[QUOTE=M_B;23439834]no, 16:9 is an aspect ratio. widescreen just means wider.[/QUOTE]
It absolutely is an aspect ratio. Several, actually. Wikipedia says it like this, [i]"A widescreen image is a film, computer, or television image with a width to height aspect ratio greater than the standard 1.37:1, Academy Frame aspect ratio."[/i]
[QUOTE=M_B;23439834]DID YOU KNOW that human eyes see in more of a stretched out oval than a square box?[/QUOTE]
Yeah, see. I told you a little story about that, but you didn't listen. Let me tell it again.
[img]http://www.koalafish.com/pics/pigeon_sunset_600x800.jpg[/img]
[QUOTE=M_B;23439834]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]
Not paying attention.
[editline]05:13PM[/editline]
[QUOTE=Rusty100;23440549]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.[/QUOTE]
There is no correct way to do it. There is no pan and scan because there is no panning and there is no scanning. And least of all is there any cropping.
[QUOTE=BmB;23445963]It absolutely is an aspect ratio. Several, actually. Wikipedia says it like this, [i]"A widescreen image is a film, computer, or television image with a width to height aspect ratio greater than the standard 1.37:1, Academy Frame aspect ratio."[/i][/QUOTE]
it's like you're not even trying
your own fucking quote says it's anything with an aspect ratio over X, not a specific ratio
stop trying, it's so pathetic it's painful to see
BmB i do not understand you, you're either nuts or stupid.
[editline]10:06AM[/editline]
[QUOTE=BmB;23445963]It absolutely is an aspect ratio. Several, actually. Wikipedia says it like this, [i]"A widescreen image is a film, computer, or television image with a width to height aspect ratio greater than the standard 1.37:1, Academy Frame aspect ratio."[/i][/quote]"Not paying attention" neither are you. an aspect ratio can be considered widescreen, but widescreen is not just an aspect ratio. of course, you're going to argue with this yet again. so it's not like it even matters that i say this. i could tell you water is a liqid, and you're going to turn and say it's a kind of fish.
[QUOTE=BmB;23445963]
Yeah, see. I told you a little story about that, but you didn't listen. Let me tell it again.
[img_thumb]http://www.koalafish.com/pics/pigeon_sunset_600x800.jpg[/img_thumb][/QUOTE]
a poorly composed portrait shot of a sunset? what's that telling anybody? the human eye does not see more vertically than it does horizontally, are you mad? did you lose an eye in the bullshit war of 1988?
[QUOTE=BmB;23445963]Not paying attention.[/QUOTE]please, oh wise one, explain. how was i not paying attention? you insisted that with widescreen, in a word processor, such as Word or Open Office, there are more lines than there would be on a 4:3 monitor. what exactly did i miss? didn't miss anything, did i? well, regardless, with any word processor aside for notepad, the number of words per line does not change as the "page" will just zoom in more. so you won't get more words per line in widescreen than you will in fullscreen. with Notepad? yes of course, but that's not really a full fledged word processor. with web pages? depends on the web page, if that's how they want it, that's how they want it, and nevertheless at 1024x768 - 4:3, the words per line will be less than that of 1600x1200 - also 4:3.
[QUOTE=BmB;23445963]There is no correct way to do it. There is no pan and scan because there is no panning and there is no scanning. And least of all is there any cropping.[/QUOTE]
ok so it's you against just about everybody in the A/V industry alright
That portrait is 4:3. Well, 3:4 actually but you get the idea.
i have a 1080p Screen and i play with native resolution 1920x1200 16:10.
Does not compute.
[QUOTE=Strikebango;23454457]i have a [b]1080p[/b] Screen and i play with native resolution [b]1920x1200[/b] 16:10.[/QUOTE]
:raise:
[QUOTE=Strikebango;23454457]i have a 1080p Screen and i play with native resolution 1920x1200 16:10.[/QUOTE]
what what WHAT [B]WHAT[/B]
[QUOTE=Strikebango;23454457]i have a 1080p Screen and i play with native resolution 1920x1200 16:10.[/QUOTE]
I'm just going to pretend that this post didn't happen.
[QUOTE=BmB;23453554]That portrait is 4:3. Well, 3:4 actually but you get the idea.[/QUOTE]
No it's not. Here's your image inside a 4:3 aspect ration.
[img_thumb]http://dl.dropbox.com/u/1482927/not%2043.jpg[/img_thumb]
It's not. You are wrong.
[QUOTE=Rusty100;23487740]No it's not. Here's your image inside a 4:3 aspect ration.
[img_thumb]http://dl.dropbox.com/u/1482927/not%2043.jpg[/img_thumb]
It's not. You are wrong.[/QUOTE]
1280x1024 is not 4:3 or am I missing something??
[QUOTE=Rusty100;23487740]No it's not. Here's your image inside a 4:3 aspect ration.
[img_thumb]http://dl.dropbox.com/u/1482927/not%2043.jpg[/img_thumb]
It's not. You are wrong.[/QUOTE]
1280x1024 is 5:4 bro
[editline]05:40AM[/editline]
you gotta put it in a 1280x960 I think
it is 3:4/4:3, rusty
it's 600x800, which is 800x600 in landscape, which is 4:3
[QUOTE=collegegrad;23315832]So I have been talking to a friend of mine, and he said that if I get a GPU like the GTX460 or the HD5850 I won't be able to run many of the newer games on 1080p. So I said that I would just run them on 720p, it didn't matter to me.
So he said then I shouldn't get a 1080p monitor since 720p resolution will look like shit on a 1080p monitor, because unlike TVs, monitors don't upscale input.
So what do I do? Do I get a 720p monitor? Do I not any of the GPUs out now?
I am very confused and I need someone to confirm this for me.[/QUOTE]
Depends entirely on the game and your settings. Research is ever your friend and ally.
[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]
It's how every game should do it. It just logically makes sense.
I can't stand playing HL2:DM on my friend's 1280x1024 LCD, I'm missing so much action on the sides. 1920x1080 is how I play HL2:DM.
[QUOTE=M_B;23488930]it is 3:4/4:3, rusty
it's 600x800, which is 800x600 in landscape, which is 4:3[/QUOTE]
wait FUCK
[editline]10:52PM[/editline]
i must have been confused because i'm stupid
[QUOTE=Pixel Heart;23490303]It's how every game should do it. It just logically makes sense.
I can't stand playing HL2:DM on my friend's 1280x1024 LCD, I'm missing so much action on the sides. 1920x1080 is how I play HL2:DM.[/QUOTE]
I actually don't notice a big difference between 16:10,16:9,4:3 and 5:4 in games.
[editline]04:43PM[/editline]
[QUOTE=Strikebango;23454457]i have a 1080p Screen and i play with native resolution 1920x1200 16:10.[/QUOTE]
what
How is 1920x1200 native if it's a 1080p monitor?
I don't know, I mean it's cool how a lot of games greaten the FOV, but it does leave disadvantages for people with a lower resolution. That's the reason Diablo II (though being quite old) doesn't allow resolutions higher than 800x600. People with higher resolutions would have the advantage, maybe seeing a hard boss way before another person at 800x600, who would die.
actually they could just force aspect ratio and field of view with Diablo II. no matter the resolution, if it's the same aspect ratio, you should see the same shit
[editline]12:01PM[/editline]
i'm pretty sure it's really more of engine related, and at the time 800x600 was the shit still
If you Don't get a new card like the ones in the op you shouldn't because a shittier card wont run stuff at 1080p very well.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
