# BenQ Intros Two LED-Backlit HD Displays



## btarunr (Dec 23, 2009)

BenQ will release two new full-HD LCD monitors to the market, the 21.5 inch G2222HDL and 24-inch G2420HDBL. The two are characterized by LED backlit illumination, and share nearly identical specifications which include glossy black frames, native resolution of 1920 x 1080 pixel TN panels, 5 ms response time, 1,000:1 contrast ratio with 5,000,000:1 dynamic contrast ratio, brightness of 250 cd/m², and connectivity which includes DVI and D-Sub. The G2222HDL and G2420HDBL are expected to be priced at £149 and £169, respectively, available from this week.





*View at TechPowerUp Main Site*


----------



## Abir053 (Dec 23, 2009)

benq is very good in terms of image quality. i'm using a benq v2400w 24'' monitor(1920*1200) and it's awesome.


----------



## Fourstaff (Dec 23, 2009)

Price is not too bad too! I wonder what input does it have?


----------



## Kaleid (Dec 23, 2009)

Bah, it's a TN-panel


----------



## Mussels (Dec 23, 2009)

Fourstaff said:


> Price is not too bad too! I wonder what input does it have?



DVI and VGA. its in the first post.


----------



## Mistral (Dec 23, 2009)

Almost there, BenQ!

Now please include 120Hz and DisplayPort. Then I'll be able to stomach the TN and gladly buy a 24" one...


----------



## EastCoasthandle (Dec 23, 2009)

Abir053 said:


> benq is very good in terms of image quality. i'm using a benq v2400w 24'' monitor(1920*1200) and it's awesome.



Yeah but once you get use to 1920x1200, using 1920x1080 is a down grade IMO.  Go ahead and change the resolution to 1920x1080 and see how much real estate you will lose from top to bottom.  Now image if that's a real 24" screen what that means is that you will lose 3/4" from the top and 3/4" from the bottom.  That's huge for a 24" screen.  If they want to move over to 1080 resolution, why don't they just use a smaller screen thus a cost savings for the consumers.


----------



## pr0n Inspector (Dec 23, 2009)

TN + whiteblue LEDs = CRAP. But mindless consumers will buy them anyway.


----------



## EnergyFX (Dec 23, 2009)

Stupid bean counters thinking everything must be 1080 because that's what "HD" is.  Morons!!

I propose we start using the term "HD+" to indicate 1200 res.  That's like... woah... better than HD!!!  The moron bean counters will wet themselves over it and want everything to be "HD+".


----------



## pentastar111 (Dec 23, 2009)

EnergyFX said:


> Stupid bean counters thinking everything must be 1080 because that's what "HD" is.  Morons!!
> 
> I propose we start using the term "HD+" to indicate 1200 res.  That's like... woah... better than HD!!!  The moron bean counters will wet themselves over it and want everything to be "HD+".


 LOL!!! HD+ Yep i could just see that happening.


----------



## Disparia (Dec 24, 2009)

EnergyFX said:


> Stupid bean counters thinking everything must be 1080 because that's what "HD" is.  Morons!!
> 
> I propose we start using the term "HD+" to indicate 1200 res.  That's like... woah... better than HD!!!  The moron bean counters will wet themselves over it and want everything to be "HD+".



Yeah!!! I've already changed my system specs


----------



## pentastar111 (Dec 24, 2009)

Jizzler said:


> Yeah!!! I've already changed my system specs


LOL!! Me too.


----------



## TAViX (Dec 24, 2009)

At the guys bashing the 1080 vs 1200 resolution:

Well guys, actually the joke is on you. Just put 2 monitors next, one 22" with 1920x1200 and one with 24" with 1920x1080 then fire up a game. Now compare who has the more viewing space...


----------



## pentastar111 (Dec 24, 2009)

TAViX said:


> At the guys bashing the 1080 vs 1200 resolution:
> 
> Well guys, actually the joke is on you. Just put 2 monitors next, one 22" with 1920x1200 and one with 24" with 1920x1080 then fire up a game. Now compare who has the more viewing space...


Mine's a 25.5 at 1920X1200, I still win


----------



## EnergyFX (Dec 24, 2009)

TAViX said:


> At the guys bashing the 1080 vs 1200 resolution:
> 
> Well guys, actually the joke is on you. Just put 2 monitors next, one 22" with 1920x1200 and one with 24" with 1920x1080 then fire up a game. Now compare who has the more viewing space...



I have a 24" @ 1920x1200.  My wife's 28" is 1920x1200.  Soooo... :shadedshu

Besides... what kind of argument logic is that?  How about comparing two 22" or two 24" monitors.


----------



## Mussels (Dec 24, 2009)

EnergyFX said:


> I have a 24" @ 1920x1200.  My wife's 28" is 1920x1200.  Soooo... :shadedshu
> 
> Besides... what kind of argument logic is that?  How about comparing two 22" or two 24" monitors.



22" is 1680x1050
23.6" is 1920x1080
24" is 1920x1200 only.


you cant really get a screen with the same physical dimensions, and different aspect ratios


----------



## EnergyFX (Dec 24, 2009)

Mussels said:


> 22" is 1680x1050
> 23.6" is 1920x1080
> 24" is 1920x1200 only.
> 
> ...



I'm having a hard time deciphering what you are trying to say here... I read it several times.  You can get those resolutions in tons of different sizes.  Now if you were trying to imply that those resolutions are what you get at the closest comparison to a 1920x1200 24" monitor then I guess I kind of see where you are going.  Still... if a manufacturer offers a ~24" monitor at 1920x1200 and ~24" at 1920x1080... which one would you rather view?  

Basically, you have to up the size of a 1920x1080 monitor to get the same viewable area as a comparably sized 1920x1200 monitor.  Hence you have to pit a 24" 1080 against a 22" 1200 to make it a fair "viewable area" argument... and in that argument the 1080 trumps itself by requiring larger screen dimension to compete.


----------



## Mussels (Dec 24, 2009)

if you look, you'll find not a single 24" screen with 1920x1080

as you look into the specs, you find out stores are misleading you on the size and they're smaller than their 16:10 counterparts


----------



## EnergyFX (Dec 24, 2009)

Mussels said:


> if you look, you'll find not a single 24" screen with 1920x1080
> 
> as you look into the specs, you find out stores are misleading you on the size and they're smaller than their 16:10 counterparts



Now I can't figure out if you are debating with me or agreeing with me.  You're tone suggests you are debating me and defending your 1080 monitor... but you're posting stuff that seems to agree with what I am saying.

Yes, you're right... 24" monitors @ 1080 res are actually smaller than 24".  However, 1200 res models are for the most part a full 24".

Are you or are you not saying that 1920x1080 is better than 1920x1200 at *advertised* dimension?


----------



## Mussels (Dec 24, 2009)

no i was just stating that the screens are physically smaller.

It was said "if a manufacturer offers a ~24" monitor at 1920x1200 and ~24" at 1920x1080... which one would you rather view? "

its 23.6 vs 24 - i was mostly intending to clarify that.


----------



## pr0n Inspector (Dec 24, 2009)

This is why PPI is a better measurement.


----------



## TAViX (Dec 24, 2009)

LOL. I didn't meant the size of the screen! haha.

I was trying to explain that having a standard HD resolution offers you more viewing space on the left/right side of the screen. Just take 2 screenshots 1 at x1200 and 1 at x1080 and see the diference. 

And naturaly a 22" 1920x1080 monitor is smaller than a 22" 1920x1200. That's why I said a 22" and a 24" ... My bad.


----------



## Mussels (Dec 24, 2009)

TAViX said:


> LOL. I didn't meant the size of the screen! haha.
> 
> I was trying to explain that having a standard HD resolution offers you more viewing space on the left/right side of the screen. Just take 2 screenshots 1 at x1200 and 1 at x1080 and see the diference.
> 
> And naturaly a 22" 1920x1080 monitor is smaller than a 22" 1920x1200. That's why I said a 22" and a 24" ... My bad.



i dont see how that gives you more side? the change is in vertical height... or do you mean its "wider" ?


----------



## TAViX (Dec 24, 2009)

Mussels said:


> i dont see how that gives you more side? the change is in vertical height... or do you mean its "wider" ?



you have extra details on left/right side. I'll take some screens to prove it.


----------



## TAViX (Dec 24, 2009)

Check the screens here, and why an 1920x1080 is better than a 1920x1200 monitor. 

*1920x1080 :*






*1920x1200 :*





So this is what I meant when said "extra viewing space"...


----------



## Mussels (Dec 24, 2009)

oh right, you're talking about how games made for 16:9 aspect ratios crop the sides off the 16:9 image to render the 16:10


Yeah i tell people that all the time, that due to all the console ports this is standard behaviour - but i always get told i'm wrong

its horizontal minus, not vertical plus when they convert between the aspect ratios


----------



## EastCoasthandle (Dec 24, 2009)

In situations like that is why we have WSF and programs like WideScreen Fixer.  Examples like that only shows how the game was developed not the capability of the monitor's true aspect ratio.

Oh and use the TV Calculator. Take note of the pixel density, etc.  Don't be so easily fooled by gamer programing gimmicks!  Compound that by a purchase which is similarly priced for a true 24" 1920x1200 (image that, I have to use the term True 24") monitor and you now see why I think it's a rip off.  Regardless of it's features, there is less real estate!  In any case this will force people "in the know" to get a 26" - 28" instead.  If that's not available they would probably save up for a true 30".

Oh, and I wanted to also point out that 1080 resolution panels are usually on the low end of the quality scale.  That's why this one is advertised using a TN panel.


----------



## morphy (Dec 25, 2009)

TAViX said:


> Check the screens here, and why an 1920x1080 is better than a 1920x1200 monitor.
> 
> *1920x1080 :*
> http://img46.imageshack.us/img46/2989/1920x1080.jpg
> ...



