16:9 support in games?

Energize

Energize

Energize

Caporegime
Joined
12 Mar 2004
Posts
29,962
Location
England
How many games that support 16:10 support 16:9? Because I'd rather buy a 16:9 screen and be able to see as much as possible from wide screen games and have the proper movie aspect ratio. Atm I have a 4:3 screen and when I switch between 16:10 and 16:9 modes in aoe3 I can see a noticable difference.
 
Last edited:
On a semi-related note, why do PC screens use non-standard 16:10 resolutions?

I use a 16:9 HDTV, 1360x768... hate to think it might cause problems with widescreen PC games because some moron some place thought 16:10 was a good idea.
 
My guess, is computer operators often want enough vertical height to read a full page of text, forum viewers like to see as many posts as possible, for photo retouching 16:10 is ideal, you can get a standard sized photo on screen, and still have a little room for some toolbars down the side.

I love slipping my SD card into the side of my 2407, and checking out my photo's.
 
Well since loads of movies are in 16:9 and tvs have been in 16:9 for years and games consoles output at 16:9. It would have made sense to stick to 16:9.
 
Someone remind me why 16:9 won't display properly on a 16:10? Surely it only gets rid of a bit of black bar at the top and bottom of the picture.
 
Energize said:
Well since loads of movies are in 16:9 and tvs have been in 16:9 for years and games consoles output at 16:9. It would have made sense to stick to 16:9.
Click to expand...
No kidding?

That doesn't mean the 16:10 format can't be superior. I'd have preferred it if everything was in that ratio from the start.
 
Kreeeee said:
Because I feel it's too wide and I like the extra height. By your statement why not go for 5:1?
Click to expand...

Because at normal tv sizes you'd have a tv at 5 inches high, with 16:9 that isn't the case.
 
Energize said:
The image gets stretched.
Click to expand...
I thought the sides would be the same, but the top and bottom gets chopped off. Doesn't it depend on how you view the different aspect ratio?
 
Shakey_Jake33 said:
I suppose it just annoys me that they have to throw another standard into the works just to make things harder, that's all.
Click to expand...
Aye, I'd rather 1 standard but I'd rather it be 16:10
 
I find you just get a tiny black band top and bottom when watching a 16:9 source on the 16:10 monitors.

As for movies being 16:9, most movies are 2.35:1, but some are 2.4:1. A few are 16:9, but I'd say at least 80% of my DVD's which claim to be 16:9 are actually 2.35:1's letterboxed onto anamorphic 16:9 dvd's. Other 16:9 movies are often just hacked down from 2.35:1 to full screen 16:9, by chopping the sides off. They dont even bother to pan and scan on those, so I prefer the full widescreen letterboxed movies personally.

The difference in picture size when viewing a 2.35:1 movie on a 16:10 instead of 16:9 is tiny, and most DVD playback software will get the aspect ratio correct automatically, if it doesnt you can normally override, and correct it. Its just not a bit issue.

So the argument that movies are 16:9 is pretty much a non issue, 16:10 is a more practical shape for close up computer work, excellent for photography, desktop publishing (2x A4 full size, + space for toolbars etc)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom