The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
16:10 vs. 16:9 for Gaming
mg78
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
So what does everyone consider the better aspect ratio for gaming?
Need to decide on a new TFT and not sure right now - I like the 16:10 aspect ratio a bit better as the monitor does not appear to be so awfully stretched, but for console conversions 16:9 seems to be the better choice, and new TFTs all seem to be 16:9. Whats your preference?
Need to decide on a new TFT and not sure right now - I like the 16:10 aspect ratio a bit better as the monitor does not appear to be so awfully stretched, but for console conversions 16:9 seems to be the better choice, and new TFTs all seem to be 16:9. Whats your preference?
mg78 on
0
Posts
My monitor runs optimally at 1680x1050 (which is 16:10, I suppose), so I just try and get all my games running at that. Never really thought about what was better.
Can trade TF2 items or whatever else you're interested in. PM me.
Get a 16:9, though if you see a 16:10 for cheaper and same or bigger size, don't be afraid to buy it, you'll just have some small bars in some games
PSN: TheScrublet
*grin* 80:50 = 8:5 = 16:10
It is no more accurate to state that 16:10 has more pixels than 16:9 than to state the opposite. It's all a function of resolution. Yes, 1920x1200 (16:10) has more pixels than 1920x1080 (16:9,) but at the same time 2048x1152 (16:9) has more pixels than 1920x1200 (16:10.)
Anyhow, regarding the OP:
I've got a couple 16:10s and a couple 16:9s, and it's never made a difference for my gaming.
The absolute worst case scenario is that you own a 16:9 display and run into a game that's 16:10 or bust. In such a case you end up dropping down the resolution of the game to the nearest 16:10 option that your display can handle, which means you're playing on an interpolated resolution (or you're playing the game with big black bars on the top, bottom, and sides.)
With a 16:10 display and a 16:9 game you do the same thing but the result is better. You just drop down to the nearest 16:9 resolution and set your scaling options correctly for your GPU (all nVidia and ATI GPUs have good internal scaling settings now). This way you end up with black bars on the top and bottom of the display, but no interpolated resolution as the resolution width is the same, the display just has less to render vertically.
From this point of view, 16:10 has an advantage for compatibilitiy.
Even so, I do all my gaming at 16:9 now and haven't run into issues. Buying a display, I'd be much more concerned about image quality and performance than about aspect ratio (as long as it's not 4:3.)
I wouldn't say its so much popularity. You say yourself that 1920x1080 didn't look quite right at 22". Its probably too fine a resolution for that small of a screen, and gets expensive to manufacture at those sizes.
I just don't understand why many monitors don't adhere to 4:3 and 16:9 standards.
NintendoID: Nailbunny 3DS: 3909-8796-4685
Hehe, it wasn't that exactly, some superfine number... so it's probably close to 16:10... but the resolution was a number in the 3-thousands.
I find that a taller aspect ratio is generally more comfortable for coding and office stuff.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e5/Vector_Video_Standards2.svg
Also this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_display_standard
Also, I believe 16:10 exists as a computer resolution because you can play 16:9 video and have room for a toolbar at the bottom.
I like 1680:1050, I don't need the superest duperest graphics card to run new games on it, unlike 1080p on a phatty monitor.
That's something I miss about CRTs: if your GPU was up to snuff you'd crank the resolution, and when your GPU was getting a bit on in age and newer games were taxing it, you'd lower the resolution.
Now you can lower the resolution, but that means non-native which means less pretty, or alternatively 1:1 pixel mapping which means a good bit of your display is wasted, and you get to play that much more of a balancing act between your video hardware (ie a 4770 or better will buy you 1920x1080/1200 gaming right now, but how long will that last till the games outclass it?) and display.
But that is something I could become accustomed to. Then again, I suppose you can grow accustomed to almost anything in time.
It's less than convenient when trying to hook up to an HDTV though. Ah well. On a side note, anyone else running Windows 7 on a 1920x1200 display? Is the taskbar 120 pixels tall? It feels like it.
You can resize the taskbar you know...
Converting from a 19" 4:3 I'm afraid the jump to 16:9 might be a bit hard to digest, plus at 24" the vertical screen size would in fact be smaller than with my current monitor.
I guess what I'm saying is that I'm inclined towards 16:10 but two things are stopping me:
1. Games like CS:S display more information on widescreen displayes (the vertical amount of information stays the same, so 16:9 has a field-of-view advantage over 16:10)
2. I don't want to end up with black bars in case all games start using 16:9 a year or so from now on.
It's the HDTV version of 4:3 afaik, basically a more dense version of it, more dots, or whatever.
Umm.
I know what 16:9 is. It's the aspect ratio for widescreen presentation. And there's no required link between 16:9 and HD, as the EDTVs all the rage awhile back were also 16:9. 16:9 has been around long before HD.
My question is, I guess, why 16:9? Is there a reason, outside of coincidence, that it has a mathematical relationship to 4:3? The two most common film aspect ratios are 1.85:1 and 2.35:1. If we're sizing it for films, why not go with 1.85:1 exactly? Is there a reason they didn't go with 16:10 or 17:9 or something similar, or did they just pick 16:9 out of a hat?
I'm just curious.
Wikipedia says otherwise: