1920x1200 vs 1920x1080: The differences for everyday use

[Lordi]

@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]

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]

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]

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!

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

@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.

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]

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]

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

 

[Benetanegia]

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

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_Two]

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

@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]

@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]

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]

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]

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]

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

Thats correct

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.