Return to “Suggestions”

Post

Re: Ultra Wide (21:9) monitor support

#16
Flatfingers wrote:Why are so many Steam gamers -- most of whom, I presume, are PC gamers -- running at a gimped 16:9 console aspect ratio compared to 16:10?

Are 16:9 monitors being sold for pennies compared to 16:10 widescreen monitors? Or are people, for reasons that elude me, actually deliberately choosing to see less of every gameworld than if they ran their 16:10 monitor at a 16:10 aspect ratio?

Informed speculation is welcome!
16:12 used to be the standard and then everyone decided they wanted shorter screens. Why are people choosing to see less?
Games I like, in order of how much I like them. (Now permanent and updated regularly!)
Post

Re: Ultra Wide (21:9) monitor support

#17
Because movies. Seriously, these days they're making movies that have black bands top and bottom on wide screen tvs.
From which stems my prediction than in the far future tv's will be 10000x1 :ghost:

(My monitor is 16:9 too, but I can make it 9:16 which can be handy for long code files :mrgreen: )
Warning: do not ask about physics unless you really want to know about physics.
The LT IRC / Alternate link || The REKT Wiki || PUDDING
Image
Post

Re: Ultra Wide (21:9) monitor support

#18
Dinosawer wrote:Because movies. Seriously, these days they're making movies that have black bands top and bottom on wide screen tvs.
From which stems my prediction than in the far future tv's will be 10000x1 :ghost:

(My monitor is 16:9 too, but I can make it 9:16 which can be handy for long code files :mrgreen: )
I've always wanted to watch a movie streamed to my brain with a 10000 pixel long cable. :ghost:
Image The results of logic, of natural progression? Boring! An expected result? Dull! An obvious next step? Pfui! Where is the fun in that? A dream may soothe, but our nightmares make us run!
Post

Re: Ultra Wide (21:9) monitor support

#19
Flatfingers wrote:Are 16:9 monitors being sold for pennies compared to 16:10 widescreen monitors? Or are people, for reasons that elude me, actually deliberately choosing to see less of every gameworld than if they ran their 16:10 monitor at a 16:10 aspect ratio?

Informed speculation is welcome!
No speculation needed. Cheapest IPS 1080p screen in popular local webshop: ~130 USD. IPS 1200p: 260 bucks. 100 and 255 with the odd non-IPS panels still on the market in the price range. And that is not even touching laptops, which have a significant share of computers with Steam installed as well.

16:10 is extremely overpriced for what it is, and few non-enthusiasts can afford to drop twice the price, or have the spare power in their rig to drive and make use of the 10% extra pixel. That money has more urgent uses in other components in most cases.

I don't really know how useful vertical space is after a point either. There's the sky and the ground, and I sure wouldn't take a 5:4 brick with some extra pixel count over a widescreen just to see more of those :D
panic
Post

Re: Ultra Wide (21:9) monitor support

#20
Flatfingers wrote:Not that my preferred resolution is much more prominent: I am very surprised to see 1920x1200 at only 1.39% of users, versus a whopping 36.33% running at 1920x1080. :eh: :problem: :think:

What in the world...?

Why are so many Steam gamers -- most of whom, I presume, are PC gamers -- running at a gimped 16:9 console aspect ratio compared to 16:10?

Are 16:9 monitors being sold for pennies compared to 16:10 widescreen monitors? Or are people, for reasons that elude me, actually deliberately choosing to see less of every gameworld than if they ran their 16:10 monitor at a 16:10 aspect ratio?

Informed speculation is welcome!
Tremendously interesting. My first thoughts were, of course, wat? 'Surely someone put thought into why we use 16:9 most frequently.'

The argument of 'seeing less of the gameworld' is pretty tough to work with...theoretically that's determined by the product of tan(fovvertical / 2) * aspect ratio. If you want to see 'the most' of your gameworld, you should A) be running at the highest possible vertical fov (180 degrees - 1/infinity, or let's just say, 179 :P) along with the highest possible aspect ratio (i.e., a verrrry widescreen monitor). This will, naturally, be incredibly ugly and distorted due to perspective distortion. (I'm not positive I did that math right -- I always did have trouble with perspective projection -- someone please correct me if I'm wrong)

But let's look at it a different way: what is the aspect ratio of a human's FOV? Should not that be the ideal ratio? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_eye#Field_of_view says "For both eyes the combined visual field is 130-135° vertical and 200° horizontal." So if we take this, it yields aspect ratio of between ~1.48 and ~1.54. So somewhere around 1.5 = 3/2 seems an ideal aspect ratio if there's any merit to matching our screen ratios to our ocular perception ratio.

And indeed, in this case, it seems Flat is right -- 16:10 is of course 1.6, while 16:9 is ~ 1.78. Not only is 16:10 significantly closer to 3/2, it's also going to produce less FOV distortion (which is proportional to max(aspect, 1 / aspect), i.e., logarithmic absolute value) (once again, I think I did that math right :ghost:).

However, that being said, for me as a programmer, (and I imagine for a great many people doing other tasks), it is often quite useful to have different regions of the screen showing different information (i.e. a vertical split in a code editor), only one of which is actually be focused on at any given time. So if we are not focusing on the entirety of the screen, the concept of an ideal aspect ratio becomes totally task-dependent and subjective. 16:9 is better for me as a programmer because vertical splitting of screen real-estate is my jam (heck, most programmers use '32:9' because they have two monitors side-by-side).

So there are my thoughts on it. For gaming, Flat is probably right that 16:10 (8:5) is better. 3:2 may be even more ideal, but I am not aware of any displays with this ratio... (quick google search) ... anddd now I am! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_c ... esolutions . Interesting. Clearly 3:2 is still very rare among modern displays, however it's interesting to note that all of the Microsoft Surface products use this resolution, along with some of the older iPhones.

I've actually been considering getting a Surface for some time now, as I have some tools that I think would work really well with stylus input (no, not LT itself, but some related tools). If I do, I'll report back on how 3:2 treats me. (Or if anyone would like to send me a Surface 3 Full HD+, I can offer you...VIP Monkey title? :P :ghost: jk of course).

A quick amazon search reveals that price doesn't seem to be a big difference, however selection is certainly far more sparse for 16:10 than 16:9. I do like the Dell UltraSharp series and they have a reasonably-priced 1920x1200 though.
“Whether you think you can, or you think you can't--you're right.” ~ Henry Ford
Post

Re: Ultra Wide (21:9) monitor support

#21
with the point of ultrawidescreen taken care of (kinda) - i am glad it will be supported as i use one as well

i kinda have to go offtopic.. with the widgets (and i assume they stay as they are) we have configurable UI elements..
will it be possible to pop those out into another window to put on a another screen?
for setups that dont have a rectangle form (assume different resolutions or screens above / below the main screen in addition)
IRC "In Josh we trust"
Post

Re: Ultra Wide (21:9) monitor support

#22
Achati wrote:with the point of ultrawidescreen taken care of (kinda) - i am glad it will be supported as i use one as well

i kinda have to go offtopic.. with the widgets (and i assume they stay as they are) we have configurable UI elements..
will it be possible to pop those out into another window to put on a another screen?
for setups that dont have a rectangle form (assume different resolutions or screens above / below the main screen in addition)
At the moment, no. This is probably quite unlikely to happen as the machinery required to support it is significantly more complex than one would expect it to be :problem: However, there is still some potential.

It ultimately depends on if I push window-handling code into python instead of C (where it currently resides). There are a number of pros / cons to consider on the matter in terms of performance, ease-of-use, etc.

So I would say it's unlikely to happen, and if it does, it's likely going to be more restrictive than one would want. We'll see. Not exactly a high-priority item tbh :|
“Whether you think you can, or you think you can't--you're right.” ~ Henry Ford
Post

Re: Ultra Wide (21:9) monitor support

#30
JUST from my experience shopping, I have a 16:9 monitor for my desktop and 16:9 screen on my laptop only because that was what was most available and least expensive. Reading Josh's post makes me want to get a 16:10 though. :V Also I just wanna throw out there that 16:10 is closer to the golden ratio than 16:9 :000
Ship Inspiration Pinterest!! (send me stuff)

"You’ve got to work on something dangerous. You have to work on something that makes you uncertain. Something that makes you doubt yourself... because it stimulates you to do things you haven’t done before. The whole thing is if you know where you’re going, you’ve gone, as the poet says. And that’s death."
- Stephen Sondheim

Online Now

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 18 guests

cron