Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
3D games are not based on pixels, so how do you decide which resolutions should show more information and which resolutions should show less?
It's not that simple. Ideally, information should be independent from pixels, 3D games or not.wabbitseason said: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.
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.
Is 2048 x 1536 @ 80 Hz good enough for you?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
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.
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
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.
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.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
So you're asking for games to decrease the vertical FoV instead of increasing the horizontal one?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.
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.- 120 Hz screens for 16:10 are not yet made probably due the earlier mentioned technical limitations
- Although 16:9 is smaller than 16:10, in practical use the difference is small and you shall game the same way on both.
So you're asking for games to decrease the vertical FoV instead of increasing the horizontal one?
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.
wabbitseason said: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.
Hor+ and Vert- ARE NOT THE ONLY POSSIBLE METHODS OF CONTROLLING FIELD OF VIEW.
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?
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.
I propose a fixed AREA of field of view, with monitors distributing that area differently according to aspect ratio.
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?
"deluded" "Pathetic" lol
Ratchet down the asperger for civility sake. We're talking aspect ratios here. Your outrage is uncalled for.
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.
taking no responsibility for being overly divisive during a technical debate.
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.