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

[toyota]

I was sort of interested in getting a 21:9 screen but cost and lack of support for many games killed that. plus for regular daily use, I would want more than 1080 if I spent 500 plus as I have been on 1080 for too long.

well I found that I can just get the 21:9 look in some games right not by simply running 1920x810 as a custom resolution and I LOVE it for the games it works for. the games it does work for will be the same ones that will have issues if i bought a 21:9 screen anyway. the black bars on a 16:9 screen really are not bad considering the additional fov of is more natural.

21:9 really is the future as its way better than fooling with multiple monitors. for right now though, I say just add a custom resolution of 2560x1080 on your 2560x1440 screen or 1920x810 on your 1920x1080 screen and try out some games.

Dead Space, and Crysis games feel WAY WAY better running 21:9 and I dont get as fatigued because as I do at 16:9 where I am cramped feeling. if you doubt me then fire up Dead Space 3 or Crysis 3 at 1920x810 on your 1920x1080 screen and see for yourself.

some games may just stretch such as Metro LL. and all running 21:9 does for Unreal engine 3 games I have tried is cut off some of the scene from the top and bottom while leaving width the same as 16:9. considering that is the most common game engine out there then this really is of plopping down 500-600 bucks for a native 21:9 screen.

and btw, the upcoming The Evil Within game will be 21:9 only so better get used to black bars anyway unless you are one of the 3 people that have a 2560x1080 screen. lol

 

[Jaydip]

But you lose quite a few vertical pixels.

 

[toyota]

But you lose quite a few vertical pixels.

did you even read? you dont lose anything in games it works for as it simply adds more to the sides.

 

[Jaydip]

did you even read? you dont lose anything in games it works for as it simply adds more to the sides.

I don't get that.I already have a 2560x1440 display, so how a 2560x1080 display won't have less vertical pixels?

 

[bystander36]

The point is more about having the aspect ratio and I am guessing he was comparing it to the 2560x1080 screens. Though if you do it on a 1080p screen, you lose horizontal pixels in comparison to these wide screens.

This type of screen is interesting for 1st person gaming. I suppose a lot of people think so, with the use of Eyefinity and Surround setups.

 

[toyota]

I don't get that.I already have a 2560x1440 display, so how a 2560x1080 display won't have less vertical pixels?

I already made it clear I thought. it changes the aspect ratio so you are still seeing the exact same info top to bottom but adding more to the sides. thats why you get black bars just like in movies that are 21:9. again though some games will not display 21:9 properly so if forcing it, it will simply cut off some of the top and bottom.

 

[Lonyo]

But you lose quite a few vertical pixels.

Given that he has a 1920x1080 monitor, HE doesn't lose any vertical pixels, he gains horizontal ones.
And in the game, you gain horizontal view, rather than losing vertical view.

Just because you would lose pixels vertically buying a current 21:9 monitor doesn't mean that they wouldn't make a higher res monitor, such as 3360x1440 as a 21:9 aspect monitor.

 

[Gikaseixas]

I agree that it would be a more practical approach than having multiple monitors but as you said it needs more support

 

[AtenRa]

But you lose quite a few vertical pixels.

You mean you are loosing Vertical FOV(Field Of View). I prefer 3x 1080x1920.

 

[Jaydip]

I already made it clear I thought. it changes the aspect ratio so you are still seeing the exact same info top to bottom but adding more to the sides. thats why you get black bars just like in movies that are 21:9. again though some games will not display 21:9 properly so if forcing it, it will simply cut off some of the top and bottom.

I got your point.What I am saying is if you only play fps the increased fov is fine but if you do other productive works having more vertical pixels make sense.So buying a 2560X1080 monitor has it's own shares of drawbacks.

 

[Jaydip]

You mean you are loosing Vertical FOV(Field Of View). I prefer 3x 1080x1920.

I believe that is a personal thing though.

 

[sao123]

21:9 would seem to not be a ultra realistic resolution.

Considering the actual human field of vision is slightly under 200 degrees horizontally, and only 135 degree vertically a ratio of 1.48, while the 21:9 is 2.33, which would make you appear to be superhuman while playing. 16:10 is probably the best possible widescreen resolution while still being realistic.

 

[BoFox]

21:9 would seem to not be a ultra realistic resolution.

Considering the actual human field of vision is slightly under 200 degrees horizontally, and only 135 degree vertically a ratio of 1.48, while the 21:9 is 2.33, which would make you appear to be superhuman while playing. 16:10 is probably the best possible widescreen resolution while still being realistic.

Roger that - I'm partial to 16:10.

I think vertical FOV is important as well. There's nothing wrong with seeing the floor or the beautiful sky. Why miss out on the trees? The mountains? The sexy calves of that girl you're drooling at? :biggrin:

The solution is to just increase the overall (diagonal) FOV within whatever aspect ratio you have (16:10 being my favorite) as long as you can enjoy the middle without it being squashed down too much.

The reason why many games have such narrow FOV is because of them being console ports. With the consoles, most gamers sit far away from their TV's, so it makes more sense to have a narrow FOV, so that things appear more normal rather than tiny and squashed. Plus it helps to keep the gamer immersed. It's hard to be immersed in an environment "so far away" - the narrow FOV magnifies it and brings it up closer - although at the expense of PC gamers who like to sit close and get nauseated from the over-magnification.

