Widescreen in games, easy pictures to compare

[Ackmed]

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

Just put your mouse of the pic to change it to the next.

Thats just one game, select a game in the drop down to view another. With the clear advantage to you having more game (when not just stretched), I dont see how anyone can not like widescreen. Hopefully this will help people on the fence. Sadly, WS is pretty much only available on LCD's, so if still like your CRT better, then its not really an option for you.

Ive said before that the two biggest "booms" of video in the past year for me is SLI, and the emergence of Widescreen monitors and games that support them. Clearly it has a serious advantage as far as what you see, and it makes it even more realisitc. Too bad some devs are too lazy, or dont think its right to add them into certain games.

 

[Leper Messiah]

Originally posted by: Ackmed
http://www.widescreengamingforum.com/screenshots.php

Just put your mouse of the pic to change it to the next.

Thats just one game, select a game in the drop down to view another. With the clear advantage to you having more game (when not just stretched), I dont see how anyone can not like widescreen. Hopefully this will help people on the fence. Sadly, WS is pretty much only available on LCD's, so if still like your CRT better, then its not really an option for you.

Ive said before that the two biggest "booms" of video in the past year for me is SLI, and the emergence of Widescreen monitors and games that support them. Clearly it has a serious advantage as far as what you see, and it makes it even more realisitc. Too bad some devs are too lazy, or dont think its right to add them into certain games.

'cept most people (85% plus of desktops users at least) don't have a WS monitor. You can't penalize a majority of your audience for not having something.

 

[Matthias99]

Keep in mind that if you are comparing 1600x1200 to 1680x1050, you're actually seeing less vertically (although significantly more horizontally). For FPS games, where most of the action is on a horizontal plane, this is an improvement, but you technically have more screen area at 1600x1200 (so if you're playing, say, AOE3 or other RTS/strategy games, you can see more stuff on the screen at once).

1920x1200 gives you the same vertical and more horizontal, but such monitors are still relatively expensive (and you need a beast of a video card to run most games like that).

 

[DPmaster]

Originally posted by: Ackmed
http://www.widescreengamingforum.com/screenshots.php

Just put your mouse of the pic to change it to the next.

Thats just one game, select a game in the drop down to view another. With the clear advantage to you having more game (when not just stretched), I dont see how anyone can not like widescreen. Hopefully this will help people on the fence. Sadly, WS is pretty much only available on LCD's, so if still like your CRT better, then its not really an option for you.

Ive said before that the two biggest "booms" of video in the past year for me is SLI, and the emergence of Widescreen monitors and games that support them. Clearly it has a serious advantage as far as what you see, and it makes it even more realisitc. Too bad some devs are too lazy, or dont think its right to add them into certain games.

That tells you how old I am. I've been using SLI since 1998. 😉

 

[CP5670]

Some of the widescreen shots there don't seem to be FOV adjusted and are just stretched; you can see more in the 4:3 version. 😕

 

[Ackmed]

Originally posted by: Leper Messiah
'cept most people (85% plus of desktops users at least) don't have a WS monitor. You can't penalize a majority of your audience for not having something.

When did I say they should be penalized? What I said was some devs are too lazy, or other reasons not to add WS support. Personally I think game devs should add every res they can think of. Because odds are, someone out there is going to use it. Especially if the game is popular, and played years down the road.

Originally posted by: Matthias99
Keep in mind that if you are comparing 1600x1200 to 1680x1050, you're actually seeing less vertically (although significantly more horizontally). For FPS games, where most of the action is on a horizontal plane, this is an improvement, but you technically have more screen area at 1600x1200 (so if you're playing, say, AOE3 or other RTS/strategy games, you can see more stuff on the screen at once).

1920x1200 gives you the same vertical and more horizontal, but such monitors are still relatively expensive (and you need a beast of a video card to run most games like that).

True there is less vertically, but as you said, far more horizontally. Since left and right, is more usefull that up and down.. I see this as a very acceptable trade. Overall, you get more game, in WS. If that game truely supports WS.

