21:9 seems so much better for games...too bad many dont properly support it

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Sheninat0r

Senior member
Jun 8, 2007
515
1
81
It actually depends on the game (engine) and how FOV is linked to resolution. The ideal situation you describe is known as "Hor+" because it widens the horizontal FOV while maintaining a constant vertical FOV when the aspect ratio of the display becomes wider. On the other hand, "Vert-" instead fixes the horizontal FOV and reduces the vertical FOV when the aspect ratio becomes wider.

Obviously, Hor+ provides a better scaling experience. Games which use Hor+ support 21:9 "out of the box" because they scale the cone of view more comfortably and realistically. Of course, if you have manual FOV controls (either through game settings, ini edits, or whatever), then this all becomes a moot point; for ultrawidescreen gaming, you should always know your target FOV and manually configure your games appropriately.

Another thing to consider for ultra-wide FOVs is that fisheye projection can help alleviate the "edges are all stretched out" effect that an ultrawide flat mapped FOV can cause. Take a look here for a good visual comparison.
 

serpretetsky

Senior member
Jan 7, 2012
642
26
101
Not really, unless it artificially squashes everything in the middle if the display isn't LARGE.

The 21:9 display needs to be really big, and CURVED (or at least dual-screen), for it to feel right. Even better with 3D Vision surround, so that there's depth too.
Most 3d video games do not have an option to render correctly to a curved screen,
so they would look even more unnatural curved around you. Are you familiar with the fish eye effect? That effect is there to compensate for flat screens, on a curved screen it would look very unnatural.

But i agree, it would be cool if both engine developers and screen makers started push for curved screens.
 

BoFox

Senior member
May 10, 2008
689
0
0
012009_an_philips-21-9-lcd-tv3.jpg

(never mind the photoshop comment in the pic)

Do you really want the screen to be that "tiny" vertically?

I, for one, would not mind seeing some more of the vertical stuff. Usually, the beautiful sky and the ground does not take up too much more GPU power.
 

serpretetsky

Senior member
Jan 7, 2012
642
26
101
Not really, unless it artificially squashes everything in the middle if the display isn't LARGE.

The 21:9 display needs to be really big, and CURVED (or at least dual-screen), for it to feel right. Even better with 3D Vision surround, so that there's depth too.
omeds said:
Yes really, it gives you the same verticle FOV.

21:9 is simply wider than 16:9. 16:9 is simply wider than 16:10. All 3 view the same verticle FOV.
I think this guy has it pretty spot on

Sheninat0r said:
It actually depends on the game (engine) and how FOV is linked to resolution. The ideal situation you describe is known as "Hor+" because it widens the horizontal FOV while maintaining a constant vertical FOV when the aspect ratio of the display becomes wider. On the other hand, "Vert-" instead fixes the horizontal FOV and reduces the vertical FOV when the aspect ratio becomes wider.

Obviously, Hor+ provides a better scaling experience. Games which use Hor+ support 21:9 "out of the box" because they scale the cone of view more comfortably and realistically. Of course, if you have manual FOV controls (either through game settings, ini edits, or whatever), then this all becomes a moot point; for ultrawidescreen gaming, you should always know your target FOV and manually configure your games appropriately.

Another thing to consider for ultra-wide FOVs is that fisheye projection can help alleviate the "edges are all stretched out" effect that an ultrawide flat mapped FOV can cause. Take a look here for a good visual comparison.
 

serpretetsky

Senior member
Jan 7, 2012
642
26
101
012009_an_philips-21-9-lcd-tv3.jpg

(never mind the photoshop comment in the pic)

Do you really want the screen to be that "tiny" vertically?

I, for one, would not mind seeing some more of the vertical stuff. Usually, the beautiful sky and the ground does not take up too much more GPU power.

people arguing for ultra wide screens do not want tiny vertical space. They simply want much much wider screens as a bigger priority. Ofcourse they'd rather have higher vertical pixel counts as well, but the horizontal is the priority.
 

BoFox

Senior member
May 10, 2008
689
0
0
It actually depends on the game (engine) and how FOV is linked to resolution. The ideal situation you describe is known as "Hor+" because it widens the horizontal FOV while maintaining a constant vertical FOV when the aspect ratio of the display becomes wider. On the other hand, "Vert-" instead fixes the horizontal FOV and reduces the vertical FOV when the aspect ratio becomes wider.

