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

[Qbah]

So you'll see more in a 1366 x 768 screen than a 1920 x 1200?

I've tried to find evidence of your position but have been unsuccessful. I've tried to get my head around the concept of less pixels showing more, but it defies common sense.

I will have to assume you don't mean to post any of this but have been the victim of unintended keyboard acceleration.

Yes, a 1366x768 (16:9) screen will show more of the world than 1920x1200 (16:10), but it will be more pixelated. NoQuarter posted an excellent description why it's like that a few posts up (I also quoted the post). It's all about consistency - you go from square (1:1) to 5:4 to 4:3 to 16:10 to 16:9. Every next aspect is wider. Resolution does not influence the view area, as the world you're viewing isn't "per-pixel static". A higher resolution just gives you a sharper view on it.

Imagine two people, one with a good sight (high resolution - 1920x1080) and another with a bad sight (low resolution - 1280x720). Both see the same world, just not with the same detail Not really the best example, but hey

EDIT: Another example would be playing a modern game at either 1680x1050 or 1920x1200. Do you see more on the higher resolution setting? No. You just have smoother lines Imagine how small the view area would be on consoles that run games at 720p or lower if resolution would determine it.

 

[NoQuarter]

So you'll see more in a 1366 x 768 screen than a 1920 x 1200?

I've tried to find evidence of your position but have been unsuccessful. I've tried to get my head around the concept of less pixels showing more, but it defies common sense.

I will have to assume you don't mean to post any of this but have been the victim of unintended keyboard acceleration.

Yes a 1366x768 screen (16:9) shows more than a 1920x1200 (16:10) screen in 3d games. The 1920x1200 has a sharper picture with more pixels dedicated to the scene but 3d games render your view based on aspect ratio not pixel count. Remember a 640x480 monitor is about the same AR as a 1280x1024 and they show the exact same thing in 3d games even though the latter is twice as tall and twice as wide.

If you want to see what a game would look like in 1366x768 vs 1920x1200 you can go here:
http://www.widescreengamingforum.com/fovcalc.php and set # of monitors to 1, and punch in 1366x768 in the 'new resolution' then change it to 1920x1200 in the new resolution and compare the difference.


The vertical FOV in a game is generally locked to a certain viewing area, and the horizontal FOV is unlocked to adjust to the width of the monitor. If you ran your game in a window, and dragged up the bottom half of the window to make it very short but wide, you could expect 1 of 2 behaviors:

1) The game removes the top and bottom parts of the scene as you shrink the window vertically leaving the horizontal view untouched. This is called vert- (horizontal is locked) and would feel just like shrinking your browser window, where less becomes seen the smaller you make the window vertically. Unreal engine behaves this way past 16:9 AR.

2) The game adds to the left and right side of the scene as you shrink the window, making everything shrink in size in order to maintain your vertical view. This is called hor+ (vertical is locked) and is the way all current games are as you proceed from 4:3 to 16:9 AR. Imagine watching a movie letterboxed on an old 4:3 TV. You've effectively shrunk the image while maintaining the same vertical view in order to add horizontal view. Widescreen monitors exist so you don't have to shrink the image in order to add the horizontal view, and 1366x768 is relatively wider than 1920x1200.

I suppose one way to look at it is since 3d games have their vertical locked to the '3' in 4:3, a 16:10 monitor could be thought of as a 4.8:3 view while a 16:9 monitor a 5.3:3 view

You can actually test if a game is TH2Go/Eyefinity capable by just shrinking your window from 1920x1200 to 1920x400. This provides the crazy wide AR of 48:10 and should show far more of the game world than the 1920x1200 view even though you would never play it like that. But even if a game doesn't support this at 48:10 all current games do work this way on the trip from 4:3 to 16:9.

This is just my hypothesis at the moment but I'm fairly certain at least you'll be getting a greater resolution image of slightly less content with 1920*1200 as compared to 1920*1080.

This is a very good point too.

 

[pmv]

Here is the problem. Field of view does not care about resolution at all, it cares about aspect ratio

This isn't strictly true.

Or at least, perhaps we need to define more precisely what is meant by 'field of view'?

How much you can see of a scene depends on what ANGLE of view the game chooses to use. This is _entirely independent_ of aspect ratio. You can see more or less of a scene by zooming in and out, and you can do this regardless of the aspect ratio of your monitor.

