What the hell is going on in here? Cropping to achieve a wide-screen effect is not common and is a piss poor solution that you rarely see anymore. There are no advantages in my eyes to using a 4:3 aspect ration display.
How about it's less like viewing your computer through a horizontal slit and more like an actual image? For games and movies it doesn't make so much difference. But if you're doing anything with text it's a fucking pain.
[QUOTE=BmB;23432342]How about it's less like viewing your computer through a horizontal slit and more like an actual image? For games and movies it doesn't make so much difference. But if you're doing anything with text it's a fucking pain.[/QUOTE]
Yeah I do have trouble reading text on my wide-screen, 1600 vertical pixels is a bit claustrophobic for text.
The other way around dummy.
Even 1920x1080 is fine. I can view 2 pages in word at the same time. Try doing that and having them readable on a common 4:3 or 5:4 resolution.
[QUOTE=Ajacks;23432146]What the hell is going on in here? Cropping to achieve a wide-screen effect is not common and is a piss poor solution that you rarely see anymore. There are no advantages in my eyes to using a 4:3 aspect ration display.[/QUOTE]
Unfortunately a lot of big-name games still "crop" widescreen resolutions (i.e. they reduce the vertical fov). Bioshock did when first released but I think they might have changed it later in a patch.
As for BmB's pedantry, I'd argue that there is most definitely a "proper" way of adjusting fov for widescreen monitors. Notice how widescreen is always referred to as [b]wide[/b]screen and not shortscreen. That's because widescreen monitors are meant to be wider than 4:3 monitors. No one thinks of widescreen monitors as being shorter (vertically) than 4:3. So when you compare an image in widescreen to one that is not, the most natural expectation is for the widescreen image to have more visible on the edges of the screen than the latter. When movies released for home video are "formatted to fit your screen" they crop off the edges to make it 4:3, they aren't adding on screen space to the bottom and top to make it 4:3. You get my point?
That's why it's almost universally regarded as idiotic when game developers account for widescreen monitors by reducing the vertical FOV - because it entirely defeats the purpose of widescreen monitors: being [b]wide[/b].
You call me a pedant then proceed to reach a conclusion about the technical aspects of something by looking at its name.
[QUOTE=Xera;23432509]Even 1920x1080 is fine. I can view 2 pages in word at the same time. Try doing that and having them readable on a common 4:3 or 5:4 resolution.[/QUOTE]
Actually no you can't exactly. Word has to mangle it a bit. 16:10 was chosen for that reason, it's almost a golden rectangle and so will fit exactly 2 pages. But say webpages like facepunch, they're a fucking pain. 50 word lines of text aren't fun.
[QUOTE=BmB;23432549]You call me a pedant then proceed to reach a conclusion about the technical aspects of something by looking at its name.[/QUOTE]
I understand the technical aspects of aspect ratio and FOV just fine. What I'm talking about is the actual [I]intent[/I] of widescreen monitors. That seems to be what you're ignoring when you argue that both FOV methods are equally valid.
My conclusion had nothing to do with the technical aspects of aspect ratio or FOV, my conclusion was that no one uses a widescreen monitor because they want to see less than a 4:3 monitor.
Either read my posts or don't respond, please.
I don't understand why fov is ever calculated horizontally, because 4:3 is still wider horizontally.
And that intent is bullshit because I like not to see the world through a slit.
[QUOTE=Wiggles;23316789]I run most games maxed at 1920x1080 on an ATI Radeon 4870.[/QUOTE]
br... brother?
[QUOTE=BmB;23432626]And that intent is bullshit because I like not to see the world through a slit.[/QUOTE]
So you can't see the multi window advantages to a wider screen? Also our eyes are horizontal.
[QUOTE=Pj The Dj;23432624]I don't understand why fov is ever calculated horizontally, because 4:3 is still wider horizontally.[/QUOTE]
You do realize that you can't really compare ratios like that, right?
You're also incorrect. Either 4:3 is taller than 16:9 or 16:9 is wider than 4:3. Both statements don't make much sense but they're still more valid than what you said.
You guys are all lucky.
Because my brother thinks he owns the internet becasue he has a runescape membership, I have to run most games below native resolution in multiplayer so we don't hit the cap.