All this is 'proofing' is that the game forces a smaller FOV for 16:10 ratio..and does not indicate a limitation of the monitor itself.  It's really a lazy way of programming for support of different aspect ratios. It just shows that the dev originally coded for consoles (see Mussels post) and instead of doing a proper aspect ratio conversion for the PC monitor ratios they decided to crop thus losing detail in the process. If they had started with 16:10 ratios originally then went down to 16:9, it's the same amt of work and looks better for 16:10.
Regardless, when the fov is the same, there is no advantage in using 16:9 screens over 16:10.


----------



## TAViX (Dec 25, 2009)

Well, to be honest, I will always prefer a 23.6" 1920x1080 over an 22" 1920x1200! They have roughly the same vertical size, but the 1080 one it's a little bit longer(horizontally i mean).  ...


----------



## Wile E (Dec 25, 2009)

TAViX said:


> Well, to be honest, I will always prefer a 23.6" 1920x1080 over an 22" 1920x1200! They have roughly the same vertical size, *but the 1080 one it's a little bit longer(horizontally i mean)*.  ...



And still shows less pixels.


----------



## pr0n Inspector (Dec 25, 2009)

TAViX said:


> Well, to be honest, I will always prefer a 23.6" 1920x1080 over an 22" 1920x1200! They have roughly the same vertical size, but the 1080 one it's a little bit longer(horizontally i mean).  ...



Lower PPI = better?!


Also, Wile E your avatar is fraking awsome.


----------



## Mussels (Dec 25, 2009)

pr0n Inspector said:


> Lower PPI = better?!
> 
> 
> Also, Wile E your avatar is fraking awsome.



since the size decreases at the same time, how can it be lower PPI?


----------



## morphy (Dec 25, 2009)

TAViX said:


> Well, to be honest, I will always prefer a 23.6" 1920x1080 over an 22" 1920x1200! They have roughly the same vertical size, but the 1080 one it's a little bit longer(horizontally i mean).  ...



um yeah the 1080 on the 23.6 is always going to be wider than any 22" ...That's like sayin I prefer a 30" over a 19" because the 30" is wider..well duh. There's one 22" 1920x1200 (Lenovo) that I'm aware of, most are 1680x1050. For the price of a 22" 1920x1200, I can get a decent 24" and if wide is what you want, it'll be negligible compared to a 23.6:
23.6" viewing size = 20.57W x 11.57H
24" viewing size  =   20.35W x 12.72H
In real world, I doubt many will notice the .2" difference before the 1+" difference in height.



Mussels said:


> since the size decreases at the same time, how can it be lower PPI?



Guess it depends on how small the pixels are...but they shouldn't go down in size that much on a 22", any smaller we'll be talking hires laptop lcds.


----------



## TAViX (Dec 25, 2009)

Wile E said:


> And still shows less pixels.



You guys are *obsessed* with the pixels. Then with your logic it's better to buy a 4:3 display with 1920x1400....because it has more pixels! lol!!!!!!!



morphy said:


> um yeah the 1080 on the 23.6 is always going to be wider than any 22" ...That's like sayin I prefer a 30" over a 19" because the 30" is wider..well duh. There's one 22" 1920x1200 (Lenovo) that I'm aware of, most are 1680x1050. For the price of a 22" 1920x1200, I can get a decent 24" and if wide is what you want, it'll be negligible compared to a 23.6:
> 23.6" viewing size = 20.57W x 11.57H
> 24" viewing size  =   20.35W x 12.72H
> In real world, I doubt many will notice the .2" difference before the 1+" difference in height.



Dude you understood nothing from what I've posted. It wasn't about the screen size, it was about the games, for example, that you gain extra details with a 1920x1080 vs 1920x1200....
And btw, if you think that the difference between 23.6" ultra wide and 22" wide is the same as 30" vs 19", well, no furher comments.

EDIT: Ok, so what I wanted to say in previews posts is that if I have 2 monitors, one wide, one ultra-wide, *with the same vertical dimension*, I would choose the ultra-wide one because of obvious advantages.

That's why, if you guys noticed, recently almost all the manufacturers started to release monitors only with 16:9 aspect ratio.


----------



## morphy (Dec 25, 2009)

TAViX said:


> Dude you understood nothing from what I've posted. It wasn't about the screen size, it was about the games, for example, that you gain extra details with a 1920x1080 vs 1920x1200....


If it's about the games like you said, what's stopping someone with a 1920x1200 monitor from switching the  aspect ratio to 16:9 and res to 1920x1080 and not lose any detail?? Who is not understanding what here? Sure there'll be black bars but if the point is not to lose any details it then becomes a moot point. I can get the best of both worlds with games that do 1920x1200 properly, whereas with 1920x1080 I'm stuck at that.



TAViX said:


> And btw, if you think that the difference between 23.6" ultra wide and 22" wide is the same as 30" vs 19", well, no furher comments.


I'm not refering to qualitative comparisons rather the flawed logic - the same flawed logic in 30"vs 19" applies to 23.6"vs 22".


TAViX said:


> EDIT: Ok, so what I wanted to say in previews posts is that if I have 2 monitors, one wide, one ultra-wide, *with the same vertical dimension*, I would choose the ultra-wide one because of obvious advantages.


 That's an easy choice to make ...if there were no 24" monitors. So if there's another monitor offering more vertical dimension with negligible difference in horizontal, you'd still pick the lesser vertical one? There are other factors involved ofc but since you're going by vertical dimensions I'm sticking to that. 

Which goes back to your quote " if you think that the difference between 23.6" ultra wide and 22" wide is the same as 30" vs 19", well, no furher comments." OK so what about 23.6" vs 24" because obviously the difference now isn't as big as 23.6 vs 22".


----------



## pentastar111 (Dec 25, 2009)

TAViX said:


> Check the screens here, and why an 1920x1080 is better than a 1920x1200 monitor.
> 
> *1920x1080 :*
> http://img46.imageshack.us/img46/2989/1920x1080.jpg
> ...


That is very "eye" opening...


----------



## TAViX (Dec 26, 2009)

@morphy

LOL, you're helpless! haha.   It reminds me of my great-grandma' at 90, you couldn't reason with her in any way, even if you have the proof right in front of her, hahaha!
Anyways, Merry Christmas everybody, what did "Santa" bring you???


----------



## Mussels (Dec 26, 2009)

keep the thread on topic tavix. theres other threads for christmas stuff.


----------



## EnergyFX (Dec 26, 2009)

What is so friggin impossible to understand that 1920x1200 is MORE resolution than 1920x1080.

1920 = 1920 in width
1200 > 1080 in height

1920x1200 = 2,304,000 total pixels
1920x1080 = 2,073,600 total pixels (10% less total pixels)

The simple solution to this stupid debate is mathematical.  1920x1200 provides higher resolution... PERIOD.  You can't change that fact with any sort of "logic", interpenetration, or magic.  Higher resolution is higher resolution... period.  Screen dimension in inches is irrelevant.  It doesn't matter what size screen you want to try to make your argument with.  However, if you do choose to try to argue screen sizes then you MUST compare a 1080 screen against its closest sized 1200 competitor.  

Don't upsize the 1080 to try to win the debate.  Whatever "upsized" dimension you try to argue with... the 1200 is better in equal upsize.

Game resolution doesn't win or lose this argument.  You can do shit-tons more on a computer than just game.  Higher resolution trumps absolutely any argument you try to make.

FACT:
1920x1200 > 1920x1080

And guess what... ANY 1200 screen can also push 1080 resolution.  WHOA! Can you make a 1080 push 1200?  Nope.

J-F-C!!!


----------



## Wile E (Dec 26, 2009)

TAViX said:


> You guys are *obsessed* with the pixels. Then with your logic it's better to buy a 4:3 display with 1920x1400....because it has more pixels! lol!!!!!!!



I most certainly would buy a 1920x1440 monitor over either 1080 or 1200, as long as the price is right. Problem is, 4:3 displays command a premium over widescreen panels. As such, 16:10 offers me more for my money. There is no downside to adding vertical resolution if the horizontal stays the same.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Dec 26, 2009)

The red is what is missing from 1920x1080 compared to 1920x1200:






I look it at it quite simple according to aspect ratios:
Monitors: 4:3, 5:4, 16:10 (8:5)
TVs: 4:3, 16:9

The reason why the monitors are a little bit taller is for the menus.  You can have a 1080p film displaying and still have some workspace.


Physical dimensions of a screen also doesn't limit resolution, the DPI does.  For example, my monitor Samsung T240 (20.375" x 12.75"):
pixels per inch = pixels / width
x: 94.23 pixels per inch =  1920 / 20.375"
y: 94.12 pixels per inch = 1200 / 12.75"

There's monitors out there that are close to double that figure.  Even though they are only 23/24" monitors, they feature resolutions of 3840x2160.  Small screens with large resolutions have better picture clarity than large screens with small resolutions (e.g. a 24" with 1920x1200 has higher DPI and therefore clarity than a 24" with 1920x1080 resolution).


----------



## Mussels (Dec 26, 2009)

some of you only see resolution. that is ALL you see, and all you care about.


SEe the game examples above: regardless of you having more pixels, you get LESS of a game to see. you get black bars in other cases.

Why would a gamer want a screen that takes more to render (lower FPS) but shows less game?

Why would a HTPC/movie watcher choose a screen that gives him black bars?


There are two arguments here - 1920x1200 gives you more pixels, but if they arent USED by anything other than 2D applications, its useless to most people.


----------



## Wile E (Dec 26, 2009)

Mussels said:


> some of you only see resolution. that is ALL you see, and all you care about.
> 
> 
> SEe the game examples above: regardless of you having more pixels, you get LESS of a game to see. you get black bars in other cases.
> ...


The black bars do not harm the content of the movie in any way. It still displays the full image, completely unchanged and unharmed. That's no argument at all. It's completely superficial.