The aspect ratio determines the RATIO of what you can see vertically to horizontally, that is, the SHAPE of the field of view, NOT the absolute size of the field of view.


Also, a question that's only just occurred to me - if 1920x1080 monitors are physically wider than 1200 ones, despite having the same number of horizontal pixels, that presumably means they are a higher dot pitch?

Also I do think 1080 monitors will take over in the end because the overlap with HDTV makes them more standard, but I just think Toyota and his supporters in this thread are not understanding the issue fully (also, he's being oddly aggressive about it).

 

[pmv]

Yes, a 1366x768 (16:9) screen will show more of the world than 1920x1200 (16:10), but it will be more pixelated. NoQuarter posted an excellent description why it's like that a few posts up (I also quoted the post). It's all about consistency - you go from square (1:1) to 5:4 to 4:3 to 16:10 to 16:9. Every next aspect is wider. Resolution does not influence the view area, as the world you're viewing isn't "per-pixel static". A higher resolution just gives you a sharper view on it.

This is incorrect, I think.

The 16:9 screen might show more of the world, it might show less, it all depends what viewing angle the game is using in each case. The choice of viewing angle is independent of the aspect ratio of the monitor.

In the case above, where the 16:9 is lower resolution, then it can only show more of the world at the expense of loss of detail. It would be perfectly possible for the 16:10 screen to zoom out to the point of showing just as much horizontally (but more vertically) as the 16:9, also at the expense of loss of detail, possibly with exact equal detail resolving level as the 16:10 (not sure, can't be bothered to do the maths).

 

[pmv]

Look, imagine a cone, with the point at your eyes and the base at the scene you are viewing. That's your cone of vision. How _much_ of the scene you can see depends on the angle of that cone.

Superimposed on that cone is a rectangular window of a certain shape. The shape of that window is determined by the aspect ratio of your monitor. That shape determines the ratio of your vertical view to your horizontal view. It does NOT determine how MUCH you can see, that's down to the cone.

Finally the pixel resolution of your monitor determines the sharpness of the image for a given angle of that cone.

If you want to keep the sharpness constant, then changing from 1920x1200 to 1920x1050 means you will LOSE vertical field of view and keep the same horizontal fov.

The only way for the latter to increase horizontal instead (as Toyota keeps insisting must happen) is to change the angle of that cone, and hence lose sharpness. If you want to be consistent you have to compare it with the 16:10 monitor with the new cone angle, in which case it will show just as much horizontally and more vertically.

However you cut it the 1920x1080 will show LESS not more. The idea that it will show more horizontally is an illusion created by sneakily changing the cone of view for one monitor but not the other. The fact that some games might do this is irrelevant to the general principle.

(The question of physical size of the monitor is another matter)

 

[NoQuarter]

This isn't strictly true.

Or at least, perhaps we need to define more precisely what is meant by 'field of view'?

How much you can see of a scene depends on what ANGLE of view the game chooses to use. This is _entirely independent_ of aspect ratio. You can see more or less of a scene by zooming in and out, and you can do this regardless of the aspect ratio of your monitor.

The aspect ratio determines the RATIO of what you can see vertically to horizontally, that is, the SHAPE of the field of view, NOT the absolute size of the field of view.


Also, a question that's only just occurred to me - if 1920x1080 monitors are physically wider than 1200 ones, despite having the same number of horizontal pixels, that presumably means they are a higher dot pitch?

Also I do think 1080 monitors will take over in the end because the overlap with HDTV makes them more standard, but I just think Toyota and his supporters in this thread are not understanding the issue fully (also, he's being oddly aggressive about it).

This is correct, the aspect ratio determines the ratio of what you can see vertically to horizontally, but the absolute size of the field of view is both a) tied to your AR by the engine's locked vertical field of view and b) limited by the same amount of zoom or dolly that can be applied in either aspect ratio. Since you can zoom out the same distance in a game whether you are in 16:9 or 16:10 the 16:9 would end up showing more on the sides at an equal level of zoom. The game engine would have to specifically allow you to zoom out further at 16:10 than 16:9 to let you see the same or more at the narrow AR. You can manually increase the horizontal FOV in many games (through a console command like 'fov 100') but the fisheye skewing that would result on a 16:10 monitor to get the same view as a 16:9 monitor would be unattractive. (this is like sprinting in Borderlands or Gears of War) The only way this works properly is to unlock the vertical FOV, effectively making games vert+/- beyond 16:10, but this is undesirable since increased horizontal viewport has been the natural expansion to match human's field of view.


Dot pitch is entirely dependent on screen area to pixel count, the more pixels you are stuffing onto a given area the lower the dot pitch has to be so a smaller screen at the same resolution has a lower dot pitch than a larger one.

 

[pmv]

This is correct, the aspect ratio determines the ratio of what you can see vertically to horizontally, but the absolute size of the field of view is both a) tied to your AR by the engine's locked vertical field of view and b) limited by the same amount of zoom or dolly that can be applied in either aspect ratio. Since you can zoom out the same distance in a game whether you are in 16:9 or 16:10 the 16:9 would end up showing more on the sides at an equal level of zoom. The game engine would have to specifically allow you to zoom out further at 16:10 than 16:9 to let you see the same or more at the narrow AR. You can manually increase the horizontal FOV in many games (through a console command like 'fov 100') but the fisheye skewing that would result on a 16:10 monitor to get the same view as a 16:9 monitor would be unattractive. (this is like sprinting in Borderlands or Gears of War) The only way this works properly is to unlock the vertical FOV, effectively making games vert+/- beyond 16:10, but this is undesirable since increased horizontal viewport has been the natural expansion to match human's field of view.
.

This is starting to get confusing to think about, but I think you are wrong to say the game would need to let you zoom out _further_ at 16:10 to let you see the same or more. It would have to let you zoom out _the same_.

Look at it this way - imagine a 16:10 monitor showing a 16:9 image with letterboxing. Crucially, t has the same number of useable pixels in both directions as a 16:9. The field of view and the 'zoom level' and the level of detail shown would be identical for both. Ignore the physical size issue for the moment.

Now remove the black bands and show a bit more of the scene at the top and bottom instead.

In theory, depending on the way the game engine does it, this should be perfectly possible (wow might not let you do this, but that's a limitation of the game engine then).

And you end up with an image that is at the same zoom level, the same detail level, the same fov horizontally, but which shows more vertically. There is no reason (um, well apart from arbitrary engine limitations) why the 16:10 monitor should not be capable of doing _exactly_ what the 16:9 does but with a bit extra field of view top and bottom. The only difference would possibly be the physical size of the 16:9 part of the image.

 

[NoQuarter]

Now remove the black bands and show a bit more of the scene at the top and bottom instead.

In theory, depending on the way the game engine does it, this should be perfectly possible (wow might not let you do this, but that's a limitation of the game engine then).

Yea we're actually thinking the same things The problem is, removing the black bands from the 16:10 screen (providing you the 16:9 image) is a vert+ increase of view. When looked at from the opposite perspective, this is a vert- decrease of view going from 16:10 to 16:9. And the reason this is a problem is because at 5:4 -> 4:3, you want to go hor+, 4:3 -> 16:10, hor+, 16:10 -> 16:9 hor+, 16:9 -> 48:9 hor+ so it's preferable for the engine to act in a standard way (hor+ the wider you get) than to arbitrarily decide whether you've expanded vertically or horizontally.

So you're either asking for a special case where the game engine stops being hor+ and switches to vert- as you go from 16:10 to 16:9. Or you are saying 1920x1200 is taller than 1920x1080 and asking for pixel-based expansion of viewport. But the reason they use AR based viewport expansion is to allow the game to be played on everything from 800x600 to 2560x1600.

 

[gramboh]

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.

You are talking about hor+ implementation regarding FOV, the problem is 1920x1200 vs 1920x1080 have the same amount of horizontal pixels (1920), so how exactly is 1080 better than 1200? ROFL. I think you just have 1080 and 1200 backwards. In video games, 1200 versus 1080 just means an extra 120 lines of vertical resolution, e.g. more data, can see more surroundings. If you argue from a film/art style, then maybe you would prefer black bars (like when watching a 1080p move on a 1200 display).

There is literally no benefit or merit to your argument unless the panel size on the 24" 1080 display is physically larger than on the 24" 1200 (it's not). You just give up 120 lines of vert which can be blacked out if you really want to play in 16:9 (no idea why you would in a video game).

