Comments before the thread is locked by Krikkit (like the last one Steve.E went a touch unnecessary in) - please don't assume that anyone who is a member of the WSGF community is a fanatic for "How wide can you go?" and "Which is better?" arguments on aspect ratio. I'm a sometime poster there, most of the guys are more concerned with getting the most of what they have, just focussing on aspect ratios other than 4:3. They have some superb tweaks if you're running non-standard resolutions for any reason, particularly where nVidia Surround and AMD Eyefinity are concerned as well as anyone still using SoftTH or Matrox Triplehead. @Steve.E.: Lighten up a touch and please stop derailing every honest question about monitors with "16:9 is the only true way! All others are heretics! Burn the heretic!" rhetoric. We have enough of that already with "120Hz is da King!" and "If you're not using IPS you're a Philistine!" arguments. You do have a point which is accurate in some instances, it just doesn't apply to all. Most current FPS games are on a single level so horizontal FOV becomes more important but if you have one that deals with the vertical as well then that extra 120 pixels can make a subtle, but important, difference as the additional vertical FOV outweighs the horizontal. Horses for courses. The difference is truly minimal until you get to the ultra widescreen resolutions some of us use when vert- and hor+ become truly meaningful terms (as well as HUD tweaks - L4D2 is glorious at 24:5 aspect ratio but you seriously need to tweak the **** out of the HUD so it's usable!) If you frequent WSGF then please learn the difference between vert- and hor+ as the folks there explain it better than anywhere else. It puts everything in to perspective. This is not a flame or a dig, only comments. If you truly wish to discuss the benefits of 16:9 over 16:10 with regards to FPS games then may I suggest that you create a thread in the Gaming section regarding it? Expect a reasoned argument in response as well as being expected to give a well constructed rebuttal rather than citing the exact same opinions again. Personally, I look forwards to it (should you choose to do so) but please be prepared to back up your arguments with screen shots at different resolutions of exactly the same thing (as per Pookeyhead). TL;DR - Chill dude, you have a point but you're making it in the wrong place and being an arse while you're at it. You want to discuss, argue or debate? Start a thread in gaming. Provide screen shots to support your argument. Please stop dragging WSGF in the mud as we're mostly not zealots, just folks who may have an extra monitor or few who consider FOV limits as something to be worked around.
I think you may have that backwards. And I would it peg it slightly differently for different aspect ratios on the assumption that the horizontal resolutions remained constant. Vert- then 16:10 would win, it shows the same level of detail and has a greater vertical field of vision. Hor+ means 16:9 has a greater horizontal FOV BUT 16:10 shows greater detail since the picture is effectively zoomed in, the swings and roundabouts I mentioned earlier.
It would appear to not as simple as that. I've been doing some tests here and with certain games there's some oddness. With WoW... in full screen mode, 16:9 gives a wider FOV, but when in full screen windowed mode, 16:10 gives both wider horizontal AND vertical, but mostly vertical. Switch off any GPU scaling, and it behaves exactly as Steve suggests. I offer a partial apology to Steve. Partial because he's still stupidly evangelical for 16:9 when even in light of this, there's no real advantage to 16:9 when you consider that in every other plausible use for a computer monitor 16:10 is clearly superior.
The widescreengamingforum.com's (whose motto is: 'wider is better', so no bias then) game list is comprehensive. It lists WoW as Vert-, ie 16:10 will show more FOV vertically (coincidentally 4:3 and even more so 5:4 monitors would show an even greater vertical FOV, I think this is why vert- is falling out of favour, it seems counter intuitive to give preference to non-widescreen monitors nowadays). I would agree 16:10 is probably better for everything other than in Hor+ games where due to personal taste you may want greater horizontal FOV and letterboxing widescreen video where the black bars will be larger. Using a computer as a computer for all computery things in addition to some 3D games and video playback I would have to agree that on balance the greater pixel density of 16:10 wins out and is preferable, assuming an equal horizontal resolution.
True, but (not arguing with you) coming from SD TV, and well even movies now, (as few are in 16:10), the wide black bar at the top and bottom are so large that it really does not mater, if it's a few pixels larger more. I guess it does mater, if you use a TN panel, as you'll see the back light bleeding. But on a PVA or IPS panels, it's black black. Of course, but buying a computer for exclusively playing games and only games and nothing more than games... is a bit silly. Buy a gaming console. Sure you don't have ALL the games, but same for the PC, you don't have ALL the games from consoles either.
