More accurately, don't persistently insult and obtusely argue with everyone on the forum without making an effort to engage in constructive communication, if you want to be welcome on these boards The problem here, just to pin it down precisely: is that this comparison assumes a constant vertical resolution and changing horizontal resolutions. 1920*1200 vs. 1920*1080 is the opposite, a constant horizontal resolution and changing vertical resolutions. 1920*1200 would give you the same horizontal FOV as 1920*1080 and slightly more vertical FOV, as said above (many, many times). As for letterboxing, on a screen with decent black depth you won't notice the black bars, because they're - you guessed it - black. edit- for those baffled as to Steve's possible motivations for continually arguing this point so vehemently, see post-purchase rationalization. My guess is he just has a 1920*1080 monitor and has been ribbed by someone at some point for having chosen the one with lower fields of view.
Blimey, wind it in.... I tried the constructive route and got bombarded by IPS fanboi's that cant appreciate other peoples requirements and needs. Not happy with rubbishing anything other than IPS, it also seems that mocking even the thought of choosing a non IPS panel is deemed retarded...get a grip people.
Nothing wrong with choosing TN over IPS but I do think people go a bit overboard on here about how good IPS is! Each to their own!
well at the end of the day it is your decision to whatever panel you want to buy.. every tech has its pros and cons... The discussion was about something else... 16:10 > 16:9 or vice versa... and what effect it will have on games/media etc...
I was addressing Steve, not you. Sorry if that seemed aimed at you, being structured as it was. It was also light-hearted, not intended to seem like an assault, hence the "". That's my code for "easy, people, it's just the internet". And I completely agree that Pookey's response was excessive and rude. Understandable, though, given the pedantic and unconstructive tone of the posts in this thread. It's like everyone's just deliberately talking past one another.
I was worrying over Steve.E's assertions for a bit, obviously it is easy to dismiss any idea or argument that appears to be a draft written using the monkey typewriter/complete works of Shakespere method, for some idiot reason I decided to look into it a bit further since no one has given a particularly convincing argument either way. So the crazy fool may have a point, however there are caveats and for one game in particular you can still benefit no matter what aspect ratio monitor you have. My example is BFBC 2, contrary to what Pookyhead said it appears this game does lock the vertical FOV, this means a wider aspect 16:9 will see more past the edges and a 16:10 effectively sees a slightly zoomed in view. The vertical FOV is set at '55' in the settings.ini file (hence not customisable in the in-game options), on a 16:10 you could change it to get more vertical viewing and keep the horizontal view in line with the 16:9, there is a calculator someone has made, behold linky. I conclude that this type of scaling (called HOR+ I beleive) is the standard but if you want more horizontal real estate it may not be insurmountable as you may be able to change the settings but it may not be as easy as sliding a bar as was shown. Alternatively I could also see a slightly zoomed picture as having benefits over a wider view as it may make aiming easier. It appears to be swings and roundabouts. I have not tried changing the aspect ratio in game to check yet, might give it a go later. *edit* I have improved the animated gif to demonstrate what I mean. The example would be locked vertical FOV as described above on 1920x1200 (16:10) and 1920 x 1080 (16:9) monitors, as you can see the physical width of picture is now the same because the horizontal resolution on both is equal: As you can see the FOV between the horizontals is the same, the 16:9 does fit more in the edge but the 16:10 is scaled up/zoomed in slightly.
