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

[nine9s]

You would think it would with both 1920 but I have read reports that it does not. One site showed a game in each resolution on same scene and the 16:9 aspect showed further left and right.

 

[Lonyo]

Depends on the game, some games show the same side to side and more top to bottom on 1920x1200, some show less side to side and the same top to bottom.

http://www.widescreengamingforum.com/
This will give an indication of whether a game is Hor+ or Vert+, assuming it works properly at all.

Starcraft 2, for example, shows more side to side on 1920x1080p

 

[nine9s]

So if one values horizontal space in games, it is safer to get 1080 I guess so it is 100% of the time.

 

[The_Golden_Man]

In many games it will show more horizontal in 16:9 VS 16:10. I have tested it in many games. I have a 26" inch 16:10 as my primary display. Using 1920x1200, but can switch to 1080dpi using black bars or stretch the image.

Anyway, if you buy a 16:10 24 incher it is 24 inches, if you buy a 16:9 24 incher, it is really about 23.5 inches. So running that 16:10 monitor in 1080dpi with black bars in the upper and lower picture would infact give you the excact same size in screen display as that native 16:9 24 inches (really 23.5 inches) monitor.

The 16:10 monitor has another advantage, it has 1200 pixels in height, for desktop use, compared to 1080 pixels for the 16:9 monitor.

So no matter how you look at it, a 16:10 monitor is still best for PC's in my opinion.

With the 16:10 you can run 1920x1200 for desktop and in games not loosing any viewing angle over 16:9. And those games that benefit from 16:9, you can just switch over to 16:9 with black bars, and still have the same real picture size as a real 16:9 monitor that are sold as the same size (But do infact have a smaller viewable size)

Downside is that cheap 16:10 monitors are harder and harder to find these days. Most people go for 16:9 screens.

 

[nine9s]

Good points. Thanks.

 

[Ferzerp]

So if one values horizontal space in games, it is safer to get 1080 I guess so it is 100% of the time.

Not at all. Only in games that behave like starcraft2. The other option is that you get more vertical view.

16:9 is the evil aspect ratio btw.

 

[ShintaiDK]

I got 1920*1200. And granted I never played SC2. But alot of other games. I never saw what SC2 is doing. All the games know of supports 1920*1200.

Personally I hate the 1920*1080 screens. They look odd to me. At at work people demands the 1920*1200.

1080p resolution comes from TVs.

 

[toyota]

I got 1920*1200. And granted I never played SC2. But alot of other games. I never saw what SC2 is doing. All the games know of supports 1920*1200.

Personally I hate the 1920*1080 screens. They look odd to me. At at work people demands the 1920*1200.

1080p resolution comes from TVs.

technically all games will "support" 1920x1200. anamorphic will simply give you small black bars. MOST games do what SC 2 does which means you lose a little info on the sides at 1920x1200 compared to 1920x1080. nearly all games are hor+ so the wider the aspect ratio, the more info that gets added on the sides. top to bottom info remains constant in those cases so I dont know why some people claim to see more vertically.

 

[blastingcap]

Depends on how the game is coded, hor+ or vert- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_of_view_in_video_games

You might think it doesn't matter much in the end, but it does in fact matter a LOT for Eyefinity/Surround gamers, for obvious reasons.

 

[ShadowOfMyself]

Meh, I find holding on to 16:10 stupid... Like 95% of the market is 16:9 nowadays, and I think its appropriate that monitors and TVs have the same viewing area

Its all about people being stubborn to change really... Of course, I get the argument that 16:10 is superior, but 4:3 even more so, since it = 16:12, and I dont see anyone holding on to an old 4:3 LCD because it has a larger area

In short: move on people, 16:10 is already in the past

 

[KingFatty]

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.

 

[SickBeast]

yes

 

[nine9s]

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.

I was reading a forum, I think here, where it stated because of 16:10 vs 16:09 aspects, it still cuts some off the sides when that black bar and bottom and top scale happens on the monitor. Something to do with the slope of the diagonal has to be adjusted too so you still lose some left and right even with the black bars on bottom and top. Some people argued but the person presented the math behind it and the other agreed and understood his point.

Anyone know how the math works behind that or if that (you still lose some horizontal view when scaled to 16:09 on a 16:10) is correct?

 

[rickon66]

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!,

 

[KingFatty]

I was reading a forum, I think here, where it stated because of 16:10 vs 16:09 aspects, it still cuts some off the sides when that black bar and bottom and top scale happens on the monitor. Something to do with the slope of the diagonal has to be adjusted too so you still lose some left and right even with the black bars on bottom and top. Some people argued but the person presented the math behind it and the other agreed and understood his point.

Anyone know how the math works behind that or if that (you still lose some horizontal view when scaled to 16:09 on a 16:10) is correct?

I guess my best argument is you simply tell the 1920x1200 monitor to blank 120 of the horizontal lines so that the remaining 1080 lines are illuminated. Thus you will have 1920x1080 pixel illuminated, and 60 of the top bars will be black, along with 60 of the bottom bars.

I fail to comprehend how a 1920x1080 in letterbox could be different mathematically from a 1920x1080 native, because it's the same pixels? However, I'm assuming your video driver is capable of doing this, or you are willing to edit your edid info so the monitor is indistinguishable electrically from a native 1080p? I recall using my Nvidia card to drive a monitor like this, I think it was a custom setup resolution for a 1600x1200 monitor to drive it at 1600x900, and it worked great with letterboxing.
Later on, with a 5870, I added the EDID information to allow me to run Starcraft 2 in full 16:9 wide aspect ratio (as you can see above, it is to your advantage to run 16:9 instead of 16:10). Before doing the EDID trick, Starcraft 2 wouldn't allow me to run the 1600x900 resolution, because my monitor did not natively/electrically identify itself as providing this option.

Anyway, that's my long-winded way of saying that it seems using 1920x1080 pixels would be the same no matter whether you have additional pixels available but darken them? Do you remember any more of the argument going the other way? Perhaps it was something about DPI or scaling? Note that I am anti-scaling in this presentation, I'm arguing for using letterboxing/black bars instead of distorting/stretching.

 

[nine9s]

Anyway, that's my long-winded way of saying that it seems using 1920x1080 pixels would be the same no matter whether you have additional pixels available but darken them? Do you remember any more of the argument going the other way? Perhaps it was something about DPI or scaling? Note that I am anti-scaling in this presentation, I'm arguing for using letterboxing/black bars instead of distorting/stretching.

It made little sense to me too. But as I recall many supported him after he explained the details - I was still not sure about what he stated and now I forgot other than the slope of the diagonal which still does not make sense to me.

 

[mashumk]

I hate that 1080p has overcome 1200p. I honestly haven't seen a 1200p in a brick-and-mortar store in at least a year. Probably 2 years. I have to search online and even then they're scarce (for new models). I need that golden ratio. Peoples' brains need that golden ratio even if they don't realize it. 1.6 man, 1.6. Blame goes to TV industry and computer industry merging more and more. They chose to discard the golden ratio TV beat out PC monitors because more people have TV.

I hope 1200 isn't extinct in 2 years.

 

[crisium]

Pretty much all games cut off some viewing angle when in 16:10, but it's not a lot. As said, running your games in 1080 on a 1200 monitor works too when you're picky and demand as much viewing area as possible, though it only matters for competitive gaming imo.

 

[The_Golden_Man]

The Witcher 2 is terrible in 1920x1200 16:10. It zooms way to much in 3rd person. However, The witcher 2 has a 16:9 modus for 1920x1200. You get black bars but those black bars are appart of the screen display.

For all other games 1920x1200 16:10 is mostly fine, and only cut off some of the sides.

But as I've said, and others have said, you could always use 16:9 on a 16:10 monitor.

 

[Wolves]

The Witcher 2 is terrible in 1920x1200 16:10. It zooms way to much in 3rd person. However, The witcher 2 has a 16:9 modus for 1920x1200. You get black bars but those black bars are appart of the screen display.

For all other games 1920x1200 16:10 is mostly fine, and only cut off some of the sides.

But as I've said, and others have said, you could always use 16:9 on a 16:10 monitor.

Games are made for 16:9 so if you are into gaming you obviously buy a 16:9 mionitor.

else you will just run into different kind of problems.

 

[ShintaiDK]

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!,

Agree. 1080p on the PC is a temporary bastard solution due to the current LCD factory process. The plates are just good to cut so it matches those sizes. Nextgen fabs and 1080p on desktops might be gone again.

 

[BrightCandle]

According to the steam survey the most popular aspect ratio remains 16:10. 1080p might be the most popular resolution but 16:9 on average isn't yet the prevalent ratio.

Games that are 16:9 based are ignoring a simple fact of PC gaming in favour of the consoles and normal HD TV's. Doesn't mean the port overall is bad, but this aspect of the port is.

 

[toyota]

According to the steam survey the most popular aspect ratio remains 16:10. 1080p might be the most popular resolution but 16:9 on average isn't yet the prevalent ratio.

Games that are 16:9 based are ignoring a simple fact of PC gaming in favour of the consoles and normal HD TV's. Doesn't mean the port overall is bad, but this aspect of the port is.

where are you getting that misinformation from? right there on the survey page it shows 1920x1080 is by far the most common resolution among Steam users. all the 16:10 resolutions such as 2560x1600, 1920x1200, and 1680x1050 combined are barely more common than even the old 5:4 1280x1024 screens.

 

[rickon66]

1080p is " popular " because virtually every manufacturer cheapened their propduct and dumped only 1080p monitors in retail stores, it is impossible to go into any retail store here in the Nashville ,TN area and buy a 1200 or 1600 monitor. A good example, two years ago I had a choice of three large screen monitors at Office Depot Samsung 24" &26" at 1920x1200 and an LG 27". Since then their replacement products have came and gone, but they were 1080p. Unless you order online or are lucky enough to have a Fry's or Micro Center near you there is no choice. RANT OVER!

 

[BrightCandle]

where are you getting that misinformation from? right there on the survey page it shows 1920x1080 is by far the most common resolution among Steam users. all the 16:10 resolutions such as 2560x1600, 1920x1200, and 1680x1050 combined are barely more common than even the old 5:4 1280x1024 screens.

Hmm its changed a lot since December when I did the calculation, its now 26% 16:10 and 34% 16:9. You need to add up all the resolutions that are 1.6 which is a lot more than a limited short list. 5:4 still makes up 10.66% but still a significant chunk.

Anyone can grab the results, mess about with the copy and paste a bit and stick it in excel and determine the numbers themselves.