16:9 vs 21:9 ?

[lavaheadache]

16:10 is mostly moot at this point. There are barely any newer screens out in this format. I'm not saying that I don't like them more than 16:9, just that the industry in whole is moving away from the format. Heck, I only own at this point in time a u3014, 2005fpw and 34um95. 2x 16:10's and a 21:9. If I had to only have one screen it would be the LG. The 30 inch screen is still incredible to use but I just can't seem to get over the impact the ultra widescreen has had on my usage. Side by side apps have been great on it and the field of view in games has been incredible.

 

[bunnyfubbles]

If something is the way of the future then inherently it is most likely the best solution for anyone who is looking for said related
product.

well that's just asinine

Most of the content isn't here yet, and you get less for your money with 21:9, if you're on a budget that should have a significant weight.

Electric cars are the way of the future, and they exist now. If someone's asking for car advice, you don't tell them to buy an electric car when it's more expensive and not significantly better for them now or over the next few years.

In the long run, it might be, but for the life of the product 21:9 isn't required and offers significantly less value for money in current and most short to medium term use cases.

You need to read the OP and think if your view is necessarily appropriate given his request.

this

Where did the OP say he was on a tight budget ?

he didn't, but we can see from his post that his original intention was to spend $200 on a 24" 16:9 and was then wondering about whether or not an extra $50 for a 25" 21:9 would be worthwhile for gaming/movies

that's all we have to go on

if money was no object and he could afford a 34" 21:9 then that might be an excellent option, but at that price range our world of possibilities dramatically opens up, as it would include the option of the EIZO FG2421 which is native 120Hz (better for gaming) and a VA panel (better for movies) despite not being "way of the future"

 

[Jhatfie]

I am totally torn right now between going with a 32" Benq BL3200PT or the Dell U3415W. I ran 3x24" monitors in eyefinity almost 5 years ago and loved it when gaming except for the bezels and crappy support in some games, so I ended up getting a single ZR30w which I have used until now. The 34" curved ultra widescreen monitors look awesome, but I HATE backlight bleeding which seems to be a problem with the LG and Dell. Plus the Benq is like 1/2 the price of the the Dell right now which makes it a tough sell for me.

 

[exar333]

16:10 is mostly moot at this point. There are barely any newer screens out in this format. I'm not saying that I don't like them more than 16:9, just that the industry in whole is moving away from the format. Heck, I only own at this point in time a u3014, 2005fpw and 34um95. 2x 16:10's and a 21:9. If I had to only have one screen it would be the LG. The 30 inch screen is still incredible to use but I just can't seem to get over the impact the ultra widescreen has had on my usage. Side by side apps have been great on it and the field of view in games has been incredible.

I was a HUGE supporter of 16:10 for a long time, but it was less about aspect and more about resolution/pixels. There was a relatively big difference in productivity between a 1080P 16:9 vs. a 1920x1200 16:10 display. It just worked better....

Now, with higher-res displays, you can reap the benefits of both. On my 21:9 display, I still have 1440 vertical display pixels BUT have a LOT more horizontal area to play with. It gives you a lot of flexibility to view a huge, horizontal spreadsheet one moment, and then open 2-3 docs side-by-side the next. All the while, it still displays WS movies great and is really amazing for immersive gaming.

21:9 with 1440P+ resolution is really a game-changer IMHO. The 34'' options are also fantastic because you don't have some of the DPI-scaling issues 4K still has, until W10 hits the market.

 

[lavaheadache]

well that's just asinine



this



he didn't, but we can see from his post that his original intention was to spend $200 on a 24" 16:9 and was then wondering about whether or not an extra $50 for a 25" 21:9 would be worthwhile for gaming/movies

that's all we have to go on

if money was no object and he could afford a 34" 21:9 then that might be an excellent option, but at that price range our world of possibilities dramatically opens up, as it would include the option of the EIZO FG2421 which is native 120Hz (better for gaming) and a VA panel (better for movies) despite not being "way of the future"

Not sure what your problem is but your remark is a little uncalled for... eh?
I was offering my advice based on actual experience with a related product. All you did was belittle me and start talking about an expensive 120hz screen for whatever reason.

I'm really growing tired of the attitudes around here.

 

[gdansk]

16:10 is the past, present and future for anything useful. You know, like work. It's been at 4K since the early 2000s as well.

21:9 is only useful for passive viewing. I think they created 21:9 simply to make 16:9 look reasonable.

 

[lavaheadache]

Most of the content isn't here yet, and you get less for your money with 21:9, if you're on a budget that should have a significant weight.

