WoW and SC2 - is a bigger monitor better or not?

[pmv]

http://tvcalculator.com/index.html?b8e67d378e78edadb470e480c0bada47

How many times have people seen WoW used to show off Eyefinity? How many times have people seen people take the option of stacking monitors three high? In WoW, width matters a lot more then height.

But in using side-by-side monitors vs stacked monitors you are keeping constant the total number of pixels. Which isn't what we are talking about.

In the case of 1200 vs 1050 you are NOT increasing horizontal resolution you are _decreasing_ the vertical resolution while keeping the horizontal resolution constant, so fewer pixels in total.

Which is why the gifs above are not really honest - the image there is keeping the same vertical resolution and simply increasing the horizontal, which isn't actually what happens.

Someone might well consider the loss of vertical resolution worth it for the wider aspect ratio, but clearly that's a subjective matter of preference, and even 1050 fans would probably draw the line at using a 1920x1 monitor (i.e only 1 vertical pixel), even though that would be far more wide-screen still.

 

[Binky]

@toyota, you are totally ignoring the fact that a 16x10 monitor is physically LARGER than a 16X9 monitor. Ignoring pixels entirely, the 16x10 monitor of the same "size" (e.g. 24 inch) is physically taller. Period.

Showing a fixed vertical height gif that makes it seem like the 16x10 monitor is smaller is idiotic.

 

[toyota]

Well, no, because that gif is quite deceptive. It ignores the physical size of the screen (for the same price point you get different vertical sizes for each aspect ratio) and it ignores the loss of vertical resolution.

I mean, following the logic of those gifs, a resolution of 1920000 x 1 would be awesome. Can't you see the fallacy that reveals in your reasoning? There's a trade-off, and people can disagree at exactly which point the trade-off becomes less-than-ideal for them. Between 16:10 and 16:9 is probably mainly down to what you are used to, but 1200 does objectively have more pixels in total.

Edit- in fact, come to think of it, if you claim 1920x1080 is better than 1920x1200, by the same logic 1920x800 is better still and 1920x1 would be best of all.

I am not talking about the physical size of the screen. I am talking about the fov. how many pixels you have has NOTHING to do with your fov. the aspect ratio determines that and yes his gif shows you that with properly done widescreen it simply adds more to the sides. if you want to get into physical dimensions then thats a whole other topic because there are various screen sizes to choose from.

 

[GotNoRice]

A few things about 16:9 vs. 16:10 in WoW.

I just went from a 24" 16:10 monitor to a 27" 16:9 monitor. I was concerned about the loss of resolution however WoW has UI scaling options independent of the screen resolution. In my case, even though there was less vertical resolution, my new monitor is both wider and slightly taller than my old monitor in terms of physical screen dimensions. After slight modification to the UI scaling I was able to get everything to where it was taking up about the same physical screen space it did on my 24", which obviously then gave me additional room to work with on my 27".

Thinking about part of the picture as being "cut off" (either vertical or horizontal) is rather misleading. In the game window you've got what you've got, but it doesn't matter because you just zoom in or out to your preference within the game anyway. Yes, a 16:10 monitor gives more vertical space. Yes, a 16:9 monitor gives more horizontal space. Nothing should be "cutting anything off" either way unless we're talking about incompetent developers.

 

[Binky]

http://tvcalculator.com/index.html?b8e67d378e78edadb470e480c0bada47

How many times have people seen WoW used to show off Eyefinity? How many times have people seen people take the option of stacking monitors three high? In WoW, width matters a lot more then height.

LOL, a fixed 1080P video on a 16x10 screen is not the same as a video game that adapts to any screen resolution you throw at it.

 

[toyota]

@toyota, you are totally ignoring the fact that a 16x10 monitor is physically LARGER than a 16X9 monitor. Ignoring pixels entirely, the 16x10 monitor of the same "size" (e.g. 24 inch) is physically taller. Period.

Showing a fixed vertical height gif that makes it seem like the 16x10 monitor is smaller is idiotic.

I am not ignoring that all because you can buy whatever size monitor you want. that doesnt change what I said one bit because I wasnt referring to physical size. you can figure out on your own how big of a monitor you want based on its aspect ratio. in other words if you have a 4:3 19 inch monitor then you to figure out what size widescreen would be almost physically as tall if you want to keep that same physical height.

 

[toyota]

if you people are too stupid to figure out that properly done widescreen just adds more to the sides then thats your problem. that is after all the whole point of widescreen. thats why eyefinty is so interesting because all it does is increase the aspect ratio giving a wider fov.

if you still dont get then just stick to 4:3 and pretend you are seeing more from top to bottom.

 

[pmv]

I am not talking about the physical size of the screen. I am talking about the fov. how many pixels you have has NOTHING to do with your fov. the aspect ratio determines that and yes his gif shows you that with properly done widescreen it simply adds more to the sides. if you want to get into physical dimensions then thats a whole other topic because there are various screen sizes to choose from.

But his gif is wrong. With "properly done widescreen" it doesn't 'simply add more to the sides' because you have fewer vertical pixels. Yes it increases the horizontal fov, and yes you don't necessarily lose vertical fov, but my point is you lose vertical resolution, which that image doesn't show, it uses the same vertical resolution for all 3 images.

Again, your logic says that a 1920x1 image will just 'add more to the sides' and that there is no drawback at all with having an image that's only 1 pixel high. Can't you see the flaw there?

 

[pmv]

if you people are too stupid to figure out that properly done widescreen just adds more to the sides then thats your problem. that is after all the whole point of widescreen. thats why eyefinty is so interesting because all it does is increase the aspect ratio giving a wider fov.

if you still dont get then just stick to 4:3 and pretend you are seeing more from top to bottom.

Considering you seem to be having trouble understanding the concept of 'resolution' you are in a weak position to be accusing others of being 'stupid'. FOV isn't the point, the issue is number of pixels. Do you honestly not see how having 1200 vertical pixels is better than having, say, 10, regardless of fov?

If you make make the aspect ratio wider by reducing the vertical number of pixels then you have to either reduce the vertical fov OR reduce the vertical resolution. You have to lose one or the other.

Fov is arbitrary whatever monitor aspct ratio you have. You can have a very wide fov (in both vertical and horizontal) on a 4:3 monitor. All that matters are number of pixels (and physical size).

PS I can't believe I'm getting so irritated about something of so little consequence.

 

[toyota]

Considering you seem to be having trouble understanding the concept of 'resolution' you are in a weak position to be accusing others of being 'stupid'. FOV isn't the point, the issue is number of pixels. Do you honestly not see how having 1200 vertical pixels is better than having, say, 10, regardless of fov?

PS I can't believe I'm getting so irritated about something of so little consequence.

you dont see more by having more pixels. 800x600 or 1600x1200 will still give the SAME viewable area because they are both 4:3. somebody that buys a 1080 monitor doesnt see anymore than somebody that buys a 720 monitor because they are both 16:9.

 

[pmv]

you dont see more by having more pixels. 800x600 or 1600x1200 will still give the SAME viewable area because they are both 4:3. somebody that buys a 1080 monitor doesnt see anymore than somebody that buys a 720 monitor because they are both 16:9.

You don't see more fov but you so get higher _resolution_! Surely you understand what resolution is?

 

[toyota]

You don't see more fov but you so get higher _resolution_! Surely you understand what resolution is?

yes but that has nothing to do with it what I am talking about. you are using some ridiculous numbers that are not even remotely valid. for gaming I will take 1920x1080 over 1920x1200 any day. sure a 24inch 1920x1080 monitor is physically less tall compared to a 24inch 1920x1200 monitor but so what. you can just move the screen an inch or two closer. or you could just just buy a 25 or 26 inch 1920x1080 monitor from the beginning if physical height is a concern. those come down to personal choices but the fact is that 16:9 simply adds more fov to the sides of 16:10 just like 16:10 add more to the sides of 4:3. again IF its properly implemented widescreen.

