[QUOTE=Mindtwistah;23332608]I've heard Metro 2033 is more demanding (because it's less optimized or something).[/QUOTE]
I hated how for a game that boasted it's visual prowess, it didn't have advanced settings that many other games, if not console ports had.
metro 2033 technically is a console port, though. it's also on 360 and in turn the pc version is slightly gimped when it comes to settings. that's usually what happens when there's a console version
Nono, now you're falling on your ass. You show exactly that there is no one "true" widescreen. It's good for movies, yes. Because it was made for movies. For nearly everything else it's the shittiest shit that was ever shat. And even then you have film formats like IMAX with a far more reasonable aspect. And from the beginning film itself was 4:3. It was only with gimmick "surround cinema" that widescreen started getting fashionable.
That isn't how Bioshock scales btw. And it isn't how it should scale. A good game retains it's field of view regardless of aspect ratio.
Let me repeat. There is no "one true aspect", it's all up to the content and preference.
[editline]01:20PM[/editline]
[img]http://codinghorror.typepad.com/.a/6a0120a85dcdae970b0120a86d948b970b-pi[/img]
In fact as you can see, Bioshock scales far better. Widescreen provides a better view at the sides, while more is visible in the top and bottom of the standard image. This plays to the strengths of each while retaining the basic look of the game across both. Pretty much ideal if you ask me. This is how every game should do it.
[QUOTE=BmB;23421202]A good game retains it's field of view regardless of aspect ratio.[/QUOTE]
this
I enjoy my total resolution of 3840x1080 cheers!
[QUOTE=BmB;23421202]Nono, now you're falling on your ass. You show exactly that there is no one "true" widescreen. It's good for movies, yes. Because it was made for movies. For nearly everything else it's the shittiest shit that was ever shat. And even then you have film formats like IMAX with a far more reasonable aspect. And from the beginning film itself was 4:3. It was only with gimmick "surround cinema" that widescreen started getting fashionable.
That isn't how Bioshock scales btw. And it isn't how it should scale. A good game retains it's field of view regardless of aspect ratio.
Let me repeat. There is no "one true aspect", it's all up to the content and preference.
[editline]01:20PM[/editline]
[img]http://codinghorror.typepad.com/.a/6a0120a85dcdae970b0120a86d948b970b-pi[/img]
In fact as you can see, Bioshock scales far better. Widescreen provides a better view at the sides, while more is visible in the top and bottom of the standard image. This plays to the strengths of each while retaining the basic look of the game across both. Pretty much ideal if you ask me. This is how every game should do it.[/QUOTE]
yeah even though 2K came out and said "yeah sorry we totally fucked up guys", and issued a patch to [B]correct it[/B] right?
[editline]11:39AM[/editline]
though i guess i agree with the scaling there, but really that's still not proper widescreen, seriously. proper widescreen would have the same on the top and bottom, just more on the sides.
No it wouldn't because there's no such thing as "proper" widescreen.
[editline]08:43PM[/editline]
They only patched it because they didn't wanna piss off the widescreen nazis.
alright i'll reiterate
actual widescreen - to many and to me - is a wider field of view along the horizontal axes, retaining the same vertical visibility. a LOT of games will do this. most, actually.
when a game cuts off part of the top and bottom and adds a bit to the sides, that's not what i personally consider widescreen.
i guess you could say it's preference but widescreen vs "full"screen is a never ending debate
Widescreen is 16:9. As long as the image takes up all that it's widescreen. 16:10 counts too I guess.
You can say things are being cut off with film and TV. Things that already have their own aspect ratio. But you really can't when you're rendering stuff realtime.
ok alright let me challenge you on that, just took these, scaled them all down to the 720 in height for easier comparison
1600x1200 - 4:3
[img]http://img651.imageshack.us/img651/9493/d2coast1100032.jpg[/img]
1920x1200 - 16:10
[img]http://img249.imageshack.us/img249/662/d2coast1100012.jpg[/img]
1920x1080 - 16:9
[img]http://img822.imageshack.us/img822/7623/d2coast1100022.jpg[/img]
and here's a graphic basically showing the aspect ratios
red - 16:9
green - 16:10
blue - 4:3
[img]http://img821.imageshack.us/img821/7623/d2coast1100022.jpg[/img]
[editline]12:06PM[/editline]
of course not all games are like this, and yes I do know that film isn't actually shot at that aspect ratio - it's not shot at 4:3 either, that's just as rare, it's usually shot at 3:2.
Okay, that's how HL2 does it. That doesn't make it the proper way. That makes it the way HL2 does it.
As you say, some games handle it this way around too:
[img]http://imageshack.dk/imagesfree/YwN94533.jpg[/img]
This is no less valid a way. It's just an aspect ratio. You can see either as having more or less. Ideally though, the FOV is entirely independent of the aspect. Because as Xera says, they aren't related at all.
[editline]09:24PM[/editline]
Okay, so Red Faction does it too. What are you trying to prove? That some games do it that way? Well congratulations. You did it.
In any decent game you can set the FOV yourself.
Well no film isn't shot at 4:3 any more. But the standard comes from film. And the reason TV is 4:3 is that was the common ratio of film at the time of its invention.