Edit: reading some more posts, the practical implication for this forum is 3D gaming. It is widely agreed that hor+ is the "right" implementation of widescreen gaming. Developers like Valve implement this whereby a 16:10 screen just sees more vert (vert+) by 120 lines, while both 16:10 and 16:9 see the same width (horizontal FOV). Using vert- for 16:9 to 16:10 makes no sense, and games that do this are widely criticized.

 

[toyota]

some of you are finally getting it while others never will.

 

[Seero]

I think there is a small mis-understanding in here among posters. I will try to explain the mis-understanding. Feel free to correct me.

We know a square display can be respresented by any NxN matrix. Each element within the matrix contains a number, a set of 3 numbers, representing the RGB value, or in another word, color. Since the number of columns is the same as the number of rows in the matrix, so therefore the ratio between the column and row is 1:1. In terms of display, people don't use the term "columns" and "rows", they simply say height and width.

Graphics are displayed by pixels, but graphics aren't stored as pixels, they are stored as a matrix defined above. To display graphics on the display, a function is needed to map each pixel on the display to the value of the graphics' matrix. Fewer pixels on the display means less details. The mapping functions used is also known as "Resolution".

Here comes the confusing part. More pixels doesn't mean higher resolution in some cases. For example, 3 tiny display, 1x20, 4x4, and 4x3. If the graphic is 4x4 big, then only the 2nd display can display the entire graphic without losing details, with the third can shrink the picture in a 3x3 matrix and the first have to shrink it to a 1x1 matrix. Although the first display has to most number of pixels.

In practical cases, graphics are far bigger than 4x3 or 16x9. However, movies are recorded in the ratio of 16:9, and therefore best being displayed as 16:9. There are 3 ways to display this on a 4:3 display. First, leave top and bottom will be blank and display it at the center portion. Second, resize it to 4:3. Third, cut out the left and the right portion. As to the quality, it depends on 2 factors, namely the way that is being stored, and the way it is being displayed. Better quality requires more space to store it, and therefore blueray disc movies are better quality than DVD, and DvD is better than CD. If the encoded(stored) quality is higher than what the display can show, then you lose some quality.

Gaming graphics are different from movies, as the display is a "viewport". The resolution represents the size of the viewport, that means, higher resolution means bigger viewport. The ratio becomes less important as all pixels are used, unless the game itself doesn't support it. 1024x768(XGA) shows the same viewport compare to 2048x1536(QXGA), that means the size of the world that got displayed are same, but less detail in XGA in comparison. Many games even support multi-display by displaying the viewport across the displays. Depending of the size of the game art, if the game is designed at a lower resolution than the display, then either arts will be upscaled (more blurry) or setting the viewport futher(zoom out). On the other hand, if the game is designed at a higher resolution than the display, then the arts will be shrinked(losing details).

User Interface isn't a part of the viewport, but something that is placed on top of the viewport, UIs block more portions of the viewport on lower reslution displays in comparison, and therefore, it is better to use higher resolution display as you can either fit more UIs on the display, or simply see more out of the viewport. Some games allow UI resizing, but it isn't dependent on the size of viewport, but the size of the display.

Therefore, when it comes to gaming, regardless of what the ratio is, the more pixel, the better. Regarless of whether it is wider, or simply bigger.

I didn't spell check, and my grammar suck anyways, so draw whatever conclusion you want.

 

[NoQuarter]

You are talking about hor+ implementation regarding FOV, the problem is 1920x1200 vs 1920x1080 have the same amount of horizontal pixels (1920), so how exactly is 1080 better than 1200? ROFL. I think you just have 1080 and 1200 backwards. In video games, 1200 versus 1080 just means an extra 120 lines of vertical resolution, e.g. more data, can see more surroundings. If you argue from a film/art style, then maybe you would prefer black bars (like when watching a 1080p move on a 1200 display).

There is literally no benefit or merit to your argument unless the panel size on the 24" 1080 display is physically larger than on the 24" 1200 (it's not). You just give up 120 lines of vert which can be blacked out if you really want to play in 16:9 (no idea why you would in a video game).

Edit: reading some more posts, the practical implication for this forum is 3D gaming. It is widely agreed that hor+ is the "right" implementation of widescreen gaming. Developers like Valve implement this whereby a 16:10 screen just sees more vert (vert+) by 120 lines, while both 16:10 and 16:9 see the same width (horizontal FOV). Using vert- for 16:9 to 16:10 makes no sense, and games that do this are widely criticized.