 

[A_Dying_Wren]

if you people are too stupid to figure out that properly done widescreen just adds more to the sides then thats your problem. that is after all the whole point of widescreen. thats why eyefinty is so interesting because all it does is increase the aspect ratio giving a wider fov.

if you still dont get then just stick to 4:3 and pretend you are seeing more from top to bottom.

So are you saying that the content available on a 16:10 screen is just a subset of whats available on a 16:9 screen that has a lower resolution? Sounds like extremely poor programming to me which I highly doubt is the case. I really don't see how its the case that a developer would rather limit the FOV than expand it.

And doesn't eyefinity also stretch vertically?

 

[pmv]

yes but that has nothing to do with it what I am talking about. you are using some ridiculous numbers that are not even remotely valid. for gaming I will take 1920x1080 over 1920x1200 any day. sure a 24inch 1920x1080 monitor is physically less tall compared to a 24inch 1920x1200 monitor but so what. you can just move the screen an inch or two closer. or you could just just buy a 25 or 26 inch 1920x1080 monitor from the beginning if physical height is a concern. those come down to personal choices but the fact is that 16:9 simply adds more fov to the sides of 16:10 just like 16:10 add more to the sides of 4:3. again IF its properly implemented widescreen.

You still don't seem to quite grasp my point.

One final attempt to get the concepts clear!

FOV is entirely arbitrary. A game can set whatever horizontal or vertical FOV it wishes, regardless of what aspect ratio or resolution monitor you have.

If you want to avoid distortion (which we can agree we all do) then the aspect ratio of the monitor determines the _ratio_ of vertical fov to horizontal fov, _not_ their absolute values.

The absolute values of FOV are instead more dependent on the resolution, the number of pixels available in that dimension. A larger FOV works better the more pixels you have available in that dimension.

Hence by reducing the vertical number of pixels all you are doing is EITHER reducing the vertical fov for the same image-to-screen scaling (and hence seeing less of the scene in the vertical direction) OR retaining the same vertical FOV by reducing that scaling factor, i.e. making the image less finely resolved in the vertical dimension.

If we consider it OK to reduce that scaling then the 16:10 monitor could do exactly the same and end up with the same FOV as the 16::9 horizontally but a greater one vertically.

To properly increase the horizontal FOV from 1920x1200 with no downside you need to go to something like 2133x1200.

 

[Unkle_Tar]

I think that gif got you confused

 

[Unkle_Tar]

On another note, I read somewhere that's how the FOV actually is done in the beta version of starcraft 2. If it stays that way a 16:9 monitor would be an advantage.

 

[CurseTheSky]

Not to add fuel to the fire, but I think people are confusing desktop resolution (with variable work space) to gaming resolution (with variable image quality).

In a 3D game, the aspect ratio (4:3, 5:3, 16:9, 16:10, etc.) determines your field of vision. The resolution in a given aspect ratio determines how many pixels are available inside that field of vision, not how far your vision extends. So, if you take a 4:3 monitor and set a game's resolution to 640x480, you'll see the same amount of area in the game as you would if you set it to 800x600 instead. The lower resolution is essentially just lowering the pixel count in a given space, so objects in the game appear less sharp and more pixelated.

On the contrary, on your desktop, moving from 640x480 to 800x600 would actually give you more area to work with. So, while I don't fully understand it myself, it's completely possible that those extra 120 vertical pixels on a 16:10 monitor add nothing to your game's field of vision.

 

[pmv]

In a 3D game, the aspect ratio (4:3, 5:3, 16:9, 16:10, etc.) determines your field of vision.

.

Not exactly.

The aspect ratio determines the shape of that field but not its size.

The size of the field of vision (both horizontal and vertical) is entirely arbitrary and up to the particular game to set as it wishes. But the ratio between the vertical and horizontal viewing angles needs to be consistent with aspect ratio of the monitor if you are to avoid distortion.

