***21.9 Ultrawide Thread***

In terms of smoothness/motion clarity, he is right, 100fps will look better than 50fps.

In terms of sharpness/clarity then that is where 3440x1440 will look better.

Also, you have to remember that just because something is a higher res. doesn't necessarily mean it will look better, the increased sharpness/clarity you see with higher res. panels is down to the higher PPI (pixels per inch)
 
Last edited:
Nexus18 said:
In terms of smoothness/motion clarity, he is right, 100fps will look better than 50fps.

In terms of sharpness/clarity then that is where 3440x1440 will look better.

Also, you have to remember that just because something is a higher res. doesn't necessarily mean it will look better, the increased sharpness/clarity you see with higher res. panels is down to the PPI (pixels per inch)
Click to expand...

Show me a 2560x1080 looking better than a 3440x1440 and I'll believe you.
 
LambChop said:
Show me a 2560x1080 looking better than a 3440x1440 and I'll believe you.
Click to expand...

Can you not grasp the difference between smoothness/motion clarity and sharpness/clarity?

Did I say that 2560x1080 will look better than 3440x1440 in terms of sharpness/clarity? No.

Show me where 50fps will look better than 100fps in terms of smoothness and motion clarity and I'll believe you.
 
LambChop said:
***REMOVED***.
Click to expand...

Nope, just pointing out simple facts, let me lay these facts out again for you

1. 100 fps will look better than 50 fps for motion clarity and smoothness
2. 3440x1440 will look better than 2560x1080 for sharpness/clarity

Do you not agree? If not, then why? And please post some proof showing otherwise.

Let me ask you another question, do you just stand still and not move around in games? If not, then yes your fps even at 30 won't matter to you.... but if you are actually playing the game like most people would, which requires you to you know... move around especially in a quick paced FPS shooter then 100 fps will look a lot better than 50 fps in terms of motion clarity because the image being produced will look clearer rather than a blurry mess (as long as the display has a refresh rate capable of going to 100HZ).

And good to see you have as usual dropped to the insults level again... :rolleyes:
 
LambChop said:
Show me a 2560x1080 looking better than a 3440x1440 and I'll believe you.
Click to expand...

to be fair, 2560x1080 100hz in motion probably does look better than 3440x1440 60hz.

That sharpness isnt worth much in motion, and having experience of both panels at 29 and 34", motion blur isnt exactly exceptional on these panels so i can quite believe that in motion 2560x1080 100hz might edge it.

It would be an interesting comparison to make :)
 
james.miller said:
to be fair, 2560x1080 100hz in motion probably does look better than 3440x1440 60hz.

That sharpness isnt worth much in motion, and having experience of both panels at 29 and 34", motion blur isnt exactly exceptional on these panels so i can quite believe that in motion 2560x1080 100hz might edge it.

It would be an interesting comparison to make :)
Click to expand...

Not disagreeing with that, we are talking about what looks better.
 
LambChop said:
There's nothing subjective about that, regardless of the fps, 2560x1080 over 3440x1440 will never in a million years look better. Just because the 100fps will feel smoother it will still never look better. I really dont know why you said that to be honest.
Click to expand...

Framerate absolutely impacts on how a game looks. Some are more sensitive that others - hence the subjective part - but I struggle with anything below 60fps. Try playing something at 20fps - regardless of how good a still image looks, the results are a jerky, unconvincing mess.
 
james.miller said:
But that is looking better and if you spend more time gaming than on the desktop its not something that shuld be ignored, imo :)
Click to expand...

No you're comparing motion now, I'm talking about what looks better. Just put a game on the monitors at the res's were talking about, stand back and look at it.

Is it that difficult to do ?

My girlfriend is gorgeous, tonight instead of looking at how good she looks, I'll pick her up and swing her the **** around my living room, after it she will ask me wtf I am doing, and my response is seeing how good you look but to do that I needed a bit of motion.

:rolleyes:
 
Warbie said:
Framerate absolutely impacts on how a game looks. Some are more sensitive that others - hence the subjective part - but I struggle with anything below 60fps. Try playing something at 20fps - regardless of how good a still image looks, the results are a jerky, unconvincing mess.
Click to expand...