Electric cars are the way of the future, and they exist now. If someone's asking for car advice, you don't tell them to buy an electric car when it's more expensive and not significantly better for them now or over the next few years.

In the long run, it might be, but for the life of the product 21:9 isn't required and offers significantly less value for money in current and most short to medium term use cases.

You need to read the OP and think if your view is necessarily appropriate given his request.

I did read it.

Clearly he is interested in a 21:9. Most if not all new games support the aspect ratio as well as a good number of older titles. Movie content has been available for a long time that will fill screen nicely. The difference is $50 so I hardly see "value" coming into play. To me it sounds like he should take the plunge.

 

[Shehriazad]

I owned a 25" 21:9 for about a year now...and here's my 2 cents on this:

Looks great for movies and games.

Is a tiny bit weird when watching 16:9 or 4:3 videos that have those pillars on the side..but it's not bad enough for me to actually care about it.

As for the performance difference...even though the resolution(2560x1080 in my case) is 30% bigger than 16:9 equivalents...my performance "drop" was no more than 5-15% depending on title...it's really tame.

And even older games get to shine in 21:9 since there are a few tools that have entire databases of old games and make them "21:9 ready" with a single click. (They're basically a collection of memory hacks and mini mods that you can run as a tray icon and have even your old titles look really nice.)


So at least for games...you should really not be having any issues...that said...if you play some ANCIENT stuff I don't know how THAT would react. (Talking about fullscreened dos games or anything like it)

But any game that is 2008 and newer you are unlikely to have real troubles with. People always say "but those old games need lots of configuration and modding to work"...nope...not thanks to the internet. The tools are literally fully automatic databases... you just tell it to activate itself whenever you run any of those old games on the list...and voila...no more work needed. Skyrim had some UI issue in 21:9...just had the little tool run in the background and it worked like a charm. It doesn't even take a lot of system resources...I think while running it takes like 10-15mb of system memory depending on title running...


And for games that are 2011 and newer...I haven't needed such a tool at all...they all support it naturally or via config (which is hardly any work to modify...you just have to type your resolution manually).


Some people also say "Bohoo it's got less screen space than equivalent inch 16:9 screens"....sure...that may be the case. But the pixel density is thus higher...which is a plus since games will look better at lower resolutions and less AA. 25" 16:9 HD screens need a big amount of AA just to get rid of those annoying blocky graphics. On my 21:9 I use FXAA or MSAA x2 AT BEST...because that's all it needs.



Sure...21:9 isn't perfect since old content does exist. But you don't buy a 21:9 monitor for playing Atari games, bro...you buy 21:9 monitors if you want to have a cinematic experience with games and movies of THIS era. (Not to mention movies have been widescreen since last century). If it's for workloads...then I'd obviously suggest a higher res than 2560x1080...but I think for someone with a lot of windows open at any given time...a 1440P 21:9 would be vastly superior to its 16:9 equivalent.


EDIT: To me 21:9 is also a better option than running multi monitor setups...because with those you get freaking black bars anywhere thanks to the Monitors' frame...or you buy some way too expensive setup..and don't even get me started on the troubles you can end up with if you actually want to set up such a thing and then play with it. It's out of the question that 21:9 is closer to the human fov...and in racing/strategy and 3rd/1st person view it's definitely better than 16:9 (in my opinion)

 

[exar333]

16:10 is the past, present and future for anything useful. You know, like work. It's been at 4K since the early 2000s as well.

21:9 is only useful for passive viewing. I think they created 21:9 simply to make 16:9 look reasonable.

It is not about the aspect ratio anymore, it is about the resolution. Unless you NEED 4K-level of resolution, there is nothing you cannot do with a 1440P 21:9 vs. any 16:10 display. Most of times the 21:9 will do it better.

(I do work on mine every day)

 

[xthetenth]

16:10 is the past, present and future for anything useful. You know, like work. It's been at 4K since the early 2000s as well.

21:9 is only useful for passive viewing. I think they created 21:9 simply to make 16:9 look reasonable.

Did you read what people have said? People who have the things love them. My work monitor is 21:9 and I love the thing desperately, because it offers a considerable and real advantage in how I can set up my working environment. Nothing available can match the working space available from a 3440x1440 screen unless you get a 40 inch range 4K so it isn't just effectively a sharper 2560x1600 as far as stuff on screen goes, and even then I'm not confident it would really add much.

Tell you what, you get an IDE window with two pieces of code side by side, menus along each side and room for a reference document next to that, all at an easily read resolution, and I'll consider 16:10 capable of fitting in the same sentence as high resolution 21:9. Until then I'll keep considering anything less than 1440 tall 21:9 a waste of time and effort for serious work. I wouldn't say no to 3440x1600, but I don't think it adds much if anything, 1440 is enough that much taller than it rarely adds much because if you want something off screen it's probably pages away.

EDIT: To me 21:9 is also a better option than running multi monitor setups...because with those you get freaking black bars anywhere thanks to the Monitors' frame...or you buy some way too expensive setup..and don't even get me started on the troubles you can end up with if you actually want to set up such a thing and then play with it. It's out of the question that 21:9 is closer to the human fov...and in racing/strategy and 3rd/1st person view it's definitely better than 16:9 (in my opinion)

It is much better than multi-monitor, especially with the LG setups that come with software to let you easily dynamically resize the way the screen's split, and especially at higher resolutions where two monitors are unwieldy at best.

 

[know of fence]

It's out of the question that 21:9 is closer to the human fov...and in racing/strategy and 3rd/1st person view it's definitely better than 16:9 (in my opinion)

What is the aspect ratio of the human Field of View anyway? - Now Field of View in video game 3D is like wearing a card board frame cut out in front of you, mostly it's about how far from your eye is it, but it's also about what ratio of hight and width it has. I bet the natural ratio is something slightly elongated rather than cinemascope-panoramic. Looking up an down is just as important as side to side. Photography and recording certainly prefers a square (even round) shape. Reading is better in narrow columns. There never will be 21:9 phones or tablets either. Choose a 21:9 shape for video games and all you get is less hight, rather than more width, or you get weird perspective distortion (map on the bottom left) on the sides as you move closer to objects. But it sure is nice looking far out.

I can't stand multiple monitors so I can see the appeal of not having bezels, but clearly this 21:9 thing is a niche. Though curved monitors could be interesting, much more so for desktops than for TVs.

 

[xthetenth]

No, in most games height fov is fixed so you get more width, and anyway adding more skybox and ground doesn't add as much as more width angle, which adds scenery and movement on the peripherals.

Phones and tablets are designed to be used on one or maybe two tasks on some tablets and do it well, a resolution squarer displays work best at, and to be held in hand, something they do well at again. The best form factor for reading something in your palm, reading something while chatting on a tablet and doing serious work with a weighty reference document on the side are not necessarily and likely should not be the same.

 

[Deders]

What is the aspect ratio of the human Field of View anyway? - Now Field of View in video game 3D is like wearing a card board frame cut out in front of you, mostly it's about how far from your eye is it, but it's also about what ratio of hight and width it has. I bet the natural ratio is something slightly elongated rather than cinemascope-panoramic. Looking up an down is just as important as side to side. Photography and recording certainly prefers a square (even round) shape. Reading is better in narrow columns. There never will be 21:9 phones or tablets either. Choose a 21:9 shape for video games and all you get is less hight, rather than more width, or you get weird perspective distortion (map on the bottom left) on the sides as you move closer to objects. But it sure is nice looking far out.

I can't stand multiple monitors so I can see the appeal of not having bezels, but clearly this 21:9 thing is a niche. Though curved monitors could be interesting, much more so for desktop rather than for TVs.

The reason they started using cinemascope in films is because it is closer to your natural field of view. My 2560x1080 monitor is like having 2x 1280x1024 monitors side by side without the bezel, one for each eye.

You do get the extra width when games are configured properly for it, which in my experience is most of the time. One thing I've noticed in some games (Dragon age Inquisition is a good example) is that the extra field of view tricks my mind into thinking trees and doorways are about to brush up against my ears as they dissapear off the edges of the screen. I find myself wanting to duck under arches. This happens whether I am close-up or sat over a meter away.

As for phones, iPhones are getting longer and longer. They can only stretch 1080p so far.

 

[xthetenth]

I'm pretty sure phone sizes and aspect ratios are far more determined by the arc the user's thumb can cover in a one-hand grip and maximizing the amount of phone under it than by optimal viewing ratios.

 

[exar333]

I will say I much prefer 16:10 on a laptop/tablet display...but there is a lot less flexibility on a mobile device, as 21:9 would be pretty ungainly.

 

[Shehriazad]

Pfff...pulling phones and tablets into this discussion is pointless and unfair.

Phones/Tablets have WAY different standards compared to monitors because they don't only have to be nice for the eye...but also nice for your hands AND have to fill out certain aspects of portability etc.

Let's keep this discussion about what it NEEDS to be....MONITORS.


And there is a reason why ever since LAST century, blockbuster/triple A movies have been shot in 21:9 (or similar) ratios.