In going from 1920x1200 to 1920x1050 all you are doing is reducing the vertical resolution, you are _losing_ not gaining. By resizing the viewing angle you can regain what you have lost in terms of FOV, but then you lose resolving power instead. Either way its a loss not a gain. How the game handles it determines which you lose.


Nothing wrong with 16:9 but ideally you want it to be pixel-count-neutral, i.e. reducing vertical resolution slightly and increasing horizontal, so you keep the same number of pixels but redistribute them in a wider shape.

If you only reduce the vertical its no different from using 16:9 on your 16:10 and having letterboxing. The end result is the same.

 

[LoneNinja]

I think that gif of SC2 is very accurate. It is proving the game was designed with 16:9 in mind. It has nothing to do with how many pixels there are, or the image physically changing size. That gif is simply there to show field of vision, in which it clearly shows 16:9 has the advantage. If you can't see that 4:3, 16:10, and 16:9 are all clearly showing the same exact information in height, while the wider aspect ratios show more to the side, you haven't looked at the gif hard enough. 16:9 may end up with fewer pixels, but it is clearly showing more of the map at once because it doesn't sacrifice any vertical image space, it simply increases the width.

 

[Qbah]

I think that gif of SC2 is very accurate. It is proving the game was designed with 16:9 in mind. It has nothing to do with how many pixels there are, or the image physically changing size. That gif is simply there to show field of vision, in which it clearly shows 16:9 has the advantage. If you can't see that 4:3, 16:10, and 16:9 are all clearly showing the same exact information in height, while the wider aspect ratios show more to the side, you haven't looked at the gif hard enough. 16:9 may end up with fewer pixels, but it is clearly showing more of the map at once because it doesn't sacrifice any vertical image space, it simply increases the width.

One question remains: Will a person running the game at 1024x768 see the same area as a person playing at 1600x1200?

- yes - it will be all about the aspect and people on 16:9 will see the most
- no - it will still be about the resolution

The gif shows how the view area looks with the same pixel height. Can someone test and see if the game world view area is not dependent on the resolution?

EDIT: Okay, apparently the game world view is the same for all resolutions with the same aspect So that one's cleared.

 

[toyota]

One question remains: Will a person running the game at 1024x768 see the same area as a person playing at 1600x1200?

- yes - it will be all about the aspect and people on 16:9 will see the most
- no - it will still be about the resolution

The gif shows how the view area looks with the same pixel height. Can someone test and see if the game world view area is not dependent on the resolution?

unless this game is weird its not going to matter. its the aspect ratio NOT the amount of pixels that determine what you see on the screen. so yes someone running 1024x768 will see the exact same info on the screen as someone running 1600x1200.

 

[Qbah]

unless this game is weird its not going to matter. its the aspect ratio NOT the amount of pixels that determine what you see on the screen. so yes someone running 1024x768 will see the exact same info on the screen as someone running 1600x1200.

Check my edit Got first-hand confirmation

 

[toyota]

Check my edit Got first-hand confirmation

yeah I just noticed it...

 

[VirtualLarry]

I remember Age of Empires (II) was different, it had resolution choices, and a higher resolution would give you an advantage and allow you to see more of the map at once. I don't know if I ever tried in on a widescreen. Scratch that, I used to play it on my 1680x1050 Samsung 205BW, and I think I maxed it out with a 4:3 res that was stretched on my monitor.

 

[toyota]

I remember Age of Empires (II) was different, it had resolution choices, and a higher resolution would give you an advantage and allow you to see more of the map at once. I don't know if I ever tried in on a widescreen. Scratch that, I used to play it on my 1680x1050 Samsung 205BW, and I think I maxed it out with a 4:3 res that was stretched on my monitor.

yeah I lot of old games just stretched the image or in some cases did chop of some height for widescreen. nowadays that just doesnt happen and if does like in the case of Bioshock and Far Cry 2 its properly fixed as soon as possible. Valve has always had the perfect widescreen formula on the Source engine which is Hor+. http://www.widescreengamingforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4060