Hard to explain this without visual aids. First off, Source games don't expand vertically (vert+) going from 1920x1080 to 1920x1200, they shrink horizontally because they are hor+. I don't know any 3d game that has the viewport tied to *resolution* rather than aspect ratio.

Here's visual aids I just made. The ratios aren't exactly right but I think it will help explain why games render by aspect ratio instead of resolution.

This image shows viewport expansion by pixel count, from about 800x600 in the center, 1280x720 (720p), 1280x1024, 1680x1050, 1920x1080 (1080p), then 1920x1200 for the full image. Neither the horizontal or vertical fov is locked and what you see increases directly with resolution. As you can see the lower resolution you play in the game becomes less and less playable because the engine can't show you what you need to see. No game renders this way.

This image shows viewport expansion by aspect ratio, from ~5:4 in the center (red, 1024x768, 1280x1024, 1600x1200), 16:10 (yellow, 1440x900, 1680x1050, 1920x1200, 2560x1600), 16:9 (green, 1366x768, 1920x1080). This makes sure the game is quite playable at any resolution and aspect ratio. The vertical fov is locked and the horizontal fov is +/-.

By using aspect ratio viewport sizing you ensure future and past compatibility because no matter how large or small a screen is it still has an aspect ratio. In the past before widescreen monitors came out most games were hard coded to run in 4:3 so would stretch out terribly when you put it on a widescreen. In the future we may end up on ultra-wide screens and it would be a mistake to have games hard coded to act a certain way at a specific resolution instead of just determining the AR.

 

[gramboh]

Wow, I had hor+ and vert+ backwards, I was sure you saw "more" with 16:10. Can't believe I messed that up, sorry guys . So I guess 16:9 you see more, but there is less detail (less pixels to display more information within)?

 

[NoQuarter]

Wow, I had hor+ and vert+ backwards, I was sure you saw "more" with 16:10. Can't believe I messed that up, sorry guys . So I guess 16:9 you see more, but there is less detail (less pixels to display more information within)?

Yea, 1920x1200 has both a slightly smaller viewport, *and* more pixels to show it in, so it's higher detail than an equivalent 1920x1080 monitor.

 

[NoQuarter]

Here's something I made to show the last method, vert- to attain widescreen:

This is a horizontal locked approach, with vert +/- viewport resizing. Red is a 4:3 AR, yellow 16:10, green 16:9, and blue being 48:10 Eyefinity aspect ratio. As you can see, to fill up a widescreen you can cut off the top and bottom to get a wide enough image for it. This is the behavior Unreal Engine shows when going wider than 16:9 and some old games when going from 4:3 to widescreen before widescreen was popular. This makes gaming at ultra-widescreen unplayable and should be an obsolete rendering style.

And lastly this is WoW at 36:9 AR (3x 4:3 monitors) which uses a hor+ rendering approach:

4:3 is red, 16:10 yellow, 16:9 green, 36:9 (or 12:3) blue

 

[LokutusofBorg]

Someone go back and delete all the other crap in this thread and just let NoQuarter /thread this thing right there.

I still want to make the point that I hate the trend towards 16:9 monitors. My 16:10 can display everything the 16:9 can, plus more, depending on what I choose to run. The 16:9 locks you in to too many predetermined choices just to avoid the letterbox black bars. That's dumb, IMO. We're trying to order new monitors at work, and the only 24" 16:10 monitor Dell sells is the U2410, and I'm having a hard time justifying the high price to get approval for them. My boss wants to buy the cheaper 16:9 24 inchers. Very frustrating.

 

[NoQuarter]

Someone go back and delete all the other crap in this thread and just let NoQuarter /thread this thing right there.

I still want to make the point that I hate the trend towards 16:9 monitors. My 16:10 can display everything the 16:9 can, plus more, depending on what I choose to run. The 16:9 locks you in to too many predetermined choices just to avoid the letterbox black bars. That's dumb, IMO. We're trying to order new monitors at work, and the only 24" 16:10 monitor Dell sells is the U2410, and I'm having a hard time justifying the high price to get approval for them. My boss wants to buy the cheaper 16:9 24 inchers. Very frustrating.

Yea, I actually bought 1920x1080's because I figured it would be easier to replace them 1 by 1 with 120hz monitors later on since it seems like everything is moving in that direction. 1920x1200 is better for desktop work at the very least.

Gaming doesn't make too big a difference either way but one thing I found after getting 3 1920x1080 monitors was that's very wide and short for Eyefinity landscape and a little too narrow in portrait.. 1920x1200 would feel a little more comfortable for triple monitor gaming I think.

 

[toyota]

Yea, I actually bought 1920x1080's because I figured it would be easier to replace them 1 by 1 with 120hz monitors later on since it seems like everything is moving in that direction. 1920x1200 is better for desktop work at the very least.

Gaming doesn't make too big a difference either way but one thing I found after getting 3 1920x1080 monitors was that's very wide and short for Eyefinity landscape and a little too narrow in portrait.. 1920x1200 would feel a little more comfortable for triple monitor gaming I think.

yeah if I was going to run 3 monitors I would go 1920x1200 too. the aspect ratio is already so wide that there is little point in going with 1920x1080 for that setup.

 

[railven]

Okay, so...here is my noob question. Reading all the back and forth I'm a tad confused and I'm planning on buying a new monitor in a month or so (probably that 30" 1920x1080 Sceptre reviewed by AT recently.)

Anyways, if I play a game that in the options supports 16:10 (1920x1200) will that render the game to take advantage of the full 1920x1200?

This is unrelated to by buying decision (budget is mandating that) but I was just confused by some of the back forth.

Correct me if I'm wrong: if the game supports 16:10 resolutions than the full screen is used on a 16:10 monitor? Otherwise the image is "stretched" from 1920x1080 to fit the screen or letterboxed. Right?

Thanks, and sorry if this was covered.

 

[railven]

Ohhhh, I think the hamster just got on the wheel. I was being baffled by the "adds more to the sides" comments. I think I just figured it out.

A 16:10 monitor would zoom in to fit the image (1920x108) versus stretching correct? So that is why the ends would be cut off, but properly seen on a 16:9 monitor.

Haha I'm such a tard.

 

[Seero]

Okay, so...here is my noob question. Reading all the back and forth I'm a tad confused and I'm planning on buying a new monitor in a month or so (probably that 30" 1920x1080 Sceptre reviewed by AT recently.)

Anyways, if I play a game that in the options supports 16:10 (1920x1200) will that render the game to take advantage of the full 1920x1200?

This is unrelated to by buying decision (budget is mandating that) but I was just confused by some of the back forth.

Correct me if I'm wrong: if the game supports 16:10 resolutions than the full screen is used on a 16:10 monitor? Otherwise the image is "stretched" from 1920x1080 to fit the screen or letterboxed. Right?

Thanks, and sorry if this was covered.

Short answer, most games (if not all) support those resolutions. No un-use pixel, no stretching.

The ratio is not important when it comes to gaming. 16:9 is better for movies, that is all. Unless your display have some odd number of pixels like 2000x999, you won't have any problems.

 

[A_Dying_Wren]

some of you are finally getting it while others never will.

And you've been all of no help. Learn some persuasion skills.

 

[ebolamonkey3]

So.... anyone know how SC2 will scale with 3 monitors or if it'll even scale at all? I'm thinking about getting 3x monitors in portrait mode for gaming and general use.

 

[toyota]

And you've been all of no help. Learn some persuasion skills.

I posted screenshots, link and gave the same basic explanation time and time again. obviously some people were too thick headed or ignorant to accept it. NoQuarter went into great detail so now maybe most of you so called enthusiasts will finally have a clue.

 

[NoQuarter]

Ohhhh, I think the hamster just got on the wheel. I was being baffled by the "adds more to the sides" comments. I think I just figured it out.

A 16:10 monitor would zoom in to fit the image (1920x108) versus stretching correct? So that is why the ends would be cut off, but properly seen on a 16:9 monitor.

Haha I'm such a tard.

Correct, though you aren't really missing out on much for the difference between 16:10 and 16:9.

So.... anyone know how SC2 will scale with 3 monitors or if it'll even scale at all? I'm thinking about getting 3x monitors in portrait mode for gaming and general use.

I saw screenshots in the early beta of it running in triple screen perfectly but I've read posts lately that it doesn't support the ultra-wide resolution. Whether they disabled it on purpose or not and whether there's a workaround I have no idea.