• The Order 1886: Only 5.5 hours worth of gameplay
    318 replies, posted
I'm going to make a video for you, to demonstrate why a wider screen will [I]always[/I] be capable of displaying more of an image, give me a minute.
[QUOTE=CrimsonChin;47161893]I'm going to make a video, to demonstrate why a wider screen will [I]always[/I] be capable of displaying more of an image, give me a minute.[/QUOTE] You literally have no clue what you are talking about. I am not even going into how a locked fov is actually a bad thing either. This is the demo graphic used: [t]http://i1.wp.com/gearnuke.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/the-roder-aspect-ex-1.jpg[/t] That red area is the result of a locked Vertical fov, the purple area would be used if you locked the Horizontal instead.
[URL="https://ebgames.com.au/ps4-162897-The-Order-1886-Limited-Edition-PlayStation-4"]Only $99.95[/URL] :v:
Didn't make a video, just three frames, but I am hoping this gets the point across clearly. The red frame is a 2:40:1 aspect ratio, the blue is standard 16:9. Here we have our starting image. [t]http://i.imgur.com/qPnUzo4.jpg[/t] Doing what you suggest, we increase the FOV to fit the 2:40:1 image, and also use the additional vertical space. As you can see, the 2:40:1 aspect ratio now still has more of the image on it. [t]http://i.imgur.com/OzVo3LZ.jpg[/t] Increase to compensate again? Yet again, the same result. You can increase it forever, and it will still have more image on it. [t]http://i.imgur.com/uELNeUp.jpg[/t] In conclusion, you are mistaken, or simply in denial.
[QUOTE=CrimsonChin;47161986]Didn't make a video, just three frames, but I am hoping this gets the point across clearly. The red frame is a 2:40:1 aspect ratio, the blue is standard 16:9. Here we have our starting image. [t]http://i.imgur.com/qPnUzo4.jpg[/t] Doing what you suggest, we increase the FOV to fit the 2:40:1 image, and also use the additional vertical space. As you can see, the 2:40:1 aspect ratio now still has more of the image on it. [t]http://i.imgur.com/OzVo3LZ.jpg[/t] Increase to compensate again? Yet again, the same result. You can increase it forever, and it will still have more image on it. [t]http://i.imgur.com/uELNeUp.jpg[/t] In conclusion, you are mistaken, or simply in denial.[/QUOTE] And once again you missed the point entirely. Lock the Horizantal(what you are changing), and increase the vertical. Provided you are properly doing fov in your rendering it will have no distortion. Games can do that, pictures cannot. You will lose vert information going from 16:9 to 2.4:1.
So basically, you're just repeating this again: "No, lock the horizontal and increase the vertical!" Which results in, guess what: black bars on the sides of the 2:40:1 monitor! I guess you're right after all, 16:9 [I]is[/I] equal to 16:9! [QUOTE=deadoon;47162008]You will lose vert information going from 16:9 to 2.4:1.[/QUOTE] You have absolutely zero idea what you're talking about. Wider monitors don't crop off the top and bottom, they add to the side.
[QUOTE=CrimsonChin;47162023]So basically, you're just repeating this again: "No, lock the horizontal and increase the vertical!" Which results in, guess what: black bars on the sides of the 2:40:1 monitor![/QUOTE] What 2.4:1 monitors? Those are not standard equipment. The standards are 4:3, 16:9 and 21:9. [editline]17th February 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=CrimsonChin;47162023] You have absolutely zero idea what you're talking about. Wider monitors don't crop off the top and bottom, they add to the side.[/QUOTE] A 16:9 image on a 2.4:1 display would have what is known as Pillarboxing. AKA black bars on the side rather than the top and bottom. You are still wasting space.
Theoretical monitor. Either way 21:9, is close enough to 2:40:1. Quit with the irrelevant comments and goalpost moving. Just have the decency to admit you were mistaken, and end this Sisyphean torment of a discussion. [QUOTE=deadoon;47162036] A 16:9 image on a 2.4:1 display would have what is known as Pillarboxing. AKA black bars on the side rather than the top and bottom. You are still wasting space.[/QUOTE] This contradicts all your previous statements. Are you admitting you were mistaken?
