Return to “Suggestions”

Post

Re: Ultra Wide (21:9) monitor support

#31
AlexWasLike wrote: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
**BUT** 16:10 is an incorrect ratio!!
The correct ration is 8:5!!
:ghost:
°˖◝(ಠ‸ಠ)◜˖°
Toba - A Development Dump
Post

Re: Ultra Wide (21:9) monitor support

#32
What's fascinating is that 16:10 actually was vastly more popular as a PC gaming aspect ratio just a few years ago. (This Ars Technica forum comment describes those days pretty well, including Steam Hardware Survey results of the day.)

But over the past 2-4 years, PC gamers have increasingly accepted the console-standard 16:9 aspect ratio for gaming. I make no value judgment about that; just pointing it out.

As to whether 16:10 is "better" than 16:9... as Josh noted, it gets a little complicated.

The claim is frequently made that 16:9 is "wider" than 16:10 -- that is, you can see a little more of the game on the left and right sides in 16:9 than you can when playing in 16:10 mode. But that's an oversimplification.

There are a couple of things actually happening here. One is that 16:9 is only wider if you change the Field of View (FOV). This is because the number of pixels is different. For example, 1920x1080 (16:9) displays fewer pixels than 1920x1200 (16:10). 1920x1200 = 2,304,000 pixels, while 1920x1080 = 2,073,600 pixels -- a 10% reduction.

So to keep the horizontal elements of a game from scaling differently (being wider or narrower than intended), the FOV has to be changed (as Josh pointed out). Thus, saying that "16:9 is wider" is true only if you increase the FOV to preserve the same perspective as 16:10... and not everybody likes a wider FOV. (Wide FOV is a primary cause of motion sickness in some gamers.)

So what happens if you maintain the FOV? When that's held constant, here's the real difference between 16:10 and 16:9:
Image This would be the primary support for a claim that 16:10 is "better." At the same FOV, you see more pixels in 16:10 than 16:9.

And that leads to the other point: if you make a game meant for 16:9 monitors, how do you choose to display it on 16:10 monitors, and vice versa? This is mostly a question for developers of console games with fixed 16:9 aspect ratios, since PC games have historically had good support for numerous screen resolutions.

When trying to support different monitor aspect ratios, console game devs will use what the Widescreen Gaming Forum called "Vert-" and "Hor+" modes. These are two different ways in which developers try to insure that 16:9 and 16:10 monitors both show exactly the same amount of gameworld. Hor+ means that the game actually knows to display more of the gameworld by extending the left and right areas and changing the FOV.

Vert-, on the other hand, is what developers of console games do when they feel they have to maintain a desired FOV when their game is ported to PC: they just don't display the top and bottom slivers of the gameworld, essentially letterboxing the game. It's basically taking the top and bottom sections from the image shown above and blanking them out, eliminating the pixel count advantage of a monitor designed for 16:10 output.

All this is an explanation. It doesn't really address the reality that PC gamers today, for whatever reason, have largely accepted the 16:9 aspect ratio of console games and the FOV that comes with it.

Which I guess is one more reason to be glad there are still PC-original games being made, such as Limit Theory, that are designed to be aspect ratio-agnostic.

I bet LT is going to be jaw-droppingly gorgeous on a 21:9 ultra-wide monitor. :)
Post

Re: Ultra Wide (21:9) monitor support

#33
Silverware wrote: **BUT** 16:10 is an incorrect ratio!!
The correct ration is 8:5!!
:ghost:
16/10 == 8/5, both are correct. There is no rule that a ratio must use the smallest possible numbers. ghost:
Flatfingers wrote: All this is an explanation. It doesn't really address the reality that PC gamers today, for whatever reason, have largely accepted the 16:9 aspect ratio of console games and the FOV that comes with it.
Well, this is our "local" monitor web store: ("Beeldverhouding" = aspect ratio.) Image It's harder to buy what is hardly sold. I might actually like a 16:10 monitor, as the added vertical space seems nice for coding, but 16:9 was what I could cheaply get, so it was what I got.
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

#35
Victor Tombs wrote:I'm still ruminating on a half made decision to invest in a Dell U3415W. I've heard good things about it but I'm always tempted to go bigger, wider, faster, next gen, etc.

As my eyesight is now my weak link I appreciate exceptional performance from a monitor. :angel:
That is an incredibly expensive monitor as far as monitors go. Unfortunately I can't provide an opinion on something so high-end because I know nothing about it. Hope it works for you!
I am literally and wholly in love with myself.
Post

Re: Ultra Wide (21:9) monitor support

#36
Flatfingers wrote: So what happens if you maintain the FOV? When that's held constant, here's the real difference between 16:10 and 16:9:

[image]

This would be the primary support for a claim that 16:10 is "better." At the same FOV, you see more pixels in 16:10 than 16:9.
By that logic, we should've stuck with 16:12, or improved to the far superior 16:16.
Image I want a square monitor.
Games I like, in order of how much I like them. (Now permanent and updated regularly!)
Post

Re: Ultra Wide (21:9) monitor support

#37
Victor Tombs wrote:I'm still ruminating on a half made decision to invest in a Dell U3415W. I've heard good things about it but I'm always tempted to go bigger, wider, faster, next gen, etc.

