Will 16:9 resolution be the new standard for LCD monitors?

[toyota]

Originally posted by: Just learning

Originally posted by: postmortemIA

Originally posted by: toyota

Originally posted by: postmortemIA

Originally posted by: toyota

Originally posted by: Just learning

Originally posted by: zebrax2

Originally posted by: postmortemIA

Originally posted by: Just learning

Originally posted by: toyota

Originally posted by: Just learning
It is not the aspect ratio that determines viewable area, it is the total number of pixels (ie, surface area)

are you really that crazy? for games the number of pixels has nothing to do with the viewing area. 640x480 through 1600x1200 would all have the same viewing area on a 4:3 screen but the 1600x1200 would be sharper looking. the aspect ratio and fov is what determines the viewable area in a game. properly implemented widescreen such as that used in Source games will always add more to the sides and not lose anything.

assuming the pixels are the same size......

they are not, this "proper" technique leads to 10% smaller pixels, i.e fictional 'more' is achieved buy zooming out, and again 16:10 and 4:3 can zoom out too, and they would show even more.

i believe it's more like you scale the image to fit into 16:9 vertical resolution then you extend the sides thus the larger FOV. this is from 16:10 to 16:9

Yep there should be any distortion with 16:9 compared to 16:10.

The monitor just becomes wider but shorter in height (assuming the exact same type of panel is used for manufacture)

physically shorter yes. no one is disputing that. I simply said that properly implemented widescreen will add more viewing area to the sides and loses nothing in the process. 16:9 will add even more to the side viewing are than 16:10 and aging not lose anything. the width increases but the height remains constant as for as viewing area within in the game.

it loses a lot in process, because it has to perform zooming out of whole image in order to show more in a smaller area. look at your screenshots, all objects on 16:9 are bit smaller. and once again, if i have 16:10 monitor with more height and same width, it is obvious that it is capable to increase viewing area on height side.

your statement would be fully true if your 16:9 monitor has more width than 16:10; but that is not case for 1920x1200 vs 1920x1080.

look closely at the HL2 screenshots that use Hor+ (Horizontal Plus) method. http://www.widescreengamingfor.../FAQ#Widescreen_Method


the screenshots form the Source games clearly show that EVERYTHING is of EQUAL size except the view was widened going from 16:10 to 16:9. thats exactly why the method they use is preferred. the stuff you are referring to can and does happen on crappy implementation methods. thats why I have said numerous times that hov+ method only adds more and that is 100% true.

the Hor+ implementation is probably best option there is, but it has to lead to smaller size objects because simply your screen is smaller than 16:10 screen that you are extending from. they admit that "expands the horizontal component of FOV while keeping the vertical component roughly or exactly the same". that works great if you are extending from smaller resolution. but it does not work without zooming out when you try to extend from bigger resolution.

once again, extension can go in other (natural) direction, from 16:9 to 16:10. let's say you have Hor+ optimized game on 16:9 1920x1080. I can use it fine on 1920x1200 screen with black boxes on top and bottom. Then, I can add more to the height while preserving horizontal view without any resizing and that is without any loss.

I know what you are saying. This is why I think 1920x1200 will always be better than 1920x1080.

But does this have anything to do with 16:9 vs 16:10? I think it has to do more with bigger monitors being better than smaller monitors with respecct to things like this.

well what he said was basically correct if at least in theory. some monitors dont have pixel mapping and sometimes the video card drivers wont allow it either. that means if you were trying to run a hor+ 16:9 widescreen game on a 16:10 monitor it would be stretched. having a native 1080 monitor eliminates any of those issues. If I had a 1920x1200 monitor i would just run my games at its native res and not even worry about the little I was missing on the sides.

 

[AzN]

Originally posted by: postmortemIA
I just have tought you that you can't think with your own head and respond to facts with arguments. All you can do is point over and over again to same meaningless articles. You have no your own reasoning beside some BS about magic 16:9 with nothing substantional about it.

Next time buy small box when you move, becasue you can put more in it. Or perhaps become new Dr. Einstein with revolutionary thought that smaller area can fit more.

