1920x1200 vs 1920x1080: The differences for everyday use

[Benetanegia]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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....

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]

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]

@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]

@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]

*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]

@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.

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.

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.

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]

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.

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.

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://img7.abload.de/img/sc2_fov36k6.gif

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


Please get the facts next time before speaking.



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.

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.)

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.

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.

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]

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]

@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]

@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]

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]

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).

 

[Steve-007UK]

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]

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]

this pic is coming in handy....

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