I also prefer 16:10. I wish I had begun my research a month sooner when the vw266h was still available. Now the choices seem to be the iH 282hpb for $250 or the HP zr24w for $340 refurbished, $410 new.
I'm going to a local tigerdirect to view the 282hpb in person. If I like it I'll buy it. Size isn't important to me, just the 1920x1200 resolution. If I'm forced to play a game in 16:9 I still can, and the physically reduced picture compared to a native 16:9 screen is of no concern to me.
Why are you telling him this when he has already, unlike your "around 23 inches", stated the EXACT physical diagonal image size that you end up with when displaying 1920x1080 content on a 1920x1200 screen of the same size??? Stop arguing for the sake of it and making the topic 10x more confusing for people who genuinely don't understand differences between different aspect ratios and resolutions.
There is nothing confusing.
If you choose a 16:10 display you lose FOV or you lose screen size, it doesn't get any simpler than that.
The confusion has arisen based on false statements and falsely disputing that basic fact made at the very beginning.
daveswantek
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Oct 30, 2007
- Messages
- 1,231
It sounds like you are a game developer.
I don't recall anyone saying you don't AT ALL lose any screen size. You are right, if you choose a 24" 1920x1200 display you gain clarity/detail (higher vertical resolution) but lose FOV. Or you run it at 1920x1080 and don't lose FOV but lose around half an inch in diagonal screen size. It doesn't get simpler than that indeed.
What is making things confusing though is you insisting on anamorphic scaling and how very few games support it when that's not actually needed. You use 1:1 pixel mapping or GPU scaling to output 1920x1080 on a 1920x1200 monitor and Hor+ games will behave exactly the same as on a native 1920x1080 screen. This is why I said the whole HOR+ vs anamorphic thing is irrelevant in this case.
Yes, this has been repeated to him several times. No results. Still spamming.
The patient got speechless when I asked him if he does recognize anything he is whining about on the test photo.
Read again, that was what was so comical. You have to lose screen size or FOV, the original statement that brought out the peanut gallery. There were a few confusing aspect ratios, resolutions, fact that 16:9 includes higher than 1080p displays, and complete misunderstanding of how HOV+ works:
The only confusing thing is that we established that many pages back, to which I have always said that is forced anamorphic scaling with black bars present on the top and bottom with reduced screen size resulting. If you do not contest this, then what are we arguing about? LOSE screen size, LOSE field of view, or CHOSE a 16:9 display. Its been said ad nauseum from the first post.
And Albovin, please, you didn't have a clue what was going on. The only "speechless" aspect was when I asked you what model numbers the two monitors were so I could look up the actual display size of the two.
wabbitseason
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2010
- Messages
- 1,511
Ducman, you have no clue and you just keep on going.
Reduced image size does not mean reduced information. 16:9 content may be slightly smaller on a 16:10 monitor, but exactly 100% of the data is replicated, pixel by pixel.
I noticed, as I'm sure many have, that you've changed your tune from "losing information" to "losing screen size". So, you concede.
Reduced image size does not mean reduced information. 16:9 content may be slightly smaller on a 16:10 monitor, but exactly 100% of the data is replicated, pixel by pixel.
I noticed, as I'm sure many have, that you've changed your tune from "losing information" to "losing screen size". So, you concede.
Please quote where Ducman has said you have "reduced information" w/ anamorphic scaling? You have reduced screen size. If you use HOR+ scaling (no black bars on the top and bottom), then obviously you lose FOV.
Again, LOSE screen size or LOSE field of view or USE a 16:9 display. Take your pick. This is so simple, its mind numbing.
http://hardforum.com/showpost.php?p=1036813133&postcount=61 Please do a thread search under my name and "information". Oh, never said that huh? Uhm, yeah, foot in mouth. You can go play in traffic now, but thanks for contributing.