And i have told my parents that we can get cheaper internet at the same speed with an 80gb cap
[QUOTE=Pj The Dj;23432682]So you can't see the multi window advantages to a wider screen? Also our eyes are horizontal.[/QUOTE]
On bigger displays maybe, but 22" is still a bit cramped. Overall I prefer more screen space for single apps than less for multiple.
And about our eyes, yeah, let me tell you a little story about that...
[img]http://www.koalafish.com/pics/pigeon_sunset_600x800.jpg[/img]
[QUOTE=teeheeV2;23432867]You guys are all lucky.
Because my brother thinks he owns the internet becasue he has a runescape membership, [b]I have to run most games below native resolution in multiplayer so we don't hit the cap.[/b]
And i have told my parents that we can get cheaper internet at the same speed with an 80gb cap[/QUOTE]
Wait, what?
[QUOTE=teeheeV2;23432867]You guys are all lucky.
Because my brother thinks he owns the internet becasue he has a runescape membership, I have to run most games below native resolution in multiplayer so we don't hit the cap.
And i have told my parents that we can get cheaper internet at the same speed with an 80gb cap[/QUOTE]
hahahahahahah what the fuck
since when does graphical settings have anything with networking
[QUOTE=BmB;23432591]Actually no you can't exactly. Word has to mangle it a bit. 16:10 was chosen for that reason, it's almost a golden rectangle and so will fit exactly 2 pages. But say webpages like facepunch, they're a fucking pain. 50 word lines of text aren't fun.[/QUOTE]
Uh, I just checked and I can fit 3 full pages with them perfectly readable. Are you too lazy to move your eyes to read a whole line? Don't sit so close to your screen and you will have no problems.
A line that is 50 words long isn't a line, it's an atrocity.
[QUOTE=BmB;23435369]A line that is 50 words long isn't a line, it's an atrocity.[/QUOTE]
Or its an extended line of words.
[QUOTE=BmB;23431971]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.[/QUOTE]
no, 16:9 is an aspect ratio. widescreen just means wider.
[B]fuck[/B]
[editline]11:16PM[/editline]
[QUOTE=BmB;23432342]How about it's less like viewing your computer through a horizontal slit and more like an actual image? For games and movies it doesn't make so much difference. But if you're doing anything with text it's a fucking pain.[/QUOTE]
DID YOU KNOW that human eyes see in more of a stretched out oval than a square box?
[editline]11:20PM[/editline]
[QUOTE=BmB;23435369]A line that is 50 words long isn't a line, it's an atrocity.[/QUOTE]
have you not used Word ever? it's not like notepad where it just stretches the text out, the number of words/letters per line SHOULD stay the same no matter the resolution. really something is fucked up with your Word if it changes when you stretch out the window
[QUOTE=ButtsexV3;23401464]Not a 2560x1920 monitor, check out the Viewsonic P225F[/QUOTE]
That would look way to small on a normal 22 inch CRT monitor, maybe if they made 25 inch CRT screens, that would look like a good res.
Hell 1736 looks to small on a 20 inch.
[QUOTE=Kel|oggs;23440000]That would look way to small on a normal 22 inch CRT monitor, maybe if they made 25 inch CRT screens, that would look like a good res.
Hell 1736 looks to small on a 20 inch.[/QUOTE]
I'm rocking 1920x1440 on a 19 inch, that resolution wouldn't be too bad at all on a 22 inch
Am I the only one that finds ARMA2 to be harder to run than Crysis (not Metro 2033, haven't played it yet)?
aaand here's F.E.A.R.
4:3
[img]http://img840.imageshack.us/img840/711/screenshot004.jpg[/img]
16:10
[img]http://img827.imageshack.us/img827/7963/screenshot000.jpg[/img]
16:9
[img]http://img826.imageshack.us/img826/1704/screenshot003.jpg[/img]
red - 16:9
green - 16:10
blue - 4:3
[img]http://img837.imageshack.us/img837/3742/comp.jpg[/img]
all you do to get the game to do this is set the resolution
i think i'm done doing this for now, don't really want to do anymore
[QUOTE=BmB;23428318]Okay, that's how HL2 does it. That doesn't make it the proper way. That makes it the way HL2 does it.[/QUOTE]
you're wrong, mb's example is the correct way to do widescreen. any less is a fake widescreen, you could achieve the same fake results with pan and scan settings on a television.
I have a 1080p monitor. But I play on 1024x768 because my GPU isn't that powerful.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
