4:3 or 5:4?

[tigersty1e]

What is generally considered the correct resolution? Which has the least amount of distortion from the correct graphics the devs wanted?

Assuming everything is equal... detail, number of pixels, etc.

 

[Capt Caveman]

16:10 1920x1200

 

[ArchAngel777]

4:3 is what most devs have programed for in general, now they support 4:3 and 16:9/10 depending on the game and sometimes both.... 5:4 is distorted.

 

[dandragonrage]

IMO, 4:3 > 16:9 > 16:10 > 2.35:1 > practically anything else > 5:4

 

[narcotic]

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman
16:10 1920x1200

I have it on my laptop, you get quit a lot of realestate on this screen.
Though my favorite screen type is 4:3.

 

[imported_Equinox]

I have 1920x1200 on my laptop, 1680x1050 22" connected to my desktop, and still play several 4:3 games. For any game that supports widescreen, though, I can't play it in anything else. For 4:3 fun, (Sacred/UW, Diablo2, etc) I have an nVidia card and of course it does fixed aspect ratio scaling so the image retains 4:3 but fills the screen vertically with black bars on the sides horizontally. The answer? They all look great, but it is exceptionally sweet with 16:10 gaming.

 

[ArchAngel777]

If anyone noticed, the question wasn't what you prefered, but rather, what do the devs develop for.

 

[imported_Equinox]

They develop for the supported resolutions. I think most are moving towards a widescreen display since the new consoles use HD resolutions and many PCs are now equipped with widescreens. They have to support 4:3, though, because so many 4:3 devices are still around (TVs and monitors). They have to be flexible since now there is 4:3, 16:9 and 16:10.

 

[wazzledoozle]

5:4 is horrible, its the closest-to-square resolution there is. It doesnt make sense when 4:3 has been the standard for so long, and widescreens becoming the new standard now.

Shame on whatever LCD manufacturer decided 1280x1024 was a good idea.

 

[n7]

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman
16:10 1920x1200

n00b.

2560x1600 pwns j00.

BTW, i actually like 4:3 best overall, since the majority of games still don't really seem truely designed for WS.

 

[Dainas]

4:3, as stated above. I like widescreen, however its pointless for anything lower than 1920x1200. As such 19-21inch widescreens are a pathetic cop-out in vertical resolution. A high res 17-inch Macbook pro is a thing of beauty and being as it only cost $100 more than a standard resolution in Apple prices, there's no reason we should not be able to get 1920x1200 in 19 inch monitors for around $300 or less.

 

[rbV5]

Neither are considered a resolution at all. 5:4 and 4:3 are both common aspect ratios.

Neither would be distorted graphically provided the media was mapped to a display in its original aspect ratio.

 

[BucsMAN3K]

How do you guys even notice the difference graphically between 5:4 and 4:3 anyways? I just never see it.

But I also don't see the difference between black and dark blue either. Silly me.

 

[rbV5]

Originally posted by: BucsMAN3K
How do you guys even notice the difference graphically between 5:4 and 4:3 anyways? I just never see it.

But I also don't see the difference between black and dark blue either. Silly me.

Change the resolution for your display to an incorrect aspect ratio and check the geometry of spherical, or circular objects. You should notice easily.