^ One of the very first posts on the subject.Ducman69 said:
daveswantek
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Oct 30, 2007
- Messages
- 1,231
Read again, that was what was so comical. You have to lose screen size or FOV, the original statement that brought out the peanut gallery. There were a few confusing aspect ratios, resolutions, fact that 16:9 includes higher than 1080p displays, and complete misunderstanding of how HOV+ works:
No; once again you are wrong. physical size has nothing to do with aspect ratio or HOR+. It is due to DPI. For example a 1920 x1080 screen setting mapped 1:1 on my Dell 2709W measures 26 inches accross the diagonal. Try the same thing on your 30 inch baby. It will be much smaller. The difference is dot pitch aka dpi.
The actual math looks like this (H or V component of aspect ratio) x (integer scale factor) = ( H or V screen resolution). (Screen resolution) x (dot pitch) = (H or V physical screen size). Where dot pitch = (1 inch)/(number of dots per inch)
If you compare 16:9 to 16:10 using the same dot pitch 16:9 shrinks in height and is exactly the same in width. When you hold the vertical FOV constant the horizontal FOV increases, but sense you are using the same number of pixels the resolution is reduced (no additional pixels no additional info). This reduction in resolution will for sure effect your ability to hit a target.
I looked at your FAQ it is riddeled with errors as Albovin already advised you. There is no mention of the scale factors involved or the importance of retaining these factors when you compare aspect ratios and their related resolutions. For this reason their pics are scaled incorrectly as is your animation.
HOR+ simply zooms out the FOV to keep the virtical component constant, but this drops the resolution by about 10%.
Dave
/End Lesson
Who are you talking to? What are you quoting?
Physical size, aspect ratio, scaling, and DPI ALL MATTER and are interrelated.
What? Two identical size monitors of different resolutions won't have the same dot pitch. A 1920x1200 display and 2560x1600 display show the exact same thing on screen, the higher dot pitch enhances the image clarity and crispness. How is that going to make me miss my target? *raises eyebrow*
There is no scaling in the picture, as it is not illustrating scale, it is illustrating FOV with different aspect ratios utilizing HOR+ scaling. *facepalm* The guys at widescreen forum know what they are talking about, its what they do. You're the one that is confused.
It doesn't necessarily drop any resolution, as it depends on what monitors you are talking about. If you're talking about a 27" Dell, its not only a greater FOV but an increase in resolution.
You are making something VERY VERY simple overly convoluted and complicated.
LOSE field of view or LOSE image size. That's it. Seriously... this is so sad its funny.
DAOWAce
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2007
- Messages
- 139
Page 6 and the argument is still going when I thought it would've ended on page 3. Suppose I'll take my stab at it.
Everything posted by Cyberbeing should be everything one needs to understand, minus one thing: Screen size, aka how much of the image is on the physical screen aka windows desktop vs letterboxed movie. Desktop uses more screen size than the letterboxed movie. Resolution, monitor size and aspect ratio are irrelevant in this example.
The only reason this argument is still going is because apparently some people don't understand others when they're saying 'screen size'. A 1080p (16:9) image on a 24" 1920x1080 display will use the entire screen to show the image. On a 24" 1920x1200 (16:10) display it will not show the image over the entire screen unless the monitor is set to stretch it. If stretched, you lose no screen size due to it stretching the 1920x1080 resolution to fill the entire screen. If set to a 1:1 ratio as others have mentioned, you lose 'screen size' because.. well, *looks at thread*. Do I have to explain further? Anything else, like FOV, is irrelevant to the argument of 'screen size'.
So.. Who gives a damn about screen size? Apparently the people who buy monitors for screen size instead of resolution, which sure as hell isn't me. That said, I do play older games in fullscreen on my CRT since I don't want them stretched or in a tiny box on my LCD. Quality, quality, quality.. The only reason I'd get a bigger display at the same resolutions is to make text easier to read, not because it gives more 'screen size' when displaying 1080p content at a 1:1 ratio.
Argument can has end now?
That said, I'm in the 'minority' too. I want a 120Hz 1920x1200 panel but they don't exist. I'm the guy who likes 5:4 because of the vertical resolution. I need more verts and LCDs that act like CRTs.
Everything posted by Cyberbeing should be everything one needs to understand, minus one thing: Screen size, aka how much of the image is on the physical screen aka windows desktop vs letterboxed movie. Desktop uses more screen size than the letterboxed movie. Resolution, monitor size and aspect ratio are irrelevant in this example.
The only reason this argument is still going is because apparently some people don't understand others when they're saying 'screen size'. A 1080p (16:9) image on a 24" 1920x1080 display will use the entire screen to show the image. On a 24" 1920x1200 (16:10) display it will not show the image over the entire screen unless the monitor is set to stretch it. If stretched, you lose no screen size due to it stretching the 1920x1080 resolution to fill the entire screen. If set to a 1:1 ratio as others have mentioned, you lose 'screen size' because.. well, *looks at thread*. Do I have to explain further? Anything else, like FOV, is irrelevant to the argument of 'screen size'.
So.. Who gives a damn about screen size? Apparently the people who buy monitors for screen size instead of resolution, which sure as hell isn't me. That said, I do play older games in fullscreen on my CRT since I don't want them stretched or in a tiny box on my LCD. Quality, quality, quality.. The only reason I'd get a bigger display at the same resolutions is to make text easier to read, not because it gives more 'screen size' when displaying 1080p content at a 1:1 ratio.
Argument can has end now?
That said, I'm in the 'minority' too. I want a 120Hz 1920x1200 panel but they don't exist. I'm the guy who likes 5:4 because of the vertical resolution. I need more verts and LCDs that act like CRTs.
daveswantek
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Oct 30, 2007
- Messages
- 1,231
Dr. Albovin, The patient is not responding to theropy, should we increase the dosage or just put him out of his measury?
English may not be your first language, but that aside, does this really contribute to the discussion?
As long as everyone can agree that your options w/ a 16:10 display are to lose FOV or lose screen size, then there is a consensus finally.daveswantek
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Oct 30, 2007
- Messages
- 1,231
English may not be your first language, but that aside, does this really contribute to the discussion?
Lighten up; this is a joke clearly addressed to Albovin.
The above is a joke too LOL, sorry you didn't get it.
Last edited:
For mainstream, beyond 16:9, you have to go eyefinity. Problem is, games are designed for 16:9, so with overly wide aspect ratios you get fishbowl distortion at the extremes.
daveswantek
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Oct 30, 2007
- Messages
- 1,231
Hell; just go 2M:1 and be done with it.
Cyberbeing
Gawd
- Joined
- Nov 22, 2007
- Messages
- 570
Once again you are talking about pixels and image size like they are the same thing...
The larger pixels of a 24" 1920x1080 frame, map perfectly fine on the smaller pixels of a 24" 1920x1200 frame. The 1920x1080 frame would have larger dimensions on the 24" 1920x1080 monitor then the same frame on the 24" 1920x1200 monitor, but the 1920x1080 frame would be pixel identical on both. Do I really need to repeat this again and again, I already said this in my previous posts.
There was never any disagreement that a 1920x1080 image displayed on a 24" 1920x1080 monitor would be larger then the same image displayed on a 24" 1920x1200 monitor. I posted exactly this fact in my first post in this thread...
If your 16:10 monitor doesn't expose 16:9 resolutions, you would need to add 2560x1440 as a custom resolution and use GPU aspect ratio scaling. Both ATI and NVIDIA support GPU scaling when a display is connected digitally.
Anamorphic scaling is when an image is stretched without added FOV. It has no direct relationship to letter-boxing. There are hardly any games which do anamorphic scaling with letter-boxing, so I'm unsure why you keep bringing it up.
You lose screen size with letter-boxing... I've only said that how many times now? There was never any disagreement on that.
We're getting somewhere now, you're finally beginning to understand that losing screen size or FOV on a 1920x1200 monitor is an either or, not both.