Correct but now you have not said how it looks, you are now adding in lower fps, jerkyness etc.

that 1 frame of non jerkyness will still look better at 3440x1440 over 2560x1080
 
Having tried 27" 1440 and 35" curved superwide 1080 (both 144hz). I preferred the superwide, it was so much smoother and the lower res wasn't an issue for gaming on for me. Yea you can have 1440 of the same size, but for 3x the price. Plus you need a very beefy GPU to run it. Then you have to play the monitor lottery to get a good one.
 
Last edited:
LambChop said:
Correct but now you have not said how it looks, you are now adding in lower fps, jerkyness etc.

that 1 frame of non jerkyness will still look better at 3440x1440 over 2560x1080
Click to expand...



Now we're getting down to semantics. I'm bundling everything together when comparing how things look, as that's all I'm concerned about when playing a game. It could be the most detailed game in the world, but if the image jerks around, it looks crap.
 
LambChop said:
No you're comparing motion now, I'm talking about what looks better. Just put a game on the monitors at the res's were talking about, stand back and look at it.

Is it that difficult to do ?

My girlfriend is gorgeous, tonight instead of looking at how good she looks, I'll pick her up and swing her the **** around my living room, after it she will ask me wtf I am doing, and my response is seeing how good you look but to do that I needed a bit of motion.

:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

You've both be warned, let's keep it civil please.

So you don't move around in games at all? You just place your character somewhere and stand up and look at your monitor and think wow this game is stunning...

News flash, to progress in a game, you have to you know.... move around and when you move/look around, motion blur is introduced and 50 fps in comparison to 100 fps is a blurry mess thus you are losing sharpness/clarity to the image when "playing" the game...

Go test 100HZ and 50HZ on this:

http://www.testufo.com/#test=photo&photo=eiffel.jpg&pps=960&pursuit=0&height=0

Get back to me and tell me which refresh rate/image looks better.
 
I remember years back now, when we used to get a new game we'd say to our friends... 'the graphics look great on this game' or 'how's the graphics' and 100 times out of 100 you would respond with amazing, or if it wasnt that good, you would say so.

Now something just cant look good, you have to factor in how fast the screen draw is, how much blur there is how much fps there is and so on and so on.

I'm not getting down to semantics, a lot has been added to the original comment now, instead of it looking good its now becoming generalised with all the blur and fps you can think of to make it a more factual statement. I'm a great believer in saying what you mean.
 
Nexus18 said:
You've both be warned, let's keep it civil please.

So you don't move around in games at all? You just place your character somewhere and stand up and look at your monitor and think wow this game is stunning...

News flash, to progress in a game, you have to you know.... move around and when you move/look around, motion blur is introduced and 50 fps in comparison to 100 fps is a blurry mess thus you are losing sharpness/clarity to the image when "playing" the game...

Go test 100HZ and 50HZ on this:

http://www.testufo.com/#test=photo&photo=eiffel.jpg&pps=960&pursuit=0&height=0

Get back to me and tell me which refresh rate/image looks better.
Click to expand...

Bless, you're struggling...

Let me help you out....

Blur is exactly the same, moving around is exactly the same, fps is exactly the same, the game is exactly the same, everything in your world is exactly the same except the resolutions..... one is 3440x1440 another is 2560x1080.... which looks better ?
 
Guys. Your both made your respective points well I think but it's clear you won't agree with one another. Can I ask that you just agree to disagree and move on please? It's not worth arguing more about the same issue
 
LambChop said:
Bless, you're struggling...

Let me help you out....

Blur is exactly the same, moving around is exactly the same, fps is exactly the same, the game is exactly the same, everything in your world is exactly the same except the resolutions..... one is 3440x1440 another is 2560x1080.... which looks better ?
Click to expand...

I honestly think you're missing his point here mate. He never said if all other things were exactly the same that 1080 looks better than 1440. He agrees with you on that. His point was that if you factor in refresh rate, frame rate and motion then that will influence how Good the image is overall. That's the point that at 100Hz he feels, in his opinion, the image looks better than having the higher res but only running at 50hz

Let's leave it there anyway :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom