Am I the only one who like the old standard (4:3)?

EliteRetard

Diamond Member
Mar 6, 2006
6,490
1,021
136
I much prefer the standard 4:3. I have an old 22" CRT (20" visable) and I find it far superior to any current LCD out there. My freind got a samsung 204b back in the day, a 20" standard 4:3 LCD 1600x1200 and while it doesnt look quite as nice as my monitor it too is far superior to any current LCD Ive seen including some of the "nice" Dell monitors. If my CRT blew up Id want and would even pay extra to find an LCD like my freind has. Even the 20" size aint bad and its only weakness is the fact that it doesnt look and displays colors as acurately...but that isnt the end of the world since Im not a photo pro. I get migrains trying to force my eyes to cross outwards to see the widescreens. Yeah, widescreen is great when your 10 feet back watching TV, but for any kind of computer work the old standard square is far more productive and you get more screen for your money.

I want to see a 24" LCD with something like 1920x1440 with good even picture and color acuracy (basically a larger version of my freinds LCD). His seems pretty good on input lag too (compared to my CRT with no lag) Id pay 3-500$ for it. Why are we forced into these terrible formats? Am I really the only one who likes the old format? Im curious how many are out there getting screwed by the widescreen too.

Other possible resolutions would be like 2400x1800, 2000x1500, 1800x1350, or 1600x1200. I think the 19x14 would fit both the widescreen users and us "normals" because its a good resolution and capable of displaying full 1080p content without stecthing/scaling (bars only on top and bottom).
 

konakona

Diamond Member
May 6, 2004
6,285
1
0
For gaming I prefer 4:3. I don't play as many FPS these days and some games have trouble displaying in proper aspect ratio with HD monitors. At least that was the case with my cheap soyo, I gave up at the end spending hours and hours with OSD, CCC and ultramon. Technically speaking, it could be done, but had to be adjusted thru OSD every time those games were fired up - totally not worth the trouble.

As far as video goes, totally depends on the source material. Some series come in 4:3, others in 16:9.

Given that there is a remedy to this problem, I could live happily with either setup. Mine happens to be a 22'' diamondtron, and it does look nicer than the P-MVA that broke briefly after the warranty period. I don't have enough experience with nicer S-PVA/H(S)-IPS panels to judge them.
 

lopri

Elite Member
Jul 27, 2002
13,209
594
126
Does WoW natively support 16:10 or 16:9? Just curious. I know Blizzard intentionally omitted wide-screen resolutions in WarCraft 3, due to the huge advantage they gives in competitive (read: professional) gaming. I haven't touched WoW (a smart decision, tapping myself on the shoulder) so I don't know whether it does.

Now that 16:10 and 16:9 is ubiquotous, I believe/hope StarCraft 2 will support those resolutions. Granted the advantage of 16:10 over 4:3 is huge in RTS games.
 

brblx

Diamond Member
Mar 23, 2009
5,499
2
0
i'm all for widescreen but miss my old 19" on occasion because of some games that don't support widescreen (or at least not well).
 

MrK6

Diamond Member
Aug 9, 2004
4,458
4
81
Wide screen feels more natural, especially in games. I think 16:9 is a little too much though; I much prefer 16:10.
 

yh125d

Diamond Member
Dec 23, 2006
6,907
0
76
Originally posted by: lopri
Does WoW natively support 16:10 or 16:9? Just curious. I know Blizzard intentionally omitted wide-screen resolutions in WarCraft 3, due to the huge advantage they gives in competitive (read: professional) gaming. I haven't touched WoW (a smart decision, tapping myself on the shoulder) so I don't know whether it does.

Now that 16:10 and 16:9 is ubiquotous, I believe/hope StarCraft 2 will support those resolutions. Granted the advantage of 16:10 over 4:3 is huge in RTS games.

yes WoW supports 16.10 and 16.9 at least to 1920x1200/1080 natively
 

Melted Rabbit

Junior Member
Oct 18, 2004
15
0
0
Originally posted by: SickBeast
Seeing as our natural FOV is widescreen, I don't see why people resist it.

There is our entire FOV, our visual acuity and processing power used as a function of the distance from the fovea, and what our brains process and integrate into an image. You do not process your entire FOV as an image, you can notice motion in your peripheral vision, but good luck trying to process accurately what the motion is with no other information. As to the ideal aspect ratio for a monitor, that depends highly on its intended use, but for an FPS, 4:3 isn't that bad.
 

Blazer7

Golden Member
Jun 26, 2007
1,099
5
81
Originally posted by: MrK6
Wide screen feels more natural, especially in games. I think 16:9 is a little too much though; I much prefer 16:10.

:thumbsup:

I :heart: my 24" 16:10. Noway back to 4:3 for me.
 

Mem

Lifer
Apr 23, 2000
21,476
13
81
I love WS,first 16:10 now on 16:9 :).

