This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

How do people stand playing in anything less than a 16:10 aspect ratio?

#11lionheart5656Posted 8/21/2013 5:45:33 PM
ivanwind15 posted...
Because 16:9 gives more viewing space in gaming.

For example, http://h8.abload.de/img/sc2_fov36k6.gif
and http://i.imgur.com/CaMCp.jpg


TC got owned pretty early in this thread.
---
http://tinyurl.com/3ljyptn
Shooting blanks, every time, all the time.
#12bikeblasterPosted 8/21/2013 5:45:55 PM
I have both 16:10 and 16:9.


My only issue is 16:10 displays 720p & 1080p videos were black bars, and games that are 16:9 forced gets black bars too.
And currently since 16:10 aren't made anymore, 16:9 are superior compared to the last 16:10 monitors made.

One thing 16:10 does offer is that extra room vertically, does helps you see more.
---
2500k @4.2 GHz | Z68X-UD3P | Hyper 212+ | 8GB Corsair Vengeance | GTX 670 | Samsung Spinpoint 1 TB+WD 320 | Win 7 64-bit | Corsair 750HX| CM 690 II Adv
#13LordSeiferPosted 8/21/2013 5:49:02 PM
5:4 is where its at
---
^ this
#14fuzzymanPosted 8/21/2013 5:51:11 PM
got used to it

I bought a 16:9 HP notebook five years ago and it had an HDMI port, Blu-Ray, Geforce, everything

I had a 360 before then on launch day so I was already getting used to 720p and 1080p
---
http://i.imgur.com/hOjV6w3.jpg
#15GreenMage7Posted 8/21/2013 5:55:22 PM
16:10 is better for everything not game related. It's nice for games as well if they're not competitive. Anything where I need the field of view I play in a 1080p window though (unless it's one of the extremely few games with vertical field of view).
#16DiviDudePosted 8/21/2013 6:16:52 PM(edited)
So high school level calculus shows that, for any given hypotenuse, you maximize the area by making the rectangle a square. And thus, the closer to a square shape, the more area and thus more pixels a monitor will have. A 20 inch 4:3 monitor will have more pixels than a 20 inch 16:10 or 16:9.

So why are wide screens better? Does it have something to do with the FOV of actual human vision being skewed in favor of width?
#17DiviDudePosted 8/21/2013 7:09:18 PM
ivanwind15 posted...
Because 16:9 gives more viewing space in gaming.

For example, http://h8.abload.de/img/sc2_fov36k6.gif
and http://i.imgur.com/CaMCp.jpg


Wait, why would someone use a non-native aspect ratio? If you want to make that a decent comparison of aspect ratios, you have to use the same size monitor size for each aspect ratio. That is, the comparison only makes sense if you're comparing a 25 inch 4:3 monitor to a 25 inch 16:10 monitor to a 25 inch 16:9 monitor. And that paints a different picture,

http://imgur.com/oSGKsfI

So what am I missing here?
#18BogePosted 8/22/2013 10:47:43 AM
DiviDude posted...
ivanwind15 posted...
Because 16:9 gives more viewing space in gaming.

For example, http://h8.abload.de/img/sc2_fov36k6.gif
and http://i.imgur.com/CaMCp.jpg


Wait, why would someone use a non-native aspect ratio? If you want to make that a decent comparison of aspect ratios, you have to use the same size monitor size for each aspect ratio. That is, the comparison only makes sense if you're comparing a 25 inch 4:3 monitor to a 25 inch 16:10 monitor to a 25 inch 16:9 monitor. And that paints a different picture,

http://imgur.com/oSGKsfI

So what am I missing here?


That's a good example. Why not go with 300sq inches with 4:3? It's because you'll miss that horizontal real estate. Isn't that why we switched to widescreen in the first place? We felt we needed/wanted more horizontal real estate?
---
Don't lie to someone who trusts you.
Don't trust someone who lies to you.
#19AzurexNightmarePosted 8/22/2013 10:50:35 AM
first world problems
---
PS3, Vita, 3DS. PSN: xLionhartx
3DS FC: 2964-9886-6268
#20fuzzymanPosted 8/22/2013 10:59:18 AM(edited)
16:9 doesn't even make sense because in reality movies are filmed in 1:2.35 (versus 1:1.777)

Then they are pillarboxed because the cameramen know where to keep peoples faces, and they have no concern of "letterboxing" or chopping peoples eyebrows off

example

http://www.starwarz.com/tbone/archive/index.php?categoryid=22&p2_articleid=462

16:9 is still like "fullscreen" 4:3, it's just less details are lost on the left and right, but you're still losing details

I want one of these 21:9 screens

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824005396

That's a proper FOV of 110!
---
http://i.imgur.com/hOjV6w3.jpg