And despite all of this, the only argument might be video games, but almost all gaming machines are still used most of the time for 2D applications, where more resolution=more workspace, period. And besides that, Just set the resolution to 1920x1200, and TA-DA, you have you field of view back.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Dec 26, 2009)

Mussels said:


> There are two arguments here - 1920x1200 gives you more pixels, but if they arent USED by anything other than 2D applications, its useless to most people.


They are used more often than not.  The only thing I ever seen with the black strips are 1080i/1080p films in order to maintain their 16:9 ratio.  Almost all 3D applications are capable of using 16:10 if they can do 16:9.  I'm playing GTA IV right now, for example, and it has no black bars.  Dragon Age: Origins has no black bars.  Tropico 3 has no black bars.  Borderlands has no black bars.  Only old games might but that is most likely because they are incapable of anything except 4:3 making the whole point of 16:9 vs 16:10 irrelevant.

If you run a 1080p film windowed on a 1920x1200 monitor, you can see the film and also have access to your Start menu/taskbar.  On a 1920x1080 monitor, the taskbar would have to cover up some of the film or shrink the film down to less than 1080p.


----------



## OnBoard (Dec 26, 2009)

Mussels said:


> some of you only see resolution. that is ALL you see, and all you care about.
> 
> Why would a HTPC/movie watcher choose a screen that gives him black bars?



Hardly any good movie is in 1.78:1, they are 2.40:1. You always get black bars on top & bottom 

This is what you'd want as a movie screen, but not a monitor anymore 
http://www.trustedreviews.com/tvs/news/2009/01/30/Philips-Unveils-21-9-Cinema-TV-In-UK/p1

Anyone know if those LED backlit monitors/TVs have adjustable backlight? My few years old has CCFL backlight from 0-10 (one of the reasons I bought it). Have it on 3 to get deeper blacks and no backlight leaking. Don't know if LED backlit ones still suffer from that, but I doubt they are perfect.


----------



## morphy (Dec 26, 2009)

Mussels said:


> There are two arguments here - 1920x1200 gives you more pixels, but if they arent USED by anything other than 2D applications, its useless to most people.


If they aren't being used by anything other than 2D apps? So OS tasks, web browsing etc are useless to them like you say, why are they even on a computer? If someone comes to you for a recommendation on a screen for watching movies, are you going to recommend they buy a PC?

Again I got nothing against 16:9 ratios on the PC...if that's what some ppl want all the power to them but leave my 16:10 alone..give me the option as a consumer for 16:10 products and not just 16:9.

and tavix keep patting yourself on your back on your 'proof' when I can see the same stuff you see on my 1920x1200 and have more desktop workspace to boot.


----------



## Mussels (Dec 26, 2009)

FordGT90Concept said:


> They are used more often than not.  The only thing I ever seen with the black strips are 1080i/1080p films in order to maintain their 16:9 ratio.  Almost all 3D applications are capable of using 16:10 if they can do 16:9.  I'm playing GTA IV right now, for example, and it has no black bars.  Dragon Age: Origins has no black bars.  Tropico 3 has no black bars.  Borderlands has no black bars.  Only old games might but that is most likely because they are incapable of anything except 4:3 making the whole point of 16:9 vs 16:10 irrelevant.
> 
> If you run a 1080p film windowed on a 1920x1200 monitor, you can see the film and also have access to your Start menu/taskbar.  On a 1920x1080 monitor, the taskbar would have to cover up some of the film or shrink the film down to less than 1080p.



i take it you missed the example earlier, where dragon age was shown cropping a 16:9 image to make the 16:10 - you got less image, not more.

and why would i run movies windowed? if i'm opposed to black bars, i'm sure as hell going to be opposed to a start menu.


----------



## TAViX (Dec 26, 2009)

EnergyFX said:


> What is so friggin impossible to understand that 1920x1200 is MORE resolution than 1920x1080.



What is so friggin impossible to understand that *I DON'T CARE!!!!!!!!!*



EnergyFX said:


> Don't upsize the 1080 to try to win the debate.  Whatever "upsized" dimension you try to argue with... the 1200 is better in equal upsize.
> Game resolution doesn't win or lose this argument.



Realy? How about this:

Both are the same vertical resolution of 1920

*x1200:*






*x1080*






I don't know, but I kinda like to see the the the whole mirror or at least some more....



EnergyFX said:


> You can do shit-tons more on a computer than just game.  Higher resolution trumps absolutely any argument you try to make.
> 
> FACT:
> 1920x1200 > 1920x1080
> ...



Wha! You're so smart! Any 1200 screen can push 1080!! No $hit! How??? By stretching the image or by putting black bars. Either case is useless. Sure I can do "shit-tons more on a computer", for me the most important ones are also to watch movies (here the 1080 screen wins always), edit documents (the 1080 screen is also a winner since I can have 3 A4 docs on the same time on the screen), 3D modeling (I find an 1080 screen much better since I can have the part one half of the screen and the draft on the other part), etc, etc.

Like I've said, you guys are OBSESSED with pixels, resolution, etc, and don't see the real advantages of ultra-wide screens. 
And this is coming from a guy(..me) who has a 27" 1920x1200 monitor back home. But to be honest, I would have wish to have an ultra-wide one...


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Dec 26, 2009)

Mussels said:


> i take it you missed the example earlier, where dragon age was shown cropping a 16:9 image to make the 16:10 - you got less image, not more.
> 
> and why would i run movies windowed? if i'm opposed to black bars, i'm sure as hell going to be opposed to a start menu.


You got just over an inch of extra verticle space.  How is it cropped?  DX9/OGL naturally does not crop.  The perspective, ratio, and resolution all effect what is drawn and what isn't drawn.


To clarify, the video is overlayed on black so the black you do see is simply what is not overwritten.  OSD menus and the like overlay the black and the video.  Depending on your codec, you can manipulate the film without the OSD ever coverying the actual film.  Having that extra 120 pixels is never a disadvantage.


----------



## EastCoasthandle (Dec 26, 2009)

Again, in game aspect ratios mean nothing.  You simply have to look for a modding tool to fix it or, gasp, you can change the resolution on a true 24" monitor . I know, it's shocking.  But if you want a game that truely supports 24" monitor they are out there.  For example Boaderlands:




16:10





16:9

Honestly, you really don't need 16:10 inside the cockpit of a car (per say).  However, other games do support 16:10:



16:10





16:9

As you can see, games can support it. But the problem is that game developers have the tendency to alter the native aspect ratio.  That's why places like WSF was created and moded programs made available.  Heck, the last time I recall a real aspect ratio controversy was Bioshock.   In which the developers themselves admitted fault and fixed the issue and even gave the creator of the wide screen mod program a video card (or something or another).  In any case, it should be common knowledge by now that some game developers have a tendency to treat a PC monitor's aspect ratio as the red-headed stepchild.


----------



## crazyeyesreaper (Dec 26, 2009)

not sure if anyone noticed but tiger direct has been using an HD plus moniker for awhile now lol seems they had the same idea


----------



## Wile E (Dec 27, 2009)

TAViX said:


> What is so friggin impossible to understand that *I DON'T CARE!!!!!!!!!*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Setting the screen to 1080 gives black bars. So what? You still see the same thing. It hurts the image in no way, shape or form. A 1200 screen can do 1080 with no losses, plus it can still do more. It's better in every way.


----------



## TAViX (Dec 27, 2009)

EastCoasthandle said:


> Again, in game aspect ratios mean nothing.  You simply have to look for a modding tool to fix it or, gasp, you can change the resolution on a true 24" monitor . I know, it's shocking.  But if you want a game that truely supports 24" monitor they are out there.  For example Boaderlands:
> 
> [url]http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a154/eastcoasthandle/HD/th_Borderlands_16_10.jpg[/URL]
> 16:10
> ...



LOL. You're screenshots just show the basic example of the worst possible game implementation. If you think this is right, think of what would happen if you want to play one of those games in a 2 or 3 monitor setup; I mean if they crop the game horizontally....LOL! How can you even say that aberration that those games support wide-screen format???? Actually they don't support it well at all!!!!!!! Or you think cropping horizontally is the right way to do it?!?! 

But I'm waisting my breath here, just go to the Widescreenfixer forums and see what people are saying about this matter. Maybe, just maybe, you'll wake up from your dream world! 

http://imk.cx/pc/widescreenfixer/



Wile E said:


> Setting the screen to 1080 gives black bars. So what? You still see the same thing. It hurts the image in no way, shape or form. A 1200 screen can do 1080 with no losses, plus it can still do more. It's better in every way.



Better in every way??? You're jocking right?? What's better????? To have wasted space when watching movies? To have wasted space when playing console games or console optimized games (see Mirror's Edge, F.E.A.R 2, etc), to have bad aspect ratio or badly and improper crop in some games (Borderlands, DiRT 2, Bioshock 1.0, etc)?? Hmm? Tell me one thing that a 1200 monitor can do and a 1080 one can't !!! Yeah, more space for Windows desktop and/or 2D apps....LOL!!! Like I said, why don't you buy a 4:3 monster with 1920x1400 resolution if you want more desktop space?


----------



## Wile E (Dec 27, 2009)

TAViX said:


> LOL. You're screenshots just show the basic example of the worst possible game implementation. If you think this is right, think of what would happen if you want to play one of those games in a 2 or 3 monitor setup; I mean if they crop the game horizontally....LOL! How can you even say that aberration that those games support wide-screen format???? Actually they don't support it well at all!!!!!!! Or you think cropping horizontally is the right way to do it?!?!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Like I said, I would buy a 1440 display if they made them, and they were as affordable as 16:10 monitors. So what if there are black bars? That doesn't matter. All that matters is that it displays everything that a 1080p monitor does when you set it to 1080p. You lose nothing, but gain a couple of black bars. The black bars don't alter the image quality, so your argument is 100% moot. Then , when you are done with the game, you switch back to 1200 or 1440, and enjoy a hell of a lot more real estate. best of both worlds, wider 1080p viewing angles, but more screen space when you need it.