Human eyes are aligned horizontally...not diagonal or vertical. I mean sure...we could go as far as 48:9 or whatever...but that would only make sense if the Monitors change their shape and are bend to be in a halfcircle around your vision.



I'm not going to argue that all is perfect for 21:9...but quite honestly...16:9 and 16:10 both had to fight similar prejudice and at least one of them now dominates the market...and between "just going longer" or having to deal with annoying bezels...I think I already know the winner.

I don't even believe that 21:9 will ever be as popular as 16:9...but in years to come it will in my opinion gain market share and stay in that area "stable".

I already know that once GPUs are good enough without forcing me to attach them to a nuclear power plant...I will be running a 21:9 5K Monitor.

 

[xthetenth]

Honestly it seems that in retrospect other than the widescreen 700-800 pixel tall race to the bottom trash, monitors have followed a rough course of scaling up until they can really comfortably fit display elements height wise and then gotten wider to fit more and it makes a lot of sense. It's pretty rare that I'm actively hurting for screen height on a 1440 tall screen, even with a console at the bottom and icon bars up top more height wouldn't add that much, but width allows me to do much more. I can have two pieces of code next to each other without minimizing navigation bars with a reference document next to it. I can have one piece of code, a reference doc and a command prompt/scratchpad for copied stuff. I could have a picture with a nice large area to work on with reference material off to the side. There's a lot of really awesome stuff I can do very easily with my 21:9 that would be difficult to replicate with a taller screen that wasn't as wide physically and in pixels already.

1080 is the bottom resolution where I'd consider 21:9, but I would definitely consider it. For everyday non-games and movies use, I'd consider it an upgrade even on a smaller screen. For that media, I would do my due diligence and see what media works properly and what the fallback is. I know mine will do letterboxing for me, so it's likely the one OP's talking about would as well.

 

[therealnickdanger]

Go big or go home:

http://www.lg.com/ae/tvs/lg-105UC9T

 

[Headfoot]

I do triple monitor for gaming, and it's completely awesome. If I were starting off today, I'd go 21:9 instead.

 

[xthetenth]

Go big or go home:

http://www.lg.com/ae/tvs/lg-105UC9T

I bet that's downright cheap compared to the office to put it in.

EDIT: Oh god I checked what stores that thing's available in right now and it's only available in the UAE. That's priceless. But you can get it special ordered for six figures (not counting cents).

 

[exar333]

I do triple monitor for gaming, and it's completely awesome. If I were starting off today, I'd go 21:9 instead.

This about sums it up. I loved my 3x1200P setup, but 21:9 bezel-less is great.

 

[Headfoot]

This about sums it up. I loved my 3x1200P setup, but 21:9 bezel-less is great.

I moved to monitors with 5.9mm bezels which has made a HUGE difference in how noticeable the bezels are during gameplay. Now I don't notice them. My main concern with 3x1080p is how frequently I have to downgrade to a single 1080p monitor because half the developers can't write UI that scales right. For example, Skyrim explodes the UI so it thinks you have a 3x3 grid of 1080p monitors. So does Evolve. With 21:9 i'd sacrifice some screen real estate on the peripherals in exchange for it working correctly more often.
At this point I'm not going to downgrade, but I would pick 21:9 if starting new for that reason.

 

[know of fence]

And there is a reason why ever since LAST century, blockbuster/triple A movies have been shot in 21:9 (or similar) ratios.

Human eyes are aligned horizontally...not diagonal or vertical. I mean sure...we could go as far as 48:9 or whatever...but that would only make sense if the Monitors change their shape and are bend to be in a halfcircle around your vision.

For a while I thought that the reason was to have a roll of film last longer since the frames were wider and shorter, but they actually were shot on normal film with a non-round / anamorphic lens, which was a giant PITA apparantely because the sides were darker than the center. The real reason probably was to sell more theater seats and allow for wider cinemas, nobody likes to look at the silver screen from the side.

I'm a firm believer in quantitative analysis, so here are some numbers. So your half circle is 180° and we can almost see all of it it if we turn eyes left and right: Furthermore the Wikipedia entry for Field of View, talks about how humans can see 114° of it with both eyes at the same time (binocular vision).
At a 2 feet distance/radius the half circle around our head would be (2 ft x Pi ) = 75 inches. A curved screen with 114° of view would be 48" wide or a more realistic max FoV of modern games of 85° = 35". Monitors aren't nearly as wide today.
Which is why at a rather large distance of 2 feet, I have to set my old ass monitor for a FoV of 44,5°, this is pretty much the default setting for games.

That said a half circle is best approximated by triple angled screens, rather than a bezel-less plane.