# 1920x1200 vs 1920x1080: The differences for everyday use



## EastCoasthandle (Aug 18, 2011)

I found this in another forum but if anyone ever wondered what the differences are between 16:10 vs 16:9 the pics above gives a pretty good idea.

Note: The thick boarder around the 16:9 pics are from the bezel of the monitor.


----------



## Crap Daddy (Aug 18, 2011)

That's one of the reasons I still use a 22" 1680x1050 monitor.


----------



## claylomax (Aug 18, 2011)

Well do the maths ... 1900 x 1080 = 2052000; 1900 x 1200 = 2280000. More real estate.


----------



## Jstn7477 (Aug 18, 2011)

*yawns* The 16:10 monitor has a hidden taskbar, so the test is flawed.

I never really understood why people get so fussy over aspect ratios, but to each his own, I guess. If you need a larger workspace, get a higher resolution monitor if you're so concerned with the 10% vertical difference. We all moved away from 4:3, so how is this much different? I don't really see the need to be so resistant to change when we no longer have CRT monitors and such, but I guess the 10% is still an issue for some people.


----------



## EastCoasthandle (Aug 18, 2011)

claylomax said:


> Well do the maths ... 1900 x 1080 = 2052000; 1900 x 1200 = 2280000. More real estate.



Yeah, I think we all know the math but it still an eye opener when you actually see it in action.  I've not seen this kind of example in some time though.


----------



## claylomax (Aug 18, 2011)

I thought that the 1080 resolution was for TV's not for monitors; and many hardware websites are using 1080 in their graphics cards reviews now. Thanks Eastcoasthandle, I'm even happier with my monitor now.


----------



## Maban (Aug 18, 2011)

I for one will not buy a 16:9 monitor unless I were to do a three-wide portrait setup.


----------



## EastCoasthandle (Aug 18, 2011)

claylomax said:


> I thought that the 1080 resolution was for TV's not for monitors; and many hardware websites are using 1080 in their graphics cards reviews now. Thanks Eastcoasthandle, I'm even happier with my monitor now.



No problem.  Yeah, 1080 monitors have been out for a while now.  But it's been a while that a visual representation was made regarding what everyone was saying about them.  And it allows you to visually see what you are getting when you decide which of the two you prefer when web browsing, etc.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Aug 19, 2011)

Jstn7477 said:


> *yawns* The 16:10 monitor has a hidden taskbar, so the test is flawed.
> 
> I never really understood why people get so fussy over aspect ratios, but to each his own, I guess. If you need a larger workspace, get a higher resolution monitor if you're so concerned with the 10% vertical difference. We all moved away from 4:3, so how is this much different? I don't really see the need to be so resistant to change when we no longer have CRT monitors and such, but I guess the 10% is still an issue for some people.


8:5 is from the same group that brought you 4:3 (VESA).  Most 8:5 resolutions are widescreen versions of 4:3 (e.g. 1920x1200 is the widescreen version of 1600x1200).

Ehm, it's really simple:
8:5 = computer display (VESA) resolution
16:9 = "HDTV" (PAL, SECAM, ATSC) resolution


----------



## Altered (Aug 19, 2011)

Either I am missing something or someone doesn't know where the "Scaling Option" is in CCC. I have a 25" and it looks just like the 1920x1080P photos (the boarder) until I adjust the scaling.


----------



## Makaveli (Aug 19, 2011)

While I totally agree with this thread I won't use a 16:9 monitor unless you pay me. Those pictures are abit misleading and gives a bigger advantage to the 16:10 monitor which is already superior to begin with. 

1. Auto hiding task bar on the latter
2. The document photo looks like its one zoom level closer or farther however you look at it.

You are basically losing an inch of vertical space on the "HD TV wanna be computer monitor" 

16:10 FTW!


----------



## LordJummy (Aug 19, 2011)

Altered said:


> Either I am missing something or someone doesn't know where the "Scaling Option" is in CCC. I have a 25" and it looks just like the 1920x1080P photos (the boarder) until I adjust the scaling.



That's the monitor bezel bro.


----------



## EastCoasthandle (Aug 19, 2011)

Makaveli said:


> While I totally agree with this thread I won't use a 16:9 monitor unless you pay me. Those pictures are abit misleading and gives a bigger advantage to the 16:10 monitor which is already superior to begin with.
> 
> 1. Auto hiding task bar on the latter
> 2. The document photo looks like its one zoom level closer or farther however you look at it.
> ...



I think you need to consider the actual diameter of the monitors themselves.  Look at the top of the monitor on the left (black bezel).  Now look at the one on the right.  It becomes pretty obvious once you see it.  The real estate is really there.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Aug 19, 2011)

25% scaled shown.  Click for actual size.


----------



## Easy Rhino (Aug 19, 2011)

so what?


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Aug 19, 2011)

That's the difference.  The gray part is 1920x1080 and the gray + blue is 1920x1200.  It's not a huge difference, but it isn't small either.


----------



## Easy Rhino (Aug 19, 2011)

sorry, the 'so what' wasn't directed at you. it was directed in general. so what if their are two different resolutions? i dont get the point of this thread.


----------



## EastCoasthandle (Aug 19, 2011)

Easy Rhino said:


> sorry, the 'so what' wasn't directed at you. it was directed in general. so what if their are two different resolutions? i dont get the point of this thread.


From the OP:


> I found this in another forum but if anyone ever wondered what the differences are between 16:10 vs 16:9 the pics above gives a pretty good idea.


That basically sums it up.  As a result a discussion was formed.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Aug 19, 2011)

The biggest advantages of 1920x1200 are seen when displaying 1920x1080 content.  For example, in Windows Media Center, the menus don't cover up the content being displayed.  They mostly appear in the black fillers at the bottom and top of the screen.  Example (WMC showing live ATSC HDTV--ABC's Wipeout--at 720p stretched to 1080):



25% scaled shown. Click for full size.

1920x1200 has room for menus which computers have in abundance.


----------



## Altered (Aug 19, 2011)

I realize the different resolutions but the pics used for comparison are really imo deceptive.


----------



## Makaveli (Aug 19, 2011)

EastCoasthandle said:


> I think you need to consider the actual diameter of the monitors themselves.  Look at the top of the monitor on the left (black bezel).  Now look at the one on the right.  It becomes pretty obvious once you see it.  The real estate is really there.



I'm well aware of the size differences as my work monitor is a 24' 16:9 and my home screen is 24' 16:10 the latter monitor is physically taller, I switch between these on a daily basis! 

I still however believe that comparison is not even with identical settings.


----------



## Jstn7477 (Aug 19, 2011)

What do we always seem to complain about games being these days: console ports. What aspect ratio does a current generation console typically use: 16:9, because of 720p/1080p televisions. Thus, many games (at least the console ports) are likely developed to best suit an aspect ratio of 16:9. Even though WMC's menu system *partially* takes advantage of the extra space, you still have to live with the black bars on 16:10 screens displaying 16:9 content, and I'm sure you'll be watching the content (with black bars) longer than you will be fiddling with the menu system that you use to justify the usefulness of 16:10.

All the iMacs are 16:9 (2560*1440) and the typical userbase typically includes graphic artists (since they all have IPS displays). Since half of the OP's screenshots deal with media editing, I just thought I'd throw that in there. Haven't seen an iMac user complain about their aspect ratio. 

IMO, I'd rather have a 10% higher framerate in my games than draw an extra 1920*120 strip on my screen, which probably isn't too noticeable or worth caring about in a game. If you are unwilling to buy a newer 1080p IPS panel, for instance, just because it doesn't have the same aspect ratio as your couple year old 1200p TN panel, it seems like a reluctance to change.

*NOTE: This is just my 2 cents, and I don't want anyone to get pissed off about it.*


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Aug 19, 2011)

Older games support 8:5 better than 16:9 (1600x1200 with boxing, if necessary).  On newer games, if they support 16:9, they also support 8:5.  8:5 is always more likely to be available than 16:9 and when it isn't available, there is always a suitable alternative (1280x960, 1024x768, 800x600, and 640x480 work just as well too).  8:5 specs extend 4:3.  16:9 is completely nonsensical.

I never notice the black bars unless I look for them.  Doesn't matter if I'm watching a widescreen movie or playing a 4:3 game (like Freelancer).

1920x1200 is also the maximum supported by DVI-D single link.


----------



## Mussels (Aug 19, 2011)

pity its all 2D windowed stuff, would be nice if the comparison wasnt so biased and included fullscreen movies and games.


it's all been said a million times in other threads, but my problems with 16:10 are as follows:

1. black bars on movies. i can live with them, but i'd rather not. this is personal choice and not a flaw of either screen size.

2. lots of games fuck up the 16:10 aspect ratio in subtle ways. company of heroes for example, the 2D hud stretches so the circular mini map is now an egg shape. GTA IV and many console ports actually 'zoom in' your view showing LESS of the game world, instead of giving you more vertical like it should.

3. 1080p is a standard everything supports. 1200p isnt. i've got mobile phones, games consoles, set top media players, the whole kit and caboodle - and its damn convenient when i can use those on a PC monitor as well as a TV, without having to worry about black borders (rare on anything but the best screens, they always stretch) or as i just said - stretching. i can instantly notice a fucked up aspect ratio when it stretches especially on text, so imo its a serious flaw compatibility wise.


----------



## Lordi (Aug 19, 2011)

16:9 is far better than 16:10.

With 16:9 you get more field of view in games, no stretched stuff and no ugly black bars. 16:10 means problems.

Games, TV and basically everything is 16:9 so it is foolish to use 16:10.

16:10 belongs to the past. 16:9 is present and future. No one will miss 16:10 in 5 years.


----------



## twicksisted (Aug 19, 2011)

Lordi said:


> 16:9 is far better than 16:10.
> 
> With 16:9 you get more field of view in games, no stretched stuff and no ugly black bars. 16:10 means problems.
> 
> ...



Lol what? I've never had any issues with my Samsung 245B 24" 16:10 monitor when playing HD video or games at 1920X1200, not sure what youre on about, infact i have more vertical view in 16:10 1920x1200.

1080p HD televisions are 16:9 aspect ratio but most movies are filmed in 2.35:1 ratio meaning that you will still likely get black bars at the top and bottom of the screen.


----------



## Lordi (Aug 19, 2011)

twicksisted said:


> Lol what? I've never had any issues with my Samsung 245B 24" 16:10 monitor when playing HD video or games at 1920X1200, not sure what youre on about.




Well, if you havent noticed the letterbox you are just not aware of that you get smaller field of view with your 16:10 245BW. Not something you have to notice but it is a great disadvantage which you would notice if you would have a 16:9 display next to the 16:10.

In 2011 all games are made for 16:9 and works best in that aspect ratio.







http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_of_view_in_video_games


Please get the facts next time before speaking.




twicksisted said:


> 1080p HD televisions are 16:9 aspect ratio but most movies are filmed in 2.35:1 ratio meaning that you will still likely get black bars at the top and bottom of the screen.


Even 2.35:1 movies are more suitable for a 16:9 screen than a 16:10. 16:10 means bigger black bars in that example.


----------



## ivicagmc (Aug 19, 2011)

Lordi said:


> 16:10 belongs to the past. 16:9 is present and future. No one will miss 16:10 in 5 years.



I agree. It has became hard to find 16:10 monitors (especial 1650x1050). That standard is dying and very soon it will became exotic for those who really love 16:10...


----------



## twicksisted (Aug 19, 2011)

Lordi said:


> Well, if you havent noticed the letterbox you are just not aware of that you get smaller field of view with your 16:10 245BW. Not something you have to notice but it is a great disadvantage which you would notice if you would have a 16:9 display next to the 16:10.
> 
> http://img7.abload.de/img/sc2_fov36k6.gif
> 
> ...



I dont know what youre on about...if you change a games graphics setting to 1920X1200 @ 16:10... the game will take up the whole screen, no black bars or stretching, dont believe me, try it. Also I did not mention anything about FOV I said that I have more vertical space on the screen as my vertical resolution is greater.



> Games, TV and basically everything is 16:9 so it is foolish to use 16:10.



You wrong again  TV is 4:3 or 16:9 and as i mentioned earlier movies are 2.35:1, 2.40:1 usually, good luck finding a 16:9 one in HD.

Looks like you have your facts wrong 



Lordi said:


> Please get the facts next time before speaking.



Its your 2nd post here, dont be a douche'


----------



## Lordi (Aug 19, 2011)

16:9 or 16:10 has nothing to do with resolution size. 

16:9 means bigger Field of view in games. You see more which is really improtant in gaming. Games are made for 16:9.

To buy a 16:10 for gaming is like buying a 4:3 TV for movies.


----------



## Lordi (Aug 19, 2011)

ivicagmc said:


> I agree. It has became hard to find 16:10 monitors (especial 1650x1050). That standard is dying and very soon it will became exotic for those who really love 16:10...



Yes, you can like it or not but 16:10 will not come back.

In the future 1.85:1 or possibly 21:9 might start to compete with 16:9.

but 16:10? No, it belongs to the history just as you say.


----------



## Red_Machine (Aug 19, 2011)

twicksisted said:


> I dont know what youre on about...if you change a games graphics setting to 1920X1200 @ 16:10... the game will take up the whole screen, no black bars or stretching, dont believe me, try it.



That's not really what you see, just like you don't see black bars when gaming @ 1024x768 on a 4:3 monitor.  The black bars are just for comparitive purpouses.


----------



## twicksisted (Aug 19, 2011)

Why are all the most expensive monitors 16:10 1920x1200/2560x1440 panels then? Because they use them for design etc...PC gaming is a relatively small market as proven by the decline in PC only titles & the rise of consoles.


----------



## Lordi (Aug 19, 2011)

twicksisted said:


> Why are all the most expensive monitors 16:10 1920x1200/2560x1440 panels then?



2560x1440 is 16:9!

I would say that of the monitors sold in laptops and displays 90 percent are 16:9 in 2011.

16:10 is allready a nichemarket. Most newer professional monitors are 16:9 as well. Not just the consumer products.


----------



## twicksisted (Aug 19, 2011)

typo... was meant to be 2560x1600 (16:10)
Anyways you seem to only be interested in gaming and FOV... PC gaming does not dictate the whole market trend as people need large format monitors for many other uses which is why a said format will not just die.

Im pretty sure new formats will be released in future as we are already capable of recording HD video in much higher res than 1080p


----------



## Lordi (Aug 19, 2011)

twicksisted said:


> Why are all the most expensive monitors 16:10 1920x1200/2560x1440 panels then? Because they use them for design etc



As I said. 16:9 holds around 90 percent of the market for computer displays and laptops. 

What people use for desing doesnt drive the the development. They buy what is offered. The kind of people you talk about usually prefer 4:3 over 16:10.




twicksisted said:


> Im pretty sure new formats will be released in future as we are already capable of recording HD video in much higher res than 1080p



Yes, obviously but it wont be 16:10.

The industry seems to want to go over to 4096x2160 (1.85:1)


btw. Actually 2560x1440 is more common than 2560x1600 in newer monitors.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Aug 19, 2011)

Lordi said:


> In 2011 all games are made for 16:9 and works best in that aspect ratio.


Not.  All Games for Windows Live games are required to support 4:3, 16:9, and 8:5.  All games I played this year supported 8:5 fine with the exception of a few indie games that were 4:3 but still work perfectly fine on a 8:5 monitor.

There might be a few games that are buggy at 16:9 and a few that are buggy at 16:10.  Ultimately, it depends on what resolution the developers used when making the games and therefore, gets the most heavily tested.



Lordi said:


> 16:9 means bigger Field of view in games. You see more which is really improtant in gaming. Games are made for 16:9.


Horizontally, not vertically.  Vertically = easier to hit something far away because everything is bigger (a zoomed effect).  16:9 is better for close quarters combat and 8:5 is better for medium-long distance combat.  Most games are medium/long distance so...the advantage goes to 8:5.



twicksisted said:


> Why are all the most expensive monitors 16:10 1920x1200/2560x1440 panels then?


1920x1200 = maximum resolution of DVI-D single-link (at 60 Hz)
2560x1600 = maximum resolution of DVI-D double-link (at 60 Hz)



Lordi said:


> As I said. 16:9 holds around 90 percent of the market for computer displays and laptops.


Far from it.  According to Steam's hardware survey, top 5:
1920 x 1080 (16:9) = 21.78%
1680 x 1050 (8:5) = 18.01%
1280 x 1024 (5:4) = 11.80%
1440 x 900 (8:5) = 9.20%
1920 x 1200 (8:5) = 7.80%

The only reason why 1920x1080 is more common than 1920x1200 is because it is substantially cheaper (TV OEMs putting the same cheap 1920x1080 LCD-TN panels in TVs and monitors).


----------



## repman244 (Aug 19, 2011)

Lordi said:


> What people use for desing doesnt drive the the development. They buy what is offered. The kind of people you talk about usually prefer 4:3 over 16:10.



They prefer 4:3?! Sorry but no. I do quite a lot stuff in Solidworks and even a thought of using 4:3 monitor makes me sick.
What people use for design is usually only high-end which actually does drive the development but only in the high-end tier.
And I've been to many companies which do a lot of 3D design and not once did I see a 16:9 panel or a shitty TN panel (I'm talking about more serious companies here)


My personal preference is 16:10 because to me it's more natural if I can describe it like that.


----------



## Lordi (Aug 19, 2011)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Far from it.  According to Steam's hardware survey, top 5:
> 1920 x 1080 (16:9) = 21.78%
> 1680 x 1050 (8:5) = 18.01%
> 1280 x 1024 (5:4) = 11.80%
> ...



What people use is not the same as the market.

Most people have a monitor that isnt brand new.

Before 2008 16:9 was nearly nonexistent.

16:9 holds 90 percent of the market in 2011!


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Aug 19, 2011)

Reputable sources or it didn't happen.


----------



## Lordi (Aug 19, 2011)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Reputable sources or it didn't happen.



I have no need to source obvious facts. 

If you believe that 16:9 has not the absolute majority of the market in 2011 then thats your problem. It just show that you dont know what you are talking about.


----------



## repman244 (Aug 19, 2011)

Facts are based on research and numbers not personal assumptions.

Probably 16:9 is the majority but you just can't say it's 90% out of the blue.

And was the last sentence really necessary?


----------



## Lordi (Aug 19, 2011)

repman244 said:


> Facts are based on research and numbers not personal assumptions.
> 
> Probably 16:9 is the majority but you just can't say it's 90% out of the blue.



85 or 95 doesnt matter. Which way the market is heading is pretty obvious for anyone intrested in laptops and computer displays.


----------



## repman244 (Aug 19, 2011)

Hmm I went for a short hunt for forum poll's about what people prefer:

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2159137
http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1508064
http://www.winmatrix.com/forums/index.php?/topic/24045-poll-169-vs-1610/
http://forums.electronicarts.co.uk/pc-build-upgrade-forum/1415307-16-9-vs-16-10-gaming.html
http://www.rage3d.com/board/showthread.php?t=33965450
http://forums.extremeoverclocking.com/showthread.php?t=345778
http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=152594
etc.

I think the industry WANTS us to use 16:9 but people seem to prefer 16:10 (not all of course).


----------



## Benetanegia (Aug 19, 2011)

Lordi said:


> Well, if you havent noticed the letterbox you are just not aware of that you get smaller field of view with your 16:10 245BW. Not something you have to notice but it is a great disadvantage which you would notice if you would have a 16:9 display next to the 16:10.
> 
> In 2011 all games are made for 16:9 and works best in that aspect ratio.
> 
> ...



That image is missleading. It's not comparing real resolutions on real screens. The way it's doing it, it's comparing 1920x1080 to 1728x1080 to 1440x1080, so real state and the screen size is amaller every time, so of course you are seing less. But that's a false proposition because the thread is about 1080p vs 1200p. Comparing similarly sized screens, with 1200p you get more pixels no matter how you look at it and *you see more* (and in 4/3 you'd actually see more even, 1:1 more again). If you are seing less, *zoom out* until the object is the same size and you'll see more, far more. In FPS change POV and you'll see more (same horizontally, more vertically).

EDIT: Also the HUD would be a lot smaller in 1200p.



Lordi said:


> Which way the market is heading is pretty obvious¡...



I had to reply to this statement too because I find it hilarious. I mean, yeah and the market of PC games is heading towards crappy console ports, or idiotically dumbed down games. Is that what PC gamers want or what is better too?

People are buying more 1080p now for a very simple reason, display manufacturers are releasing more 1080p displays, not because all consumers think 16:9 is better.

And manufacturers are not doing 16:9 because they think it's better either, they do it because a) it's cheaper b) out of convenience because TVs are 16:9, which again affects a).


----------



## Lordi (Aug 19, 2011)

@repman 
People usually prefer what they use. It is pretty intresting that the percentage that use 16:9 and 16:10 is pretty even with the popularity. Thats also why if you look at those polls you see that 16:9 gradually increase in popularity. I am sure that if you ask that question 3 years from now the absolute majority will prefer 16:9.

Also it must be considered that those kind of polls draws people to them that actually care. Most people dont care about 16:9 and 16:10. Most people wouldnt even be able to say whether a monitor is 16:9 or 16:10.

It also must be said that most people dont know what they are voting for. People dont understand what aspect ratio means.


----------



## Tatty_One (Aug 19, 2011)

To be honest, the way i see it is there is little difference subject to personal feelings about movies/black bars etc etc, in gaming terms @ 1080p/16:9 you may have a slightly bigger FoV however in turn you are sacrificing resolution, therefore detail and clairity, it's easy to carefully select your wording to counter an argument for or against but to only say that 1080 gives an increased FoV is being just a little too subjective IMO simply because if that was the be all and end all, why are we not just forcing 1920 x 600 to get an even bigger field, simply because everything in that field would look like sh*t.

Having said all that, 1080/16:9 seems to be the standard now and for good reason, it has a good balance between FoV and quality and is more movie friendly and therefore is more things to more people.... and of course more is good right?  well it is until quality is sacrificed.....


----------



## scooper22 (Aug 19, 2011)

I'll never trade my 120*1920 extra pixels for anything.
What you see on an 16:9 is the same as on 16:10 but you gain *additional* vertical pixels.
The horizontal resolution is the same, so you see the same width. Saying "with 16:9 you see more to the sides" is simply *wrong* as 16:10 has the same numer of horizontal pixels (plus an 25% more vertical for taskbar, hud or chance to see tripwires and less need to look up and down in games)


----------



## Fourstaff (Aug 19, 2011)

This 16:9 and 16:10 topic has been discussed to death, and I think its time to lock this thread up.

Fact: 16:9 1080p is good for marketing (omg 1080p good screen <-- your average noob which makes up of 90+% of the market)
Fact: 16:9 1080p is cheaper to manufacture (save 120p? ok, deal!) and therefore costs less to the end user. 
Fact: You average user is an el-cheapo so between a 1080p screen and a screen which is more expensive but comes with extra 120p people tend to choose 1080p (why would I need more?)

Result: 16:9 will be the standard, and 1200p will die out, or at least go into the niche pro market. Regardless of whether you like it or not.


----------



## Lordi (Aug 19, 2011)

People clearly dont understand what 16:9 and 16:10 means.

16:10 does not mean higher resolution.
16:9 does not mean higher resolution.

16:10 is a higher aspect ratio than 16:9
16:9 is wider aspect ratio than 16:10

Thats all!


----------



## Lordi (Aug 19, 2011)

@scooper Field of View has nothing to do with resolution. Thats why you get a bigger field of view in a video game with a 1366x768 display than a 2560x1600.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_of_view_in_video_games


----------



## MilkyWay (Aug 19, 2011)

When i play movies i use a hdmi to the tv but in VLC media player i set it to 16:9 when im using the tv and 16:10 when im using the monitor. I have no problems with it stretching it out too much or looking zoomed in.

