Whats the point of widescreen?

[Auric]

Originally posted by: Ackmed
You get more game with a game that really supports WS.

Originally posted by: Auric
1680x1050 is a widescreen alternative to 1280x1024 whereas 1600x1200 is the next step up over either.

Actually, thats not always the case. In fact, as I said above, you get more game in WS.

http://www.widescreengamingforum.com/screenshots/

You get much more to the sides, and lose only a little from the top and bottom.

The equivalent setting on the 1600x1200 would be 1600x1000 so it would be marginally smaller (given the same pixel size & spacing) while being significantly larger for narrower formats and particularly the desktop.

Originally posted by: videopho
4:3 display is dying breed regardless pc or tv monitor. Go to any BB or CC store where you live and see for yourself what kind of display/monitor they are selling? It'd be very wise to invest your money in today's technology, a w/s display.

:roll: Consumer electronics are not investments. Wise it doing your research and choosing that which suits your needs regardless of the trend.

 

[postmortemIA]

Originally posted by: jlbenedict
Widescreen monitors are great for IDE environments, such as VB.net, etc...

I code for living, and I don't think so.

1600x1200 owns 1680x1050 in IDE because more code can fit on screen. Simply 150 pixes equals 10 more lines of code. when viewing 1000+ lines of code in single file, it makes difference if you can read more of code above. As with sides, everything fits well in either 1600 or 1680.

And least, but not last 1600x1200 has 9% more pixels than 1680x1050.

And agian, web pages look misarably with widescreen.

 

[Cuthalu]

Originally posted by: Job
hmmm same price as the 2007wfp (for me) - has better response time but is not as attractive and is not HDCP compliant

Looks like I'll be getting a WS monitor after all the praise - though it's difficult to pick one out of the crowd at the moment - anyone else have any recommendations?

Actually unless I remember wrong, the Dell is faster. Dells 16ms is trt and viewsonics is gtg.

 

[Cuthalu]

Originally posted by: wizboy11
and HDCP compliance really doesn't matter all that much right now.

Maybe it doesn't matter now, but very soon it does. I for one plan to keep my monitor for at least 3 years, so HDCP is a must.

 

[Ackmed]

Originally posted by: Auric

Originally posted by: Ackmed
You get more game with a game that really supports WS.

Originally posted by: Auric
1680x1050 is a widescreen alternative to 1280x1024 whereas 1600x1200 is the next step up over either.

Actually, thats not always the case. In fact, as I said above, you get more game in WS.

http://www.widescreengamingforum.com/screenshots/

You get much more to the sides, and lose only a little from the top and bottom.

The equivalent setting on the 1600x1200 would be 1600x1000 so it would be marginally smaller (given the same pixel size & spacing) while being significantly larger for narrower formats and particularly the desktop.

Actually... as I said, you get more game. Res and pixels dont matter to me., what matters is that you get more game.

This thread I made well over a year ago, shows that 1680x1050 gives you more game than 1600x1200, in a game that really supports WS.

http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=839522

The first set of pics really shows the difference. You can count 6 "bays" on the left in WS, and only 5 normally. But as I said, you lose a little from the top, as you can see. The tree is close to the top in WS. Personally, I would rather have more to the side, as its more important to me.

WS is here to stay. Look at any sort of display, be it TV's, PC monitors, even DVD players for vehicles.. all going to WS.

 

[postmortemIA]

^ and your point is? I can run 1600x1200 in 1600x1024 or 1600x900 mode, with black boxes above and below.

 

[LOUISSSSS]

1600x1024 isn't a standard resolution so you won't be getting it for games.

 

[xtknight]

Widescreen is good for apps like Photoshop that have lots of "side windows" in their MDI environment. Whether one is better for IDE or not depends entirely on how you have your IDE's child windows set up. And with games/movies you can get that "horizon" feeling.

 

[bunnyfubbles]

Originally posted by: PingSpike
When you play in widescreen aspect ratio supporting games you have a wider FOV. Its basically like cheating since you can "see things out of the corner of your eye" that players without widescreen could not.

untrue, some games simply crop off parts you'd other wise see on a 4:3 screen (chopping off the top and bottom).

However you can often modify some file to alter your FOV (if the game doesn't already automatically support such adjustments when simply changing resolution, or even have a specific change FOV option).

In such a case you could still get a wider FOV on a "square" 4:3 or 5:4 screen, although it certainly won't look natural; I find the effect to be nauseating, and would rather have to jerk my mouse around - which to some people is just as sickening...but it works for me, however widescreen + the wider FOV is definitely a great thing and usually a pretty big goal to achieve for most gamers.

 

[postmortemIA]

Originally posted by: LOUISSSSS
1600x1024 isn't a standard resolution so you won't be getting it for games.

Right, some games support any resolution that you have declared. And NV drivers let me make custom resolution.

I use that one (1600x1024) to improve FPS compared to 1600x1200.

 

[LOUISSSSS]

so basically.. you play with stretched out characters? or with black bands on the top? of your screen

 

[postmortemIA]

Black bands on top and bottom, on some games where it is pushing too much of a ol' 6800 Ultra.

Like a watching a letterbox movie on 4:3

 

[Auric]

Originally posted by: LOUISSSSS
so basically.. you play with stretched out characters? or with black bands on the top? of your screen

Que? If a game supports 1680x1050 then it will likewise support 1600x1000 which is the same aspect ratio. A larger area simply allows more options for various shapes and sizes. The smaller area widescreen in this case reduces the options. Indeed, narrower content becomes significantly smaller -for example 4:3 is only 1400x1050.

Yes, obviously, if less area of the display's maximum size is used there will "unlit" bands. Never heard of anyone complaining about a movie screen not being filled to maximum area. Again, the larger area simply allows more AR options without having to reduce the horizontal size.

 

[Dribble]

Widescreen is just better for gaming imo - a more natural shape to look at. The wider field of view is an advantage when playing too because you can see more.

 

[Job]

Originally posted by: Auric

Originally posted by: Job
What are the benefits of widescreen LCDs (looking at poss getting 1680 x 1050 20") considering that you only get 80 extra pixels to make it "wide" and are missing out on 150 pixels high?

They are just cheaper. Most posters are missing your point. Obviously, almost the same size "wide format" movie or game is possible on the 1600x1200 display but it offers significanlty more vertical area than the 1680x1050. I've said it before and I'll say it again (despite it being blatantly obvious): 1680x1050 is a widescreen alternative to 1280x1024 whereas 1600x1200 is the next step up over either.

Thankyou Auric for getting my original question! Yes, I agree that the 1680x1050 monitors are more appropriately a wide version of 1280x1024 - I really just wanna get the best gaming experience (WS) versus the best general use experience (5:4?)

I can't really agree with playing games in letterbox mode tho - that would really put me off

 

[Ackmed]

Originally posted by: PingSpike
When you play in widescreen aspect ratio supporting games you have a wider FOV. Its basically like cheating since you can "see things out of the corner of your eye" that players without widescreen could not.

Someone always tries this BS arguement.

You cant penalize people for having nice hardware. In BF2, and many other games of its type, there is a setting in the game, for draw distance. Some people cant have that set to max while getting playable frames, so they cant see as far as people who do. There are all sorts of settings such as AA, AF, shadows, etc. that can help you see whats goin on. Saying WS gives an advantage, while disregarding everything is just dumb. And as been said before, most games you can alter the FOV, making your arguement moot.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: Ackmed

Originally posted by: PingSpike
When you play in widescreen aspect ratio supporting games you have a wider FOV. Its basically like cheating since you can "see things out of the corner of your eye" that players without widescreen could not.

Someone always tries this BS arguement.

You cant penalize people for having nice hardware. In BF2, and many other games of its type, there is a setting in the game, for draw distance. Some people cant have that set to max while getting playable frames, so they cant see as far as people who do. There are all sorts of settings such as AA, AF, shadows, etc. that can help you see whats goin on. Saying WS gives an advantage, while disregarding everything is just dumb. And as been said before, most games you can alter the FOV, making your arguement moot.

So, when I alter my FOV using my CRT, will I have black bars at the top and bottom of my screen?

 

[Ackmed]

Nope. Just a "fish eye" view.

 

[santz]

think about watching movies at home and compare it watching thes same movie in a theatre wide screen projector tv, and then compare it to an even bigger and wider imax experrience!

should be able to make any one who has never seen, understood, comprehen-ded, thought of, or otherwise imagined what a wide screen tv looks like get a PICTURE of what i am talking about ingrained in his or her (dont wanna be a sexist, ahem ahem) pretty little, clogged brain!!

huffffff that took a while to think and write.!! hehe
only little offense intended

 

[dgevert]

I'm a little baffled by the comment about web browsing sucking at widescreen. Uh...you do realize you don't *have* to run your browser maximized...right? I resized Firefox so that it takes up roughly the same amount of space it would if I were using a 4:3 monitor...and in turn I use the extra space for my buddy list windows, winamp, or whatever else I happen to have running. So...the overall experience is still enhanced by widescreen.

And man...lemme tell ya. I've been playing through Half-Life 2 again since I got my monitor (it's a Dell2407WFP by the way) and it's sooooo much more immersive this time around thanks to the larger screen real estate and more natural aspect ratio.

And movies/DVDs? Oh yeah...beautiful is a very good word to use. Just gorgeous.

 

[Trevelyan]

Originally posted by: postmortemIA

Originally posted by: jlbenedict
Widescreen monitors are great for IDE environments, such as VB.net, etc...

I code for living, and I don't think so.

1600x1200 owns 1680x1050 in IDE because more code can fit on screen. Simply 150 pixes equals 10 more lines of code. when viewing 1000+ lines of code in single file, it makes difference if you can read more of code above. As with sides, everything fits well in either 1600 or 1680.

And least, but not last 1600x1200 has 9% more pixels than 1680x1050.

And agian, web pages look misarably with widescreen.

Turn a widescreen monitor sideways, and its the best for coding.

 

[Job]

Originally posted by: santz
think about watching movies at home and compare it watching thes same movie in a theatre wide screen projector tv, and then compare it to an even bigger and wider imax experrience!

should be able to make any one who has never seen, understood, comprehen-ded, thought of, or otherwise imagined what a wide screen tv looks like get a PICTURE of what i am talking about ingrained in his or her (dont wanna be a sexist, ahem ahem) pretty little, clogged brain!!

huffffff that took a while to think and write.!! hehe
only little offense intended

That's BS tho - widescreen monitors are physically smaller than their standard counterparts - only bigger if what you're watching is without black bars. Went into a electronics store today just to look at TVs - the 20" widescreens seem so small compared to the 20" 4:3 screens - far less visually imposing.

 

[The Green Bean]

Originally posted by: Ackmed

Originally posted by: PingSpike
When you play in widescreen aspect ratio supporting games you have a wider FOV. Its basically like cheating since you can "see things out of the corner of your eye" that players without widescreen could not.

Someone always tries this BS arguement.

You cant penalize people for having nice hardware. In BF2, and many other games of its type, there is a setting in the game, for draw distance. Some people cant have that set to max while getting playable frames, so they cant see as far as people who do. There are all sorts of settings such as AA, AF, shadows, etc. that can help you see whats goin on. Saying WS gives an advantage, while disregarding everything is just dumb. And as been said before, most games you can alter the FOV, making your arguement moot.

And that is why console gaming is the future.

 

[Job]

Originally posted by: The Green Bean

Originally posted by: Ackmed

Originally posted by: PingSpike
When you play in widescreen aspect ratio supporting games you have a wider FOV. Its basically like cheating since you can "see things out of the corner of your eye" that players without widescreen could not.

Someone always tries this BS arguement.

You cant penalize people for having nice hardware. In BF2, and many other games of its type, there is a setting in the game, for draw distance. Some people cant have that set to max while getting playable frames, so they cant see as far as people who do. There are all sorts of settings such as AA, AF, shadows, etc. that can help you see whats goin on. Saying WS gives an advantage, while disregarding everything is just dumb. And as been said before, most games you can alter the FOV, making your arguement moot.

And that is why console gaming is the future.

Yeah - everyone has to play with sh!t settings - lol

 

[dgevert]

Originally posted by: Job
That's BS tho - widescreen monitors are physically smaller than their standard counterparts - only bigger if what you're watching is without black bars. Went into a electronics store today just to look at TVs - the 20" widescreens seem so small compared to the 20" 4:3 screens - far less visually imposing.

Some people will never learn...you're one of those idiots who buys DVDs in "fullscreen" aren't you?

One word that won't ever be used to describe my 24" LCD is "small."