Game outputting 1920x1200 on a 1920x1200 monitor. Lose FOV. Maximum screen utilization.
OR
Game outputting 1920x1080 on a 1920x1200 monitor. Keep FOV. Lose screen utilization.
Since you are now repeating information I originally posted, I guess we're to agreement on this now.
Your Pansonic Lumix has a 4:3 sensor. Using a 16:9 mode is just automatic cropping of the 4:3 sensor data. You loose a large portion of your image. If you're serious about photography, you would never use a 16:9 cropping mode on a camera. Take your photos at maximum sensor resolution and crop as needed for print or web.
You still don't realize that the reason this thread turned into Everybody vs. Ducman69 is because you were the one spreading FUD? I'm sorry to say, but there are people in this world more knowledgeable about this stuff then you are. If you are unwilling to learn from what people like me are telling you, you need to move on and stop posting in this thread. All your posts are doing is confusing people even more. I feel sorry for anybody reading this thread who is trying to make an educated decision between a 16:9 and 16:10 monitor.
Look back to my first post in this thread. I wasn't taking either side in the discussion or replying to anybody in particular. I was never even planning to participate in this discussion until you responded to my factual post with mis-information about anamorphic scaling and attacked me directly. Even now, I'm only responding to mis-information and attacks directed at my posts. If you stop attacking my posts with mis-information, I'll stop posting.
No, I am talking about them like they are both factors that you have to take into an account to make a valid comparison.
How about I stop telling you things that you apparently know, and you stop telling me things that I already know. Repeating things that I have already said ad nauseum, and that you clearly don't disagree with is mind numbing.
And I posted it before that, so we agree, so stop arguing if you have no disagreement.
No, anamorphic scaling stretches the video horizontally until the correct aspect ratio is achieved. On a 16:9 display, this creates no black bars at the top or bottom. On a 16:10 display, this creates black bars.
No, it is not the same as letterboxing, which would not scale, is never done in gaming as you could end up with bars both on top and bottom of the image and to the left and right. In either case, my original statement before you ever commented in this thread that has been repeated a dozen times is that with a 16:10 display:
***You LOSE field of view or you LOSE screen size.*** If you do not disagree with this, why do you persist in arguing? What point are you trying to make that disputes what I have said long before you posted?
You can't be this dense, I have said that from the very beginning.
http://hardforum.com/showpost.php?p=1036813133&postcount=61
"Your choices are lose screen size or lose FOV." What does "or" mean in your world? It is one or the other. I have said so over and over again, so if you don't disagree, and you can't because it is factually correct, what point are you trying to make?
Look at the post number next to your statement and that of mine. I repeated myself, and if you do not disagree with that, then again, who are you arguing with?
DTN107
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2008
- Messages
- 4,846
I have three of those Samsung 2443BWX when they went on sale $200 each at Bestbuy. I also face many stuck/dead pixels. Took a total of 5 bestbuys and 14 monitors exchanges to get three perfect ones.
Yeah, I figured it was a worthless endeavor to even attempt to buy 2 more "perfect" ones online... I can only imagine the number of RMAs and headaches... Not to mention the sheer hemmoraging of money to do it...
I ended up buying 3 Asus VW266H monitors instead. All three are perfect. Plus the way I purchased them I get a rebate on all 3, so I only paid $265 each shipped, effectively.
I was going to make a reply to Ducman, but what he fails to realize is this isn't some sort of ego-trip, and you don't have to have the last word. It is also obvious he has NO CLUE what anamorphic is, or what letterbox is.