On a TN panel it would matter more, yes, but the fact is, even on 16:9 you'll still get bars with movies as they're not 16:9 anyway.
Hey. been reading this argument that been going on. i dont know much, just got a new pc. cant even figure out how to shut the bleeping up when i click the mouse on things, But ive played games before on 16:9 and just got a 16:10 monitor. I put crysis on and i would like the black lines on top and bottom because it only goes upto 1920x1080 but i'm suffering the window bar a top. What should i do?
So 16:9 may be good for games. However 16:10 is far better for general use and great in games too. The argument about 16:9 being the de-facto ratio for media now is completely wrong. Films are not in 16:9 (except for crappy made for TV movies) so you will see letterboxing on a 16:9 monitor as well as a 16:10. On this basis neither is better than the other. I loved my old Samsung TN panel but I sure do appreciate the better viewing angles of my IPS, especially when watching - you guessed it - films. On the basis that cinematic movies are still the (arguably) most important, high profile, artistic and culturally important media medium; and are in neither 16:9 or 16:10 then it does not make much sense to get so hot under the collar about this. To say that 16:10 is no good for games is completely false. I have played most of the top games in 16:10 over the last few years including many that apparently do not support this ratio. I have never had a single issue.
Yes, cinematic movies will have letter boxing on both 16:9 and 16:10 monitors. On my TN panel black light bleed was obvious due to this letter boxing. On my IPS the black bars are BLACK. I am not saying TN panels are always rubbish and I am not saying that IPS panels are always great - clearly mileage will vary so I am not flaming. But my personal experience is that watching full HD Blu Ray movies on my 16:10 IPS panel is an absolute joy. There are advantages to both ratios, but to say that you must have 16:9 or to deny that there are advantages to IPS technology over TN is just technically inaccurate.
That is wrong, it certainly should not do that regardless of the aspect ratio. Sounds like it is running in windowed mode. In the graphics options in game make sure you have the 'fullscreen' option set to 'yes'.
Make sure that the game is running in full screen mode (no title bar and task bar should be visible). You can do this by looking in the Options in game Crysis. This should allow also, once done, pick 1920x1200 resolution. If not, then this is because Crysis and Windows 7 are stupid. Basically, since Windows 7, Windows rounds 59.997 Hz monitor, to 59Hz, and not 60Hz as previous Windows. Crysis excludes 59Hz and lower resolutions. So 1920x1200 doesn't make it to the list. I thought the latest Nvidia/AMD drivers solved that, by automatically adding "60Hz" options to Windows. Where it sets the monitor to 60.001Hz (which will work, and won't damage the monitor at all. All monitors (very old and new) supports both, as there is no source that output accurate Hz, it could vary, so basically it just rounds to 60Hz). To solve this particular problem, you need to access your graphic card control panel, and create a new resolution, of 1920x1200 @ 60.001Hz. That is all. Now start Crysis again, and the option will be there. But you should have not need to go through that anymore. (BTW, it has nothing to do with aspect ratio... it affected everyone).
Will restate: Have played hundred of games over the last few years in 16:10. Not once have I had an issue or had to mess around in drivers, config files or perform other tweaks. Not once have I experienced distorted, stretched or clipped images to any extent that is noticeable or detrimental to enjoyment. Crysis 2 ran perfectly from day 1 on two separate 16:10 monitors including at 1920 x 1200.
This thread really changed topics and in some ways it has actually led to some very good and interesting viewpoints. I think I've learned quite a bit today reading through this thread. I will only add that I have had a Samsung PX2370 for quite some time now and I really do like it. I admit, there is some drawback with the non-adjustable stand and if I bump my desk hard, the monitor does wobble slightly. Other than that, I have been very pleased with it. It has a phenomenal viewing angle although certain color shades seem to adjust slightly when viewing from either the left or right vs dead center. The purchase of the monitor was mainly an in-store impulse buy on my part as I already had a well functioning 21in LCD 16x10 panel. What really sold me was the vibrancy of color of LED vs LCD.
