Widescreen - worth it?

jrb531 said:
BTW BF1942, BFV, BF2 all support widescreen although you have to hack the config files. I find it hard to beleive that BF2142 does not allow the same settings although I agree that this needs to be a menu item and not make up hack the files to get it to work.
-JB
Click to expand...

if you play with the config files in BF2, punkbuster will nail you. Won't be able to play ranked servers.
 
WS for the win..... Youll love it.. And for the most part, games are easily converted to widescreen with setting the res in a cfg file and setting the FOV to get rid of streching.. Most newer games already support WS....
 
I love my 19"W Hanns-G...I went from a 17" CRT to this, and I could *never* go back. ever.
 
ijozic said:
Widescreen is ok from 23/24" on. I would *NEVER* buy a 20" WS. Why? 20" WS is much smaller. At 1680*1050 against 1600*1200 you lose too much in the vertical for a neglible gain in the horizontal. 4:3 20" can do what the WS can do and has extra space above and below. In this context, why would anyone buy a 20" WS (except that they're cheaper and for a reason, too) instead of a regular 20" is beyond me.
Click to expand...

Watch a normal WS movie in a 20"WS and a 20" 4:3, and see which one gives you more movie space.

IMO, if your monitor is mainly used for movies, WS is definately the way to go. Getting a 4:3 screen will definately be wasteful, as your money goes into giving you bigger black bars at the top and bottom.

If your monitor is mainly used for movies + gaming, WS is still the way to go. Almost all games can be played at WS reso either by natural support, ini file hack, or 3rd party program hack. And this is done WITHOUT stretching. Stretching is pure crap, and should not be accepted. All games I'm playing now can be played in WS, NFS Carbon, Black&White,Prey,Fear,HalfLifeEp1, all without stretching.

If your monitor is used only for work, then perhaps 4:3 is the way to go. It is true that you are actually getting a smaller screen when going WS. And vertical space IMO is quite important in documents and other work related stuff.

The argument saying a 20" 4:3 is better than a 20"WS might be valid for some, since a 4:3 has more pixels AND viewing area. But for me, the WS is cheaper, and games look freaking fabulous on WS, and I don't waste top/bottom space when watching movies and also all the divx tv series that is now almost all in WS format. I used to have the opinion that WS is stupid coz you have actually less viewing area, but I now think otherwise, with more and more games+tv shows coming out in WS.

Cheers
 
parsona said:
IMO, if your monitor is mainly used for movies, WS is definately the way to go. Getting a 4:3 screen will definately be wasteful, as your money goes into giving you bigger black bars at the top and bottom.
Click to expand...

I agree. If that was your main use wide would make more sense. But, I don't own a TV and all my TV/Video/Movie watching is on my monitor and it is still not my main use. Plus a heck of a lot of material is older and 4:3. Neither a 20" 16:10, nor 20" 16:12 is very good for 2.39:1 widescreen movies. You get a tiny picture on both. If this was my main use, I would probably get a 16:9 tv. It is wider and usually you can get biggers sizes for cheaper.


If your monitor is used only for work, then perhaps 4:3 is the way to go. It is true that you are actually getting a smaller screen when going WS. And vertical space IMO is quite important in documents and other work related stuff.

The argument saying a 20" 4:3 is better than a 20"WS might be valid for some, since a 4:3 has more pixels AND viewing area.
Click to expand...

Thanks for acknowledging that, most don't. But it is not just work. Web Surfing the we also benefits in the same way as just about every page on the planet is not that wide by much higher, often on the order of magnitudes higher than they are wide.

If your monitor is mainly used for movies + gaming, WS is still the way to go. Almost all games can be played at WS reso either by natural support, ini file hack, or 3rd party program hack. And this is done WITHOUT stretching. Stretching is pure crap, and should not be accepted. All games I'm playing now can be played in WS, NFS Carbon, Black&White,Prey,Fear,HalfLifeEp1, all without stretching.

But for me, the WS is cheaper, and games look freaking fabulous on WS, and I don't waste top/bottom space when watching movies and also all the divx tv series that is now almost all in WS format. I used to have the opinion that WS is stupid coz you have actually less viewing area, but I now think otherwise, with more and more games+tv shows coming out in WS.
Cheers
Click to expand...