All, I have to say is that I was looking at 24" 16:9 displays, found a bunch I liked, but noticed they were mostly 23.6", not 24". I didn't want to "loose" screen space since I sit about 3+ feet back from my screens if I wanted to run with max FOV on games that are designed for a 16:9 display (ie, it'll run with black bars above and below the game with 1:1 res), so I choose a 25.5" 16:10 display that gives me an effective 24.8" or so 16:9 image. I don't feel I loose anything when I choose to display that mode, and after seeing a buddies 3x23" 16:9 1920x1080 triple monitor setup, I can truely say I am VERY glad I went for the bigger displays... He sits closer to the monitors than I do and I found that it seems to be almost excessively vertically callenged, ie almost "too wide", where the 3x25.5" 16:10 1920x1200 displays seem much more balanced. Now put the 16:9 displays in portrait mode and it seems too tight. The 16:10 displays in portrait are, again, more useable.
The point I don't think Ducman is getting is that ALL of this is personal preference. It is a given that 16:9, ie 1080p is the "standard" for now. With so many consumer displays and it being the predominant resolution out there, there is no question most producers of content are targetting it. Whatever you choose to display it on is irrelavent.
Hell, I prefer 1920x1200, but when I bought a laptop this last year, I choose one with a 1920x1080 display. Not because I thought it was a better choice, but because of a lack of choice. THAT is what this thread started about and the whole point of it, that with the surge of consumer 1080p displays, the rest of us are finding our options for 16:10 displays are seriously lacking, or require a serious premium. THAT is all. I still use my laptop every day, but the more I use my desktop, the more I miss the extra resolution that is "missing"...
If I may add, here is some EXCELLENT reading for Ducman:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letterbox
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anamorphic_widescreen
You will notice that letterboxing only refers to the adding of black bars above and below. Anamorphic refers to the distorting of the image to fit a given format properly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letterbox
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anamorphic_widescreen
You will notice that letterboxing only refers to the adding of black bars above and below. Anamorphic refers to the distorting of the image to fit a given format properly.
No, letterboxing refers to adding black bars above and below INTO THE SOURCE IMAGE. You are confused. We are talking about video games, so you need to look at the FAQ that I have already linked numerous times to see how that applies, not widescreen footage letterboxed into 4:3 format for non-widescreen displays that when scaled back to widescreen will have bars all around.
http://www.widescreengamingforum.com/wiki/index.php/FAQ#Screenchange
^the above is the accurate statement regarding hor+ and anamorphic scaling as it applies to gaming.
In the end though, what matters is:
LOSE image size or LOSE field of view or CHOOSE a 16:9 display. That's it. Its that simple. No amount of denial or positive spin will change that fact
Ok, so, I lose vertically used screen space when using a 1080p reolution, so what, @ 24.8" it is still larger than any 24" display, so, I loose exactly how???
You are soo stuck on 16:10 loosing out somehow... That is not the case...
Hell, I could say, since I can run a 6070x1200 resolution that your single monitor display is a complete loss situation since I have a MUCH wider FOV than you can hope to display useably. But, that would just be me making ignorant statements for the pure sake of trying to get the last word. That is precisely what YOU are doing. Stop it, you can't win when people see through your futility. You want to get the last word in. That is all.
And you were the one that stated in letterbox you get black bars on the top, bottom and on the sides, which is not the case, thus my link to show you the correct meaning.
You are soo stuck on 16:10 loosing out somehow... That is not the case...
Hell, I could say, since I can run a 6070x1200 resolution that your single monitor display is a complete loss situation since I have a MUCH wider FOV than you can hope to display useably. But, that would just be me making ignorant statements for the pure sake of trying to get the last word. That is precisely what YOU are doing. Stop it, you can't win when people see through your futility. You want to get the last word in. That is all.
And you were the one that stated in letterbox you get black bars on the top, bottom and on the sides, which is not the case, thus my link to show you the correct meaning.
No, the problem is that not only do you not know what you are talking about, you can't READ the material you are linking:
Wikipedia said:
I see you are hung up on the fact that "loss" is used when referring to 16:10 displays. You like 16:10, and so you can't stand it being painted in a negative light as the word "loss" implies. I didn't mean to hurt your feelings, but facts are facts.Ducman69 said:
That does NOT mean 16:9 is better, and again I just bought a 16:10 display myself and am very happy with my Dell U3011 and highly recommend it. But I am not in denial that I lose screen size or lose FOV compared to if it were a 16:9 display. The fact that its a 30" rather than a 27" that Dell offers in 16:9 sealed the deal though, with the only downside being cost.
daveswantek
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Oct 30, 2007
- Messages
- 1,231
That's because he does not understand dot pitch and any of the scale factors involved.