Obviously, Hor+ provides a better scaling experience. Games which use Hor+ support 21:9 "out of the box" because they scale the cone of view more comfortably and realistically. Of course, if you have manual FOV controls (either through game settings, ini edits, or whatever), then this all becomes a moot point; for ultrawidescreen gaming, you should always know your target FOV and manually configure your games appropriately.

Another thing to consider for ultra-wide FOVs is that fisheye projection can help alleviate the "edges are all stretched out" effect that an ultrawide flat mapped FOV can cause. Take a look here for a good visual comparison.

Thanks for the link - cool page! Yeah, everything in the middle being tiny... needing compensation!

Most 3d video games do not have an option to render correctly to a curved screen,
so they would look even more unnatural curved around you. Are you familiar with the fish eye effect? That effect is there to compensate for flat screens, on a curved screen it would look very unnatural.

But i agree, it would be cool if both engine developers and screen makers started push for curved screens.
Good point, but it would not feel too bad if the screen were large enough (with the sides much farther away from the eyes), to compensate. It doesn't have to be perfectly curved around the head.. displays probably never will be in the next 20 years or so.

Plus when one is gaming on 3+ bezels, the far sides are not that often looked at - it's the middle that is the main focal point. When looking straight forward, the curved (or angled) side bezels feel a bit more natural than if it were one super-wide FLAT screen.
 

bystander36

Diamond Member
Apr 1, 2013
5,154
132
106
012009_an_philips-21-9-lcd-tv3.jpg

(never mind the photoshop comment in the pic)

Do you really want the screen to be that "tiny" vertically?

I, for one, would not mind seeing some more of the vertical stuff. Usually, the beautiful sky and the ground does not take up too much more GPU power.

Yes, I think that would be nice, at least for gaming, assuming the vertical distance doesn't change.

Have you noticed how much people tend to like Eyefinity or Surround setups? This is the same thing, but not as wide, but also without bezels in the middle.
 

toyota

Lifer
Apr 15, 2001
12,957
1
0
grrr after trying tons of games using 1920x810 only seems to work properly on Crysis 3 and Dead Space 3. of course it probably works on previous versions of those games too but all other games just seem to stretch the image or cut off the top and bottom to fit.

I do remember arguing with people years ago when 16:9 was becoming common. I was told by many that you could always run 1920x1080 on a 1920x1200 screen so they claimed it was stupid to buy a 1080 monitor for gaming. but I knew darn well that it did not always work out though as some games would get distorted or stretched. this seems to be the same case running 21:9 on a 16:9 screen.

I really need to get my hands on one of those 21:9 screens and try it out. i want to see if its the game or if its the fact that trying to run 21:9 on my screen is the issue. too bad those are not available locally though.
 

BoFox

Senior member
May 10, 2008
689
0
0
Yea, I wish devs would allow for more custom stuff. Seems that many don't. Check out http://www.wsgf.org/

Yes, I think that would be nice, at least for gaming, assuming the vertical distance doesn't change.

Have you noticed how much people tend to like Eyefinity or Surround setups? This is the same thing, but not as wide, but also without bezels in the middle.

Only if the screen was THAT big (or at least 40" diagonal), while I'm sitting a few feet away, then the vertical size would be acceptable. I'd prefer a 32" 16:9 screen over a 35" 21:9 screen, just for that extra inch or two in vertical size, plus other reasons (16:9 movies, etc.)
 

bystander36

Diamond Member
Apr 1, 2013
5,154
132
106
Only if the screen was THAT big (or at least 40" diagonal), while I'm sitting a few feet away, then the vertical size would be acceptable. I'd prefer a 32" 16:9 screen over a 35" 21:9 screen, just for that extra inch or two in vertical size, plus other reasons (16:9 movies, etc.)
Yet a ton of people use 48:9 (Eyefinity) and much prefer it. That example of a picture was MUCH wider than 21:9 btw and movies are most often 21:9. They are reformatted to fit 16:9 as is. That is why most bluray movies have black bars, even on 1080p TV's.
 

BoFox

Senior member
May 10, 2008
689
0
0
Good point - I have a 65" DLP (1080p, of course), so it's just hard for me to "roll back" on size. Even now, I'm not satisfied and dreaming of a 73" DLP (or 100"+ projectors). :p

21:9 screens are just absurdly expensive for the size, for now..

