PC games developer resolution standard 16x10 or 16x9?

[lavaheadache]

I say screw it and get a 2560x1600 panel. This way you can use 5:4 , 4:3 , 16:9, 16:10 or whatever you want with a high resolution

 

[darkxshade]

4:3 for life bitchez!!!

 

[CoinOperatedBoy]

I say screw it and get a 2560x1600 panel. This way you can use 5:4 , 4:3 , 16:9, 16:10 or whatever you want with a high resolution

That doesn't make sense to me. 2560x1600 is 16:10. Any other aspect ratio will be stretched, zoomed, or boxed. It's no different than what would happen to a 1650x1080 display. Or is there some arbitrary resolution that's important to you?

 

[wpeng]

I think what he's trying to say is that the screen is so huge, it doesn't matter if there are black bars. You can letterbox any of those resolutions and still the get the same size as if you had a monitor in that aspect ratio.

Personally, I don't understand the hubbub about black bars and such. Who gives a crap about the picture fitting right up to the bezel. As long as the viewable area is a similar size, you can just make-believe the black screen portion is the bezel. I personally would not mind sticking with our more squarish aspect ratios (4:3 and 5:4). The aesthetic appeal of fitting the entire screen is trivial to me.

 

[CoinOperatedBoy]

I think what he's trying to say is that the screen is so huge, it doesn't matter if there are black bars. You can letterbox any of those resolutions and still the get the same size as if you had a monitor in that aspect ratio.

Personally, I don't understand the hubbub about black bars and such. Who gives a crap about the picture fitting right up to the bezel. As long as the viewable area is a similar size, you can just make-believe the black screen portion is the bezel. I personally would not mind sticking with our more squarish aspect ratios (4:3 and 5:4). The aesthetic appeal of fitting the entire screen is trivial to me.

The idea is that black bars represent utterly wasted space. To display widescreen content at the same size on a 4:3 monitor, it would need to be significantly larger than a 16:9 display. Likewise for the reverse scenario. So your display dimensions should match as closely as possible the aspect ratio of the media you will most commonly be viewing.

 

[ginbong]

Black bars on a 16:10 is not a waste in my opinion. We need the extra 120 pixels for daily PC usage as stated before.

 

[wpeng]

The idea is that black bars represent utterly wasted space. To display widescreen content at the same size on a 4:3 monitor, it would need to be significantly larger than a 16:9 display. Likewise for the reverse scenario. So your display dimensions should match as closely as possible the aspect ratio of the media you will most commonly be viewing.

A good 2560x1600 screen is usually fairly large, 29 to 30", unless there are smaller monitors with that resolution. It wouldn't be hard to get an actual 19" size by scaling to 4:3 on a monitor that size. Wasted space is only relative to the game. For example, in the old BF2, there was no widescreen resolution, they just enlarged the view and chopped off the top and bottom, essentially crippling widescreeners. Even if there is a waste, it is only for videos and certain games. When you are using the computer for general purpose, there is no waste. Calling black bars a waste of space just for one or two applications of a computer's use is a little exaggerated.

 

[SpatiallyAware]

At 24" a monitor is large enough to make thin bars easily tolerable. Even 21" is too small for this imo

I'd go for 16:10 just to get that little bit of extra height.

FYI a 24" 1920x1200 16:10 monitor run at 16:9 with black bars results in a 23.3" equivalent monitor.

http://tvcalculator.com/

 

[CoinOperatedBoy]

A good 2560x1600 screen is usually fairly large, 29 to 30", unless there are smaller monitors with that resolution. It wouldn't be hard to get an actual 19" size by scaling to 4:3 on a monitor that size. Wasted space is only relative to the game. For example, in the old BF2, there was no widescreen resolution, they just enlarged the view and chopped off the top and bottom, essentially crippling widescreeners. Even if there is a waste, it is only for videos and certain games. When you are using the computer for general purpose, there is no waste. Calling black bars a waste of space just for one or two applications of a computer's use is a little exaggerated.

To repeat myself, with emphasis this time: "So your display dimensions should match as closely as possible the aspect ratio of the media you will most commonly be viewing." If the display suits your everyday needs, the letterboxing is tolerable for the few times it happens. I said as much more than once in recommending a 16:10 monitor. But buying a humongous 4:3 or 5:4 monitor if you're generally going to be playing widescreen-capable games or watching movies is just stupid and not cost-effective.

 

[ginbong]

We are talking about 16:10 vs 16:9 sir and not 4:3. I think this is where the confusion is coming regarding the black bars..

 

[Tuffrabbit]

Check out the neat LG W3000H-BN 30" monitor, this beauty uses IPS (In Plane Switching) versus TN (Twisted Nematic)... 16:10 rules baby !

 

[CoinOperatedBoy]

We are talking about 16:10 vs 16:9 sir and not 4:3. I think this is where the confusion is coming regarding the black bars..

Wpeng specifically said he wouldn't mind a 4:3 or 5:4 monitor if it were large enough.

 

[ginbong]

Sorry missed that, that is silly in my opinion

 

[ginbong]

Check out the neat LG W3000H-BN 30" monitor, this beauty uses IPS (In Plane Switching) versus TN (Twisted Nematic)... 16:10 rules baby !

Will check it out! Price? I hope it's not through the roof! haha

 

[crisium]

Most games aren't "optimized for 16:9." The vast majority of FPS games adjust the FOV according to the aspect ratio that you are using. Only the hardcore games force you to use a set FOV.

Yeah, but that's not what I mean by optimized. I mean the "optimal" aspect ratio.

Basically, each aspect ratio has it's own FOV that keeps the game in the same general perspective. Wider resolutions have a wider FOV, taller resolutions have a taller FOV.

Wrong, totally bollocks. Wider resolutions have a wider FOV, taller resolutions do not have a taller FOV. They are inferior in every way. Every. Way. Playing in 16:9 over 16:10 gives you a wider FOV, with no penalty for your vertical view. This is how it's "optimized for 16:9". I don't mean the developer forces you to have black bars. I mean if you play an FPS on 16:10 then you are missing horizontal viewing space. And with the FPS games of the past several years, that is a fact (though sometimes it has to be patched in, silly Bioshock).

You might not care, and for single player it hardly matters. But for competitive online FPS, you are not seeing other players in 16:10 that you would be in 16:9 and you will suffer more deaths. You don't have to be a hardcore online gamer to appreciate less respawns in a game.

So, again, feel free to get a 1920x1200 monitor. It's better for desktop / internet use. But I suggest that you letterbox it to 1920x1080 at least for modern FPS (not necessarily other genres or older games, you'd have to test it out).