As my eyesight is now my weak link I appreciate exceptional performance from a monitor. :angel:
Looks stunning Victor. At first, for some reason, I was seeing the price in Hong Kong $ on Dell's website and saw $9,999 :o :shock: Was thinking...what in the blazes is Victor thinking...then I realized HK :ghost: No idea why they thought I would like to see the price in HK$ ...

But I see Amazon has it for < $800...quite honestly that sounds pretty amazing. Please do let us know if you get it how the 1) 4K 2) 21:9 and 3) curvature treat you! I'm interested in the impact of all three :D
DigitalDuck wrote:By that logic, we should've stuck with 16:12, or improved to the far superior 16:16.

I want a square monitor.
Well, not necessarily -- again, if one is going to be using the screen for gaming (or anything that involves focus on the entire screen at once), I contend that we should probably be aiming for the human FOV ratio (apparently ~1.5 / 3:2). 16:12 = 4:3 = 1.3--- is further from 1.5 than is 1.6 (and of course I don't think I need to mention why 16:16 is worse :P ).
“Whether you think you can, or you think you can't--you're right.” ~ Henry Ford
Post

Re: Ultra Wide (21:9) monitor support

#38
JoshParnell wrote:Looks stunning Victor. At first, for some reason, I was seeing the price in Hong Kong $ on Dell's website and saw $9,999 Was thinking...what in the blazes is Victor thinking...then I realized HK No idea why they thought I would like to see the price in HK$ ...

But I see Amazon has it for < $800...quite honestly that sounds pretty amazing. Please do let us know if you get it how the 1) 4K 2) 21:9 and 3) curvature treat you! I'm interested in the impact of all three
I too was impressed with its looks, Josh, but it's primarily going to be a gaming workhorse for me. ;) I ordered it this afternoon. :D I've got a bit of a wait before delivery as it's coming from Germany. I've been looking for a quality curved widescreen monitor for a while now but was having problems deciding. The current monitor on the new Black Beast is not up to standard for the in-case graphics hardware so it was only a matter of time before my ProLite would be moving down the PC line to the older Black Beast.

I'm looking forward to seeing what I've been missing. :angel:
Post

Re: Ultra Wide (21:9) monitor support

#39
Also people don't forget, that every single extra pixel is a performance hit.
It's why I am against 4K screens on laptops, they just don't have the sheer power to drive them.

So a 8:5 screen (16:10 for those people insisting on using incorrect ratios) will require more power to drive than a 16:9. Not that it's a huge amount extra, but it could drop you from 45 frames to 40, which is a reasonable drop...
°˖◝(ಠ‸ಠ)◜˖°
Toba - A Development Dump
Post

Re: Ultra Wide (21:9) monitor support

#43
Flatfingers wrote:So, looking at the latest Steam Hardware Survey results, I see that the 2560x1080 resolution is used by 0.3% of respondents.

That's not to say LT shouldn't support as many resolutions as reasonably possible -- I'm glad (but not surprised) to hear the interface has been designed that way. But at 0.3%, 2560x1080 is fairly elite territory. :)

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 about having minimum pixel counts in X and Y direction as the only limit? That you need a certain minimum of pixels to fit your GUI elements on screen should be obvious. But apart from that, the GUI just could stretch across whatever screen area is available.

Personally, I read a lot at the PC and I find the classic 4:3 ratio quite useful. Right now I have a 20" screen with 1600x1200 pixels.
But I don't mind getting a screen with different aspect ratio, as long as it does not have significantly less vertical resolution. So 1920x1080 for my next monitor would be (barely) acceptable but 1920x1200 would be better.

In practice, I'll probably follow the trend to 16:9 because other formats get increasingly rare and expensive - but I might end up with a 2560x1440 monitor next time. Which will still beat the 1200 pixels of vertical resolution I have now. Maybe next year, together with a new PC that has the GPU performance to drive a 2560x1440 display in games :) .
Post

Re: Ultra Wide (21:9) monitor support

#44
The Dell U3415W is now a part of my gaming rig. :D

It's a beautiful monitor. It isn't 4K but I knew that before I purchased it. The curvature of the screen is rather subtle but it works for me. I can imagine taking it for granted after not too long. It's the amount of screen space available that I'm impressed with. I'm running it in the 3440 x 1440 resolution mode and both the colours and image quality are an improvement on my previous monitor. I'm not sure why the "Limit Theory . Forums" banner has appeared twice side by side at the head of the page. It looks a bit strange.

Is it worth the money? I think so. I can't see the bleeding that has been mentioned in reviews but I need it to get dark here first so it's more noticeable. As I've said elsewhere there are a number of in depth technical reviews on the internet for those who want detailed results.

I wouldn't hesitate to recommend it to anyone who would appreciate the ultrawide experience. :thumbup: :angel:

Online Now

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron