-
Competitor rules
Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.
AMD VEGA confirmed for 2017 H1
- Thread starter Doom112
- Start date
- Status
Buggers killed it.
Soldato
Our eyes are not letterboxed... We do not "see the world" in 21:9. Lol
16:9 is about as close you can get to what is "human vision".
Have a read about it.
A 16:9 screen (if big enough) will near perfectly fill your vision .
A 21:9 will leave gaps top and bottom.
Facts.
16:9 is about as close you can get to what is "human vision".
Have a read about it.
A 16:9 screen (if big enough) will near perfectly fill your vision .
A 21:9 will leave gaps top and bottom.
Facts.
Soldato
Just to provide actual "facts". Our vision is widely accepted as being between 4:3 and 16:9 - erring much closer to 4:3. However, we view our world largely horizontally - the ground is below, often no reason to look at that and the sky is above and there's often no reason to look at that, but what's around us at eye level (on the horizontal plane) is often largely important and that's where most of our vision is centred. So while our static vision may be closer to 4:3, the vision range in which we're most comfortable operating is much wider than it is high. Just try looking up and down, then scan side to side -- which feels easier?
So, if we're going to lock our eyes dead forward and never move them - we should all be using 4:3 screens. If we're going to be sensible and not put forward that restriction, then a much greater horizontal field will provide much more immersion. Which is why movies are filmed often in 2.39:1 (for reference, 21:9 is 2.37:1 and 16:9 is 1.77:1).
However, we can definitely agree that 16:9 will be the standard going forward largely because of the Television market. 16:9 didn't take off massively as a resolution until the TV market pushed it and I can't see the TV market adopting 21:9 as virtually all TV programming is shot at 16:9. As gamer's though, we're not limited by the TV market and we should go for the most immersive technologies as games are not stuck at a fixed ratio - and it's impossible to argue that 16:9 is more immersive than 21:9
Last edited:
+1 HahahahahaHe just needs to upgrade his potato pc mate and drop that rubbish ulrawide poop that is rarely optimised properly for gaming.
Have I rustled some jimmies from you 16.9 peasants?
Again, resolution and aspect ratio are 2 different things, you could have high resolution and 21.9 aspect ratio
I thought you had issues too?
At least it read like you did anyway.
No way am I doing a format for a broken game (especially when every other game on my system runs perfectly, even mafia 3 runs amazingly well now.....), I can get the light shaft rays back by using the overall preset setting of very high, not my problem if developers can't get their game to work, heck what can you expect from Bethesada though, they couldn't even get a basic resolution setting to work on release for fallout 4.....
*facepalm*
16.9 is not a resolution, it is an aspect ratio
Tell that to people on here:
https://www.reddit.com/r/ultrawidemasterrace/
I've seen more people go from "4k" to 21.9 than the other way round.
I've used all kinds of displays, 4k in both 16.9 27-55" and 21.9 screens, in terms of just immersion, you can't beat 21.9, it is just better.
But once again, people really need to stop just thinking "4k" is what makes screens look sharp etc. It is is completely down to the PPI (which is brought from a higher resolution) and viewing distance, superb article that explains this here:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/7743/the-pixel-density-race-and-its-technical-merits
I will be getting an 55" 4k OLED HDR TV soon, however, I will be putting a custom 21.9 res. on it so as to avoid the cramped look of peasant 16.9 for gaming
My potato PC runs well optimised games fantastically, I ain't going to throw away £500+ just for a few more FPS and to run "ultra" that brings no benefit to IQ
Heck, I'm even happy with my 290s performance, the only reason I'm wanting to upgrade is for a cooler and quieter running GPU
Only jimmies getting rustled here is yours bra
I did have issues with a couple of missions where the tracking was broken. Usually that would not bother me, but when you have to go outside a space station which is huge and look for a small bot, it can get annoying. I found him in the end not so long after starting to get annoyed though. That said they said they fixed that issue now apparently. Other issue is losing fps after the patch which is still the case. None of this stopped me from enjoying playing the game though
As for monitor's, yes PPI is important, I know, my PPI is 163
People that say they do not see it either do not wish to see it, made erroneous comparison with mismatching PPI (i.e. compared a huge 4K screen to a small 1440p monitor, maybe tried the wrong game out which did not highlight it or needs to go specsavers
Trust me, if there was little to no difference I would much rather the extra fps at 1440p and would save the money by not needing an expensive graphics card, but there is clearly a difference in many games, some more than others.
Last edited:
Caporegime
Not often I agree with you but on this rare occasion, 100% correct.21.9 is the master race, 16.9 is for peasants, time to move on to the future
But 4K is the future for the majority, as consoles are moving that way and TV's are pretty much 4K as a standard now.
Permabanned
I imagine things will change once we get 4k panels that go beyond 60hz and once the hardware to handle 4k is cheaper.
I'm on a 75hz 34" 3440x1440 and it's great but if I could get a 40" 100hz+ 4k model with the equivalent freesync capabilities I'd be interested.
Soldato
I got a big 4K monitor (BenQ BL3201) primarily because then it's suitable to run at 1:1 (100% scaling) and have an absurd amount of space for text editor and terminal windows when programming.
Now I'm a big convert to having a single uber monitor rather than multiple smaller monitors. You do need some 3rd party window management tools to make effective use of the space though, e.g. http://mizage.com/divvy/
Now I'm a big convert to having a single uber monitor rather than multiple smaller monitors. You do need some 3rd party window management tools to make effective use of the space though, e.g. http://mizage.com/divvy/
Soldato
- Joined
- 19 Oct 2008
- Posts
- 6,008
I remember when I upgraded to 1440p in 2011 I felt it was a little early as GPU's were still not able to draw it at good FPS. I'd personally hate to upgrade to 4k now for the same reason. I just want to play games at max settings, I can't be at**ed adjusting settings to get a smooth framerate. Only recent years I've felt top end GPU's were good enough for 1440p!
Reckon it's another 2 years ago least before I'll be going 4k. Until then I'll be rockin' with a Dell U2711 unless it fails then will probably go 4k
Reckon it's another 2 years ago least before I'll be going 4k. Until then I'll be rockin' with a Dell U2711 unless it fails then will probably go 4k
Actually I didn't pay that much, I got the 29" model so it only cost me £280, which I feel is a fair price (especially considering that it is probably one of the best IPS panels out atm for very little IPS glow, highest IPS contrast ratio, light anti glare coating and good responsiveness with low input lag)
But yes monitors are a joke for pricing especially the ones costing £700+ hence why I will be jumping to an OLED 55" 4K TV instead, 27-34" 16.9/21.9 1440/4k OLED monitors will cost substantially more than £1600 and probably won't launch for at least another 2+ years.....
A 40+" 16.9 screen? And sitting at the same distance as you would be for a 34" 1440? Sure, it will fill more of your peripheral vision but still won't feel as immersive as 21.9.
And that there is the problem and where people get so confused when it comes to 4k.... If you are sitting at the same distance for both a 34" 1440 and 4k 40", they will both look the exact same for sharpness/clarity (ignoring anti-glare finishes and sub pixel arrangement) as the PPI is the exact same thus the sharpness will be the same.
My "peasant" 1920x1080 5.2" phone makes every TV/monitor look **** for sharpness/clarity.
Like I said, I have tried all kinds of displays and still keep coming back to my "small" 29" 21.9 monitor because you see more of the game world thus a more immersive experience, a lot of games have a squashed feel especially FPS games i.e. titan fall:
And no, you don't lose any vertical real estate either unless the game developer has done it that way on purpose i.e. overwatch
And you do realize that things evolve?
What did people think about 4:3 and then what did people think about 16.10 and 16.9? For myself and many others, the switch from 16.9 to 21.9 feels the same as going from 4:3 to 16.9.
The only thing that holds back 21.9 becoming a standard are TVs and TV shows + consoles play a part too, so until those change (if ever), 21.9 will definitely be hampered somewhat.
I have over 500 films and most of those are shot in 21.9 and the reason the majority of film makers keep shooting in this aspect ratio is because it is more cinematic and more immersive.
And again, this isn't about the resolution 4k, no doubt that and even greater is the future, although I feel that once we hit the PPI value of 200+ for all 27-65" displays, the industry will no longer see the need for further resolution increases.
This discussion is primarily about 16.9 and 21.9, not 4k, not 1080P, not 1440.
Or you could just use your 21.9 monitor as a 16.9 monitor and still have the best of both
People complain about black bars on the side of 21.9 monitors for 16.9 content yet they never complain about black bars at the top/bottom when 21.9 content is being played on 16.9 screens.... makes sense....
The funny thing is that a lot of games don't have proper support for 4k either, heck some don't even have "proper" support for anything higher than 1080P (again, can thank consoles here, even the games on them that claim to be "4k" is just 1080P upscaled to 4k....)
With regards to our eye sight, aspect ratio is not the correct term to use.... If you could use this term to explain what the eye sees then it would be far more than even 21.9.... However, due to the way our vision works, we can only "focus" on certain things and everything else gets blurred out i.e. depth of field
Only jimmies getting rustled here is your bra
I did have issues with a couple of missions where the tracking was broken. Usually that would not bother me, but when you have to go outside a space station which is huge and look for a small bot, it can get annoying. I found him in the end not so long after starting to get annoyed though. That said they said they fixed that issue now apparently. Other issue is losing fps after the patch which is still the case. None of this stopped me from enjoying playing the game though
As for monitor's, yes PPI is important, I know, my PPI is 163
People that say they do not see it either do not wish to see it, made erroneous comparison with mismatching PPI (i.e. compared a huge 4K screen to a small 1440p monitor, maybe tried the wrong game out which did not highlight it or needs to go specsavers
Trust me, if there was little to no difference I would much rather the extra fps at 1440p and would save the money by not needing an expensive graphics card, but there is clearly a difference in many games, some more than others.
Yup I will just hold of playing the game till it is all patched up, got mafia 3 to complete now.
Once games properly support resolutions higher than 1080P, the difference will be even more noticeable.
Again, "4k" is not limited to 16.9... Aspect ratio and resolution, 2 different things
Yup it can be a right PITA to adjust settings etc. but it is well worth it as not only do you get a game that runs better but can often look better too
+1Yup I will just hold of playing the game till it is all patched up, got mafia 3 to complete now.
Once games properly support resolutions higher than 1080P, the difference will be even more noticeable.
Again, "4k" is not limited to 16.9... Aspect ratio and resolution, 2 different things
Yup it can be a right PITA to adjust settings etc. but it is well worth it as not only do you get a game that runs better but can often look better too
Soldato
Lol. The reason film is shot in 21:9 and not something closer to 16:9 is not because it is more immersive. It's because you can get more people in the cinema and more people can watch it at once! That's why it's so wide. It's easier to make a cinema wider than have two teirs.
I actually find 21:9 at the cinema a bit annoying. It is too wide. Hard to find a sweet spot where to sit. To close and your eyeballs and even neck has to wonder about, too far and things look to small and less enjoyable. My experience anyway.
Thanks, will check it out soon
Soldato
Film is shot in what the director chooses, not 21:9/2.35:1/2.37:1 etc. It's artistic choice, so do not blanket statement films with regards to aspect ratios. Do all painters use the same size/aspect canvas? I think not.
