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

[Seero]

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.

Physical pixel layout.

------------------------------------------------------------------
- 1920 pixel wide, 1200 pixel high -
------------------------------------------------------------------
- -
- -
- -
- -
- 1920 pixel wide, 1080 pixel high -
------------------------------------------------------------------

it isn't 1200 - 1080 = 120 pixels more, it is 1920 x 120 = 230,400 pixels more...

If you try to play a 1080p movie on a 1920x1200 display, then the top and bottom will simply blackout, maintaining the ratio of the video. However, user can "fit to screen", making everything seem taller/thinner.

When you tries to display a 1920x1200 picture on a 1920x1080 display, the left/right side will be blackout, and some may think that the 1920x1080 display more than 1920x1200 without knowing that the picture got shrinked.

I do, however, agree that some of us will get it, and some won't.

 

[gramboh]

Related topic, are there any legit 8/10bit 16:9 24+ inch desktop monitors? Last time I looked it was all TN junk. That's the alarming part of this 16:9 desktop trend to me, poor quality panels because they are cheap.

 

[pmv]

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

What;s annoying is that you manage to be simultaneously extremely rude and arrogant while _still_ not understanding the issue as well as you think you do!

NoQuarter's images don't show what you think they do. They involve a behind-the-scenes change of viewing angle to pixel count ratio. Its the change of that figure that ensures the 'wider area; NOT the 16:9 monitor. Its making two different changes simultaneously and then confusing them with each other.

The 16:9 image there is using a different, i.e. lower, ratio of pixels-to-viewing-area. Changing that figure secretly while moving from 16:10 to 16:9 is not playing fair. Its moving the goalposts to make the 16:9 look better than it is. Granted games themselves might do this (at the expense of image quality), but that's a limitation of the game engine.

At least NoQuarter is polite about it (and he _almost_ gets it!).

This is NOT the case for most cases of moving from 4:3 to 16:10, incidentally. In those cases the switch is shown fairly because you are only increasing the viewing angle in proportion to the increase in pixels (1600x1200 to 1920x1200 is a straightforward horizontal increase, with constant pixels-to-angle ratio).

My objection to NoQuarter's take incidentally is that he's a bit too hung up on the binary alternatives of hor+ and vert-. Ideally games don't have to do either - they can allow the user to chose whatever horizontal and vertical view size they wish. Its really an aribitrary figure. But if its fixed to be hor+ it means a 1920x1080 monitor will always lose image quality in order to increase width. Its misleading to allow that monitor to do that while arbitrarily not allowing a 16:10 to do the same.

 

[toyota]

What;s annoying is that you manage to be simultaneously extremely rude and arrogant while _still_ not understanding the issue as well as you think you do!

NoQuarter's images don't show what you think they do. They involve a behind-the-scenes change of viewing angle to pixel count ratio. Its the change of that figure that ensures the 'wider area; NOT the 16:9 monitor. Its making two different changes simultaneously and then confusing them with each other.

The 16:9 image there is using a different, i.e. lower, ratio of pixels-to-viewing-area. Changing that figure secretly while moving from 16:10 to 16:9 is not playing fair. Its moving the goalposts to make the 16:9 look better than it is. Granted games themselves might do this (at the expense of image quality), but that's a limitation of the game engine.

At least NoQuarter is polite about it (and he _almost_ gets it!).

here we go again? all I said from the very beginning was that the aspect ratio determines what you see on the screen in a game not the number of pixels. that is a fact. ignorant people claiming that 1920x1200 has more viewable height in a game than 1920x1080 are wrong IF, for the millionth time, a game is using proper widescreen implementation. by proper I mean something like Hor+ which ONLY adds to the sides of the game the wider the aspect ratio. adding more to the sides is after all the whole point of widescreen. all other bs arguments and misunderstandings have little to nothing to do with those things.

 

[pmv]

here we go again? all I said from the very beginning was that the aspect ratio determines what you see on the screen in a game not the number of pixels. that is a fact. ignorant people claiming that 1920x1200 has more viewable height in a game than 1920x1080 are wrong IF, for the millionth time, a game is using proper widescreen implementation. by proper I mean something like Hor+ which ONLY adds to the sides of the game the wider the aspect ratio. adding more to the sides is after all the whole point of widescreen. all other bs arguments and misunderstandings have little to nothing to do with those things.

For the millionth time you just don't get it. You have a mental block about the issue. Do you not realise you are defining 'proper' in an entirely circular way to mean 'the method that makes me look right at the expense of losing image quality'?