Why is everything x1080 now?

[TheUnk]

It depends on the game.. Some games chop off the top and bottom (vertical-) so it "fits" on widescreen displays. Some games add to the left and right (horizontal+) so you end up seeing more.

The correct way games should be designed is horizontal+, otherwise a 4:3 screen will see more than a 16:9 or 16:10. And how would you like it if you bought an HDTV and ended up having less viewing area than people with "square" 4:3 TVs?

16:9 is wider than 16:10 so you will see LESS (though not much) on your 16:10 in games designed correctly.

 

[edplayer]

I was under the impression that hor + only expanded horizontally but wsgf defines it as: "expands the horizontal component of the FOV while keeping the vertical component roughly or exactly the same"

So they keep track of which methods are used in what games in a summary but will not explain in detail unless you go to the thread of that game. As in they will say hor + (the most common for new games) but won't say if its locked vertically in the summary.

Clicked on a few of the games that I play and it looks like they are all locked vertically so, at least for most of my games, you can see more horizontally...

 

[lowboyee]

Of course. Did you not see that I posted both where you quoted me?

What you're missing is that pixels don't matter, just the aspect ratio.

 

[edplayer]

and how is the aspect ratio determined?

apart from pixels, maybe screen height vs. width or another method?

 

[lowboyee]

Maybe I wasn't clear enough when I said "With that [the horizontal + vertical pixels], we can get an aspect ratio and then ignore pixels altogether"

Since we're comparing aspect ratios, it doesn't matter what the original pixel values were once we determine them. It complicates things, needlessly.

 

[busydude]

http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=29947472&postcount=115

http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=29947111&postcount=112

 

[lowboyee]

http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=29947472&postcount=115

http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=29947111&postcount=112

edplayer: See? There are no pixel values on these diagrams, yet it conveys all of the data needed to have a discussion about different aspect ratios.

 

[edplayer]

Maybe I wasn't clear enough when I said "With that [the horizontal + vertical pixels], we can get an aspect ratio and then ignore pixels altogether"

Since we're comparing aspect ratios, it doesn't matter what the original pixel values were once we determine them. It complicates things, needlessly.

Of course you were clear enough. My question to you is why did you even bother bringing it up since I said (and you quoted) that both hor and vert res are needed to calculate aspect ratio.

I'm not talking about using resolution vs. aspect ratio.

 

[OCGuy]

I dont mind my 24 inch 1080p. Not sure if it is just because I am used to it now though...

 

[StrangerGuy]

16:9 is the new standard because its cheaper to manufacture...can get more screens out of the glass panels they cut up or something like that.

Ding ding ding...We are stuck with 16:9 because that is what the panel manufacturers want us to buy.

 

[NoQuarter]

So they keep track of which methods are used in what games in a summary but will not explain in detail unless you go to the thread of that game. As in they will say hor + (the most common for new games) but won't say if its locked vertically in the summary.

Well, by definition a hor+ game is 'locked' vertically. Whether you can manually change the vertical FoV is dependent on the game or your ability to use a memory editor but whatever you change it to it is then locked to for the horizontal field of view calculation.

What happens in hor+ is the engine calculates the horizontal FoV something like this (but with some trig): ( res_x / res_y ) * v_fov = h_fov

As you can see the v_fov has to be a known value, something the devs or you set ahead of time, so it's 'locked' - and the h_fov adjusts freely based on res_x / res_y which is the aspect ratio.. (1920 / 1080) = 1.777...

This means a 16:9 has a wider FoV than a 16:10 monitor in 'proper' game engines. Course UE3 engine is opposite, but has different preset h_fov values to match widescreen ratios as a workaround.

 

[GundamF91]

Why? Because economies of scale. HDTV is the big driver for 16:9, and the manufacturing is geared up for that, and in turn it trickles down to Computer monitor as well. I am OK with this since the LCD prices have come down so much now. Also this promotes standardization in the industry as well.

 

[velis]

About a year ago I bought a syncmaster which uses 2048x1152 for $170. Now I can't find anything under $200-230 and it only has 1980x1080? What the hell? Even displays up to 27" still have that same resolution - what is going on?

I see a few pricey IPS panels that have nice resolutions, but honestly... Is this 2048x1152 just unheard of these days, or am I missing something? Don't you find that 1080 pixels is not much for a big display?

If I am just completely way off base or misinformed, please please help put me on the right track!

zCypher, the answer is easy:

Nowadays everything is 1080p simply because *the sheep* fell into the FullHD hype and are buying anything that says "HD" (the prefix "full" as in "full HD" not even mandatory...)
Since the HD hype caused all six pack Joes out there to buy this one glorious res, this in turn causes mfg's marketing guys to see charts somewhat like this:
80% of sales = 1080p
19% of sales = 720p (those poor bastards that can't afford 1080p)
1% of sales = any other (low) res we provide
Some background noise from HW forums like anandtech et all (if they are even checking this): there's some noise about higher res monitors and 120Hz vs 60Hz and some bickering about 16:9 vs 16:10 vs 4:3 vs whatever, but there's no single spec getting demanded. Projected sales: low 10s of units (panel types and other differentiators left out for simplicity's sake)
The average Joe doesn't even understand the difference between a TV and a computer monitor, so...

That is why the mfgs simply respond to market and produce more 1080p monitors. Since 120Hz is "easy", they throw some of that in the mix, but for the lack of projected sales they won't even think of producing a semi decent res like 3840x2400.
Just go to any mfg's web site and see for yourself: they each have 10+ 1080p monitors that don't even differ in tech specs. No, they differ in stand design, bezel design and color. Nothing more. 10+ identical monitors just to catch your eye so that you buy their model and not a competitor's one...

That is why current monitors can't even reach resolutions monitors were able to do 10 years ago. Current top 2560x1600 res is the only res higher than any old 19" CRT could reach (2048x1536). And even that is only marginally higher.

So there you go: blame it on the Joe sixpack

 

[Anubis]

this might help here, i prefer 16:10, so much better when doing excel or programming work

 

[Vdubchaos]

To be honest, I don't really care for anything higher than 1080p or 1900x1200.

IMO that's a sweet spot without getting into out of control Hardware prices. Also doesn't require upgrade just to play newer games.

 

[arredondo]

Anubis, I think you have 16:10 and 16:9 mixed up in that .gif.

In any case, what your clip shows is the difference between the three when all else is equal. Of course 16:10 is best in that case. What it doesn't show is the relative difference between display sizes. In other words, if a 16x9 display is a 60" HDTV and the 16x10 display is a 30" monitor, which is better? I say larger total screen size is better than a slightly expanded resolution.

 

[BathroomFeeling]

It's not mixed up, 16:10 & 16:9 is correctly labeled in Anubis's animation.

 

[bunnyfubbles]

I prefer 16x10 because i can see slightly more of whatever game than with 16x9. Long live 30" 16x10!

only if the game is cropping will you see more in 16:10 than 16:9, and if that's what its doing its likely cropping down from 4:3 so you might as well be using a 4:3 monitor for that game.

if the game supports 16:10 without cropping then it more than likely supports 16:9 and 16:9 will have a superior FOV to 16:10 and reveal more of the game environment without turning than would on 16:10.

 

[bunnyfubbles]

Anubis, I think you have 16:10 and 16:9 mixed up in that .gif.

In any case, what your clip shows is the difference between the three when all else is equal. Of course 16:10 is best in that case. What it doesn't show is the relative difference between display sizes. In other words, if a 16x9 display is a 60" HDTV and the 16x10 display is a 30" monitor, which is better? I say larger total screen size is better than a slightly expanded resolution.

no, its not mixed up, 16:9 is a wider aspect ratio and thus should provide a wider FOV if the game doesn't "solve" the aspect ratio issue with cropping.

 

[Anubis]

no, its not mixed up, 16:9 is a wider aspect ratio and thus should provide a wider FOV if the game doesn't "solve" the aspect ratio issue with cropping.

this is correct

also i didn't make that one of the review sites did during the SC2 beta IIRC. it just illustrates the point well of what the difference between 16:9 and 16:10 are when the game doesn't crop

and i agree with playing on a 60in TV over a 30in monitor but TBH the % of people that actually do that is absurdly small. the majority of people fall into the 20-24 inch range, and want to spend as little as they can. 16:9 is the cheaper option in that area.

I run dual 25.5s that are 1920x1200, when these get replaced ill be staying on 16x10, if that means i have to get 30s then ill shell out the big $ for them

 

[Gryz]

this might help here, i prefer 16:10, so much better when doing excel or programming work

Edit: arredondo already said it.

That is not a fair comparison.
Because the diagonals are not the same.
Or to be more precise, the surface size in mm2.
That picture is showing the differences between a 24" 1920x1080 and a 22" 1920x1200 and a 17" 1280x1024 (roughly).

I too prefer a 16x10.

 

[taltamir]

About a year ago I bought a syncmaster which uses 2048x1152 for $170. Now I can't find anything under $200-230 and it only has 1980x1080? What the hell? Even displays up to 27" still have that same resolution - what is going on?

I see a few pricey IPS panels that have nice resolutions, but honestly... Is this 2048x1152 just unheard of these days, or am I missing something? Don't you find that 1080 pixels is not much for a big display?

If I am just completely way off base or misinformed, please please help put me on the right track!

2048x1152 is a bizarre mutant resolution... resolutions are codified to fit a certain standard, but sometimes due to manufacturing issues a company will make a bizzarro resolutions that is unique to that panel and never lasts.

The standard for PC monitors was 1920x1200 (16:10 ratio) and for TVs it is 1920x1080 (aka 1080i or 1080p). to save money, production lines were merged (with the onset of LCD TVs, which are just monitors with TV inputs) and the 1920x1200 resolution was dropped so that now all companies are sticking to 1080p resolution for both monitors and TVs, it is a safe sell, it is exactly the resolution of a lot of movies and everyone supports it.

this might help here, i prefer 16:10, so much better when doing excel or programming work

This is only in starcraft though. The FOV is VERY game Dependant.
If the game scales the zoom level based on the resolution size, then 16:9 ratio gives you the most FOV... but in such a case you just set it to a 16:9 resolution on your 16:10 monitor and have two black bars (on top and bottom) ands till get max FOV (or stretched image, your choice)

The vast majority of games do not scale it in such a manner, if your game does not autoscale then 1920x1200 gives you superior FOV than 1920x1080... both give you identical width, but the x1200 gives you more hight in your FOV

 

[sandorski]

That is a odd resolution,, is that 16:10 or 16:9

Well for 10 years Ive used 2304x1440 on my ubber Sony CRT ,, its still going strong I will not get a LCD because their 60hz,, I will wait 3 or 4 years until the douches come out with PC monitors 27 inch 2560res 120hz or 240hz refresh.. Thank you

60hz on an LCD is nothing like 60hz on a CRT. There's no Flashing, which is what was always annoying with that refresh rate on my CRTs.

 

[TemjinGold]

I think those of you who say the pics are mixed up are forgetting one really important point--16:9 screens of the same "size" aren't just shorter than 16:10, they are also WIDER to make up for that. A 24" monitor needs a 24" diagonal length to be called that. If you make it shorter and don't touch the width, it won't be 24 inches anymore. To compensate, you need to make it wider. That's why you see more horizontal area for a game at 16:9.

 

[taltamir]

60Hz LCD is completely different (and superior) to 60Hz CRT. And there are lots of 120Hz LCDs on the market right now. single link DVI / HDMI cannot do 2560x res @ 240hz, it doesn't have enough bandwidth. you need quad-lane display port for that.

I think those of you who say the pics are mixed up are forgetting one really important point

The only mistake on the part of those saying "the pictures are fixed" is assuming that all games handle it the same, it varies depending on the game.

--16:9 screens of the same "size" aren't just shorter than 16:10, they are also WIDER to make up for that. A 24" monitor needs a 24" diagonal length to be called that. If you make it shorter and don't touch the width, it won't be 24 inches anymore. To compensate, you need to make it wider. That's why you see more horizontal area for a game at 16:9.

at the sacrifice of less area vertically and less area overall... also a game's FOV has nothing to do with the AREA of the monitor, it has to do with the RESOLUTION of the monitor. Pixels, not inches. and thus you will have a greater FOV with 1920x1200...
you cannot and should not compare aspect ratios.
Vast majority of games: more pixels = more FOV
Some games (ex: starcraft): specific aspect ratios = more FOV, can be manipulated via selecting a resolution of the desired aspect ratio even though it isn't your monitor's native, either stretching it or having black bars.