Does 1920X1200 show as much horizontal space in games as X1080?

[Pia]

But thats a ridiculous argument... Same could be said for 4:3, the black bars just become bigger and bigger

Might as well go all the way and get a square screen and support every kind of format

The fact is, as zerorift pointed out, our vision is more like 2:1, so it makes zero sense to do monitors which cover a large vertical area, because it will simply not be used

Square screens give you the most usable space for ratio-agnostic content. This is because the usable size of a single flat display is limited by the perspective distortion that occurs when either dimension of the display grows too large. For the same reason, 1:1 would also be the optimal ratio for implementing a multiscreen setup for Horz+ widescreen games. Too bad 1:1 screens (or anything close, such as 4:3) aren't offered in large sizes and resolutions.

 

[ZeroRift]

Too bad 1:1 screens (or anything close, such as 4:3) aren't offered in large sizes and resolutions.

...not sure if serious....

ratio-agnostic content

Do you have an example of this? Most web pages have some sort of scaling....

The fact is, as zerorift pointed out, our vision is more like 2:1, so it makes zero sense to do monitors which cover a large vertical area, because it will simply not be used

This only works in theory. Most (if not all?) monitors these days take up significantly less of our total visual arc area. Therefore, since, for a given width, 16:10 provides better area and better DPI, there really is little value in a 16:9 screen.... Our vision will not cut off the extra vertical area until screen sizes get very large.

However, I would prefer wider screens to taller ones if they had comparable display area and DPI. That's just not the case right now....

 

[Pia]

...not sure if serious....

If you understand the perspective distortion argument, then you understand why 1:1 screens are optimal when screen size gets very large. The worst that can happen with a maximally sized 1:1 screen is that some screen space is left unused (as in letter- or pillarboxing); you'll never see less content than with another ratio screen.

Do you have an example of this? Most web pages have some sort of scaling....

Most image editing, modeling, etc. can use all the screen space they can get to either direction. Most office/programming work with text, spreadsheets, etc. is ratio agnostic when screen size gets large enough; if a given piece of content runs out in some dimension, you can add more windows.

This only works in theory. Most (if not all?) monitors these days take up significantly less of our total visual arc area. Therefore, since, for a given width, 16:10 provides better area and better DPI, there really is little value in a 16:9 screen.... Our vision will not cut off the extra vertical area until screen sizes get very large.

1440p, 27", 16:9 screens have significantly better DPI than 24" or 30" 16:10 screens. Yet another reason why I think they are the sweet spot for most people right now.

 

[ZeroRift]

If you understand the perspective distortion argument, then you understand why 1:1 screens are optimal when screen size gets very large.

I guess I don't understand.... an "optimal" screen size would be ~3:1 and curved to keep the distance of the display from your eye constant. The 3:1 ratio would optimally match your viewing area, while the curve would minimize perspective issues. I don't see how 1:1 flat display would be more optimal than a widescreen format.

Most office/programming work with text, spreadsheets, etc. is ratio agnostic when screen size gets large enough

Wouldn't you run into exactly the same problem with a 1:1 display that had similar dimensions?

1440p, 27", 16:9 screens have significantly better DPI than 24" or 30" 16:10 screens.

1440p screens will definitely have higher DPI than 1920x1200 on the same sized display. But that's because the comparable 16:10 resolution is 2560x1600, not 1920x1200.... If you compare resolutions with comparable screen width in pixels and inches (inches must be an approximate comparison), 16:10 comes out with the higher DPI because of design decisions made by the manufacturer.

 

[Pia]

I guess I don't understand.... an "optimal" screen size would be ~3:1 and curved to keep the distance of the display from your eye constant. The 3:1 ratio would optimally match your viewing area, while the curve would minimize perspective issues. I don't see how 1:1 flat display would be more optimal than a widescreen format.

You are right in that a curved display filling your entire field of vision would be better, if we had any of those. I was talking under the assumption that displays are flat, which is the case now.

Wouldn't you run into exactly the same problem with a 1:1 display that had similar dimensions?

1:1 is just the way you get the maximum screen surface with a flat display, while keeping perspective distortion under some given acceptable level.

1440p screens will definitely have higher DPI than 1920x1200 on the same sized display. But that's because the comparable 16:10 resolution is 2560x1600, not 1920x1200.... If you compare resolutions with comparable screen width in pixels and inches (inches must be an approximate comparison), 16:10 comes out with the higher DPI because of design decisions made by the manufacturer.

No. The 16:10 display you can actually buy that is 2560x1600 is a 30" display, and that has lower PPI than the 27" 2560x1440 display. So if you want highest PPI out of current "standard" displays, you should buy 16:9.

 

[KingFatty]

1:1 is just the way you get the maximum screen surface with a flat display, while keeping perspective distortion under some given acceptable level.

What is the value of that metric, "maximum screen surface with a flat display"?

Does that get at the idea of using your desk space most efficiently, so your monitor is not physically taller/wider than it needs to be for a given amount of screen surface?

Regardless, looking at optimizing a mathematical function may need to take a back-seat to user-interaction - I mean there needs to be some consideration to how our eyes and minds actually process visual information. someone mentioned the golden ratio earlier - even that could merit some attention, because I think visually I'm less stressed out at a subconscious level when looking at a screen that approximates the golden ratio, unlike a square screen that I fear would cause my subconscious to be unsettled. Also, people's eyes tend to scan visual information in certain patterns, and it seems certain aspect ratios do better than others for optimizing that.

I mean ultimately it's about getting the information into your brain, right? If a certain screen maximizes displayed info per square inch of desk-space, that's great, but does it maximize my brain's ability to absorb that displayed information?

 

[Pia]

Not desk space, but our ability to look at flat screens and make sense of them.