[editline]09:30PM[/editline]
[QUOTE=Xera;23428648]In any decent game you can set the FOV yourself.[/QUOTE]
Well, not necessarily. Some games might take on a specific FOV as its "look". Although I wish BC2 would have taken a wider one as its "look". Can't see shit.
again, [B]most film is shot at 3:2[/B], not 4:3.
they shoot at 3:2 most often so they can cut stuff out of the sides if they need to, and so that if they do crop it down to 2.4:1 as movies usually are, there's not so much of a loss of the top and bottom.
also, here's crysis. what i'm trying to prove is that a lot of games in fact do execute widescreen resolutions as I'm talking about.
16:9
[img]http://img411.imageshack.us/img411/7646/screenshot00012r.jpg[/img]
16:10
[img]http://img687.imageshack.us/img687/9286/screenshot00002l.jpg[/img]
4:3
[img]http://img824.imageshack.us/img824/329/screenshot00022w.jpg[/img]
red - 16:9
green - 16:10
blue - 4:3
[img]http://img713.imageshack.us/img713/470/screenshot00013.jpg[/img]
[editline]12:38PM[/editline]
[QUOTE=BmB;23428672]Well, not necessarily. Some games might take on a specific FOV as its "look". Although I wish BC2 would have taken a wider one as its "look". Can't see shit.[/QUOTE]
yeah, Killzone 2 has a shit FOV no matter the aspect. under 480i/4:3 the FOV is really small, and under 16:9 the FOV is even smaller as all it does is cut off the top and bottom. i think they patched it to be more forgiving and how bioshock is before the patch (like the image you posted). i don't mind that, i just personally prefer the same details on the top and bottom with widescreen, but more on the sides.
[editline]12:39PM[/editline]
[QUOTE=Xera;23428648]In any decent game you can set the FOV yourself.[/QUOTE]
there are like four big name games that come to mind that do this. all Source games do, i think Serious Sam HD does (not really big name), Quake games do, and some Capcom games.
[QUOTE=M_B;23428834]there are like four big name games that come to mind that do this. all Source games do, i think Serious Sam HD does (not really big name), Quake games do, and some Capcom games.[/QUOTE]
BC2, COD4 and Crysis. 3 huge games. Pretty much everything that isn't a shit console port or designed for a specific FOV allows you to set it somewhere. FOV often comes down to preference. Some people hate a wide FOV, while others hate playing without one.
And Serious Sam not a big name? What?
[QUOTE=M_B;23428834]again, [B]most film is shot at 3:2[/B], not 4:3.
they shoot at 3:2 most often so they can cut stuff out of the sides if they need to, and so that if they do crop it down to 2.4:1 as movies usually are, there's not so much of a loss of the top and bottom.[/QUOTE]
Hey, try paying attention next time.
[editline]09:55PM[/editline]
Also, the popular way doesn't make it the right way. It makes it the popular way. And it's only popular because of unreasonable black bar hating nazis such as yourself.
:godwin:
This depends on how well the monitor handles interpolation with things like pixel stretch and sharpness. I have a 1680x1050 monitor which handles lower resolutions very well up to three digit horizontals
Well that's definition. Another completely independent thing. Stop mixing up concepts damnit.
Its the Blu-ray Discussion thread all over again!
[QUOTE=BmB;23429196]Hey, try paying attention next time.[/QUOTE]
what exactly are you talking about, i previously stated that, i knew that before hand, you're under the impression that they're usually filmed in 4:3.
[editline]01:28PM[/editline]
[QUOTE=BmB;23429196]Also, the popular way doesn't make it the right way. It makes it the popular way. And it's only popular because of unreasonable black bar hating nazis such as yourself.
:godwin:[/QUOTE]
or maybe it's really more that you don't like it for no explicable reason
[editline]01:30PM[/editline]
[QUOTE=Xera;23429142]BC2, COD4 and Crysis. 3 huge games. Pretty much everything that isn't a shit console port or designed for a specific FOV allows you to set it somewhere. FOV often comes down to preference. Some people hate a wide FOV, while others hate playing without one.
And Serious Sam not a big name? What?[/QUOTE]
serious sam HD
how many people do you know that have it? i have it, yeah, but i don't know anyone who does. original serious sam games? of course, but those don't even support widescreen resolutions :downs:
also for crysis i didn't have to touch anything in the config menu for it to do that, and i do not recall COD4 even having an option for FOV.
I explained why I didn't like it actually.
...because it's not the same as just cropping it?
or did i miss it? either way it doesn't really make sense to not like widescreen under my definition of widescreen, i'm having a hard time understanding that. if it's because you don't have a widescreen monitor then that's like hating blu-ray for not having a player.
Because FOV and aspect aren't related.
[QUOTE=M_B;23420131]metro 2033 technically is a console port, though. it's also on 360 and in turn the pc version is slightly gimped when it comes to settings. that's usually what happens when there's a console version[/QUOTE]Explain how it is a console port when they developed the PC version first, finished it, then started on the 360 version.
m_b is right, actual widescreen is technically wider fov, and what you see there is a zealous crop and zoom.
the thing is, many people (myself included) prefer 4:3.
HD4850 should be able to run most things fine. I've had one for two years now and it can run everything I've thrown at it at max or near max settings.
The only problem is that it runs really hot. It starts whining when the fan kicks in at 90c and above, but other than that, it's perfect for cheap shits like my self.
[QUOTE=ButtsexV2;23431528]m_b is right, actual widescreen is technically wider fov, and what you see there is a zealous crop and zoom.
the thing is, many people (myself included) prefer 4:3.[/QUOTE]
No it isn't. Widescreen is an aspect ratio, not a field of view. And if you render at the screen resolution nothing gets cropped regardless of FOV.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