Sorry, but you and Mussels are off base here. There is no downside to picking 1920x1200 or 1920x1440 (if they made them) over a 1080p screen. Both can do everything a 1080p screen can do, plus more.

Again, 1200 and 1440p can both do 1080p, but 1080p cannot do 1200 or 1440, how is this so hard to understand?

So how about you tell me what a 1080p screen can do that a 1200 or 1440 screen can't? I'll give you a hint, it's a trick question. 

And the games he showed are PROPER implementations of how differing resolutions and aspect ratios should be handled, the examples you showed are IMPROPER and lazy ways for the developer to do it.


----------



## EastCoasthandle (Dec 27, 2009)

TAViX said:


> LOL. You're screenshots just show the basic example of the worst possible game implementation.


No, it shows both sides of your one sided opinion.  Clearly, 16:10 is the better option.



TAViX said:


> If you think this is right, think of what would happen if you want to play one of those games in a 2 or 3 monitor setup; I mean if they crop the game horizontally....LOL!


I do think it's fine.  



TAViX said:


> How can you even say that aberration that those games support wide-screen format???? Actually they don't support it well at all!!!!!!! Or you think cropping horizontally is the right way to do it?!?!


So, when the situation is reversed your opinion completely changes.  Typical yet I don't believe you release that I caused you to do it.   This is one way to get you to understand and unwilling admit something that I've said throughout this thread.  In game aspect ratios mean nothing.  It all depends on the developer not the actual implementation of the monitor.  Now that you see it for yourself and are forced to admit it now debunks your theory.  Now lets not get it twisted, if you prefer 16:9 that's your thing. But it certainly has it limitations.  One in particular is clearly seen if a developer decides to support 16:10.


----------



## TAViX (Dec 27, 2009)

EastCoasthandle said:


> No, it shows both sides of your one sided opinion.  Clearly, 16:10 is the better option.
> 
> 
> I do think it's fine.
> ...



Bro, for once stop being a fanboy, and use your brain!!!!!! In your screenshots when using a 16:9 aspect ratio the vertical view is cropped, while in screens I provided, with proper implementation in those games, nothing is cropped, but ADDED!!! What's so hard to understand?????? This is what widescreenfix program is doing for those bad games.......dah!


----------



## EastCoasthandle (Dec 27, 2009)

TAViX said:


> Bro, for once stop being a fanboy, and use your brain!!!!!! In your screenshots when using a 16:9 aspect ratio the vertical view is cropped, while in screens I provided, with proper implementation in those games, nothing is cropped, but ADDED!!! What's so hard to understand?????? This is what widescreenfix program is doing for those bad games.......dah!


All this shows is that when you are confronted with solid facts you get upset and resort to ad hominem.  No matter, I believe I've made my point albeit I don't believe you fully understood my post(s).


----------



## Mussels (Dec 27, 2009)

East at least understands the issue.

He's on the same page as me.

Eastcoast is willing to use a third party program to fix games aspect ratios, whereas i am not. its as simple as that.


----------



## TAViX (Dec 27, 2009)

EastCoasthandle said:


> All this shows is that when you are confronted with solid facts you get upset and resort to ad hominem.  No matter, I believe I've made my point albeit I don't believe you fully understood my post(s).



Heh. I wasn't getting upset, haha! I was...intrigued by your "solid facts" that are actually not solid at all. But never-mind, everybody is free to believe whatever he wants to believe, that's why it's a free "wire"  . Enjoy.


----------



## Wile E (Dec 27, 2009)

TAViX said:


> Heh. I wasn't getting upset, haha! I was...intrigued by your "solid facts" that are actually not solid at all. But never-mind, everybody is free to believe whatever he wants to believe, that's why it's a free "wire"  . Enjoy.
> 
> P.S.
> 
> ...



What exactly does any of that prove? Absolutely nothing.


----------



## pr0n Inspector (Dec 27, 2009)

TAViX said:


> Heh. I wasn't getting upset, haha! I was...intrigued by your "solid facts" that are actually not solid at all. But never-mind, everybody is free to believe whatever he wants to believe, that's why it's a free "wire"  . Enjoy.
> 
> P.S.
> 
> ...



Poor little boy got his mind raped by the marketing people.


----------



## TAViX (Dec 27, 2009)

pr0n Inspector said:


> Poor little boy got his mind raped by the marketing people.



Little boy? hmm. I bet that you don't have years of life as many as I have of school. Anyways, I won't continue arguing with narrow minded people, believe what you want, I don't care...


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Dec 27, 2009)

TAViX said:


> Better in every way??? You're jocking right?? What's better????? To have wasted space when watching movies? To have wasted space when playing console games or console optimized games (see Mirror's Edge, F.E.A.R 2, etc), to have bad aspect ratio or badly and improper crop in some games (Borderlands, DiRT 2, Bioshock 1.0, etc)?? Hmm? Tell me one thing that a 1200 monitor can do and a 1080 one can't !!! Yeah, more space for Windows desktop and/or 2D apps....LOL!!! Like I said, why don't you buy a 4:3 monster with 1920x1400 resolution if you want more desktop space?


Compare these two pics of pics of GTA IV.  Note that GTAIV looks perfectly fine at 1080 and 1200 if the aspect ratio value is set correctly.  Then note how 1080 image on a 1200 resolution takes up more of the screen while maintaining aspect ratio.  A 1200 image on a 1200 screen causes the image to be scaled down in order to maintain the aspect ratio.

1080 on 1200:






1200 on 1200:





Put real simple, 1080i/p HDTVs have no background menus or environment.  Everything operates on overlays so there is absolutely no use for more than 1080 pixels in height.  Computers, however, have an operating running behind the video which can be invoked and still maintain the same aspect ratio for the film rendered on top of the desktop.


----------



## Mussels (Dec 27, 2009)

even your screenshots are showing that the 1080 resolution image has a wider viewing angle - look at the X on the wall in the poster - and on the opposite side, we can even see the beginnings over another window.

I dont get the argument about needing more space to watch things on a PC -i  (and everyone else i know) plays games and watches movies in fullscreen.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Dec 27, 2009)

That's just how the developers programmed it.  With an increase of resolution, they should pull the viewpoint farther away from the character increasing the field of view.

I can't tell without doing a side by side comparison so it really doesn't matter.


In that picture, the task bar and Windows Picture and Fax Viewer menu take up 98 pixels.  The window control bar takes up 26 pixels.  Combined, there is 124 pixels of stuff not the picture.  WP&FV added 4 pixels to each side of the image to maintain the aspect ratio (16:9 image on a 16:10 display).  Conversely, WP&FV added 99 pixels to each side of the 1200 tall image to maintain the aspect ratio (16:10 image on a 16:10 display).  16:10 on a 16:10 display wastes 2475% more space than 16:9 on 16:10 with 124 vertical pixels in use for computer functions.  With a 16:10 monitor, you can operate menus and the like without using an OSD while a 16:9 requires an OSD without losing significant picture size with the aspect ratio maintained.

Bottomline: it is more work space.  Developers not properly handling aspect ratios is a completely separate matter.


----------



## EastCoasthandle (Dec 27, 2009)

Mussels said:


> East at least understands the issue.
> 
> He's on the same page as me.
> 
> Eastcoast is willing to use a third party program to fix games aspect ratios, whereas i am not. its as simple as that.


I have not used 3rd party programs in those pics


----------



## Mussels (Dec 27, 2009)

EastCoasthandle said:


> I have not used 3rd party programs in those pics



i said WILLING to - you made the argument that you can always use a fix program on the games that dont follow the aspect ratio rules. i refuse to put up with that, and would rather buy a screen that works in the first place.


----------



## pr0n Inspector (Dec 27, 2009)

TAViX said:


> Little boy? hmm. I bet that you don't have years of life as many as I have of school. Anyways, I won't continue arguing with narrow minded people, believe what you want, I don't care...



Anyone who screams constantly is a little boy.


----------



## Mussels (Dec 27, 2009)

and anyone who calls people names gets in trouble.

we can have heated discussions, but name calling is a nono.


----------



## EastCoasthandle (Dec 27, 2009)

Even if you prefer the lower resolution one can do just that as others have mentioned with a true 24" monitor.  Besides, developers have screwed up 16:9 as well.  So there is really no escaping it by going to a lower resolution just to game on.  You can either:
A. Enjoy the game because it has proper aspect ratio
B. Enjoy the game because it supports 16:10 that's no different then 16:9
C. Use 16:9 for those who want it
D. Use a 3rd party app. to correct the aspect ratio
E. Don't care and enjoy the games/apps as is


----------



## EnergyFX (Dec 27, 2009)

I don't get TAViX' use of the term "ultra-widescreen" to describe 1080.  

Wouldnt 1920x1080 be "wide but not as tall" as 1920x1200.  See TAViX, your misconception here is that you think that you have somehow gained something on the sides, when in actuality you have lost someting on the top and bottom.

Being able to see more in a game screen does not mean that your 1080 is better than a 1200 monitor.  It means coders have poorly programmed their software to take proper advantage of 1200 monitors.

Now, going WAY back to my original comment (that I think kind of started all of this) about moron bean counters cramming 1080 down all of our throats... if they would maintain 1200 monitors as the prevalent standard for PC monitors then we would probably see better coding in games to support it.

My comment earlier about being able to do more on a PC than just game was intended to illustrate that for a PC a 1200 monitor is always better than a 1080 because a 1200 monitor can do everything a 1080 can but also have the extra resolution for other times, like side by side surfing, document viewing, presentations, multiple windows open, etc etc etc.  



TAViX said:


> ... Any 1200 screen can push 1080!! No $hit! How??? By stretching the image or by putting black bars. Either case is useless. Sure I can do "shit-tons more on a computer", for me the most important ones are also to watch movies (here the 1080 screen wins always), edit documents (the 1080 screen is also a winner since I can have 3 A4 docs on the same time on the screen), 3D modeling (I find an 1080 screen much better since I can have the part one half of the screen and the draft on the other part), etc, etc.
> 
> Like I've said, you guys are OBSESSED with pixels, resolution, etc, and don't see the real advantages of ultra-wide screens.
> And this is coming from a guy(..me) who has a 27" 1920x1200 monitor back home. But to be honest, I would have wish to have an ultra-wide one...



This right here PROVES that you do not understand the real difference between 1080 and 1200.  You have not gained ANYTHING in a 1080 screen over a 1200.  You have LOST usable viewing space on the top and bottom.  1920x1080 is NOT wider... rather it is simply not as tall as 1920x1200.  "Ultra-wide" is either something you have made up or you have fallen prey to marketing gimmicks.


----------



## DaveK (Dec 27, 2009)

There is black bars at the top and bottom of 1080p movies on a 1920x1200 screen, therefore 1920x1200 = more.

What's the problem?


----------



## LAN_deRf_HA (Dec 28, 2009)

1080p is simply better for the real world. Gaming and movies. I hate black bars, on 360 or pc games. They actually decrease the size of the image you view. I could just pick a 16:10 res for the pc games at least right? Not really, since most games are bad console ports this crops the image. Either way you cut it 1200 is worse for all but a few games. As for movies, despite a number of newer films now being shot in 21:9 most videos, tv, and less recent films stick to 16:9. 

So what is the only draw back of a 1080p monitor? Vertical desktop space for web browsing, which I compensate for by moving my taskbar to the side of the screen. Something all widescreen users should be doing.


----------



## EastCoasthandle (Dec 28, 2009)

Some of this is down right laughable, lol.  Anyway let me break it down for you.  The reason why you are seeing 16:9 on cheap panels is because it's a huge cost savings.  Like someone else pointed out it's a bean counting thing.  Now in order for some to understand this you have to understand how they are made.  Manufacturers create large glass substrate sheets onto which LCD components can be layered.




Now it's easy to figure out that if you cut these substrates into reduce sizes (16:9 instead of 16:10) you can use more substrate then you normally would which in turn creates a sizable profit even if the actual LCD costs consumers little less then a 16:10 LCD.  It's the typical:
1.  Reduce the cutting size of the substrates
2. Use 16:9 instead of 16:10
3.  ???
4. PROFIT!!!!


----------



## TAViX (Dec 28, 2009)

DaveK said:


> There is black bars at the top and bottom of 1080p movies on a 1920x1200 screen, therefore 1920x1200 = more.
> 
> What's the problem?



Wasted space, and annoying black bars??



EnergyFX said:


> This right here PROVES that you do not understand the real difference between 1080 and 1200.  You have not gained ANYTHING in a 1080 screen over a 1200.  You have LOST usable viewing space on the top and bottom.  1920x1080 is NOT wider... rather it is simply not as tall as 1920x1200.  "Ultra-wide" is either something you have made up or you have fallen prey to marketing gimmicks.



No brother, YOU didn't understand anything. Like I've said before, you're obsessed with pixels, resolution & stuff, you're blinded by those number and cannot see the true advantages of a 16:9 monitor over a 16:10 one or 4:3. You and the other guys refuse to understand or to comprehend that the wider the screen is the more advantages you have. That's the reason they invented the wide screen, that's the reason the invented now HD TV, that's the reason all the movies are shot in wide screen. If you prefer having a box on you desk, "just because it has more pixels or more horizontal resolution", it's your problem. 
So far I've ask for 1 single advantage of the 16:10 / 4:3 hi res monitors over 16:9 ones and nobody managed to give it to me.
Peace.


----------



## Wile E (Dec 28, 2009)

Mussels said:


> i said WILLING to - you made the argument that you can always use a fix program on the games that dont follow the aspect ratio rules. i refuse to put up with that, and would rather buy a screen that works in the first place.



It working or not has nothing to do with the screen, it has to do with the game dev. The screen is innocent of any of this.

Besides, once again, I point out that 1920x1200 displays 1080p 100% flawless and accurate. 1200p can do 1080p, but 1080p can't do 1200p. It's pretty simple logic, tbh.


----------



## Mussels (Dec 28, 2009)

wow... so many people didnt bother looking at the screenshots throughout the thread.


FordGT90's post, top is 1080 bottom is 1200








Notice how the 1080 shows MORE? 

in MANY games going to a 1200 screen does *not* give you more on the top and bottm, it crops and gives you LESS on the sides instead. you're getting a zoomed in image with the sides missing.

Please try and understand THAT is what our argument is, and stop talking about a freaking 2D desktop.


----------



## TAViX (Dec 28, 2009)

Wile E said:


> It working or not has nothing to do with the screen, it has to do with the game dev. The screen is innocent of any of this.
> 
> Besides, once again, I point out that 1920x1200 displays 1080p 100% flawless and accurate. 1200p can do 1080p, but 1080p can't do 1200p. It's pretty simple logic, tbh.



Talking about logic, than a 1400p monitor, can do both 1200p and 1080p. Please, be my guest, go and buy a giant box just to have more desktop space, lol! Than enjoy almost half of the screen wasted when watching movies or HD TV.


----------



## Wile E (Dec 28, 2009)

LAN_deRf_HA said:


> 1080p is simply better for the real world. Gaming and movies. I hate black bars, on 360 or pc games. They actually decrease the size of the image you view. I could just pick a 16:10 res for the pc games at least right? Not really, since most games are bad console ports this crops the image. Either way you cut it 1200 is worse for all but a few games. As for movies, despite a number of newer films now being shot in 21:9 most videos, tv, and less recent films stick to 16:9.
> 
> So what is the only draw back of a 1080p monitor? Vertical desktop space for web browsing, which I compensate for by moving my taskbar to the side of the screen. Something all widescreen users should be doing.



No, a 1200p monitor does not decrease the size of a 1080p image AT ALL. It is 100% identically rendered on either a 1080p or 1200p monitor. This is what I can't seem to make people understand. The only thing a 1080p screen might have as a benefit, is less black bars, but guess what, even 1080p displays black bars in most movies, as movies aren't generally encoded in 16:9 to begin with. Not to mention, those black bars do absolutely nothing to hurt image quality. It's completely superficial.


----------



## Wile E (Dec 28, 2009)

TAViX said:


> Talking about logic, than a 1400p monitor, can do both 1200p and 1080p. Please, be my guest, go and buy a giant box just to have more desktop space, lol! Than enjoy almost half of the screen wasted when watching movies or HD TV.



Who cares if the space is not used? The image is exactly the same, in exactly the same quality. 

If they made 1920x1440 monitors at around the same price, I would most certainly have one. It can do everything a 1080p monitor can do, plus more. A 1080p monitor sure as hell can't use 1920x1440 resolution.



Mussels said:


> wow... so many people didnt bother looking at the screenshots throughout the thread.
> 
> 
> FordGT90's post, top is 1080 bottom is 1200
> ...



Then set the damn monitor to 1080p, problem solved. You are missing the point, not them. A 1200p monitor can do 1080p, but a 1080p cannot do 1200p for those times that 1200 is better.


----------



## Mussels (Dec 28, 2009)

Wile E said:


> Who cares if the space is not used? The image is exactly the same, in exactly the same quality.
> 
> If they made 1920x1440 monitors at around the same price, I would most certainly have one. It can do everything a 1080p monitor can do, plus more. A 1080p monitor sure as hell can't use 1920x1440 resolution.
> 
> ...




fair point, except that on ATI graphics cards scaling is broken so you'd end up with a stretched image vertically, instead of a cropped image horizontally. hardly a win there.

and even if it did work, you'd end up with black bars... which is something i'm opposed to as well.


I'm just getting pissed that you people are all "OMG MORE RES IS BEST EVERYONE MUST AGREE" just STFU and realise different people want different things. we're stating our case (that WE personally dont like it, and showing people the flaws of 1200P screens) and we're getting F'ing hammered for it.


----------



## TAViX (Dec 28, 2009)

Wile E said:


> Who cares if the space is not used? The image is exactly the same, in exactly the same quality.



*I DO care*. I found extremely annoying those black bars for once. Secondly I like the games to display a little more detail on left/right verticals. 



Wile E said:


> If they made 1920x1440 monitors at around the same price, I would most certainly have one. It can do everything a 1080p monitor can do, plus more. A 1080p monitor sure as hell can't use 1920x1440 resolution.



By all means, be my guest. Than maybe you'll prefer a perfect square monitor with 1920x1920 pixels!!! (Oau!!! Look at that uber high resolution!!!!!) And definitely, *DEFINITELY*, it will be capable of displaying 1080p, 1200p, even 1400p!


----------



## Wile E (Dec 28, 2009)

Mussels said:


> fair point, except that on ATI graphics cards scaling is broken so you'd end up with a stretched image vertically, instead of a cropped image horizontally. hardly a win there.
> 
> and even if it did work, you'd end up with black bars... which is something i'm opposed to as well.
> 
> ...



No, it doesn't stretch. Every single 1200p monitor I have ever used displays 1080p without stretching, as long as you set the monitor's in-built scaling options properly.

There is a difference between preferring 1080p and 1200p being flawed. You are free to prefer 1080p screens, that does not make them better. 1200p is technically superior in every way, except when you consider vanity.


----------



## Wile E (Dec 28, 2009)

TAViX said:


> *I DO care*. I found extremely annoying those black bars for once. Secondly I like the games to display a little more detail on left/right verticals.
> 
> 
> 
> By all means, be my guest. Than maybe you'll prefer a perfect square monitor with 1920x1920 pixels!!! (Oau!!! Look at that uber high resolution!!!!!) And definitely, *DEFINITELY*, it will be capable of displaying 1080p, 1200p, even 1400p!


Then you obviously don't watch bluray movies on your screen, as even 1080p screens have black bars showing with them.

And yeah, 1920x1920 would be even better. Sorry, your sarcasm fails.


----------



## Mussels (Dec 28, 2009)

Wile E said:


> No, it doesn't stretch. Every single 1200p monitor I have ever used displays 1080p without stretching, as long as you set the monitor's in-built scaling options properly.
> 
> There is a difference between preferring 1080p and 1200p being flawed. You are free to prefer 1080p screens, that does not make them better. 1200p is technically superior in every way, except when you consider vanity.



i have never owned a single screen with built in scaling options. its always handled by the video card drivers.


Wile E: i watch many blu ray movies. i prefer having that inch or so less black bar. if it MUST be there, i want it as small as possible.


why the hell cant you people just understand that some of us disagree with your views? you arent going to convert us, and we arent trying to convert you. we're just stating our side of the case so that other people dont see ONLY your views.


----------



## Wile E (Dec 28, 2009)

Mussels said:


> i have never owned a single screen with built in scaling options. its always handled by the video card drivers.
> 
> 
> Wile E: i watch many blu ray movies. i prefer having that inch or so less black bar. if it MUST be there, i want it as small as possible.
> ...



But some are trying to convert us by claiming 1200p is inferior. It is not. It is not the preference of those, yourself included, and that's fine, but it is not in any way inferior. The only argument you guys come up with is black bars, but that doesn't make 1200p inferior at all.

As far as the screens, you didn't look at the right settings. They all have them. Maybe some of the oldest 1200p screens might not, but all relatively modern ones do.


----------



## TAViX (Dec 28, 2009)

Mussels said:


> i have never owned a single screen with built in scaling options. its always handled by the video card drivers.



My Dell has a build in scaling option without the need of video card scaling. Has 3 options: 1:1 , Aspect, Fill. And with my old nvidia card i used to have 2 options in drivers control panel also: Hardware Scaling and Driver Scaling.


----------



## Mussels (Dec 28, 2009)

Wile E said:


> But some are trying to convert us by claiming 1200p is inferior. It is not. It is not the preference of those, yourself included, and that's fine, but it is not in any way inferior. The only argument you guys come up with is black bars, but that doesn't make 1200p inferior at all.
> 
> As far as the screens, you didn't look at the right settings. They all have them. Maybe some of the oldest 1200p screens might not, but all relatively modern ones do.



no. i've only ever seen it on high end dells. i've never seen it on any screens for sale here in AU apart from them. its always been done via the video card driver.



TAViX said:


> My Dell has a build in scaling option without the need of video card scaling. Has 3 options: 1:1 , Aspect, Fill. And with my old nvidia card i used to have 2 options in drivers control panel also: Hardware Scaling and Driver Scaling.



You mention dell as well. Nv's driver is about the same as ATI's, except that ATI's is broken in win 7.


Wile E: you say we're trying to convert you by saying 1200p is inferior. we're saying its inferior TO US. this is just another fanboi thread, Nvidia vs ATI or AMD vs intel.

One party says "OMG DONT BUY X, Y IS BETTER" and the people who prefer X are going to step up to the plate to defend their choices.


To be honest, i no longer care. i'm just sick of having "MORE PIXELS IS _*ALWAYS*_ BETTER" crammed down my throat at every turn.
I'm not saying 1080p is always better. i'm giving two specific examples, with proof, of when it IS better, for ME. the argument that comes back is "1200p is ALWAYS better" "more pixels is ALWAYS" better "heres a workaround" etc - people ARE trying to tell me i made the wrong choice, and backing the wrong side.


----------



## TAViX (Dec 28, 2009)

Mussels said:


> You mention dell as well. Nv's driver is about the same as ATI's, except that ATI's is broken in Win 7.



Yeah, I've kinda noticed that with ATI CCP there is no way to choose that...hmm



Mussels said:


> To be honest, i no longer care. i'm just sick of having "MORE PIXELS IS ALWAYS BETTER" crammed down my throat at every turn.



Haha, I know what you mean. But people should understand that the wide-screen monitors were created *to GAIN more vertical space*, *NOT* to cut from the horizontal space. This is what people fail to understand.


----------



## Wile E (Dec 28, 2009)

Mussels said:


> no. i've only ever seen it on high end dells. i've never seen it on any screens for sale here in AU apart from them. its always been done via the video card driver.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



No, you are simply mistaken about the monitors and scaling, Mussels. Almost all do 1080p without scaling. The ones that don't are in a vast minority.


----------



## Wile E (Dec 28, 2009)

TAViX said:


> Yeah, I've kinda noticed that with ATI CCP there is no way to choose that...hmm
> 
> 
> 
> Haha, I know what you mean. But people should understand that the wide-screen monitors were created *to GAIN more vertical space*, *NOT* to cut from the horizontal space. This is what people fail to understand.


You menat to say horizontal space. Horizontal is side to side. Vertical is top to bottom.

And what you fail to acknowledge is that some games show more with 1200 vs 1080. They show the same fov as 1080p from side to side, but add more top to bottom on 1200p. A properly coded game increases fov with resolution, regardless of aspect ratio. If horizontal res increases, so does horizontal fov, if vertical res increases, so does vertical fov. 1920x1080 is supposed to display more than 1280x720, despite the same aspect ratio. More res has traditionally meant more rendered in the pc world, aspect ratio notwithstanding. Only recently have devs gotten lazy and started cropping the image instead of rendering more.

Eastcoast has already shown you examples of this, but you chose to ignore them.

Your preference is clear, but the "proof" of why your preference is better is flawed. Not all games render different resolutions the same, so 1080p is not always better than 1200p in horizontal fov, just like 1200p is not always better at rendering vertical fov.


----------



## Mussels (Dec 28, 2009)

Wile E said:


> No, you are simply mistaken about the monitors and scaling, Mussels. Almost all do 1080p without scaling. The ones that don't are in a vast minority.



i'm sorry, but you're wrong. i can name every widescreen LCD i've ever owned, and none have had that feature

Chimei 221D
AOC 210V
samsung 226BW
samsung 2494HS - i take this one back, this monitor DOES have a feature to do this. However it only works if the aspect ratio doesnt change. (and doesnt work on 1280x720, for some rason)

So thats one screen with this "feature" albeit, rather broken.

even my samsung 40" HDTV doesnt support it, its got 4:3, "just scan" (which stretches/shrinks to fit) and zoom modes.

just because all the ones YOU have owned, in america have had it - doesnt mean shit for another country where i've owned more LCD's than you.


for proof my screen doesnt support this:
(sorry for shitty cam, it doesnt like taking images of LCD's)


video card scaling options are proven to be DISABLED/turned off.
aspect ratio in monitors OSD is on "auto" and not "wide" (stretch)
1680x1050 is barely readable, apply button is greyed out proving its selected
no black bars visible, stretched to fit





am i being a little harsh here? yeah. you just told me my hardware can do something it cant, and you're insinuating i'm a liar for saying otherwise. that does anger me.


----------



## Wile E (Dec 28, 2009)

Mussels said:


> i'm sorry, but you're wrong. i can name every widescreen LCD i've ever owned, and none have had that feature
> 
> Chimei 221D
> AOC 210V
> ...



226BW does have it. I know it for 100% fact, as it's the monitor my father has. Chimei and AOC I can't comment on, they are rather low-level brands over here, and I wouldn't even consider buying them over here.

And you may have owned more LCDs than me, but I seriously doubt you have as much experience with LCDs as me. I build quite a few computers, and have literally messed with 100's of LCDs. 

You aren't looking at the right settings, apparently, or you aussies get fuxored firmwares for no good reason.

And I never said 1:1 for all resolutions. I said almost all 1200p monitors do *1080p* 1:1.


----------



## Mussels (Dec 28, 2009)

i edited my post above to prove to you that it doesnt have it/doesnt work. photo evidence.

fair enough that you claim 1200p monitors can do 1080. i find that easier to beleive (especially over HDMI)


----------



## Wile E (Dec 28, 2009)

Mussels said:


> i edited my post above to prove to you that it doesnt have it/doesnt work. photo evidence.
> 
> fair enough that you claim 1200p monitors can do 1080. i find that easier to beleive (especially over HDMI)



I misread your post, I thought you your talking about the 26" Samsung 1200p monitor. That's what my dad has.

And the 1200p does 1080p 1:1 was my argument from the beginning. I never insinuated otherwise.


----------



## Mussels (Dec 28, 2009)

Wile E said:


> I misread your post, I thought you your talking about the 26" Samsung 1200p monitor. That's what my dad has.
> 
> And the 1200p does 1080p 1:1 was my argument from the beginning. I never insinuated otherwise.






> No, you are simply mistaken about the monitors and scaling, Mussels. Almost all do 1080p without scaling. The ones that don't are in a vast minority.



it was hardly specific, but i can see what you mean. i was mistaken in my interpretation.


my point still stands tho: game devs have ALWAYS been lazy with aspect ratios. even going as far back as company of heroes, 16:9 was natively supported and 16:10 wasnt (the 2D hud elements stretch - the mini map radar goes from a circle to an egg, for example)

*It is my choice if i would prefer no black bars, and less issues with the games i play.* I am not telling people 16:9 is superior for everyone, i'm saying its superior for what I do. What i'm getting pissy about is people in this thread telling me 16:10 IS superior for EVERYTHING, and ignoring me and other people when we say we cant stand black bars.

If you can, good for you - but we cant, so stop Fcking telling us what we do and dont like.