Permabanned
Again, "4k" is not limited to 16.9... Aspect ratio and resolution, 2 different things
Obviously but that isn't the point I was making, For many people like myself a bigger screen will need a higher resolution to look good still, you made my point with the bit about your 1080p phone screen, If I'm ever going to consider getting a 40"+ 16:9 monitor it'll have to be 4k so that it looks good, add to that a higher hz and that was my point. At the moment there's nothing that'd make me reconsider using a 21:9 monitor but once we have monitors offereing the mentioned specs I would consider moving back to 16:9. That said I would be more likely to go with a 40"+ 21:9 uw4k (5---x2160) if that's also available.
16:9 was around in the TV market in the early 2000s, far earlier than pretty much anything except 4:3. I am not really sure why 16:10 became popular in the late 2000s for PC monitors but when TVs started getting flatter and bigger they obviously realised it'd save money to make most panels the same aspect ratio. Plus I guess it helps for watching video...something phones and tablets didn't really realise early on either.However, we can definitely agree that 16:9 will be the standard going forward largely because of the Television market. 16:9 didn't take off massively as a resolution until the TV market pushed it and I can't see the TV market adopting 21:9 as virtually all TV programming is shot at 16:9. As gamer's though, we're not limited by the TV market and we should go for the most immersive technologies as games are not stuck at a fixed ratio - and it's impossible to argue that 16:9 is more immersive than 21:9
Say what you will Nexus. 21:9 will never become mainstream. Games will always be designed primarily for 16:9. Don't fight it. Join the 4K master race
If TVs or/and TV shows and consoles never switch to 21.9 then yes, it never will become the new standard as 16.9 did to 4.3.
And yup as long as consoles continue to only support 16.9 then 21.9 will never be the primary aspect ratio for support likewise with 1080P resolution being the main res., hopefully this will change when the scorpio gets released, iirc, it is suppose to have true native 4k in games not some crap 1080P upscaled to 4k algorithm.....
Thankfully in my experience, 21.9 is pretty much spot on
(HUD [which really annoys me] and cut scenes aside)Tried 4k on a 27+ 32" screen, it's nice (more impressed with the 4k 27" screen) but over rated big time imo, more so for gaming (for 4k films/tv shows, definite improvement though) but yeah I guess a 55" 4k 16.9 could be considered as joining you except it will be with a custom 21.9 res for any gaming
Lol wut..... Are you trolling me now?
This:
I watched stranger things a few months ago and I rather liked its aspect ratio. Tomorrow land and the hateful eight also have a bit of an unusual aspect ratio
I would say that is more just down to the sheer size of the display than specifically being an aspect ratio thing. Personally I can't stand the cinema for those reasons you mentioned + crap IQ, over done sound/bass, I would much rather sit in the comfort of my own home and watch the very best IQ you can get with much better sound etc. etc.
For what it's worth, even though I have a superb panasonic plasma 42" TV, I actually find myself preferring my 29" 21.9 screen for any 21.9 films...
But yeah I feel that 34" 21.9 is "too" wide and anything bigger than that would be a big no no from me.
Yup, that is where the extra res. really is handy i.e. bigger displays like 40+" screens are probably the sweet spot when you factor in the appropriate sitting distance needed for a screen of that size i.e.
http://uk.rtings.com/tv/reviews/by-size/size-to-distance-relationship
That is the main down side with 21.9:
1. it is more expensive for similar/lesser tech than 16.9 equivalents
2. it doesn't get the new tech. first
Unfortunately monitor manufacturers aren't helping themselves here as they only push the high end 34" 1440 100+HZ screens which is out of most peoples price range and 29" goes unnoticed due to zero reviews out there from sites like pcmonitors and tftcentral etc. as well as 2560x1080 putting people off.
Vertical real screen estate space mainly is why 16.10 was and still is the preferred aspect ratio by quite a few people. Unless you are coding or something heavily text based I've never seen the appeal of 16.10/high vertical resolution.
It's rather amusing as phones this year are now switching to a wider format too, iirc, 18.9, I don't really see the point for phones but it does look pretty epic
mrk's pic, even zoomed in 16.9 looks nice!
- Status