If you sit at an arm's length from a 60" display, anything drawn near the edges of the screen will be unacceptably distorted from your perspective. The software is drawing it with the assumption that you are viewing it pretty much head on. So there is a maximum reasonable width/height of a display where this perspective distortion is not too great. Since the strength of the distortion is the same in both directions, it follows that the largest reasonable display is square. If you want more usable screen space than that, you need to add more displays.

Of course, if we can use curved displays, we should do so. Or we could use a flat display, and have software apply the reverse of the perspective distortion so content appears to the user as if the display is curved; this would require high resolution eye tracking, I believe.

 

[ZeroRift]

Of course, if we can use curved displays, we should do so. Or we could use a flat display, and have software apply the reverse of the perspective distortion so content appears to the user as if the display is curved; this would require high resolution eye tracking, I believe.

Well if we weren't out in left field before, we are now.

Since none of these theoretical displays exist, let's wrap up the theory and deal with facts. (Or at least split the theory into its own thread.)

OP:

Games will deal with different monitors in different ways, depending on what the designers think is fair/optimal. Using a taller display is not likely to cost you screen width, but it might (as in the case of SCII) unless you run a 16:9 resolution on your 16:10 panel. You would have to experiment with each individual game to be sure.

On aspect ratios:

For most cases, 16:10 will provide higher DPI and screen area over a 16:9 display for reasons unrelated to the aspect ratio itself. However, there are edge cases where a given aspect ratio / DPI may not be available, in which case this generalization does not apply.

 

[KingFatty]

Has anyone ever been unhappy that their DPI was *too high*? I run multiple monitors, for work and gaming, and I would be disappointed if the DPI on a new monitor was too high to match with my existing monitors. I'll accept some mismatch, but not a lot.

Of course the solution is to just get all three new monitors at the same DPI, but practicality dictates purchasing one by one for now.

 

[ViRGE]

Has anyone ever been unhappy that their DPI was *too high*? I run multiple monitors, for work and gaming, and I would be disappointed if the DPI on a new monitor was too high to match with my existing monitors. I'll accept some mismatch, but not a lot.

Of course the solution is to just get all three new monitors at the same DPI, but practicality dictates purchasing one by one for now.

DPI hasn't really changed for monitors of a given size for quite some time, so you shouldn't be encountering any issues. 27" is either 26x14 or 19x10, and will remain that way until HiDPI monitors come around.

 

[Wolves]

I see one or two who says that you should buy the 16:10 resolution 1920x1200 because it offers you more pixels than the 16:9 resolution 1920x1080.

Seriously. If 1920x1080 isnt enough pixels for you the obvious buy is 2560x1440.

In that way you get more pixels and also dont get a reduction in field of view.

To pay the ridicolous prices for 1920x1200 just to get black borders sounds like a really stupid idea.

The 2560x1440 monitors are cheap on ebay in various brands. Nearly my whole internet community has bought them and are satisfied.

 

[KingFatty]

In that way you get more pixels and also dont get a reduction in field of view.

To pay the ridicolous prices for 1920x1200 just to get black borders sounds like a really stupid idea.

The 2560x1440 monitors are cheap on ebay in various brands. Nearly my whole internet community has bought them and are satisfied.

I disagree about reduction in field of view, because some games provide *additional* view of more top and bottom when using 16:10 instead of 16:9, while locking the horizontal FOV to be the same between 16:10 and 16:9. In those kinds of games, you get more vertical FOV with the 16:10, so you'll see more info using 1920x1200 compared to 1920x1080.

But not all games are that way. Some games give more FOV for 16:9, and in those games, you'd get the same FOV if you tell the game to use a 16:9 ratio on your 1920x1200 monitor (using letterboxing).

Regardless, the 2560x1440 monitors are at a sweet spot right now, it's the right move. But you'll still only have a 16:9 ratio, so the same argument is there for the 2560x1600 monitors to get higher vertical FOV.

So are you saying the price is the way to choose? Because if the 1400p and 1600p monitors are the same price, I'd definitely get the 1600p. Same argument for 1080p vs 1200p. Since the 1200p new monitors are very expensive, it might make sense to get 1080p to save money, but you'd be giving up viewable space, and not gaining any FOV because you could run a 16:10 monitor at 16:9 and achieve the save horizontal FOV.

 

[f1sherman]

Generally speaking - NO.
16:9 will usually display more horizontal space(Hor+) than 16:10.

16:10 will display more vertical space in Vert-, a scaling method which is rarely used anymore.


Crysis, Crysis Warhead, Crysis 2 - Hor+
Battlefield 2/3 - Hor+
Metro 2033 - Hor+
Dirt 3 - Hor+
Batman AA/AC - Hor+
Elder Scrolls IV/V - Hor+
Portal 2 - Hor+
Civilization V - Hor+
StarCraft 2 - Hor+

 

[philipma1957]

On any size monitor above 23" 1080p=fail
If you want 10:9 buy a TV, PC users should boycott 1080p and demand more pixels!,

I would like a 26 inch or a 27 inch in a 16 8 ratio

3200 by 1600.

If you think about this size it would allow full 2 screens side by side for work. It would also be a nice widescreen for play. Pixels could be managed with a good gpu.

it would be 5 million pixels.

 

[moonbogg]

You can always run a 1920x1200 at 1920x1080, so you always get the best of both worlds (assuming you aren't racist against black bars).

You cannot run 1920x1080 at 1920x1200, so you lose out when it's supported.

This is a brilliant parallel to the hyper threading argument. That is to say, "I can turn 16:10 off, but can you turn it on?" LOOL!

 

[f1sherman]

only thing... it's wrong.

same diagonal 1080p LCD is wider than 1200p.

and you can run 1920x1200 in 16:9 LCD (assuming you aren't racist against black bars)