My wish list: 3x 1080p projectors (3D capable, supported by 3D Vision) - each of them rotated/pivoted vertically, projecting onto a 100-200" wide curved screen for a total of 3240x1920 pixels (almost 16:10, actually 1.6875:1) . () :awe:

 

[toyota]

I got your point.What I am saying is if you only play fps the increased fov is fine but if you do other productive works having more vertical pixels make sense.So buying a 2560X1080 monitor has it's own shares of drawbacks.

um no kidding and you really are not paying attention at all. the whole point here is I am saying I would NOT buy a 2560x1080 screen but simply use that resolution for some games if I had a 2560x1440 screen or use 1920x810 witha 1920x1080 screen.

 

[toyota]

21:9 would seem to not be a ultra realistic resolution.

Considering the actual human field of vision is slightly under 200 degrees horizontally, and only 135 degree vertically a ratio of 1.48, while the 21:9 is 2.33, which would make you appear to be superhuman while playing. 16:10 is probably the best possible widescreen resolution while still being realistic.

and where did you pull those numbers from? 21:9 is way more natural feeling to me than 16:9. it depends on the size of the screen and actual fov too. I was a competitive cyclist for years so I must have had super human fov because I sure as hell could see more than what 16:9 aspect ratio would show without ever turning my head.

 

[omeds]

I love 21:9. Have the Dell and it's great.

 

[Jaydip]

um no kidding and you really are not paying attention at all. the whole point here is I am saying I would NOT buy a 2560x1080 screen but simply use that resolution for some games if I had a 2560x1440 screen or use 1920x810 witha 1920x1080 screen.

Ok :biggrin:

 

[DownTheSky]

I think it depends on your face. And not because your horizontal FOV differs (roughly 180-200 deg seems right), but because damn eyebrows get in the way. So you can debate it all you want, in the end everybody's right. Some people see 16:10, some 2.1:10. Yeah sure, we could all see roughly 16:10 if we forced our eyes wide open, but that's not how you use them 99% of your life.
Just my 2c.

:ninja:

 

[BoFox]

and where did you pull those numbers from? 21:9 is way more natural feeling to me than 16:9. it depends on the size of the screen and actual fov too. I was a competitive cyclist for years so I must have had super human fov because I sure as hell could see more than what 16:9 aspect ratio would show without ever turning my head.

It's not about the aspect RATIO.

It's about the proportional FOV.

If I wore a bicycle helmet with a long shade, and had this boring pavement below along with this static bicycle image dulling (numbing) my vision below, sure, 21:9 would be all that matters.

Reality: I don't want to have to break my neck just to see the top of Empire State Building or something like that.

 

[DownTheSky]

Force your eyes wide open and watch the MAGIC CIRCLE.

:lsd:

 

[omeds]

I think vertical FOV is important as well. There's nothing wrong with seeing the floor or the beautiful sky. Why miss out on the trees? The mountains? The sexy calves of that girl you're drooling at? :biggrin:

You see the same verticle FOV on a 21:9 display, but it gives you a wider view.

 

[BoFox]

You see the same verticle FOV on a 21:9 display, but it gives you a wider view.

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]

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.

 

[serpretetsky]

21:9 would seem to not be a ultra realistic resolution.

Considering the actual human field of vision is slightly under 200 degrees horizontally, and only 135 degree vertically a ratio of 1.48, while the 21:9 is 2.33, which would make you appear to be superhuman while playing. 16:10 is probably the best possible widescreen resolution while still being realistic.

You are comparing angular ratios to linear ratios.

I didn't double check your numbers, so I dont know if they are correct, but if you wanted to do a proper comparison you would first try to convert from one to the other.

Assume you are 1 meter from your screen. 135 degrees means that you have 67.5 degrees up and down from the center of the screen. That means the distance from the center to the upper and lower edge is tan(67.5 degrees) = 2.41 meters.

Since this measurement is from the center, we double it to get the total height of 4.82 meters.

Now we do the same thing for the horizontal aspect. 200 degrees horizontal means we get 100 degrees from the center of the screen to each horizontal edge. tan(100 degrees)= -5.67.

At this point you should be asking what on earth happened, how did we get a negative number?

The answer is that 200 degrees is larger than 180degrees, which is the maximum angle you can map onto a flat screen. This means that the actual ratio of a flat screen is infinite. You can have a screen that is infinitly wide and it still will not fill your vision. On the other hand, from 1 meter away, the screen would only need to be 5 meters high to completely fill your vision.

Now, again, this is based on your numbers, which i did not double check.

 

[BoFox]

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.

Do you know what the word "unless" means? If the display isn't large enough, you'll be seeing an abnormally wide field of vision, with the sides ridiculously magnified to your eyes while your sexy game avatar in the middle is about 2 times as small as what you'd be used to with a regular 16:9 display.

If I chose 21:9 on one of my 24" screens (that does 16:10), with huge black bars on the top and bottom, I'd have to be looking at it from about 10" away (or less or whatever- I didn't do the calculations), for the sides to be proportionally as far away as they should appear, and for the area in the middle to not be so abnormally tiny.