I like 16:10 more when its done right, usually though we have to wait for a patch or something, like The Witcher 2 now has 16:10 but really after the whole shit with Bioshock screwing up 16:10 its annoying to need a patch in the first place.


----------



## qubit (Aug 19, 2011)

Well, I can't even see the screenshots, because I'm currently at work and they're blocked. 

However, I'm not surprised that people prefer 16:10 displays. They are in something called the Golden Ratio, which is found all over nature and is the most comfortable for viewing. Unfortunately, 16:10 displays are dying out, because you can get more 16:9 panels out of the manufacturing process for the same amount of material.

Whatever committee decided on the 16:9 format for TV should be shot.  The super-wide film formats this tried to accommodate are ridiculous and should never have come about. 16:10 is optimum.


----------



## Benetanegia (Aug 19, 2011)

Lordi said:


> People clearly dont understand what 16:9 and 16:10 means.
> 
> 16:10 does not mean higher resolution.
> 16:9 does not mean higher resolution.
> ...



People understand it just fine. 16:10 does mean more pixels when talking about 1920x1200 vs 1920x1080. Most games that I know are locked at a certain horizontal FOV (90º for wide screen) so you get the same horizontal FOV and a higher vertical FOV in the 1200p screen. Plus most PC games worth a damn have adjustable FOV via (~) or in the worst case via config files, so that's a non issue. Even in a perfectly square screen (1:1, 1920x1920) you could always see a lot more by just adjusting the FOV and placing yourself at the same distance from the screen. In that case you'd get the exact same 1920 horizontal pixels and 90º FOV as usual and you would also get 90º and 1920 vertical pixels. == you see more, a lot more.


----------



## MilkyWay (Aug 19, 2011)

1680x1050 monitors where really popular at one time now its just 1920x1080 because manufacturers dont want to make 16:10 monitors due to HD content and price thats all it is.

Its just like how we went away from 4:3 to widescreen.


----------



## Lordi (Aug 19, 2011)

Benetanegia said:


> People understand it just fine. 16:10 does mean more pixels when talking about 1920x1200 vs 1920x1080. Most games that I know are locked at a certain horizontal FOV (90º for wide screen) so you get the same horizontal FOV and a higher vertical FOV in the 1200p screen. Plus most PC games worth a damn have adjustable FOV via (~) or in the worst case via config files, so that's a non issue. Even in a perfectly square screen (1:1, 1920x1920) you could always see a lot more by just adjusting the FOV and placing yourself at the same distance from the screen. In that case you'd get 1920  horizontal pixels and 90º FOV as usual and you would also get 90º and 1920 vertical pixels. == you see more, a lot more.



Well, what you say about Field of view is totally wrong. Basically all new titles are HOR+ which means that the height is fixed. 16:9 = Bigger field of view.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_of_view_in_video_games


People mix up resolution with aspect ratio. You cant discuss 16:9 and 16:10 properly when there is a myth that 16:10 has higher resolution (more pixels). People discuss resolutions when they are supposed to discuss aspect ratio.

16:9 =/ 1920x1080
16:10 =/ 1920x1200


----------



## Fourstaff (Aug 19, 2011)

Lordi said:


> People mix up resolution with aspect ratio. So how can you discuss 16:9 and 16:10 when there is a myth that 16:10 has higher resolution (more pixels).
> 
> 16:9 =/ 1920x1080
> 16:10 =/ 1920x1200



effectively the argument boils down to 1920x1080 vs 1920x1200 because that is more or less the standard resolution now people buy. Except for 1366x768 which is rampant on budget laptops.


----------



## Lordi (Aug 19, 2011)

Fourstaff said:


> effectively the argument boils down to 1920x1080 vs 1920x1200 because that is more or less the standard resolution now people buy. Except for 1366x768 which is rampant on budget laptops.



The standard resultion for 16:10 has never been 1920x1200. For computer monitors it has been 1680x1050. While the computer monitor standard for 16:9 is 1920x1080. That some nerds think that 1680x1050 is to low resolution doesnt change this.


----------



## qubit (Aug 19, 2011)

Lordi said:


> @scooper Field of View has nothing to do with resolution. Thats why you get a bigger field of view in a video game with a 1366x768 display than a 2560x1600.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_of_view_in_video_games



That Wikipedia article is pants. The giveaway is it's full of bad spelling such as "ration" for ratio and bad grammar and the writer doesn't really know what he's talking about.

You're right though, that resolution and aspect ratio are constantly mixed up.



Lordi said:


> *The standard resultion for 16:10 has never been 1920x1200.* For computer monitors it has been 1680x1050. While the computer monitor standard for 16:9 is 1920x1080. That some nerds think that 1680x1050 is to low resolution doesnt change this.



What? :shadedshu It depends on the size of the monitor and how much money you pay.

2560x1600 is just as much a standard as 640x480.


----------



## Lordi (Aug 19, 2011)

qubit said:


> That Wikipedia article is pants. The giveaway is it's full of bad spelling such as "ration" for ratio and bad grammar and the writer doesn't really know what he's talking about.
> 
> You're right though, that resolution and aspect ratio are constantly mixed up.



What is wrong in the article?

Basically all new games are HOR+. Check it out your self if you dont believe wiki or me.
http://widescreengamingforum.com/forums/gaming/detailed-widescreen-reports


----------



## Red_Machine (Aug 19, 2011)

I think he means "norm" as opposed to "standard".


----------



## Benetanegia (Aug 19, 2011)

Lordi said:


> Well, what you say about Field of view is totally wrong. Basically all new titles are HOR+ which means that the height is fixed. 16:9 = Bigger field of view.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_of_view_in_video_games
> 
> 
> ...



Except all that is false (it does not represent the reality I see in games), at least in 90% of the games that I play. In those you can (only) change the horizontal FOV on the console so it clearly is NOT height fixed.

And sorry but yes:

16:9 == 1920x1080 and
16:10 == 1920x1200

First off, read the thread tittle. Then please, please take a look at stores and show me a 16:9 screen with more pixels than 2560x1600. Please. 

I find it funny how you claim that everybody is confused about the difference between aspect ratios and resolution. lol of course we arent, but we are also aware of displays sold and most are 1920x1080 or 1920x1200.


----------



## Tatty_One (Aug 19, 2011)

Lordi said:


> Well, what you say about Field of view is totally wrong. Basically all new titles are HOR+ which means that the height is fixed. 16:9 = Bigger field of view.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_of_view_in_video_games
> 
> 
> ...



However you are missing the point that this thread refers to resolutions, and therefore whilst aspect ratio's are relevant, it is ONLY part of the story, very few people I know talk in aspect ratio language when selecting a monitor, they talk in resolutions, but that may just be my friends


----------



## Lordi (Aug 19, 2011)

So if I should start a topic that says "1920x1080 or 1680x1050" you mean that it would be correct to say that 16:9 has more pixels than 16:10?

and that 16:10 == 1680x1050?
and that 16:9 == 1920x1080?

Sorry but you cant argue that way. 1920x1080 and 1680x1050 are resolutions. 16:10 and 16:9 are aspect ratios. Completely different things. 

And what you say about games is just wrong. You cant judge these things out of personal references because your personal refernces are to limited. It is like saying that lions are more common than rats in the world because you happened to see a herd of lions in Africa.


----------



## Benetanegia (Aug 19, 2011)

Lordi said:


> You clearly dont get it.





> If I sould start a topic that says 1920x1080 or 1680x1050 you mean that it would be correct to say that 16:9 has more pixels than 16:10?



Definately. 1920x1080 has a lot more pixels than 1680x1050.

What you don't get is that games are rendered in pixels, not aspect ratios. There's no such thing as an aspect ratio in th real world, it's an abstraction. If 1920 pixels can represent 90º FOV in a 16:9 screen, it can do it just as well in a 16:10 screen and hell it can also do it in my 4/3 screen if I change resolution to 1920x1440 and change FOV to 90º.



> And what you say about games is just wrong. You cant judge these things out of personal references because you personal refernces are to limited.