Have a look at the FAQ he so sure about: http://www.widescreengamingforum.com/wiki/index.php/FAQ
They change resolutions and scale factors in the middle of a sentence. They are totally oblivious to the math involved.
I personally believe that HOR+ is entended for multi monitor setups, but that is just a guess.
Dave
Ducman, you obviously are trying to twist things around to save face. THAT is your only objective here...
The fact of the matter is no-one, I mean no-one with any sort of reasoning skills could care less if the black bars in letterbox are part of the actual signal or inserted via the display for 1:1 mapping. you bring up a non-technical point to try to make your case. That goes to show how far deluded you are in trying to prove yourself the "correct one" in this discussion.
I could care less if anyone else likes 16:10 or not, I personally do, for all the above reasons mentioned and even made an expensive purchase based on that criteria.
You think that people are all about the wording of loss or negative bias. The whole point of 16:10 is that you get MORE of everything. And if you make your purchasing decision wisely, even when you take a hit on vertical utilization, you still come out ahead of the majority of the same-class displays.
It is obvious that you have an inferiority complex, thus you try driving home a point that everyone brought up as a plus, not a negative. YOU are the one putting a negative spin on things.
Fact of the matter is 1080p is a standard because it is at the top of the consumer hi-def formats. That is the only thing driving things to 16:9, not because FOV is SOOO much better (I mean hell, why not 16:6???) and there is a whole host of mathematical and engineering reasons as to why 1080p is the top-standard in video output. Hell, a lot of movies aren't even produced in 1080p, but in more drastic ratios to give a wider format to the film that it causes letterboxing on 16:9 displays. Just that more and more are going to be driving towards 1080p. But, again, that means exactly what to computers and the displays the end-users use? It just means there are going to be cheaper and cheaper 1080p displays, that is all...
Again, fact of the matter is, for those that work, 16:10 is the preferred format. For those that game and watch videos, 16:9. Just because we buy 16:10 displays does not mean we loose out on anything, and THAT is the point you are hung up on.
The fact of the matter is no-one, I mean no-one with any sort of reasoning skills could care less if the black bars in letterbox are part of the actual signal or inserted via the display for 1:1 mapping. you bring up a non-technical point to try to make your case. That goes to show how far deluded you are in trying to prove yourself the "correct one" in this discussion.
I could care less if anyone else likes 16:10 or not, I personally do, for all the above reasons mentioned and even made an expensive purchase based on that criteria.
You think that people are all about the wording of loss or negative bias. The whole point of 16:10 is that you get MORE of everything. And if you make your purchasing decision wisely, even when you take a hit on vertical utilization, you still come out ahead of the majority of the same-class displays.
It is obvious that you have an inferiority complex, thus you try driving home a point that everyone brought up as a plus, not a negative. YOU are the one putting a negative spin on things.
Fact of the matter is 1080p is a standard because it is at the top of the consumer hi-def formats. That is the only thing driving things to 16:9, not because FOV is SOOO much better (I mean hell, why not 16:6???) and there is a whole host of mathematical and engineering reasons as to why 1080p is the top-standard in video output. Hell, a lot of movies aren't even produced in 1080p, but in more drastic ratios to give a wider format to the film that it causes letterboxing on 16:9 displays. Just that more and more are going to be driving towards 1080p. But, again, that means exactly what to computers and the displays the end-users use? It just means there are going to be cheaper and cheaper 1080p displays, that is all...
Again, fact of the matter is, for those that work, 16:10 is the preferred format. For those that game and watch videos, 16:9. Just because we buy 16:10 displays does not mean we loose out on anything, and THAT is the point you are hung up on.