StarCraft 2 has been criticized to not support 16:10 properly since it's beta. Blozzard choose to ignore the problem. And after thinking about it, it makes sense actually... as it does not affect game play at all. It's not like you have things on the left and right, which causes problem where you should see them, but don't. You can see them, and if you think that this issue is what you makes you lose in StraCraft 2, and unable to play properly (yea right), then you can set the game at 1920x1080. You 'll have black lines at the top and bottom. And because IPS panels (and PVA) have amazing blacks and virtually no back light bleeding, contrary to TN panels, then the black lines are perfectly black, and you feel it's part of the frame of the monitor. I believe the idea for Statecraft 2 designers, is that every building and object appear the same size, so that lowering your screen resolution or aspect ratio, doesn't give make stuff bigger, where you have a shorter mouse distance to travel between object to object. In other words, it reminds me of old FPS games, where if you lover the resolution, to, let's a say 800x600, then it is A LOT easier to do head-shots over a larger screen resolution. You can always sand shorter a peace of wood, but once you sand it down too much (bought a 16:9 monitor), you can't add what was removed back. So if you just HAPPEN that all your games has this problem, AND that their are "game killer" where you just can't play the game properly. Then play all your games at 1920x1080, and have the desktop at 1920x1200, and now you have the best of both worlds. Based on NEC research (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/16:10#16:10_-_properties), they have concluded that the golden ratio of the field of view, matches the 16:10 monitor. So what it means, if true, is that basically with 16:9, we are seeing more the side then what we humanly can in real life. Goat vision? So basically, Steve.E argument is that we should buy keyboards with 20 macro keys, because we can use them to make the game play easier (cheat) to take advantage of other where doing a series of keyboard keys will take more time to do. However, I am sure game designer knows about the 2 aspect ratio, and consider those when designing a game... and they do.. 'because at no point in time I ever said (on the games that have the problem), "Man I wish I could see more to left and right, because enemies appear only there, and nothing at the center".
You are kind of correct, if you are asking me which is better 16:9 or 16:10 using the FOV argument is irrelevant, both have advantages in my mind and both should be tweakable. If you are talking purely on the merits of FOV then you may want the widest aspect, the example that would bring this into sharp relief is an AMD eyefinity setup, using this extreme example would certainly make a strong case for locking the vertical FOVs. Generally the screens are spread in a line horizontally, by locking the vertical FOV then you really could see more round the edges, a distinct advantage and more immersive experience, this is the whole point of eyefinity no? If you locked the horizontal FOV on an eyefinity setup then that would cause serious issues, it would be like having tunnel vision. A gaming eyefinity setup with the monitors spread vertically would hardly ever happen. So it must be clear for the programmers, lock the vertical FOV (HOR+), less issues but 16:10 users may require tweaks to get the same horizontal area.
Yes, of course, just like all other develpers. Why the heck would they develop games for an old format like 16:10? They obviously dont do that and will never do that again. 16:10 is history, 16:9 is present and future! And the only ones that complain are a few 16:10 users that are stuck in the past. And Vert- isnt more properly than HOR+. Only some narrow minded 16:10 users believe that. Basically all games are HOR+ or anamorphic in 2011.
To be honest it's not hard to set the view according to the aspect ratio and the resolution. (especially since most games are 3D games). A proper camera class was the first thing I developped in a all 3D engines I made. A developper should make an absolute abstraction of what the "software" is running on. Games that are meant to run on a fixed hardware (at least computer games) are unacceptable in my opinion.
Yep.. we've established that there is a small minority of games that don't handle 16:10 as they should, but that wasn't really the point I was making. It was Steve E that was constantly using games as a reason to buy 16:9, not I. My point, (and revised graphic) was to merely point out that with the vast majority of titles and all productivity software and web browsing etc, you get equal horizontal FOV and extra vertical FOV. The few titles that refuse to play nice are simply not an issue. Even the old movies argument is redundant, as most cinema releases on blu ray are not in 16:9 either, they're in 1.85 or 2:39:1, which will still give black bars even on a 16:9 screen.
16:9 basically always means bigger field of view unless we talk about games from -2007! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_of_view_in_video_games Field Of View info for different aspect ratios and games are available in an impressive database on WSG: http://widescreengamingforum.com/mgl Anamorphic = 16:10 letterbox (black bars) HOR+ = 16:9 has larger field of view than 16:10 Vert- = 16:10 has larger field of view than 16:9 As you can see basically all new games are HOR+ or Anamorphic
Can we close this topic ? It's leading nowhere. I do not care about 4:3, 16:9 or 16:10. They all have their pros and cons. Just get the one that fit your needs and that's it ! Steve, will it change the game wether if you have black bars, adaptative FOV or whatever can be ? New games are better that old ones ? OMG I should be killed stone dead ... I'm still playing games from my Amiga, shame on myself ! 16:9 is your choice, I'm happy for you but stop annoying us with your poor arguments.