It's not my personal preference. It's how games work, at least the ones I play. Of course it could be that I despise console ports and avoid them like the plague, so maybe that's why I've avoided the stupid ones that lock the FOV to height which is the most stupid thing I've ever heard. In fact entirely locking the game to a certain, untouchable FOV is stupid. The option should always always be there in the console (~) for you to use whatever you like. For example, I use a CRT and most games use 60º FOV for 4/3 but I usually change it to 75º whenever I can.


----------



## Lordi (Aug 19, 2011)

Tatty_One said:


> However you are missing the point that this thread refers to resolutions, and therefore whilst aspect ratio's are relevant, it is ONLY part of the story, very few people I know talk in aspect ratio language when selecting a monitor, they talk in resolutions, but that may just be my friends



Well, then your friends doing it the right way.


----------



## Lordi (Aug 19, 2011)

Benetanegia said:


> It's not my personal preference. It's how games work, at least the ones I play.



Then obvious it is a personal reference.

The Field Of View is generally bigger in 16:9 than 16:10. Ask any gamer that are into hardware you want and you get that answer.


----------



## Benetanegia (Aug 19, 2011)

Lordi said:


> Then obvious it is a personal refernce.
> 
> And the Field Of View is bigger in 16:9 than 16:10. Ask any gamer that are into hardware you want and you get that answer.



It's becoming obvious you are the only one confused here with the terms, resolution, aspect ratio and field of view.


----------



## qubit (Aug 19, 2011)

Lordi said:


> Sorry but you cant argue that way. 1920x1080 and 1680x1050 are resolutions. 16:10 and 16:9 are aspect ratios. Completely different things.



Yup, you're quite right. You should try explaining why a squarer ratio shows you more than a wider one and see what happens... (It's regardless of resolution too, of course.)

I had this wonderful experience on here a couple of years ago, lol.

I'll have another read of that Wikipedia article when I have some time at home and I'll get back to you.


----------



## Lordi (Aug 19, 2011)

@Bene. You question solid knowledge based on a personal reference.

If you visit Africa and go to safari you may believe that Lions are more common than rats in the world but still it doesnt change the fact that rats are more common.

Some games (mostly older ones) have bigger field of view for 16:10 but generally 16:9 offers bigger field of view (newer games). So if you happen to play games that are optimal for 16:10 it doesnt change the fact that most new games means bigger field of view for 16:9.


----------



## Benetanegia (Aug 19, 2011)

Lordi said:


> @Bene. You dont know what you are talking about. You question solid knowledge based on a personal reference.
> 
> If you visit Africa you may believe that Lions are more common than rats in the world but still it doesnt change the fact that rats are more common.



What are you on about? Again games are rendered in pixels, not aspect ratios. So you get *1920 pixels wide* screens == you get 1920 horizontal pixels to represent whatever FOV you want, aspect ratio is of course fixed to that of the screen.

If "modern" console ports are using HOR+ with no option to change FOV, which I highly doubt anyway, then it's the fault of the game and developer, not the fault of the screen's aspect ratio. Like I said I play at 4:3 with 75º of view. I know some crappy console ports force me to play at 60º FOV which I despise, but most games, good ones give me the option to game at whichever FOV I want, so that I can see more. It's not personal preference, learn to differentiate aspect ratio and FOV it's not the same thing at all.

I can take my 4/3 CRT and play at 1920x1440, set the FOV to 90º in any Valve game (Portal 1/2), Fallout, Crysis1/2 and enjoy a lot more real state than anyone else.


----------



## Lordi (Aug 19, 2011)

Benetanegia said:


> What are you on about? Again games are rendered in pixels, not aspect ratios. So you get *1920 pixels wide* screens == you get 1920 horizontal pixels to represent whatever FOV you want, aspect ratio is of course fixed to that of the screen.
> 
> If "modern" console ports are using HOR+ with no option to change FOV, which I highly doubt anyway, then it's the fault of the game and developer, not the fault of the screen's aspect ratio. Like I said I play at 4:3 with 75º of view. I know some crappy console ports force me to play at 60º FOV which I despise, but most games, good ones give me the option to game at whichever FOV I want, so that I can see more. It's not personal preference, learn to differentiate aspect ratio and FOV it's not the same thing at all.



Field of view very rarely has anything to do with resolution. The amount of pixels are irrelevant. The amount of pixels determine how detailed the picture are but it has nothing to do with Field Of View.

The games and the developers fault that the field of view is bigger in 16:9? You can call it whatever you want but thats the case.

Example from Crysis 2
http://widescreengamingforum.com/fo...screen-reports/16236/detailed-report-crysis-2

Example from Witcher 2
http://widescreengamingforum.com/node/15312


----------



## Benetanegia (Aug 19, 2011)

Lordi said:


> Field of view very rarely has anything to do with resolution. The amount of pixels are irrelevant. The amount of pixels determine how detailed the picture are but it has nothing to do with Field Of View.



You cannot have a larger FOV without more pixels unless you want to sacrifice picture quality and/or screen size.



> The games and the developers fault that the field of view is bigger in 16:9? You can call it whatever you want *but thats the case*.



NO. That's how it is or might be in crappy games. I don't play crappy games. Like I said I can change FOV to whatever I want in Valve games, Bethesda games, Crysis games and pretty much any game that I can thnk of that is worth a damn playing.



> Example from Crysis 2
> http://widescreengamingforum.com/for...eport-crysis-2



Like I said, wrooong. If you like the FOV that comes by defaut for 16/9 aspect ratio, just open the console and chage it to whatever you want. I don't have time now but I will soon surprise you with a 4/3 screenshot with 120º FOV on that same spot!  (if I remember which map that is)


----------



## Fourstaff (Aug 19, 2011)

Red_Machine said:


> I think he means "norm" as opposed to "standard".



Yeah, that is closer to what I mean. 

Bene, from a 3rd party's perspective your argument tends to be a bit personal, something you should watch out for. However, in this particular "discussion" I think your points are more legitimate right now. 

The FoV argument is silly imo. Personally I can play Starcraft II as well with 4:3(home screen) as I can do with 16:9 (laptop), I am a mid masters player if that means anything to you. As for shooters I appreciate the advantage the extra however much FoV I get with whatever resolution, but it is still by no means game breaking. Right now with the consoles' ubiquity the 16:9 is the reigning ratio, and regardless of what people think, its the default right now. Whether they have a bigger default FoV is open to discussion and bitching.


----------



## Lordi (Aug 19, 2011)

Benetanegia said:


> You cannot have a larger FOV without more pixels unless you want to sacrifice picture quality and/or screen size.


Thats correct





Benetanegia said:


> NO. That's how it is or might be in crappy games. I don't play crappy games. Like I said I can change FOV to whatever I want in Valve games, Bethesda games, Crysis games and pretty much any game that I can thnk of that is worth a damn playing.



Crappy games or not. Thats how it works. 

But it is true that you can change the FOV in some games. Still. If you switch from 16:10 to 16:9 it will increase even more.


----------



## Tatty_One (Aug 19, 2011)

Lordi said:


> Then obvious it is a personal reference.
> 
> The Field Of View is generally bigger in 16:9 than 16:10. Ask any gamer that are into hardware you want and you get that answer.



Yes you are right, however as you increase FoV (within a set paremeter) you decrease image quality... simples.


----------



## Benetanegia (Aug 19, 2011)

Lordi said:


> Thats correct
> 
> 
> 
> ...





Tatty_One said:


> Yes you are right, however as you increase FoV (within a set paremeter) you decrease image quality... simples.



What he said. More pixels will always always always be able to represent a bigger FOV at same qulity. If 16:9 will increase horizontal FOV more and you like that, again increase the FOV on the 16:10 until you are satisfied with the result. At any rate the 1920x1200 screen will always have the exact same pixels (detail) to represent the exact same FOV as the 1080p screen at same horizontal quality and still get 10% more vertical FOV. It's that simple.