Originally posted by: DPmaster

That tells you how old I am. I've been using SLI since 1998. 😉

I had Voodoo SLI too. Still got my reciept for $250 for one 8meg V2. But Im not talking about scan-line interleave... 😉

Originally posted by: CP5670
Some of the widescreen shots there don't seem to be FOV adjusted and are just stretched; you can see more in the 4:3 version. 😕

edit, yes, which is why I said if a game truely supports it. Some games do just stretch, and you cant adjust the FOV. Which sucks.

 

[Sunrise089]

Originally posted by: Matthias99
Keep in mind that if you are comparing 1600x1200 to 1680x1050, you're actually seeing less vertically (although significantly more horizontally). For FPS games, where most of the action is on a horizontal plane, this is an improvement, but you technically have more screen area at 1600x1200 (so if you're playing, say, AOE3 or other RTS/strategy games, you can see more stuff on the screen at once).

1920x1200 gives you the same vertical and more horizontal, but such monitors are still relatively expensive (and you need a beast of a video card to run most games like that).

Um...are you sure about that? As I understand what your saying it sounds like you would claim someone moving from 800x600 to 1600x1200 would be seeing more on the screen. In a FPS that isn't really true. They are certainly seeing vastly more pixels, but they aren't seeing any more content, just whatever content is on screen will be sharper, crisper, etc. As I understand it when a gamer's field of view moves from a 4:3 display to a 16:10 display (or 5:4 to 16:9 or whatever) they aren't seeing less vertically, they are just normally dropping to a lower resolution for their verticle image and then greately expanding it horizontally. I know with movies and the like moving from a fullscreen version to a widescreen version certainy doesn't cut off content from the top and bottom of the screen.

Originally posted by: Ackmed
Sadly, WS is pretty much only available on LCD's, so if still like your CRT better, then its not really an option for you.

The cheapest widescreen option easily available is probably a used FW900. Its a CRT and runs at 1980x1200. I think your link provides an even better reason why this display is the best semi-budget option out there right now.

 

[Matthias99]

Originally posted by: Ackmed

Originally posted by: Matthias99
Keep in mind that if you are comparing 1600x1200 to 1680x1050, you're actually seeing less vertically (although significantly more horizontally). For FPS games, where most of the action is on a horizontal plane, this is an improvement, but you technically have more screen area at 1600x1200 (so if you're playing, say, AOE3 or other RTS/strategy games, you can see more stuff on the screen at once).

1920x1200 gives you the same vertical and more horizontal, but such monitors are still relatively expensive (and you need a beast of a video card to run most games like that).

True there is less vertically, but as you said, far more horizontally. Since left and right, is more usefull that up and down..

Only if the game is very largely focused on horizontal action (which most shooters are). In something like an RTS game (where the whole screen is useful), you're actually reducing the viewable screen area. 1600x1200 has nearly 10% more pixels than 1680x1050, and 2048x1536 has nearly 50% more pixels than 1920x1200.

I think widescreen support for games is a good thing, but with content that can be generated on-demand at any particular AR, it's hard to pick one as inherently superior.

 

[DPmaster]

Originally posted by: Ackmed

Originally posted by: DPmaster

That tells you how old I am. I've been using SLI since 1998. 😉

I had Voodoo SLI too. Still got my reciept for $250 for one 8meg V2. But Im not talking about scan-line interleave... 😉

Heh I had the best of both worlds at the time. I had a nvidia TNT2 Ultra paired with 2 12MB Voodoo2s in SLI. It was great being able to play in Glide mode if needed and then switch off to Direct3D or OpenGL if it was faster. To this day, I still remember how Unreal looked so much better and smoother with Glide (as opposed to Direct3D).

 

[Matthias99]

Originally posted by: Sunrise089

Originally posted by: Matthias99
Keep in mind that if you are comparing 1600x1200 to 1680x1050, you're actually seeing less vertically (although significantly more horizontally). For FPS games, where most of the action is on a horizontal plane, this is an improvement, but you technically have more screen area at 1600x1200 (so if you're playing, say, AOE3 or other RTS/strategy games, you can see more stuff on the screen at once).

1920x1200 gives you the same vertical and more horizontal, but such monitors are still relatively expensive (and you need a beast of a video card to run most games like that).

Um...are you sure about that? As I understand what your saying it sounds like you would claim someone moving from 800x600 to 1600x1200 would be seeing more on the screen. In a FPS that isn't really true. They are certainly seeing vastly more pixels, but they aren't seeing any more content, just whatever content is on screen will be sharper, crisper, etc.

Both those resolutions have the same AR, and so the same FOV would be used by the game. This means the size/shape of the view frustrum will not change.

As I understand it when a gamer's field of view moves from a 4:3 display to a 16:10 display (or 5:4 to 16:9 or whatever) they aren't seeing less vertically, they are just normally dropping to a lower resolution for their verticle image and then greately expanding it horizontally.

Assuming you adjust the FOV properly for the new resolution, "dropping to a lower resolution for their verticle (sic) image" will have the side effect of reducing the vertical view angle.

I know with movies and the like moving from a fullscreen version to a widescreen version certainy doesn't cut off content from the top and bottom of the screen.

That's because the original source material has a fixed AR, and in that case the screen is less wide than the material. If you watch 4:3 material on a 16:9 display, and you blow it up to 'fullscreen', you'll cut off the top and bottom. This is completely different than a computer game, where the content is dynamically generated at any resolution/AR/FOV the game engine can support.

 

[Sunrise089]

Originally posted by: Matthias99

Originally posted by: Sunrise089

Originally posted by: Matthias99
Keep in mind that if you are comparing 1600x1200 to 1680x1050, you're actually seeing less vertically (although significantly more horizontally). For FPS games, where most of the action is on a horizontal plane, this is an improvement, but you technically have more screen area at 1600x1200 (so if you're playing, say, AOE3 or other RTS/strategy games, you can see more stuff on the screen at once).

1920x1200 gives you the same vertical and more horizontal, but such monitors are still relatively expensive (and you need a beast of a video card to run most games like that).

Um...are you sure about that? As I understand what your saying it sounds like you would claim someone moving from 800x600 to 1600x1200 would be seeing more on the screen. In a FPS that isn't really true. They are certainly seeing vastly more pixels, but they aren't seeing any more content, just whatever content is on screen will be sharper, crisper, etc.

Both those resolutions have the same AR, and so the same FOV would be used by the game. This means the size/shape of the view frustrum will not change.

As I understand it when a gamer's field of view moves from a 4:3 display to a 16:10 display (or 5:4 to 16:9 or whatever) they aren't seeing less vertically, they are just normally dropping to a lower resolution for their verticle image and then greately expanding it horizontally.

Assuming you adjust the FOV properly for the new resolution, "dropping to a lower resolution for their verticle (sic) image" will have the side effect of reducing the vertical view angle.

I know with movies and the like moving from a fullscreen version to a widescreen version certainy doesn't cut off content from the top and bottom of the screen.

That's because the original source material has a fixed AR, and in that case the screen is less wide than the material. If you watch 4:3 material on a 16:9 display, and you blow it up to 'fullscreen', you'll cut off the top and bottom. This is completely different than a computer game, where the content is dynamically generated at any resolution/AR/FOV the game engine can support.

In the OP's link the AOE III screenshot shows addiitonal content to the left and right of the original image. No content is removed from the top and bottom. Please explain to be my this would not normally be the result of moving to 16:10. If 2048x1536 and 1600x1200 have the same field of view than why would drawing the image in the middle of a 1980x1200 widescreen display at 1600x1200 then additing the additional 380 pixels of content to the sides somehow reduce the vertical viewing angle? I understand the proportion of vetrical to horizontal should change, but since the game can draw the image dynamically why wouldn't it simply adjust the image to fit on the widescreen display?

And I know my spelling sucks, I don't bother spell checking before I post, so sorry.

 

[Matthias99]

Originally posted by: Sunrise089
In the OP's link the AOE III screenshot shows addiitonal content to the left and right of the original image. No content is removed from the top and bottom. Please explain to be my this would not normally be the result of moving to 16:10. If 2048x1536 and 1600x1200 have the same field of view than why would drawing the image in the middle of a 1980x1200 widescreen display at 1600x1200 then additing the additional 380 pixels of content to the sides somehow reduce the vertical viewing angle?

It doesn't. I was talking about going from 1600x1200 to 1680x1080. If you go from 1600x1200 to 1920x1200 (and the FOV is adjusted properly), you're just increasing the horizontal viewing angle. You'd see a similar effect going from 2048x1536 to 1920x1200, though.

Imagine going from a display that is 1280x1024 pixels to one that is 1280x720. Either the game has to draw everything significantly smaller to fit the same amount vertically, or some of the top and bottom is going to be cut off.

 

[jiffylube1024]

Originally posted by: Matthias99
Keep in mind that if you are comparing 1600x1200 to 1680x1050, you're actually seeing less vertically (although significantly more horizontally). For FPS games, where most of the action is on a horizontal plane, this is an improvement, but you technically have more screen area at 1600x1200 (so if you're playing, say, AOE3 or other RTS/strategy games, you can see more stuff on the screen at once).

1920x1200 gives you the same vertical and more horizontal, but such monitors are still relatively expensive (and you need a beast of a video card to run most games like that).

It's all dependent on whether or not the FOV can be adjusted, and many games are designed with a particular FOV in mind so shrinking it might make certain things too small or have other adverse effects.

Personally I like PC 16:10 widescreen just because I find the 1.6:1 aspect ratio to be much more visually pleasing than 1.33:1 ; I find standard aspect ratios to be a bit too 'square' looking for my tastes and widescreen to be a more accurate portrayal of what you see in a given instance, since our horizontal vision is much bigger over a much larger viewing angle than our vertical vision.

I'm one of those "never go back" type of people; I've 'seen the light' so to speak and I much prefer 16:10 on PC or 16:9 (on TV) to 4:3 (or 5:4).

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: Matthias99

Originally posted by: Sunrise089
In the OP's link the AOE III screenshot shows addiitonal content to the left and right of the original image. No content is removed from the top and bottom. Please explain to be my this would not normally be the result of moving to 16:10. If 2048x1536 and 1600x1200 have the same field of view than why would drawing the image in the middle of a 1980x1200 widescreen display at 1600x1200 then additing the additional 380 pixels of content to the sides somehow reduce the vertical viewing angle?

It doesn't. I was talking about going from 1600x1200 to 1680x1080. If you go from 1600x1200 to 1920x1200 (and the FOV is adjusted properly), you're just increasing the horizontal viewing angle. You'd see a similar effect going from 2048x1536 to 1920x1200, though.

Imagine going from a display that is 1280x1024 pixels to one that is 1280x720. Either the game has to draw everything significantly smaller to fit the same amount vertically, or some of the top and bottom is going to be cut off.

You seem to be confusing resolution with aspect ratio. 1680x1050 will give you the exact same viewing angles as 1920x1200 in every game I have ever seen and that makes sense as both 16:10 aspect ratios. Resolution is sperate from that just like with 4:3 aspect ratios where you ge the same viewing angles at 800x600, 1600x1200 or whatever.

 

[Sunrise089]

Originally posted by: TheSnowman

Originally posted by: Matthias99

Originally posted by: Sunrise089
In the OP's link the AOE III screenshot shows addiitonal content to the left and right of the original image. No content is removed from the top and bottom. Please explain to be my this would not normally be the result of moving to 16:10. If 2048x1536 and 1600x1200 have the same field of view than why would drawing the image in the middle of a 1980x1200 widescreen display at 1600x1200 then additing the additional 380 pixels of content to the sides somehow reduce the vertical viewing angle?

It doesn't. I was talking about going from 1600x1200 to 1680x1080. If you go from 1600x1200 to 1920x1200 (and the FOV is adjusted properly), you're just increasing the horizontal viewing angle. You'd see a similar effect going from 2048x1536 to 1920x1200, though.

Imagine going from a display that is 1280x1024 pixels to one that is 1280x720. Either the game has to draw everything significantly smaller to fit the same amount vertically, or some of the top and bottom is going to be cut off.

You seem to be confusing resolution with aspect ratio. 1680x1050 will give you the exact same viewing angles as 1920x1200 in every game I have ever seen and that makes sense as both 16:10 aspect ratios. Resolution is sperate from that just like with 4:3 aspect ratios where you ge the same viewing angles at 800x600, 1600x1200 or whatever.

Thanks TheSnowman, this is what I had thought as well.