I do find games more enjoyable in WS.
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,085
5,618
126
Still using 4:3, as that's all my monitor does. Can't say that I prefer it, cause I don't really know. Works fine for me though.
 

AyashiKaibutsu

Diamond Member
Jan 24, 2004
9,306
3
81
How about the both option? I use a 32 inch 16:9. Used to dual monitor with that and a 17" 4:3. 32 ran videos and games 17 browsing webpages and such. Eventually, I'll probably grab a 19" and dual monitor again. I liked that setup a lot.
 

njdevilsfan87

Platinum Member
Apr 19, 2007
2,328
249
106
Depends what I'm doing. If I'm browsing the internet, my browser never takes up the entire screen. It's just too much. For gaming, WS is better.

I'll take the WS. If I don't like what I'm looking at full screen, I'll just re-size the window. If for whatever reason I cannot re-size the window there's always 1:1 pixel mapping.
 

nitromullet

Diamond Member
Jan 7, 2004
9,031
36
91
Depends on the resolution... 16:10 1920x1200 is great because you pretty much get it all: 1200px height of 21" CRT for productivity, can run 1080p content at full rez, and you get a wider FOV for games.

16:9 1920x1080 and 16:10 1680x1050 are both a little bit vertically cramped. For just working (no gaming), the ideal setup is dual 21" 4:3 displays. I have dual Dell 2007FPs (1600x1200) at work, and they are great for the work I do. I'm not a huge fan of multi-monitor wide screen setups, although I guess it really depends on your application.

...of course, all of this is IMHO, and doesn't take into account 30" 2560x1600 displays. :)
 

KingstonU

Golden Member
Dec 26, 2006
1,405
16
81
Originally posted by: SickBeast
Seeing as our natural FOV is widescreen, I don't see why people resist it.

I wasn't convinced on widescreen until someone pointed this out to me. What I really hated was when you saw a WIDESCREEN tv and you STILL got black lines on the top and bottom.
 

imported_Scoop

Senior member
Dec 10, 2007
773
0
0
I don't care. My computer LCD is 4:3 but that's probably because I bought it in 2006 and widescreens weren't hip back then. If I was buying now, of course it would be 16:10 like my 32" HDTV.
 

Rhoxed

Golden Member
Jun 23, 2007
1,051
3
81
I use two 22" widescreen triple monitor with a 19" 4:3 and they match perfectly (the 4:3 is in the middle, the 2 22's are slightly angled to "surround" you), same screen height but you get the extra width on the widescreens.

i voted: I like widescreen but will use 4:3
 

Denithor

Diamond Member
Apr 11, 2004
6,300
23
81
Love my Dell 2709W (1920x1200).

WoW looks great on it.

BTW - If you want a Samsung 204B I've got one in the closet collecting dust since I got the Dell widescreen. I'd be willing to sell complete in original packaging for a fair price. PM if interested.
 

PingSpike

Lifer
Feb 25, 2004
21,729
559
126
Originally posted by: KingstonU
Originally posted by: SickBeast
Seeing as our natural FOV is widescreen, I don't see why people resist it.

I wasn't convinced on widescreen until someone pointed this out to me. What I really hated was when you saw a WIDESCREEN tv and you STILL got black lines on the top and bottom.

Don't even get me started on this shit. Its a mess. I buy a widescreen TV and a day later hollywood decides that my 16:9 TV is now lame and they need and even wider wide screen. Seriously, fuck those assholes.
 

ilkhan

Golden Member
Jul 21, 2006
1,117
1
0
I use 24"+20". Voted widescreen. I prefer widescreen, the 20" is for winamp, IM, etc. Gets used a lot for browsing too (3 window browsing is awesome)
 

yacoub

Golden Member
May 24, 2005
1,991
14
81
widescreen is much more approaching what the human eye naturally sees, simply because 4:3 is like having blinders on.
 

nitromullet

Diamond Member
Jan 7, 2004
9,031
36
91
Originally posted by: PingSpike
Originally posted by: KingstonU
Originally posted by: SickBeast
Seeing as our natural FOV is widescreen, I don't see why people resist it.

I wasn't convinced on widescreen until someone pointed this out to me. What I really hated was when you saw a WIDESCREEN tv and you STILL got black lines on the top and bottom.

Don't even get me started on this shit. Its a mess. I buy a widescreen TV and a day later hollywood decides that my 16:9 TV is now lame and they need and even wider wide screen. Seriously, fuck those assholes.

They didn't decide this a "day later". 16:9 was always a compromise. The fact is that films are not shot in a single standard format, but whatever the filmmaker decides to use. This may depend on taste, available options, and budget. Your options have always been to either fill your screen and crop the movie, or view the movie as it was intended to be seen with black bars. 16:9 hasn't changed that, it just allows you view the movie as intended at a larger size relative to your screen.