[QUOTE=CrimsonChin;47162050]Theoretical monitor. Either way 21:9, is close enough to 2:40:1. Quit with the irrelevant comments and goalpost moving. Just admit you were mistaken and end this endless loop of a discussion. This contradicts all your previous statements. Are you admitting you were mistaken?[/QUOTE] I'm not goalposting, even a 21:9 will benefit from a proper dynamic vertical compared to the BS they are pulling. A game, which is a dynamically rendered media form, can be made to fit any display. By letterboxing or pillarboxing it you are not using the display as it is intended. That is what I have said this entire time. [QUOTE=CrimsonChin;47162050] This contradicts all your previous statements. Are you admitting you were mistaken?[/QUOTE] You didn't read in the slightest did you? A 16:9 image in a 2.4:1 display will have an issue with pillarboxing, just like a 2.4:1 image in a 16:9 display will have letterboxing. Wasted and ugly space. There is no excuse with a dynamic media to resort to either of those except for incompetence or technological failings/incompatibility.
You're [I]still[/I] wrong, and [I]always[/I] will be wrong. Wider aspect ratios will [I]always[/I] be capable of displaying everything your 16:9 ratio can plus more on the left and right. Give it up, for god's sake man. You aren't fooling anybody with that attempt at backpedaling either.
[QUOTE=CrimsonChin;47162090]And you're [I]still[/I] wrong, and [I]always[/I] will be wrong. Wider aspect ratios will [I]always[/I] be capable of displaying everything your 16:9 ratio can plus more on the left and right. Give it up, for god's sake man. And you aren't fooling anybody with that attempt at backpedaling either.[/QUOTE] 16:9 will pillarbox in 2.4:1 2.4:1 will letterbox in 16:9 You really have no clue what you are talking about. A 16:9 will be able to display more VERTICAL than a 2.4:1 can A 2.4:1 can display more HORIZONTAL. That is a fact which you cannot accept, apparently. The devs are wasting Vertical space by letterboxing the game.
So, now that the realization of your being wrong has set in, you're going to backpedal and try to pretend you held the same argument as I did. Your original argument was: a 16:9 aspect ratio can display more than a 2:40:1 aspect ratio, without distortion, or black bars.
[QUOTE=CrimsonChin;47162122]So, now that the realization of your being wrong has set in, you're going to backpedal and try to pretend you held the same argument as I did. Your original arguement was, that a 16:9 aspect ratio can display more than a 2:40:1 aspect ratio, without distortion, or black bars.[/QUOTE] Yeah it can, especially when the source it is using is limiting it's vertical rendering. [URL]http://i1.wp.com/gearnuke.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/the-roder-aspect-ex-1.jpg[/URL] The red in this image is what you are saying would be displayed. With a horizontal lock rather than a vertical one, the purple which you cannot see due to not being rendered would be displayed. Thus; Yes on a 16:9 display, which is the industry standard, it will always display more than a 2:4:1 image rendered on that display can.
And, once again, here are at the beginning of our argument, which you are so conveniently tweaking in an attempt at masking being wrong in the first place. Unfortunately for you, increasing the FOV so it all fits in your 16:9 aspect ratio while including previous obscured additional vertical data means this same FOV in a wider aspect ratio now has extra image to the left and right. As will always be the case.
[QUOTE=CrimsonChin;47162145]And, once again, here are at the beginning of our argument. Unfortunately for you, increasing the FOV so it all fits in your 16:9 aspect ratio while including previous obscured additional vertical data means this same FOV in a wider aspect ratio now has extra image to the left and right. As will always be the case.[/QUOTE] Increasing the Vertical FOV will increase the Horizontal fov? Since when? Why would the game render beyond the screen on the right and left when it is not going to be displayed? The screen is filled and no longer has wasted space.
Now we're back to you saying "just stick black bars on the sides of the wider aspect ratio so I wont look wrong" again. At this point, I'm not even sure if you're being serious anymore.
[QUOTE=CrimsonChin;47162175]Now we're back to you saying "just stick black bars on the sides of the wider aspect ratio so I wont look wrong" again.[/QUOTE] Where are the black bars? The screen is filled. Going to higher aspect ratios? Adjust the displayed Vertical FOV and cut the top and bottom off for faster rendering. You won't lose any information that the game in it's current state isn't already holding back from you.
[QUOTE=deadoon;47162185]Where are the black bars? The screen is filled. Going to higher aspect ratios? Adjust the displayed Vertical FOV and cut the top and bottom off for faster rendering.[/QUOTE] "Filled"? Really? [t]http://i.imgur.com/peKLOcx.jpg[/t] Your argument only holds up if we intentionally add black bars on the superior width display. Intentionally disregarding the fact that it's wider.
[QUOTE=CrimsonChin;47162224]"Filled"? Really? [t]http://i.imgur.com/peKLOcx.jpg[/t][/QUOTE] [QUOTE=deadoon;47162185]Adjust the displayed Vertical FOV and cut the top and bottom off for faster rendering. You won't lose any information that the game in it's current state isn't already holding back from you.[/QUOTE] Games are dynamic not static.
[QUOTE=deadoon;47162229]Games are dynamic not static.[/QUOTE] Apparently, not dynamic enough to take advantage of anything wider than 16:9, convenient, considering that would make you wrong, which you are.
[QUOTE=CrimsonChin;47162232]Apparently, not dynamic enough to take advantage of anything wider than 16:9?[/QUOTE] I guess that you have no clue how the resolution settings menu in a game works do you? You have to either decide if the Horizontal FOv or the Vertical fov is the one going to be chosen for the base, then from there you figure out the fov of the other dimension based on resolution dynamically.
Seems like you don't, based on your claims.
[QUOTE=CrimsonChin;47162247]Seems like you don't, based on your claims.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]You have to either decide if the Horizontal FOv or the Vertical fov is the one going to be chosen for the base, then from there you figure out the fov of the other dimension based on resolution dynamically.[/QUOTE] Doing this prevents black bars on the screen.
[QUOTE=deadoon;47162251][/QUOTE] That's wonderful. Then you set the game to a 2:40:1 resolution and you not only have the same vertical image, but a magical addition on both left and right! Which means 2:40:1 displays more than 16:9! Always will, even!
[QUOTE=CrimsonChin;47162255]That's wonderful. Then you set the game to a 2:40:1 resolution and you not only have the same vertical image, but a magical addition on both left and right![/QUOTE] Where is the left and right "added" If the Base FOV is the horizontal, they were never lost. [QUOTE=CrimsonChin;47162255]Which means 2:40:1 displays more than 16:9! Always will, even![/QUOTE] Which indicates your inability to comprehend what I am saying. If they use the current display decision, you are losing vertical(up and down) view. If you use a forced 16:9 in a 2.4:1 you are losing horizantal(left and right) view. If you dynamically determine your Second Fov, you wasting nothing.
In these big black bars, to the left and right of the 16:9 game screenshot I pasted on the monitor. [t]http://i.imgur.com/peKLOcx.jpg[/t] [editline]17th February 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=deadoon;47162266] Which indicates your inability to comprehend what I am saying.[/QUOTE] I comprehend perfectly: you realized you were wrong, and are now twisting and backpedaling to hide this fact instead of being reasonable and simply saying "I was mistaken. I'm sorry." Wasting over an hour of both our time in the process.
[QUOTE=CrimsonChin;47162271]In these big black bars, to the left and right of the 16:9 game screenshot I pasted on the monitor. [t]http://i.imgur.com/peKLOcx.jpg[/t][/QUOTE] Wouldn't exist if the fov was dynamic. Which you still do not understand. Seriously this page has the equations to determine the second fov needed: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_of_view_in_video_games[/url]
[QUOTE=deadoon;47162282]Wouldn't exist if the fov was dynamic. Which you still do not understand.[/QUOTE] So now you've gone all the way around and are claiming my argument as your own? Get. Over. Yourself. My argument, which I have stuck to without any modification, was that a wider aspect ratio will always display anything a 16:9 can PLUS more. Any effort to compensate STILL means the wider aspect ratio shows more, ad infinitum. Your [I]original[/I] argument is that I was wrong. I am not wrong. You are wrong. Simple, end of story. Accept it and move on.
[QUOTE=CrimsonChin;47162291]So now you've gone all the way around and are claiming my argument as your own? Get. Over. Yourself. My argument, which I have stuck to without any modification, was that a wider aspect ratio will always display anything a 16:9 can PLUS more. Any effort to compensate STILL means the wider aspect ratio shows more, ad infinitum. Your [I]original[/I] argument is that I was wrong. I am not wrong. You are wrong. Simple, end of story. Accept and move on.[/QUOTE] But a wider aspect ratio in a narrower aspect display will display less, hence the letterboxing. Which is what I was saying this entire time.
You two have been arguing about aspect ratio for two hours now lmao
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.