I'd still be careful about increasing the FOV with anything in the living room, unless sitting a few feet away or less. More than 120 degrees horizontal FOV might still make everything seem too squashed in the middle, without some fish-eye tweaking.

Hey, I'm not saying that 21:9 is horrid or taboo or anything like that. I just don't see anything wrong with an even bigger 16:10 display.

Say, you want an 8-feet wide 21:9 display. I want an 8-feet wide 16:10 display that is like 2 feet taller too.
(Like those "bezel freaks" who do 2x3 eyefinity).. :biggrin:

Edit - just looked up IMAX's standard size: 72 feet wide, 52 feet high. That's far worse than 16:10 - actually 1.38:1, or barely wider than 4:3.
 
Last edited:

omeds

Senior member
Dec 14, 2011
646
13
81
Not really, I got a 29" Dell IPS @ 75hz for $420.

Do you really want the screen to be that "tiny" vertically?

I, for one, would not mind seeing some more of the vertical stuff. Usually, the beautiful sky and the ground does not take up too much more GPU power.

You see the same verticle FOV as 16:9 and 16:10. That is to say you see the same sky and ground. What 21:9 gives you is simply a wider view.
 

seitur

Senior member
Jul 12, 2013
383
1
81
Overally those monitors seem like good idea but I think I would prefer 21:10 or even better 21:11.(I know there are no such things atm)
 

yacoub

Golden Member
May 24, 2005
1,991
14
81
Not really, unless it artificially squashes everything in the middle if the display isn't LARGE.
Correct, there are only two ways it can happen: Either it cuts the vertical area, or it squishes it to fit inside a smaller number of vertical pixels. Neither one is ideal.
 

Despoiler

Golden Member
Nov 10, 2007
1,968
773
136
21:9 in display terms is what 35mm anamorphic is to film terms. At 2.37, 21:9 sits right between 2.35 and 2.39 film.
 

KingFatty

Diamond Member
Dec 29, 2010
3,034
1
81
Correct, there are only two ways it can happen: Either it cuts the vertical area, or it squishes it to fit inside a smaller number of vertical pixels. Neither one is ideal.

Are you saying that having a wide aspect ratio is always associated with a non-ideal situation, where you either put up with cropping or you put up with squishing?

I disagree, because most games in a wide aspect ratio will reveal more information on the sides. No cropping, no squishing, but instead providing more information that gives you a tactical advantage.
 

Z15CAM

Platinum Member
Nov 20, 2010
2,184
64
91
www.flickr.com
I would say 3 120 Hz 2560 x1440 PLS displays standing vertically would be nice for gaming - Whats that 4320 x 2560 Res with a 1.68 aspect ratio which is very close to the 1.77 aspect ratio of 1920 x 1080 and 2560 x 1440 gaming. The characters would certainly be BIG. Any Taller or Wider using 3 2560 x 1600 displays would be just too wide.

De-Bezelling and Rapping the 3 1440p panels would be about ultimate. Of course 3 of them panels would cost you about $1000.
 
Last edited:

smackababy

Lifer
Oct 30, 2008
27,024
79
86
I always imagine 21:9 would be amazing for productivity. Being able to split the screen with two windows and not having them so small would be great when coding. Sadly, gaming hasn't really accepted the ultra wide format, so it isn't supported much yet. =(
 

BoFox

Senior member
May 10, 2008
689
0
0
Not really, I got a 29" Dell IPS @ 75hz for $420.



You see the same verticle FOV as 16:9 and 16:10. That is to say you see the same sky and ground. What 21:9 gives you is simply a wider view.

Maybe only for Dead Space 3 and Crysis 3, if you play the same games as the OP (Toyota).. Chances are, in those games, I could also increase the vertical FOV along with horizontal FOV as well, for a massive 16:9 or 16:10 display that fills a large area of the actual visible FOV in front of your eyes.

When buying a million-dollar home, do you want a 21:9 window facing the beach, or a 16:10 window of the same width?
 

bystander36

Diamond Member
Apr 1, 2013
5,154
132
106
When buying a million-dollar home, do you want a 21:9 window facing the beach, or a 16:10 window of the same width?

When buying a million-dollar home, do you want a 21:9 window facing the beach, or a 16:10 window of the same height?