Crysis 2 uses different FOV for different aspect ratios if you change FOV to 90º in a 4/3 screen you get the exact same horizontal FOV as in the 16:9 and 16:10 (if set to 90º in all cases).


----------



## Lordi (Aug 19, 2011)

Firstly there are only in some games you can change the 'field of view'.
Secondly the absolute majority will never change 'field of view' even if there is a game where you can.
Thirdly the absolute majority of all new games are primarly programmed for 16:9 so the 16:9 FOV is intended.
At last there are games where you are forced to play with black bars if you have a 16:10 display.

For those reasons I would never ever recommend a 16:10 display for gaming.


----------



## Benetanegia (Aug 19, 2011)

Lordi said:


> Firstly there are only in some games you can change the 'field of view'.
> Secondly the absolute majority will never change 'field of view' even if there is a game where you can.
> Thirdly the absolute majority of all new games are primarly programmed for 16:9 so the 16:9 FOV is intended.
> At last there are games where you are forced to play with black bars if you have a 16:10 display.
> ...



Whatever, I would recommend NOT to buy those crappy games instead.


----------



## Fourstaff (Aug 19, 2011)

Benetanegia said:


> Whatever, I would recommend NOT to buy those crappy games instead.



And your argument just took a personal angle, despite what I warned you earlier in the thread 

"Crappy games" are what most people play right now, true gems are few and far in between whether you like it or not. You cannot avoid that fact.


----------



## Benetanegia (Aug 19, 2011)

Fourstaff said:


> And your argument just took a personal angle, despite what I warned you earlier in the thread
> 
> "Crappy games" are what most people play right now, true gems are few and far in between whether you like it or not. You cannot avoid that fact.



And so? We are discussing what is best or what is what most people do? I thought we were discusing the former.

I can take any Valve game and change FOV.
I can take any STALKER game and xhange FOV.
I can take Metro 2033 and change FOV.
I can take Crysis 1 and 2 and change FOV.
I can take any Bethesda game and change FOV. Since Oblivion they are console ports, just not crappy ports.
I can take Bad Company 2 and change FOV. It is a console port, except an excellent job.
I could posibly take any COD game and change FOV. (I don't because I would not touch COD with a 10 feet pole)
I have not played any Unteal Engine based game for ages, but I could probably take any and change FOV.

Question: having all those good games to play, do I need to take one where I cannot change FOV*? Nope. I guess that game election is a personal preference, but FOV is not one thing I look for when purchasing, still, like I said 90%++ of games that I play have the option to change it. They are definately not the minority as both of you suggest.

* Whose lack of customization options is probably a clear example of crappy porting?

EDIT: Oh I did play Borderlands, which is a UE 3 game and you can change FOV.
EDIT2: And I did play Bulletstorm too. And you can change FOV.


----------



## Fourstaff (Aug 19, 2011)

Benetanegia said:


> Question: having all those good games to play, do I need to take one where I cannot change FOV? Nope. I guess that game election is a personal preference, but FOV is not one thing I look for when purchasing, still, like I said 90%++ of games that I play have the option to change it. They are definately not the minority as both of you suggest.



Never said that changing FoV is minority, I just said that arguments based on FoV are irrelevant. Which suggests either you can usually change them or they are actually irrelevant. 

You can't usually change your FoV in strategy games, especially the competitive ones, like Starcraft II, LoL, HoN, Wc3, CoH, etc. Messing with display (among which change of FoV) will usually result in either disqualification or ban in the competitive scene. I have not seen FPS gamers changing FoV in competitions either, at least the odd Halo or CoD matches they air between Sc2 games I tune in to.


----------



## Benetanegia (Aug 19, 2011)

Fourstaff said:


> You can't usually change your FoV in strategy games, especially the competitive ones, like Starcraft II, LoL, HoN, Wc3, CoH, etc. Messing with display (among which change of FoV) will usually result in either disqualification or ban in the competitive scene. I have not seen FPS gamers changing FoV in competitions either, at least the odd Halo or CoD matches they air between Sc2 games I tune in to.



OK I have not played most of those games (I like Total War series), but if you have more screen i.e 1920x1200, zoom out?? Seriously this discussion is getting stupid, as long as you have more screen you can always increase you view by either increasing FOV or zooming out.

Also when did the discussion change from the majority of people (aka 90% of people) to competitive players (aka 1% of players)?? Anything to prove a flawed point isn't it?

Also for strategy games I would take a "narrower" aspect ratio any day. In fact I would use 1:1 aspect ration if I could. Or a 16:10 one in portrait.


----------



## Fourstaff (Aug 19, 2011)

Benetanegia said:


> OK I have not played most of those games (I like Total War series), but if you have more screen i.e 1920x1200, zoom out?? Seriously this discussion is getting stupid, as long as you have more screen you can always increase you view by either increasing FOV or zooming out.
> 
> Also when did the discussion change from the moyority of people (aka 90% of people) to competitive players (aka 1% of players)?? Anything to prove a flawed point isn't it?



This discussion is getting stupid indeed, but I think its rude not to answer your questions. If you want to have more screen, zoom out, but then everyone zooms out to the max to maximise their FoV anyway. Yes I brought the competitive scene in in a whim, but I tend to respect the opinions of people whose life is directly affected by them rather than your average Joe having fun. An oversight by me, my apologies. I am not trying to prove a flawed point, I am just writing what comes to my mind, just as what we all do.


----------



## Mussels (Aug 19, 2011)

Benetanegia: you can change your FOV, but you cant change if its vert+ or hor- when you change aspect ratio. so by changing your FOV you still arent solving the problem - the same FOV on a 16:9 screen would still show you more.


----------



## Benetanegia (Aug 19, 2011)

Fourstaff said:


> If you want to have more screen, zoom out, but then everyone zooms out to the max to maximise their FoV anyway



And that's a flaw in the game (and come on everyone of us wanted to be able to further zoom out at some point or another, with one RTS game or another). It's not the fault of the aspect ratio. In strategy games where you are seeing everything from above the best aspect ratio is without a doubt 1:1 as long as the game does not stretch the view, which is maybe what happens in those games, I don't know, but that would be a flaw in the game and not the screen. We are discusing screens.



Mussels said:


> Benetanegia: you can change your FOV, but you cant change if its vert+ or hor- when you change aspect ratio. so by changing your FOV you still arent solving the problem - the same FOV on a 16:9 screen would still show you more.



Goddamit. But you can chage it to wathever you want!!! You like 90º type in 90º. You want more, type in more! Both horizontal and vertical FOV will change accordingly and on the 16:10 screen vertical FOV wil ALWAYS be bigger (if H FOV is the same that is). So for the 10th time change the FOV to whatever appeals you more.


----------



## Mussels (Aug 19, 2011)

Benetanegia said:


> And that's a flaw in the game



and thats our point. dozens, maybe hundreds of games suffer from this flaw - and we can avoid it by staying 16:9


avoid heaps of good games (and heaps more bad ones), or just avoid 16:10 monitors. as a gamer, i know which is the obvious choice.


----------



## Benetanegia (Aug 19, 2011)

Mussels said:


> and thats our point. dozens, maybe hundreds of games suffer from this flaw - and we can avoid it by staying 16:9
> 
> 
> avoid heaps of good games (and heaps more bad ones), or just avoid 16:10 monitors. as a gamer, i know which is the obvious choice.



Don't tell me that. Tell me specific games where you cannot change FOV. Like I said I have not found many.

Or tell me the last 5 good games that you played. I'll search if FOV can be changed or not.

EDIT: Come on someone, tell me the last 5 games you played that you thought were good. It shouldn't take so long. I'm starting to think you are cheating, looking for the ones that do not have the option... j/k (kinda)
EDIT: Nevermind I have to lunch. Will come back later. Maybe hours later. Cya later.


----------



## Mussels (Aug 19, 2011)

you've gone onto an unrelated thing.


as i said, it doesnt matter if you can change the FOV - it matters how the engine handles it.

get a 1080p and a 1200p screenshot of dragon age origins (i think it was this one) and GTAIV. change FOV all you want, so long as its the same for both screens - and you'll get what i'm saying. no matter how you change it, the way the games coded widescreen support in means that the more vertical you have, the less you actually see - instead of zooming out for a bigger image, they zoom in to give you the same vertical, and less horizontal.

changing FOV cannot fix that.