Although Toyota is wrong on lot of things this one he isn't.

what happened to games when we moved from 4:3 monitors to 16:10? Did we get shorter FOV or did we get wider FOV?

 

[dflynchimp]

Originally posted by: toyota

Originally posted by: Just learning
Like I have said before 1920x1080 is not a 16:9 conversion of 1920x1200.......it is just a smaller panel.

So when comparing 16:9 to 16:10 we need to make sure the panels are the same surface area size to keep the comparisons fair.

thats physical size and I am talking about viewable area within the actual game. sure my 24 inch 1920x1080 monitor is physically shorter than a 24inch 1920x1200 monitor but that has nothing to do with what I am saying.

for any rectangular shape with a given diagonal, the closer the screen is to a square the larger the area. Conversely, the greater the disparity in height to width the smaller the screens area, the extreme being 0 sq inches if we had a theoretical 24 inch monitor with a 24 inch width (same length as diagonal) and 0 inch height.

a 24inch 16:10 monitor, using basic Geometry, has a width of 20.352 inches and height of 12.72 inches, and area of 258.88 square inches

a 24inch 16:9 monitor has a width of 20.92 inches and height of 11.77 inches, with an area of 246.12 square inches.

So in other words, if you get a 16:9 24" monitor you're gaining about a half an inch sideways, losing an inch in height and losing about 12.75 square inches in area.

In more organized form:

Screen Size__Ratio_____Width____Height____Area
24"_________16:10____20:352"___12.72"___258.88 sq. in.
24"_________16:9_____20.92"____11.77"___246.12 sq. in.

 

[postmortemIA]

Originally posted by: Azn

Originally posted by: postmortemIA
I just have tought you that you can't think with your own head and respond to facts with arguments. All you can do is point over and over again to same meaningless articles. You have no your own reasoning beside some BS about magic 16:9 with nothing substantional about it.

Next time buy small box when you move, becasue you can put more in it. Or perhaps become new Dr. Einstein with revolutionary thought that smaller area can fit more.

Although Toyota is wrong on lot of things this one he isn't.

what happened to games when we moved from 4:3 monitors to 16:10? Did we get shorter FOV or did we get wider FOV?

16:10 to 16:9 while width is same is not an extension, but reduction. I think I got everybody agree on that now.

16:10 to 16:9 while height is same and width increases on 16:9 is extension you have on mind.

 

[n7]

Originally posted by: Azn

Originally posted by: postmortemIA
I just have tought you that you can't think with your own head and respond to facts with arguments. All you can do is point over and over again to same meaningless articles. You have no your own reasoning beside some BS about magic 16:9 with nothing substantional about it.

Next time buy small box when you move, becasue you can put more in it. Or perhaps become new Dr. Einstein with revolutionary thought that smaller area can fit more.

Although Toyota is wrong on lot of things this one he isn't.

what happened to games when we moved from 4:3 monitors to 16:10? Did we get shorter FOV or did we get wider FOV?

We got games like Bioshock with better FOV @ 4:3 than 16:10 or 16:9.

Widescreen fanbois love to sing of the awesomeness of widescreen, but the reality is, many games do not properly do hor+.

An example is UT3.
It does 110 fov max, regardless of how stupidly wide you want to set your screen, which makes crap like 16:9 absolutely pointless over 16:10.

And for those with 16:10 or 4:3 displays, yes, you can set the drivers to do 1:1 pixel mapping & get your own 16:9 picture with blacks bars with the same so-called "advantage" as those with native short-screen, err, 16:9, displays.

There's nothing awesome about 16:9...it's another backwards step that allows LCD manufacturers to make even more money off inferior short-screen displays.

 

[toyota]

Originally posted by: n7

Originally posted by: Azn

Originally posted by: postmortemIA
I just have tought you that you can't think with your own head and respond to facts with arguments. All you can do is point over and over again to same meaningless articles. You have no your own reasoning beside some BS about magic 16:9 with nothing substantional about it.

Next time buy small box when you move, becasue you can put more in it. Or perhaps become new Dr. Einstein with revolutionary thought that smaller area can fit more.

Although Toyota is wrong on lot of things this one he isn't.

what happened to games when we moved from 4:3 monitors to 16:10? Did we get shorter FOV or did we get wider FOV?

We got games like Bioshock with better FOV @ 4:3 than 16:10 or 16:9.

Widescreen fanbois love to sing of the awesomeness of widescreen, but the reality is, many games do not properly do hor+.

An example is UT3.
It does 110 fov max, regardless of how stupidly wide you want to set your screen, which makes crap like 16:9 absolutely pointless over 16:10.

And for those with 16:10 or 4:3 displays, yes, you can set the drivers to do 1:1 pixel mapping & get your own 16:9 picture with blacks bars with the same so-called "advantage" as those with native short-screen, err, 16:9, displays.

There's nothing awesome about 16:9...it's another backwards step that allows LCD manufacturers to make even more money off inferior short-screen displays.

they also fixed the Bioshock widescreen issue. Ill give you 16:10 but if you want to to deal with 4:3 then all I have to say is knock yourself out.

 

[toyota]

Originally posted by: dflynchimp

Originally posted by: toyota

Originally posted by: Just learning
Like I have said before 1920x1080 is not a 16:9 conversion of 1920x1200.......it is just a smaller panel.

So when comparing 16:9 to 16:10 we need to make sure the panels are the same surface area size to keep the comparisons fair.

thats physical size and I am talking about viewable area within the actual game. sure my 24 inch 1920x1080 monitor is physically shorter than a 24inch 1920x1200 monitor but that has nothing to do with what I am saying.

for any rectangular shape with a given diagonal, the closer the screen is to a square the larger the area. Conversely, the greater the disparity in height to width the smaller the screens area, the extreme being 0 sq inches if we had a theoretical 24 inch monitor with a 24 inch width (same length as diagonal) and 0 inch height.

a 24inch 16:10 monitor, using basic Geometry, has a width of 20.352 inches and height of 12.72 inches, and area of 258.88 square inches

a 24inch 16:9 monitor has a width of 20.92 inches and height of 11.77 inches, with an area of 246.12 square inches.

So in other words, if you get a 16:9 24" monitor you're gaining about a half an inch sideways, losing an inch in height and losing about 12.75 square inches in area.

In more organized form:

Screen Size__Ratio_____Width____Height____Area
24"_________16:10____20:352"___12.72"___258.88 sq. in.
24"_________16:9_____20.92"____11.77"___246.12 sq. in.

again thats physical size which has nothing to do with what I said

 

[n7]

My main beef with widescreen is that it has not progressed in terms of resolution, & the lack of vertical pixels.

People don't seem to get that there's nothing impressive about 1920x1200 or 1920x1080...we had 2048x1535, 1920x1440, etc, years before with CRT.
Not only did those resolutions offer more height, they had more pixels horizontally.

Being able to run FOVs like 110 isn't impressive, you could do that for 4:3 displays many years ago.

And without a wider FOV, widescreen isn't much of an improvement really.

I run a 16:10 2560x1600 display...i obviously prefer that to 2048x1536.

But i have a massive height & width advantage over the measly 1920x1200/1080 or 2048x1152 that's the step down.

There is absolutely no benefit to the majority of the 16:9 vs. 16:10 comparable displays, unless it's an actual step up in resolution, & generally, it's actually a decrease.

There are weird exceptions like 2048x1152, but i still don't like that, as 1152 is still extremely low...& as it's a funky resolution, most people will end up having to run games @ 1920x1080...or worse, 1680x1050 for those games w/o 16:9 as an option.

 

[cbn]

Originally posted by: n7
My main beef with widescreen is that it has not progressed in terms of resolution, & the lack of vertical pixels.

People don't seem to get that there's nothing impressive about 1920x1200 or 1920x1080...we had 2048x1535, 1920x1440, etc, years before with CRT.
Not only did those resolutions offer more height, they had more pixels horizontally.

Being able to run FOVs like 110 isn't impressive, you could do that for 4:3 displays many years ago.

And without a wider FOV, widescreen isn't much of an improvement really.

I run a 16:10 2560x1600 display...i obviously prefer that to 2048x1536.

But i have a massive height & width advantage over the measly 1920x1200/1080 or 2048x1152 that's the step down.

There is absolutely no benefit to the majority of the 16:9 vs. 16:10 comparable displays, unless it's an actual step up in resolution, & generally, it's actually a decrease.

There are weird exceptions like 2048x1152, but i still don't like that, as 1152 is still extremely low...& as it's a funky resolution, most people will end up having to run games @ 1920x1080...or worse, 1680x1050 for those games w/o 16:9 as an option.

New egg is claiming those 23" diagonal 16:9 2048x1152 LCD monitors are higher density but they don't list the dot pitch in the specifications. As someone pointed out earlier the surface area for 16:9 is less than 16:10 for any given diagonal length. Combining less surface and a gain in pixels over 1920x1200 must be a decrease in dot pitch but how much I don't know?

I for one hope they standardize smaller dot pitches (like the .250 you have on your 2560x1600 monitor) so some of these widescreen monitors can actually get some decent pixel height relative to their physical size. I'm sure smaller dot pitches costs money though.

 

[toyota]

Originally posted by: n7
My main beef with widescreen is that it has not progressed in terms of resolution, & the lack of vertical pixels.

People don't seem to get that there's nothing impressive about 1920x1200 or 1920x1080...we had 2048x1535, 1920x1440, etc, years before with CRT.
Not only did those resolutions offer more height, they had more pixels horizontally.

Being able to run FOVs like 110 isn't impressive, you could do that for 4:3 displays many years ago.

And without a wider FOV, widescreen isn't much of an improvement really.

I run a 16:10 2560x1600 display...i obviously prefer that to 2048x1536.

But i have a massive height & width advantage over the measly 1920x1200/1080 or 2048x1152 that's the step down.

There is absolutely no benefit to the majority of the 16:9 vs. 16:10 comparable displays, unless it's an actual step up in resolution, & generally, it's actually a decrease.

There are weird exceptions like 2048x1152, but i still don't like that, as 1152 is still extremely low...& as it's a funky resolution, most people will end up having to run games @ 1920x1080...or worse, 1680x1050 for those games w/o 16:9 as an option.

but what percentage of people actually had a monitor that did 2048x1535 or 1920x1440? majority of people that had crt monitors were at 1024x768 for many years. then with the switch to lcd most people were at 1280x1024. 1920x1200 and 1920x1080 is still much higher than most consumers have ever used at least until just recently. for those that want higher there is of course the 30 inchers.

 

[cbn]

http://www.newegg.com/Product/...StoreType=&srchInDesc=

These have a dot pitch of .248...which is pretty good (1920x1080 on a 21" diagonal for 16:9)

 

[n7]

Originally posted by: Just learning
http://www.newegg.com/Product/...StoreType=&srchInDesc=

These have a dot pitch of .248...which is pretty good (1920x1080 on a 21" diagonal for 16:9)

Yeah nice fine pixel pitch.

But all TNs

I hate the lack of innovation in the LCD market...so little advancement in so many years.

 

[ielmox]

Originally posted by: toyota
again thats physical size which has nothing to do with what I said

You have been confusing field of view and screen area in this discussion.

Area = pixel x pixel at a fixed pixel pitch, or simply height x width in cm or inches (if resolutions and pitch are not equivalent). You get more screen area at 16:10 than you do at at 16:9 if one of the measurements is fixed (width). It's just that simple.

Check what I actually said in the post on page 2, I suggested that a bigger screen is a better overall experience. There's no way you get a bigger screen area on a 16:9 than on a 16:10.

What you get in 16:9 is a potentially wider field of view at loss of vertical screen size - the entire image is actually smaller. My point was that many people prefer a larger image for the "in your face" experience.

Plus, I think pretty much any 16:10 screen should display a 16:9 image of equivalent width with no (or very little) loss in image size, either natively or via the display card (you should end up with the exact same image as displayed on a 16:9). If on the other hand you want to view 16:10 on a 16:9 monitor, that's harder, and you will end up with an even smaller image.

Like I said earlier, to me bigger is better - and more versatile too.

 

[cbn]

Originally posted by: ielmox

Originally posted by: toyota
again thats physical size which has nothing to do with what I said

There's no way you get a bigger screen area on a 16:9 than on a 16:10.

This might be true if a person is only comparing equivalent diagonal lengths.

 

[SSChevy2001]

Originally posted by: dflynchimp
< snip >

So in other words, if you get a 16:9 24" monitor you're gaining about a half an inch sideways, losing an inch in height and losing about 12.75 square inches in area.

In more organized form:

Screen Size__Ratio_____Width____Height____Area
24"_________16:10____20:352"___12.72"___258.88 sq. in.
24"_________16:9_____20.92"____11.77"___246.12 sq. in.

That's only part of the math. For people that prefer 16/9 gaming and movies here's what we see.

16/9 ratio movie or game on 24" monitor
24" 16/10 20.352" x 11.448" = 232.989 sq in
24" 16/9 20.918" x 11.766" = 246.125 sq in

2.35 movie on 24" monitor
24" 16/10 20.352" x 8.660" = 176.256 sq in
24" 16/9 20.918" x 8.901" = 186.194 sq in

In the end I prefer a 11.11% bigger FOV and the extra viewable area when watching movies.

 

[cbn]

Originally posted by: SSChevy2001

Originally posted by: dflynchimp
< snip >

So in other words, if you get a 16:9 24" monitor you're gaining about a half an inch sideways, losing an inch in height and losing about 12.75 square inches in area.

In more organized form:

Screen Size__Ratio_____Width____Height____Area
24"_________16:10____20:352"___12.72"___258.88 sq. in.
24"_________16:9_____20.92"____11.77"___246.12 sq. in.

That's only part of the math. For people that prefer 16/9 gaming and movies here's what we see.

16/9 ratio movie or game on 24" monitor
24" 16/10 20.352" x 11.448" = 232.989 sq in
24" 16/9 20.918" x 11.766" = 246.125 sq in

2.35 movie on 24" monitor
24" 16/10 20.352" x 8.660" = 176.256 sq in
24" 16/9 20.918" x 8.901" = 186.194 sq in

In the end I prefer a 11.11% bigger FOV and the extra viewable area when watching movies.

But since using 16:9 is cheaper for the manufacturer to produce a person can afford a bigger monitor to compensate. This essentially makes these comparisons "Which is bigger?" a moot point.

 

[nib95]

I hate this crap. As a designer, the more screen space the better! I want 16:10's to be the standard, not the other way around! Far too narrow imo.

 

[ielmox]

Originally posted by: Just learning

Originally posted by: ielmox

Originally posted by: toyota
again thats physical size which has nothing to do with what I said

There's no way you get a bigger screen area on a 16:9 than on a 16:10.

This might be true if a person is only comparing equivalent diagonal lengths.

Not really, because width works best. I am not talking about exotic dimensions, but only the 16:9 and 16:10 widescreen formats. You have to use some common denominator, so we look at equivalent resolutions, similar screen measurements, etc. Diagonal size is misleading because that can result from different physical measurements and pixel pitch.

Originally I was referring to pixel x pixel at a specific pixel pitch. It's self-obvious that 1920 x 1200 yields a larger viewable area than 1920 x 1080 at the same pixel pitch. Notice that the standard here is screen width (1920) NOT necessarily diagonal. If two monitors have the same physical width, 16:10 is not only substantially larger by screen area, but should also be able to present 16:9 content exactly as the 16:9 version of the same theoretical monitor, with no loss in size or FOV at all.

Pretty confusing discussion, but I think 16:10 is a more versatile format, though it's more expensive and more difficult to produce than the 16:9 alternative. So those who enjoy 16:9 AR are in for some happy days.