I agree that the field of vision (FOV) argument is mainly for games, but I think you are wrong to say this is the minority of games, this appears to be the majority of games judging from my research (as mentioned if locked horizontal FOV was the norm eyefinity setups would be out, programmers will take the path of least resistance). As promised I can show BFBC2 does lock the vertical FOV, screens were taken TODAY at 1280 x 720 (16:9) and 1280 x 800 (16:10) resolutions: The vertical FOV is the same on both, 16:10 is zoomed in (check out Sarge, he is bigger in 16:10) and clipped (check fortress and mountains edges) by comparison. There is a list of games that behave in this manner here, it is sizable and includes the year's big releases, Crysis 2, BF3 and Portal 2. In short unless you have the option to reconfigure the FOV, under stock conditions if you want to see the widest horizontal FOV in games you should choose the widest aspect monitor possible. This is a reason to plump for 16:9, all the other reasons you have stated for getting a 16:10 are also valid apart from saying that most games compensate by changing the vertical FOV, it is simply not true, QED. Weigh up the facts then make your decision.
When I set the gpu to rescale the image to fit the screen.. which I always do, there appears to be zero change in horizontal FOV in any game I have here when changing from from a 16:10 to a 16:9 res. However, switch that off, and set the monitor to rescale, and there is. Switch off all scaling, and there is also. Looks like we may owe Steve an apology here.
I would not go that far, his argument is boring, pedantic and lacks insight or evidence, there is nothing more enraging than the argument 'I am right because I SAY SO!'. I certainly would not rep him since although he may have been correct his argument was so poor it actually turned sane and reasonable people to the incorrect conclusion, happily I am always willing to play devils advocate as the links he posted (which IMHO also do a pretty shoddy job of explaining how this works) and my own OCD nature led me to uncover the precise behavior.
It really makes little difference between 16:9 and 16:10, as Bungletron pointed out it depends on whether or not the game FOV is set to vert-(16:9 is ahead by a nose) or hor+(16:10 just pulls ahead). The only reason I care or even know the difference at all? I'm an Eyefinity user and hor+ means I can play at a widescreen aspect ratio of 24:5. Vert- on that is more than a little bit sucky. Personally I prefer 16:10 but then my PC is also a working machine so any desktop real estate I can get is a bonus and 16:10 lets me have two full page documents side by side on one screen without losing the header or footer where 16:9 clips them slightly. Minor difference but t's the little things that niggle at me so 16:10 all the way. Just gaming or multimedia? I'd probably be on the 16:9 bandwagon. @OP: TBH it's probably best to stick within your budget and get the best you can for the money. Personally I prefer IPS but can't afford 3 of them so I have 2 TN panels as well as a U2410 IPS. As they're side by side I can see the difference very clearly but if I just had my left hand TN panel I probably wouldn't notice so much as the black levels are great and fairly close to the IPS, it just isn't as vibrant with the colours. The U2311 GoodBytes linked looks like a decent panel, one of the more in depth reviews I read of it basically said that it was excellent for the money, great for home but not for professional. Definitely no quibble on colour or black levels and the biggest gripe was that it didn't have HDMI. I'm as suspicious of others about monitors that haven't been reviewed so the Samsung does look a little dubious though.
Agreed. But I say it again. You can play 16:9 games on a 16:10... But a 16:9 monitor, can't give you the headroom workspace as 16:10. When I watch SD content on my monitor, I have black lines to the left and right. I don't buy a 4:3 monitor to enjoy it. At least my monitor allows me options... cutting yourself just to get "full screen", and get a few pixels to the left and right which doesn't affect game play at all, is just plan silly. Steve.E could have explain this A LOT better. Really pathetic explanation, as mentioned. If this was a 4:3 vs 16:9 argument, he is right... as 16:9 you gain space. But 16:10 is bigger than 16:9, so if it bothers you... you can reduce the resolution, and have no scale, just black lines at the top and bottom, which are perfectly black on a descent monitor. In fact, have you guys a look at your monitor when playing a game. except for gamed like StarCraft where you have options accessible by mouse, on the actually view.. I can draw a nice circle of where I actually see... the edges aren't included. I focus towards the center of the screen. So I say 16:9 aspect ratio "you see more width" = "better", not very convincing point. I also Agree with Grimloon. In fact I don't get why Steve.E even freaked out on 16:10... I miss saw the price and suggested it, but I clearly stated the U2312MH which was clearly a 16:9 aspect ratio. I think Steve.E was just looking for a fight. Sadly despite being right with some games, he failed and annoyed everyone.