----------



## Wile E (Dec 28, 2009)

Mussels said:


> it was hardly specific, but i can see what you mean. i was mistaken in my interpretation.
> 
> 
> my point still stands tho: game devs have ALWAYS been lazy with aspect ratios. even going as far back as company of heroes, 16:9 was natively supported and 16:10 wasnt (the 2D hud elements stretch - the mini map radar goes from a circle to an egg, for example)
> ...


Yeah, but what confuses me about the black bars thing is, even 1080p has black bars with movies, so why would it bother you to have black bars doing a 1080p game on a 1200p monitor. The black bars caused by that would actually be smaller than the black bars in an HD movie on a 1080p monitor. If that explanation make sense. I honestly don't get it.

But I do get that it's your preference, for whatever reason. What gets me arguing, is when poeple state that black bars are bad as a point of fact. It's hardly a reason for 1200p to be inferior, but that's what some others try to claim as fact. (Or at least that's the way they come across.)


----------



## Mussels (Dec 28, 2009)

most movies i watch do not. none of my TV shows do.

half to 2/3 of the blu ray movies i watch have teh black bars - but at least on 16:9 i get them on LESS of what i watch.

As for those bluray movies... if i could buy a screen with that aspect ratio, i would.


----------



## TAViX (Dec 28, 2009)

Wile E said:


> And what you fail to acknowledge is that some games show more with 1200 vs 1080. They show the same fov as 1080p from side to side, but add more top to bottom on 1200p. A properly coded game increases fov with resolution, regardless of aspect ratio. If horizontal res increases, so does horizontal fov, if vertical res increases, so does vertical fov. 1920x1080 is supposed to display more than 1280x720, despite the same aspect ratio. More res has traditionally meant more rendered in the pc world, aspect ratio notwithstanding. Only recently have devs gotten lazy and started cropping the image instead of rendering more.
> 
> Eastcoast has already shown you examples of this, but you chose to ignore them.
> 
> Your preference is clear, but the "proof" of why your preference is better is flawed. Not all games render different resolutions the same, so 1080p is not always better than 1200p in horizontal fov, just like 1200p is not always better at rendering vertical fov.



What YOU fail to understand is that those games have BAD wide-screen implementation. That's why there are those 3rd party programs that correct that. That's why on my 1920x1200 monitor I have to(had to) use those programs in games like Bioshock or Far Cry 2!!! 

"Only recently have devs gotten lazy and started cropping the image instead of rendering more"   - Indid. They crop the image in games in the way, for example, you see half of your gun/hand, etc... That's why the good games like Dragon Age, NFS-Shift or even GTA instead of cropping the image, they RENDER EXTRA details for 16:9 monitor. I've uploaded screenshots for nothing it seems....:shadedshu


----------



## Wile E (Dec 28, 2009)

TAViX said:


> What YOU fail to understand is that those games have BAD wide-screen implementation. That's why there are those 3rd party programs that correct that. That's why on my 1920x1200 monitor I have to(had to) use those programs in games like Bioshock or Far Cry 2!!!
> 
> "Only recently have devs gotten lazy and started cropping the image instead of rendering more"   - Indid. They crop the image in games in the way, for example, you see half of your gun/hand, etc... That's why the good games like Dragon Age, NFS-Shift or even GTA instead of cropping the image, they RENDER EXTRA details for 16:9 monitor. I've uploaded screenshots for nothing it seems....:shadedshu



You have it backwards. Properly coded games render the same amount side to side on both 1920x1080 and 1920x1200, but they render more up and down on the 1920x1200 monitor. What they render depends strictly on the resolution, not the aspect ratio. 1920 pixels across should be rendered the same on every display, the up and down resolution should not matter. That's the way it always was, since the dawn of computer games. The consoles changed it to what you are talking about.

So you can bang your head all you want, but the examples you gave are not properly coded games.


----------



## morphy (Dec 28, 2009)

Wile is right in this case. This is almost like 1st year logic where the proof is given and even fine but the wrong conclusions were derived. 
Here's an easy exercise:
You have 2 different ratio sized cutouts. In each case, one can be trimmed, stretched/shrinked while the other is completely fixed.

Case 1:
Take a 16"x9" cutout and a 16"x10" cutout. The 16x10 is the fixed one and can't be changed. Lay the 16x9 over the 16x10 centered. You'll find the top and bottom on the 16x10 showing. You can still see the entirety of the 16x9 cutout without altering both. If you have to alter the 16x9 in order to show it on the fixed 16x10 you're doing it wrong because it's completely unnecessary. Unnecessary because the alterations done to the 16x9 cutout will involve trimming and/or stretching resulting in lost pieces and/or a warped cutout. This wrong way of doing it is the example in Tavix's ss.

Case 2:
Now do the opposite and lay the 16x10 over 16x9, the 16x9 being fixed. It covers it entirely. The only way to fit it is with cropping or stretching which either way results in lost pieces or warped result. There is no right way of fitting the entire 16x10 within a 16x9 space without trimming or warping the 16:10 aspect. This is illustrated by East's ss. Ideally you want the 16x10 cutout to maintain the same aspect but that is physically impossible here. There is no wrong way because there is no right way of doing it. 

Now I haven't brought up widescreenfixer for good reason. It can only fix something if it was broken in the first place and by broken I mean the cropping/zooming. In case 1 (with the fixed 16x10) it can certainly help because it merely undo what the dev's did. It doesn't change the fact that it was mucked up by the devs in the first place. But how can widescreenfixer help in case 2? To put it succinctly, nothing really. It may help in cases were there's over cropping or over warping but there'll still be lost detail or wrong aspect as a result.

On the issue of black bars I can understand Mussel's position in wanting as few black bars as possible. He at least realizes that no matter what you're going to have black bars. A 2:35:1 movie on a 1:78 screen will have very pronounced black bars, more-so with 2:35:1 on 1:6 screens but the point is it's still bad on both cases. Even if one gets one of those super wide TVs to watch blurays, there'll still be black bars on the side when watching 1:85 movies, sports or cable TV. Watching Entourage or Dexter with thick black bars on either side? no thanks. Or invest in a hi-end projection system.

My attitude towards black bars has always been such that  if I'm going to be bothered by black bars I certainly am going to be bothered enough to want to watch it on my 52" in a comfy chair and not on my desk on the piddly 24" monitor before I get bothered by some black bars.

But there are those who are vehemently opposed to black bars whatsoever. I even know people I've met that will zoom and stretch their TVs in order to eliminate the black bar monster. The fact that they're actually seeing less matters not to them as long as they can _feel_ like they are watching more. I feel somehow game makers are catering to this crowd. Economics are involved too. So they'll crop, zoom, anything to beat back those dreaded black bars. Even cable networks are doing it by taking an OAR (original aspect ratio) movie in 2:35:1 or 2:40:1 and showing it in non-OAR or people will complain about the black bars. "There's black bars on my brand new 52" widescreen tv..wtf!!". Unfortunate really.

edit: I wanted to edit my post to include a link to Newegg that explains about why widescreen is better than non widecreen!!!! That should sway the masses!!  But I can't seem to find it anymore.


----------



## TAViX (Dec 28, 2009)

morphy said:


> Wile is right in this case. This is almost like 1st year logic where the proof is given and even fine but the wrong conclusions were derived.
> Here's an easy exercise:
> You have 2 different ratio sized cutouts. In each case, one can be trimmed, stretched/shrinked while the other is completely fixed.
> 
> ...



I completely fail to understand how my examples(the Dragon Age or NFS screens) are wrong!!! How come is it wrong to have more details on a 16:9 screen that on a 16:10???!! Forgive me, but you guys are ridiculous naive or something!!! What is so hard to understand that the wider the monitor, the more details you have in the games??????????? What happens when you play a game on a 2 monitor setup or 3 monitor setup???? Don't you gain extra details on left/right side of the screen??????  The video card renders the image just like you have an ultra-wide screen monitor!!!!!!!!! Sure, the resolution can be 5970x1080 or 1920x400 *IT WONT MATTER*!!!!!! The only difference between those 2 resolution is that the later gives a more pixelated image!!!! That's it!! With the 1920x400 I have 3 times the details of a monitor displaying 1920x1200!!! 







People, start using your brains, this topic is becoming ridiculous!


----------



## Mussels (Dec 28, 2009)

alright, we've breached the limit of sane use of ! and ? in a single post.

lettuce all calm down now. both sides think the other are morons for not seeing the light, lets leave it at that.


----------



## pr0n Inspector (Dec 28, 2009)

Hilarious.

"You're wrong!"
"NO U!11!"


----------



## EastCoasthandle (Dec 28, 2009)

Wile E said:


> You have it backwards. Properly coded games render the same amount side to side on both 1920x1080 and 1920x1200, but they render more up and down on the 1920x1200 monitor. What they render depends strictly on the resolution, not the aspect ratio. 1920 pixels across should be rendered the same on every display, the up and down resolution should not matter. That's the way it always was, since the dawn of computer games. The consoles changed it to what you are talking about.
> 
> So you can bang your head all you want, but the examples you gave are not properly coded games.








Here is a visual aid of what Wile E is saying.


----------



## morphy (Dec 28, 2009)

wow now we're venturing into the realm of circular logic. This is wonderful. How is 3x1920x1080 relevant to your argument when it can be debunked using the same premise ie 3x1920x1200? Therefore your example of 3x1920x1080 is totally irrelevant. 

Sure if you increase the width, you get more details on the side but that's not what this whole issue is about and everyone from wile, east,gt has been trying to say from the beginning for 4+ pages and yet you're debating on something completely different and missing the point completely. But this is the real gem here :



TAViX said:


> With the 1920x400 I have 3 times the details
> 
> of a monitor displaying 1920x1200!!!



I feel myself losing brain cells already just reading that. Has elementary math degraded that bad in schools?


----------



## LAN_deRf_HA (Dec 28, 2009)

Wile E said:


> No, a 1200p monitor does not decrease the size of a 1080p image AT ALL. It is 100% identically rendered on either a 1080p or 1200p monitor. This is what I can't seem to make people understand. The only thing a 1080p screen might have as a benefit, is less black bars, but guess what, even 1080p displays black bars in most movies, as movies aren't generally encoded in 16:9 to begin with. Not to mention, those black bars do absolutely nothing to hurt image quality. It's completely superficial.



I spend more time watching 16:9 youtube videos than I do these newer 21:9 movies. So with two similar sized 16:9 and 16:10 screens I often get a larger image out of my 16:9. Again, many many modern games poorly handle 16:10. My real world media enjoyment currently favors 16:9, in a perfect world it would favor 16:10 but it doesn't.

Also worth noting I use it for my 360 as well, all those games are obviously 16:9 so that experience is entirely free of bar related shrinkage. I'd imagine a number of people console game with their monitors.


----------



## EnergyFX (Dec 28, 2009)

This is a long post and is mainly directed towards Mussels (initially) and TAViX (the rest).

Mussels, 
Although I don't agree, I do understand that for what you are looking for in a monitor then a 1080 is a better choice in your opinion.  It is difficult for me (and apparently a lot of others here) to understand since black bars do not bother me that much.  But if black bars are something you absolutely abhor then it makes sense to buy a 1080 to avoid them as much as possible.  Some things are more important to certain people than others, and if black bars are your nemesis then I can respect that and I think others should as well.  I mean… I once chose one brand truck over another only because the buttons on the steering wheel weren’t illuminated on the one I didn’t buy.  Sometimes little things matter.  Choosing 1080 over 1200 only because of bigger black bars seems trivial considering the loss of viewing space in other applications… but it is your prerogative and it is a choice you seem to have made completely understanding what you would be gaining/losing compared to a 1200.  I think you kind of got wrapped up in a lot of the back-and-forth “debating” with TAViX… which has only gone from frustrating to maddening.  I have a lot of respect for how patient and composed you have remained through most of this thread.  Cheers to you.  

TAViX,
You started off on very negative ground way back in the beginning with your comment of “the joke is actually on you”.  Since that comment you have argued by means of yelling with punctuation, comments focused specifically on challenging people’s intelligence, and an all around abrasive tone.  I’m not saying others haven’t also taken an abrasive tone at times, but none to the degree that you have.  It should be of no real surprise that you are having a hard time getting anyone to really listen to you.  I think a big difference here is that you are coming off as argumentative whereas the rest of us are trying to keep it as a debate.  Now, that said… I do have to admit that you gained a lot of ground in your post with the Dragon Age screenshots.  Yes I noticed and comprehended exactly what you were showing with those screenshots… and I was surprised by what I saw.  

Now… all things considered (hey TAViX, you can interpret this as me “using my brain”)… I have actually learned quite a bit in this entire thread.  Until this thread I was unaware of the bad practices of game coders.  Until this thread I was unaware that my 1200 monitor was actually losing viewable space in certain games when the resolution is set to 1920x1200, and as such… I was unaware of third party programs that can fix the viewable space of certain games at 1920x1200.  Unfortunately there is not a fix for every game, only a select few.  HOWEVER, (TAViX, this is the part where you need heed your own advice and use YOUR brain) there are games that do not have this problem and display 1200 resolution without cropping the image.  If a game is properly coded to truly display the image at 1920x1200 then what advantage does a 1080 monitor have?   The way I see it, it is better to have a monitor that can take advantage of proper coding in some games and use a work-around for bad coding in other games (whether that work-around be using a third party program OR setting the game resolution to 1080 and having black bars at top and bottom).  To me it is better to have a 1920x1200 monitor with more available viewing space when it can be utilized as opposed to a 1920x1080 monitor that is incapable of ever displaying the additional 10% of viewable space a 1920x1200 can.  To me it is better to have a 1920x1200 monitor for a computer because an additional 120 pixels from top to bottom is very useful for most of the other things you can do on a computer.  120 pixels means I can see a few more lines of text in a document, webpage, spreadsheet, etc. without having to scroll as much. 

TAViX, you have been driving me nuts with is this misconception that a 1920x1080 monitor is somehow wider than a 1920x1200.  I am completely cool with people having their preference one way or another for whatever reasons… but to have what appears to be a flawed concept of actual screen resolution and then try to argue while throwing this flawed concept out as some sort of proof is just maddening.  

Do you or do you not agree that a 1920x1200 resolution monitor offers 10% more viewable screen space than a 1920x1080 resolution monitor of EQUAL WIDTH?  I say “equal width” because the diagonal dimension is dynamic between the two ratios.  My point here is that width needs to remain equal in this debate because both screens are offering 1920 pixels of horizontal resolution.  If width is kept equal then the 1080 is 10% shorter that the 1200… which translates to a 10% reduction of viewable area. 

Some of the arguments that have been attempted here are that you get to upsize the 1080 a couple of inches to fairly compete with a 1200… but this is a flawed concept because you have increased the viewable width without adding horizontal resolution.  Making pixels bigger does not equate to higher resolution and therefore does not equal more usable screen area.  This is why some have tried to bring PPI into the argument, because it is a way of forcing common ground between the two resolutions.  I guess another way of putting it is to try sizing up the two resolutions while keeping pixel size equal.  PPI is where pixel size comes into the debate.

You clamored earlier about us only caring about resolution and pixels.  Well yes, you are right because as you increase screen size without increasing resolution you lose sharpness and clarity.  Hook your computer up to a 52” HDTV and try sitting as close to it as you do your 24” monitor.  The pixels are huge and the picture looks horrible up close.  That is an extreme example, but the exact same thing is happening when you try to pit a ~24” 1080 against a ~22” 1200.  The 1080 has bigger pixels (or lower PPI) and does not offer the same level of clarity and definition as the smaller 1200.


----------



## TAViX (Dec 29, 2009)

Neh, this is the last time I bother. You people don't have even the basic knowledge of what's the difference between monitor size, resolution, image quality and aspect ratio. You are keep failing to understand that the resolution, number of pixels, etc are *irrelevant*. The only difference in games, for example, between 1920x1400 and 640x480 is the later gives a more pixelated or blurry image (depending on the monitor type), but I still have the same details.
I can also watch a blu-ray movie, another example, on my old monitor at 1280x1024 resolution without any problems. Only difference is the quality of the image.
Guess what? I have home an old lcd tv (16:9) with the resolution of 1280x720, and I have more details in games than on my monitor running them at 1920x1200. It's only logical because the TV has extra horizontal space. Resolution only matters for image sharpening not for amount of details in a game, this is what all of you fail so badly to understand.

Regarding the 2D space, like Windows desktop for example, it's still irrelevant, because if I have 3 monitors with 4:3, 16:10 and 16:9 aspect ratio, but THE SAME VERTICAL SIZE, I will always prefer the wider one because of extra horizontal space.

@Murphy

Loosing brain cells, hm? Well loose some more:

*1920x1200:*






*1920x400:*


----------



## pr0n Inspector (Dec 29, 2009)

And now he's confusing FOV with "image details".

Google this: Fisheye Quake

For those who are intelligent enough, by increasing FOV, you can have ridiculously more "image details" than his 1920x400 screenshot.


----------



## Wile E (Dec 30, 2009)

LAN_deRf_HA said:


> I spend more time watching 16:9 youtube videos than I do these newer 21:9 movies. So with two similar sized 16:9 and 16:10 screens I often get a larger image out of my 16:9. Again, many many modern games poorly handle 16:10. My real world media enjoyment currently favors 16:9, in a perfect world it would favor 16:10 but it doesn't.
> 
> Also worth noting I use it for my 360 as well, all those games are obviously 16:9 so that experience is entirely free of bar related shrinkage. I'd imagine a number of people console game with their monitors.


Yeah, but 1920x1200 16:10 monitors can do 1920x1080 16:9 if you set the resolution to 1920x1080. So now you have a monitor that can do both. The only way this is a bad thing is if you are like mussels, and absolutely despise black bars for some reason.


----------



## Mussels (Dec 30, 2009)

Wile E said:


> Yeah, but 1920x1200 16:10 monitors can do 1920x1080 16:9 if you set the resolution to 1920x1080. So now you have a monitor that can do both. The only way this is a bad thing is if you are like mussels, and absolutely despise black bars for some reason.



a perfect summary!


----------



## crazyeyesreaper (Dec 30, 2009)

indeed perfect


----------



## TAViX (Dec 30, 2009)

pr0n Inspector said:


> And now he's confusing FOV with "image details".
> 
> Google this: Fisheye Quake
> 
> For those who are intelligent enough, by increasing FOV, you can have ridiculously more "image details" than his 1920x400 screenshot.



I think you've watched to much pr0n buddy! That's a screenshot from a 3 monitor setup, but who cares right? Let's just flame some guy because he has different opinion than ours...


----------



## pr0n Inspector (Dec 30, 2009)

TAViX said:


> I think you've watched to much pr0n buddy! That's a screenshot from a 3 monitor setup, but who cares right? Let's just flame some guy because he has different opinion than ours...



I see you don't understand this issue at all.

What happens is simply this: keep thee vertical FOV at 73.74°(the old "standard" 90° of horizontal FOV at 4:3 resolution gives this), then increases the horizontal FOV to match the aspect ratio. The reverse can be done. Intermediate compromises can also be make separately for different ARs. There is no "proper" way of doing this.

For example, when I stack 2 16:10 monitors vertically, if the vertical FOV is kept at 73.71°, the horizontal FOV would be an inhuman 61.56°.
Another one, 16:9 at 73.74 vFOV gives a hFOV of 106.26°. At 4:3 resolutions, increases the hFOV to the same 106.26° would yield a vFOV of 79.695°.

boring math formulas here


----------