Also, if I may add, that Ducman, you came in here telling others to only buy 1080p displays, when the whole POINT of the thread was to discuss 1920x1200 16:10 displays.
Which, since you admitted you already bought a 30" 16:10 display, are you actually telling others not to make the same kind of purchase as you so you can be of the "esoteric" type that has one of the "non-standard" ratios, so you can use it as a big plus in telling others your equipment is "special"???
Sorry, there is a lot more to your motivations here...
Which, since you admitted you already bought a 30" 16:10 display, are you actually telling others not to make the same kind of purchase as you so you can be of the "esoteric" type that has one of the "non-standard" ratios, so you can use it as a big plus in telling others your equipment is "special"???
Sorry, there is a lot more to your motivations here...
Your very first post in this thread:
Now stop the stupidity. Again, you are trivializing things out of some need to have the last word...
Now stop the stupidity. Again, you are trivializing things out of some need to have the last word...
BlindedByScience
More Human than Human
- Joined
- May 26, 2000
- Messages
- 9,225
Once again, I am going to remind you guys that the bickering, personal insults, and other crap will simply not be tolerated in this forum going forward.
I have said it before, and I'll say it again; you guys can debate, even argue the facts all you want but when it turns personal, folks will get warnings, infractions, vacations or outright banned as required to make the point.
I have said it before, and I'll say it again; you guys can debate, even argue the facts all you want but when it turns personal, folks will get warnings, infractions, vacations or outright banned as required to make the point.
Cyberbeing
Gawd
- Joined
- Nov 22, 2007
- Messages
- 570
Some things being discussed only involve one factor or the other. The problem is that whenever I would explain something about a single factor (ie. screen resolution), you at times responded that I was wrong and brought a subjective factor (ie. screen size) as proof... It just doesn't work that way. In the overall picture they are related, but when talking about specifics (like I was doing) they are not.
Screen size (pixel size) is overall a completely subjective element. Do you want a larger 16:9 image with larger pixels (24" 1920x1080), or a smaller 16:9 image with smaller pixels (24" 1920x1200)? There is no right or wrong answer to that. Some people prefer denser pixels, other people prefer a larger image. Games, movies, images, etc don't care about screen size, only screen resolution (number of pixels) and aspect ratio. Only resolution and aspect ratio are important while discussing the technicalities of how games, movies, images, etc are displayed on a pixel grid. Screen size only becomes important when trying to make a subjective decision about purchasing a monitor.
Sounds good to me.
The problem is when you claim that a 16:10 monitor is incapable of displaying the same FoV as a 16:9 monitor because of 'anamorphic' scaling, 'anamorphic' scaling which is almost never used in games. 'Anamorphic' scaling which is a non-issue on 16:10 monitors when using a 16:9 resolution in-game.
For example, the image albovin keeps posting, which uses a fixed 16:9 aspect ratio with letter-boxing. The below image is not an example of anamorphic scaling. The below image is an example of aspect ratio scaling.
(If the 1920x1200 monitor is actually 24.0", then the 1920x1080 monitor appears to be ~23.7" not 24.0" in that image. The camera may have warped the image slightly)
If memory serves me right, that particular game actually isn't HOR+, but rather sets a fixed 16:9 aspect ratio no matter what, aka aspect ratio scaling.
(You would get the same result on a HOR+ game if both monitors were set to an in-game resolution of 1920x1080, where the monitor instead of the game would do aspect ratio scaling and add letter-boxing).
Both monitors are displaying the same 16:9 FOV.
In that image, the 23.7" 1920x1080 monitor has a ~3% larger image area then the 24" 1920x1200. Confirmed by measuring the image in Photoshop.
Ducman69, what exactly is your problem with that image? It is a perfectly valid example of 'lose screen size or lose fov'. Whenever you dispute that image, you are also disputing 'lose screen size or lose fov', which you also claim to believe in. I'm sure you see the problem people have when you are constantly contradicting yourself.
Last edited: