Why is everything x1080 now?

[sandorski]

60Hz LCD is completely different (and superior) to 60Hz CRT. And there are lots of 120Hz LCDs on the market right now. single link DVI / HDMI cannot do 2560x res @ 240hz, it doesn't have enough bandwidth. you need quad-lane display port for that.

It's more about how things are Displayed on the 2 types of Monitors, more than Superior/Inferior. An LCD only really displays Changes per hz, whereas a CRT has to display the whole Screen per hz. Basically that's the difference.

 

[taltamir]

It's more about how things are Displayed on the 2 types of Monitors, more than Superior/Inferior. An LCD only really displays Changes per hz, whereas a CRT has to display the whole Screen per hz. Basically that's the difference.

the vast majority of humans think LCDs are vastly superior, this is why CRTs are completely dead. People argue the point, but there are a lot of issues with CRTs, wobble, flicker, etc...
Obviously it is subjective and merely my opinion... I don't need to specify "in my opinion <insert opinion here>", merely stating an opinion clarifies that; and by definition "superior" is always an opinion.
LCDs aren't perfect, but they are better. OLEDs are even better.

 

[sandorski]

the vast majority of humans think LCDs are vastly superior, this is why CRTs are completely dead. People argue the point, but there are a lot of issues with CRTs, wobble, flicker, etc...
Obviously it is subjective and merely my opinion... I don't need to specify "in my opinion <insert opinion here>", merely stating an opinion clarifies that; and by definition "superior" is always an opinion.
LCDs aren't perfect, but they are better. OLEDs are even better.

I can agree to that. I suppose I was just being anal about the terminology more than anything. I agree the end result is certainly better regardless of the reasons behind the difference.

 

[NoQuarter]

Edit: arredondo already said it.

That is not a fair comparison.
Because the diagonals are not the same.
Or to be more precise, the surface size in mm2.
That picture is showing the differences between a 24" 1920x1080 and a 22" 1920x1200 and a 17" 1280x1024 (roughly).

I too prefer a 16x10.

The surface area requires something around a 24", ~23" and ~19" to match up vertically but the actual viewport of a game is the same on a 24" 1920x1080 monitor as a 60" 1920x1080 HDTV and a 28" 1280x720 HDTV because the viewport is calculated based on the aspect ratio alone (1920 / 1080 = 1280 / 720 = 16 / 9).

That means in a hor+ game (which most should be) a 16:9 monitor always shows more than a 16:10 monitor even if the 16:10 monitor is bigger.


The other factor in determining 'fair' is simply price not diagonal, as a 24" 1920x1080 monitor is around the same price as a 23" 1920x1200 monitor.

 

[taltamir]

1920x1080 monitor as a 60" 1920x1080 HDTV and a 28" 1280x720 HDTV because the viewport is calculated based on the aspect ratio alone (1920 / 1080 = 1280 / 720 = 16 / 9).

this is only the case for some games. Typically the FOV is based on how many pixels you have. more pixels = more viewable stuff. Increasing the resolution makes everything "smaller" but shows you more stuff overall. only specific game engines compensate for it to maintain fixed sizes on things, when that happens the FOV is determined by aspect ratio.
FOV never has anything to do with with monitor size in inches.

 

[NoQuarter]

this is only the case for some games. Typically the FOV is based on how many pixels you have. more pixels = more viewable stuff. Increasing the resolution makes everything "smaller" but shows you more stuff overall. only specific game engines compensate for it to maintain fixed sizes on things, when that happens the FOV is determined by aspect ratio.
FOV never has anything to do with with monitor size in inches.

No, only old sprite based games increase viewing area based on pixel count. All games that use 3d graphics calculate the viewport (how much you 'see') based off aspect ratio, and are either hor+/- or vert+/- or rarely anamorphic. Old 3d games that don't do this are 'stretch' and don't increase by pixel count but instead stretch the locked viewport to fill the monitor.

See 'Screenchange' here:
http://www.widescreengamingforum.com/wiki/FAQ

Or my old posts here:
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?p=29961134#post29961134
http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=29947472&postcount=115
http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=29947111&postcount=112

 

[taltamir]

1. I made two statements:
a. this is game dependent.
b. pixel Dependant is the common situation.

So, it seems are now in agreement that a is correct, this is game dependent.
as for b, we have no established it either way.

you have brought forth a new argument, lets call it:
c. all 3d rendered games are aspect ratio dependant.

this is a new issue unrelated to a, but has impact on b.
I am pretty sure I have seen plenty of 3d games that are pixel count dependent. Especially top down RPGs / strategy games. Despite not being sprite based.
it makes a lot of sense for first person / third person perspective games to use be aspect ratio dependent, as they need to maintain a relatively constant "face size" to maintain immersion. I cant think of a single 1st person or 3rd person perspective game that isn't aspect ratio dependent...
now, to answer b, we have to count games... but at least we settled A, and agree that it is game dependent on whether aspect ratio or pixel count determines it. but that it never has anything to do with size in inches.

 

[NoQuarter]

1. I made two statements:
a. this is game dependent.
b. pixel Dependant is the common situation.

So, it seems are now in agreement that a is correct, this is game dependent.
as for b, we have no established it either way.

you have brought forth a new argument, lets call it:
c. all 3d rendered games are aspect ratio dependant.

this is a new issue unrelated to a, but has impact on b.
I am pretty sure I have seen plenty of 3d games that are pixel count dependent. Especially top down RPGs / strategy games. Despite not being sprite based.
it makes a lot of sense for first person / third person perspective games to use be aspect ratio dependent, as they need to maintain a relatively constant "face size" to maintain immersion. I cant think of a single 1st person or 3rd person perspective game that isn't aspect ratio dependent...
now, to answer b, we have to count games... but at least we settled A, and agree that it is game dependent on whether aspect ratio or pixel count determines it. but that it never has anything to do with size in inches.

Ok, I don't know a single 3d game including top down strategy or rpg that increases viewport by pixel count and it would be unusual if it did because the further you get from the center point the more skewed it gets.

 

[taltamir]

You know what, I might be wrong there. the bioware infinity engine is actually sprite based despite looking 3d-ish. (it uses open GL to accelerate its 2d and sprite operations, but is sprite based according to wikipedia)

Arcanum, well, I don't know but I am looking it up, I thought it was 3d.

http://www.widescreengamingforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=16131
Diablo 2 is pixel based, and uses D3D. I don't know if it uses sprites or not.

I was under the assumption that sprite meant 8-bit type graphics, but apparently not. Seems like NWN1 was the first non sprite 3d top down RPG from bioware and it is Hor+ aspect ratio dependent. I will look around to see if I can find a 3d game that is / isn't to confirm it; but I guess I was probably wrong about that point.

 

[mejobloggs]

16:10 is my favourite

 

[Obsoleet]

I use a 1920x1200 panel as my main, but 1080 would be fine for me. If you need more, that's why we have Eyefinity.

 

[Qbah]

22" 16:9 is more like 20" 16:10

That makes no sense.

A 22" 16:10 physically is:
- 18.7" wide
- 11.7" tall

A 22" 16:9 physically is:
- 19.2" wide
- 10.8" tall

A 20" 16:10 physically is:
- 16.9" wide
- 10.6" tall

Sure, the height is similar, but how does that make them "more like" each other? The 22" is a lot more wider.

As for FOV, modern games don't have "pixel dependent viewing area". Any modern game uses the ratio to determine what you can see. We had a really good discussion some time ago about it. Makes sense in 3D games - everybody sees the same (provided they have the same ratio), a higher resolution just makes the world sharper.

Diablo 1/2, Infinity Engine games (BG, IWD, PS:T), old C&C games - those are games sprite based, they have fixed, pre-created elements populating their world. The higher your resolution, the more stuff you can squeeze on the screen (as each element is fixed pixel-wise).

Me? I don't have a preference in terms of ratio. The only things I'm concerned with are:
1) Screen size - the bigger the better (as in your screen can only be too small )
2) Panel technology