HighTest said:
While this is a list Matrox uses for their three monitor solution (Triplehead), it lists games that support Widescreen displays and resolutions.

http://www.matrox.com/graphics/en/gxm/products/th2go/gaming/list.php

Over 150 according to this list.
Click to expand...

I did some rearranging so I could address the similar points here. Where is the fullscreen list for game support? Oh wait we don't need one. EVERY GAME ever made supports FULLSCREEN. They also look equally fabulous on Fullscreen. You don't need to alter .ini/config or mess around with hack programs.

Here is a screen set from WSGF. If you were play the top Fullscreen, would you really have a craving to have the top and bottom cropped off like the bottom on Widescreen?
http://ct.pbase.com/o5/04/606404/1/69959526.aHXCc0kF.ds2_adjust.jpg
(If you get a denied message on jpg, just hit reload)

People routinely bring up the farce that WS is more natural for you field of vision or other related absurdities. That is nonsense of the highest order. If you go for the extreme of including the peripheral vision of both eyes then FOV is probably 180deg Hor, 140 Ver. But when using even a widescreen monitor we are at maybe 32 deg by 20 degrees. In effect we are pretty much in Tunnel vision mode using our monitors.

The one that would make sense is that the shape of 16:10 is more aesthetically pleasing than 4:3. I would agree with that. I am not an anti WS zealot, I just find the squeeing of the anti Fullscreen zealots both annoying and incorrect.

My view is that for a general use monitor:
1920x1200 > 1600x1200 > 1680x1050 > 1400x1050 > 1280x1024 > 1440x900

After years of 1600x1200, I can go back to lesser resolution in either direction.
 
Nope, totally not worth it...I suggest all of you round up your widescreens and PM me for an address to send them for proper disposal. :shiftyeyes: ;)
 
Snowdog said:
The one that would make sense is that the shape of 16:10 is more aesthetically pleasing than 4:3. I would agree with that. I am not an anti WS zealot, I just find the squeeing of the anti Fullscreen zealots both annoying and incorrect.
Click to expand...

Never stated that I was an anti-fullscreen zealot, I just had my previous Fullscreen CRT die and had a choice when purchasing.

The "Aesthetically" pleasing aspect was the primary need for me and was met by a WS display. In this thread it was looking like someone was asking if it was worth it. The thread then changed into the same series of debates as the "Letterbox/widescreen" versus "Fullscreen" DVD owners. Note that you can rent and purchase both, as movie houses realized that both camps are firm in their desire and intentions to purchase.

That said, there will allways be those that want to purchase Widescreen and those that want to purchase Fullscreen LCD displays. Makers would be foolish to restrict their models to only one or the other form factor.
 
Back in may I bought a 21" Samsung 215tw WS for college, I had it for a couple of weeks and absolutely loved it, although there was a ghosting problem I noticed in TrackMania Nations (the picture got blurry when i whipped around sharp corners quickly) and the corners were brighter than the center I still loved it, I had to return it due to cash reasons and go back to my 19" 4:3 CRT and it was awful, the CRT was at 80hz and it seemed like I was looking at a strobe light, the real estate was awful, 1680x1050 vs 1280x1024, it took some getting use to, I told myself when I get the cash i'm getting a 24" monitor, I researched and researched, had to decide between waiting for the benq or buying a 24" currently on the market, I found that the Dell 2407 was the best value, it had everything my 215tw had plus a usb hub and a card reader, when I found a 20% off LCD coupon code I scored my 2407 for $640, when I got it I was worried about dead pixels, backlight bleed, and ghosting, right when I turned the monitor on for the first time no dead pixels SCORE, in the bootup screen the screen went black, no backlight bleed whatsoever SCORE, then for the real test I tried trackmania nations, CS, BF2, HL2:E1, absolutely no ghosting, SCORE, I am extremely happy with my 2407 purchase, I use it for my 360 (with component, soon to be VGA) and through my computer with DVI
 
get a pair of ws while you're at it. i got a set of viewsonic 2025s back in march. the only regret i had was not getting it sooner.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top