----------



## Benetanegia (Aug 19, 2011)

Mussels said:


> you've gone onto an unrelated thing.
> 
> 
> as i said, it doesnt matter if you can change the FOV - it matters how the engine handles it.
> ...



Again, change the FOV until you see the same... 

I'm talking about ACTUAL FOV. If at 90º in the 16:9 you see a crate on your left and in the 16:10 you don't and you want to be able to see the damn crate or whatever, increase the the FOV until you see it, i.e 100º. You are giving up a little horizontal detail and gaining vertical detail and FOV.


----------



## Mussels (Aug 19, 2011)

you dont get it. you will never see the same. in games designed this way, you NEVER get more vertical. you lose horizontal, thats it.

please at least go to widescreengaming and look up vert+ and hor- before continuing.


----------



## LordJummy (Aug 19, 2011)

I have to agree with Mussels / Fourstaff here. Absolutely correct.


----------



## Lordi (Aug 19, 2011)

LordJummy said:


> I have to agree with Mussels / Fourstaff here. Absolutely correct.



I have to say the same thing.


----------



## LifeOnMars (Aug 19, 2011)

I'm going 1920x1080 for my next monitor. The Bulletstorm 1680x1050 fiasco persuaded me plus a few other retarded resolution issues of late. I'm also getting a bluray player so I can watch them at their native res with no fuss.


----------



## Benetanegia (Aug 19, 2011)

Mussels said:


> you dont get it. you will never see the same. in games designed this way, you NEVER get more vertical. you lose horizontal, thats it.
> 
> please at least go to widescreengaming and look up vert+ and hor- before continuing.



O M G!

First of all, please don't assume that I don't know the tech, because I know far more than you'd assume.
Hor... vert... it doesn't matter. It doesn't matter what the engine does. As long as you can (and again give examples of which games can't), set the FOV to whatever you want, until you see as much of it as you want, in the case of the 16:10 screen until it shows as much as the 16:9 one ans that's it! In both cases you will be seing the same thing horizontally with the exact same number of pixels doing it: 1920. And with the 1200p you will have more vertical pixels and FOV.

I'm surprised at how so many of you can't understand such a simple concept...


----------



## Flak (Aug 19, 2011)

I once tried to hold a conversation with a special ed kid that ended up like this.


----------



## EastCoasthandle (Aug 19, 2011)

Mussels said:


> pity its all 2D windowed stuff, would be nice if the comparison wasnt so biased and included fullscreen movies and games.


No, it's not biased.  I specifically kept the topic to everyday use of the monitor, IE 2D to avoid the countless arguments already discussed before with 3D.  I believe we can view the differences between 1200 and 1080 for everyday tasks (2D) as we are currently using it to post on this forum.


----------



## LordJummy (Aug 19, 2011)

Flak said:


> I once tried to hold a conversation with a special ed kid that ended up like this.



Actually this might be worse. Most of the special ed kids I knew in high school were pretty agreeable! lol...


----------



## Disparia (Aug 19, 2011)

Thread specific: Oh yeah - 1920x1200 all the way!

In general: I'll buy 16:10 monitors (1920x1200 and up) til there are no more. Hopefully by the time those monitors need replacing we'll have more 3840x2160 or 2560x1440 models available and I won't care that they're 16:9.


----------



## qubit (Aug 19, 2011)

EastCoasthandle said:


> No, it's not biased.  I specifically kept the topic to everyday use of the monitor, IE 2D to avoid the countless arguments already discussed before with 3D.  I believe we can view the differences between 1200 and 1080 for everyday tasks (2D) as we are currently using it to post on this forum.



Finally, I've seen they pics: yes, they demonstrate nicely that 16:10 is nicer than 16:9, as I explained in post 53.

You also get to see that little bit more.


----------



## Benetanegia (Aug 19, 2011)

Mussels said:


> you dont get it. you will never see the same. in games designed this way, you NEVER get more vertical. you lose horizontal, thats it.



I'll revisit this one and see if I can make it clear, for once.

Since you are so keen that every game is HOR+ (which is false) let's assume a HOR+ game:

- You take a 16:9 screen and use a FOV of 90º (*)
- Now you take a 16:10 screen and use a FOV of 100º (*)

*Which one has the greater resulting FOV??*

*Those are unrealistic angles for HOR+, but I hope you instantly understand why I used them.


----------



## Mussels (Aug 20, 2011)

EastCoasthandle said:


> No, it's not biased.  I specifically kept the topic to everyday use of the monitor, IE 2D to avoid the countless arguments already discussed before with 3D.  I believe we can view the differences between 1200 and 1080 for everyday tasks (2D) as we are currently using it to post on this forum.



how? that ones obvious. more helps in 2D. its not 2D windows apps that have problems, and thats blatantly obvious to everyone.


Benetanegia: I'm done with this thread. you're ignoring the actual problem and looking for anything you can to make 16:10 sound better.

you're literally saying "if i turn mine up to 11, and yours is at 10... MINES AT 11 HAHAHAHA I WIN"


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Aug 20, 2011)

After much digging, I finally found the pictures I took of GTA IV (I won't repost them because they're huge):
http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1692442&postcount=63

I thought those were originals but they weren't so I cropped out the non-game bits and then resized them back to original (for what I'm trying to do, this isn't ideal but it will work).

I then found his head and measured it...
1920x1080 = 131x176






1920x1200 = 146x194





As I said eariler in the thread, 16:9 has better situational awareness because of the wider field of view but if you're looking to shoot something, 8:5 is better because the target is literally bigger (18.6% bigger according to pixel count).  Not by much, but every little bit counts.


----------



## purecain (Aug 20, 2011)

i just cant help myself, i'm gonna have to chip in....

i've bought hundreds of pc monitors for customers, and in every case the 16:9 panels just look squashed...unless you change the aspect ratio and lose real estate in the process... IMO

if you think that the resolution doesnt apply to all games then your wrong... 
you are shown more of the vertical world...
in the same respect eyefinity offers you a more peripheral view.... 

please just consider the sense here people.... i would never use a 16:9 monitor for my own home...


----------



## Mussels (Aug 20, 2011)

purecain said:


> i just cant help myself, i'm gonna have to chip in....
> 
> i've bought hundreds of pc monitors for customers, and in every case the 16:9 panels just look squashed...unless you change the aspect ratio and lose real estate in the process... IMO
> 
> ...



i said i was done here, but you made be come back >.>


look up vert+ vs hor-

you simply DO NOT get more vertical in most games. look at the images ford posted for proof, and his comments. 16:10 zooms you in giving you less horizontal and the same amount of vertical, instead of same horizontal and more vertical.


----------



## bostonbuddy (Aug 20, 2011)

I love my 16:10 24in monitor I have in my living room.
Just picked up a 16:9 27in monitor for my bed room tho.
and is only 1080p, the 2whateverx1440 are still over my budget.


----------



## Lordi (Aug 20, 2011)

@Ford
In serious gaming it is always better to have it smaller because smaller movements is easier and faster to do. 23" 1920x1080 is really great for serious gaming. 

But if you want bigger target you can get that easily because 1920x1080 is not locked to that size. Simply buy 1920x1080  27" or bigger then. It is relevant because 27" 1920x1080 is cheaper than 24" 1920x1200.

For serious gaming -> 23" 1920x1080
For casual gaming -> 27" or more 1920x1080


----------



## purecain (Aug 20, 2011)

@mussels,Lordi... the pictures posted arnt proof... lol 

you dont get it.... which is fine... you have valid points mixed into your argument.

everyone that does get it is nodding their heads reading this so i leave the discussion...


----------



## TIGR (Aug 20, 2011)

Jstn7477 said:


> *yawns* The 16:10 monitor has a hidden taskbar, so the test is flawed.
> 
> I never really understood why people get so fussy over aspect ratios, but to each his own, I guess. If you need a larger workspace, get a higher resolution monitor if you're so concerned with the 10% vertical difference. We all moved away from 4:3, so how is this much different? I don't really see the need to be so resistant to change when we no longer have CRT monitors and such, but I guess the 10% is still an issue for some people.



Hey, not all of us moved away from 4:3 CRTs.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Aug 20, 2011)

Lordi said:


> @Ford
> In serious gaming it is always better to have it smaller because smaller movements is easier and faster to do. 23" 1920x1080 is really great for serious gaming.


Never heard of mouse sensitivity?  Virtually all games have a setting for it, most gaming mice do, and then there's always the Windows mouse properties.




Lordi said:


> But if you want bigger target you can get that easily because 1920x1080 is not locked to that size.


All 1920x1200 monitors can do 1920x1080.  Not that we would, because, you know, 1920x1200 is...better.



Lordi said:


> Simply buy 1920x1080  27" or bigger then. It is relevant because 27" 1920x1080 is cheaper than 24" 1920x1200.


Lower DPI = lower quality.  Lower quality = harder to spot distant targets.




Lordi said:


> For serious gaming -> 23" 1920x1080


Last time I checked, the best screen for FPS gaming is a 19-21" 1600x1200 CRT.  Zero response time, high DPI, and compatible with 90%+ of games (if not natively supported, falls back on 1024x768, 800x600, 640x480, or really old school, 320x240).


----------



## Wile E (Aug 20, 2011)

Mussels said:


> pity its all 2D windowed stuff, would be nice if the comparison wasnt so biased and included fullscreen movies and games.
> 
> 
> it's all been said a million times in other threads, but my problems with 16:10 are as follows:
> ...



Note, my arguments are based solely on 1920x1200 vs 1920x1080. I think overall resolution is more important than aspect ratio. I, for instance, would take a 2560x1440 monitor over a 1920x1200 monitor any day. But I would also take a 1920x1440 monitor over the 1200p, if such a one existed.

1.) To each their own. But like you said, it does not make 1080p better.

2.) Set to 1080p or tweak the FOV settings. Problem solved.

3.) 1200p monitors support 1080p without stretching. You just get black bars. Yeah, you may not like black bars, but that doesn't change the fact a 1200p monitor can do absolutely everything a 1080p monitor can with absolutely no loss in quality, pixel per pixel accurate. During a game or movie, you aren't going to notice black bars, as it's just like having a larger bezel. Unless you are OCD and sit there and stare at the bars, you shouldn't even notice it, as there are much more important things going on on the screen. lol.

PS: Most movies shot on film have black bars, even on 16:9.



Lordi said:


> Well, if you havent noticed the letterbox you are just not aware of that you get smaller field of view with your 16:10 245BW. Not something you have to notice but it is a great disadvantage which you would notice if you would have a 16:9 display next to the 16:10.
> 
> In 2011 all games are made for 16:9 and works best in that aspect ratio.
> 
> ...


See above. For the typical 1920x1200 vs 1920x1080 debate this topic usually centers around, your point is moot. Not only that, but what games are you playing? In most of the games I play I get the same horizontal FOV but different vertical fov between 1080 and 1200p. (unless I just don't remember tweaking them. In which case, the ability to tweak FOV renders your argument useless anyway.)



Mussels said:


> and thats our point. dozens, maybe hundreds of games suffer from this flaw - and we can avoid it by staying 16:9
> 
> 
> avoid heaps of good games (and heaps more bad ones), or just avoid 16:10 monitors. as a gamer, i know which is the obvious choice.



I can set my 16:10 monitor to 16:9 for those flawed games that don't allow you to change FOV. 



Mussels said:


> i said i was done here, but you made be come back >.>
> 
> 
> look up vert+ vs hor-
> ...



If you zoom it back out, you do get the vertical fov back. Sure, it keeps the same vert by default, but you can change that manually so that you have the same horiz but higher vert. That's what Bene is trying to get across to you. (Or, again, just set your 1200p monitor to 1080p)


----------



## claylomax (Aug 20, 2011)

Wile E said:


> 1200p monitors support 1080p without stretching. You just get black bars. Yeah, you may not like black bars, but that doesn't change the fact a 1200p monitor can do absolutely everything a 1080p monitor can with absolutely no loss in quality, pixel per pixel accurate



This.


----------



## Lordi (Aug 20, 2011)

@Wile

It cant. The 1920x1200 cant handle 1920x1080 without letterbox which is a hugh disadvantage. Especially when the displayproducers make displays that lightbleed like crazy, even the so called highend products.

Also there are plenty of 1920x1200 displays that dont do 1:1 pixelmapping properly leaving you with  a stretched 1920x1080. Both scenarios are awful!


----------



## Wile E (Aug 20, 2011)

Lordi said:


> @Wile
> 
> It cant. The 1920x1200 cant handle 1920x1080 without letterbox which is a hugh disadvantage. Especially when the displayproducers make displays that lightbleed like crazy, even the so called highend products.
> 
> Also there are plenty of 1920x1200 displays that dont do 1:1 pixelmapping properly leaving you with  a stretched 1920x1080. Both scenarios are awful!



Letterbox is not a huge disadvantage. That's like saying a bigger bezel is a huge disadvantage. It makes no difference in image quality or performance. You can call it personal preference, and that's valid. But it is not a disadvantage.

Name one 1200p monitor that does not do 1:1 with 1080p content. 

(And even if you do happen to name one, both ATI and nV can do it on the driver level.)


----------



## Derek12 (Aug 20, 2011)

The same manner I can get 1280x720p on my 1280x1024 with letterboxing as long as I set to GPU scaling and maintain aspect ratio otherwise the image is stretched


----------



## Fourstaff (Aug 20, 2011)

Fourstaff said:


> This 16:9 and 16:10 topic has been discussed to death, and I think its time to lock this thread up.



Is 16:10 better than 16:9 in 1920x1080 vs 1920x1200? Yes
So shall we all stick to 16:10 then? No
Why? Because 16:9 1080 has become standard, if there is any. Sticking to one standard is more important than any advantage you get by having the better product in the long run for your average user. Professionals and power users who can pay top dollar should do so for the better product, and losing whatever advantage having a standard product has. Since 1080 is closer to the standard right now than 1200, people tend to design with 1080 in their mind, so the extra 120 pixels of width will not amount to much, regardless of what we all think (and whatever reason we use to argue). In fact, Starcraft 2 suffers because of the ratio. Just as PS2 got shafted by USB, we all know PS2 keyboards are better than USB ones. (DO NOT ARGUE WITH EXAMPLES, if I am wrong tell me via PM and I will change).


----------



## animal007uk (Aug 20, 2011)

I have a 1600/1200 res 4.3 screen and i wouldent change it for a widescreen because i just don't like them and they don't help me play games any better or worse.


----------



## Benetanegia (Aug 20, 2011)

Mussels said:


> Benetanegia: I'm done with this thread. you're ignoring the actual problem and looking for anything you can to make 16:10 sound better.
> 
> you're literally saying "if i turn mine up to 11, and yours is at 10... MINES AT 11 HAHAHAHA I WIN"



You are acting stupid now. I didn't say that at all. You can set FOV to whatever you want in many games, most of the ones that I have played. You just failed to mention 1 only 1 in which you cannot do it. So why would you not adjust FOV to whatever you like most? If you like your 24" wide screen and 1920 pixels to show a certain horizontal FOV, why on earth wouldn't you just do it? Whether you later have MORE vertical FOV and pixels is never going to hurt.

So again, since you can use the FOV you want in most games, in a HOR+ game which is "locked" to vertical FOV, just use a bigger FOV in the 1200p monitor than you would in a 1080p monitor, and the horizontal FOV will be the same. That was the answer to my last post: *the resulting horizontal FOV will be the same.* In a HOR+ game you take the default FOV value for 1080p, divide it by 9 and multiply by 10 and that's your new FOV value for the 1200p monitor that will show exactly the same thing horizontally.


----------



## purecain (Aug 20, 2011)

this pic is coming in handy.... 

@mussels- 16:10 is better than 16:9...


----------

