Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 31,179
-
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.
** PRE-ORDER SPECIAL: GIGABYTE GTX 1080Ti OC BLACK ONLY £639 !! **
- Thread starter Gibbo
- Start date
3rd person like Witcher we can lump in with FPS, and are suited to ultra-wide I guess.
RTS doesn't benefit at all from utlra-wide. You might like it, but there's no denying that there is little benefit to being able to see much further in the x axis than the y axis. Same for platformers, really. Again in Civ, there is no benefit to being able to see a lot more horizontally than vertically.
It's the aspect ratio I'm talking about, not the benefit of the extra pixels. Subtly different. What I'm saying it, there is no benefit to having 1.5x width and 1x height, for RTS etc. It would be better to have 1.2x width and 1.2x height.
So to put it another way, I'd rather have a 1440p screen than an utlra-wide 1080p screen for the same money. Because for RTS, RPG, platformers, etc... the extra width is not necessary. If I'm spending more than the cost of a 1080p screen, I'd buy a 1440p not an ultra-wide 1080p.
Hope that makes sense. I'm sure the ultra-wide 1080p is better than a 1080p, but that's not the argument. The argument is about the aspect ratio.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 31,179
60Hz
Yeah I know, but it's got low input lag (10.7ms) so it's not too bad. I have to lock it at 60 though lol
I disagree. It is great for RTS and MOPS like Dota 2 which I play. Now there is a small disadvantage in map awareness, but honestly offset by the benefit of when your fighting sideways lol. I was so sceptical, but now am in love with this format
Like this week?
?
No it isn't
Been using ultrawide since 2013, it's great improvement for FPS, RTS, Racing, MMO, MOBA, Diabloesque, and flight/space sim games. To be blunt it's like the improvement form 4:3 to 16:10 was, it's just better (in any game that supports it).
Of course there is, you can see more of the screen at the same zoom level.
I actually moved from a 27" 1440p 16:9 screen to a 29" 1080p 21:9 screen, the DPI is the same but the aspect is much better
Last edited:
+100. Though I went for 1440p cause like ...last toys before baby and stuffNo it isn't
I actually moved from a 27" 1440p 16:9 screen to a 29" 1080p 21:9 screen, the DPI is the same but the aspect is much better
"Being able to see more of the screen at the same zoom level" is actually the opposite of what happens when one axis becomes elongated and the other contracts, given a fixed pixel budget. More on that below.
All I'm saying is that a long, thin screen is not inherently better than a more square screen for RTS, RPG, etc. There is little reason to want to see more horizontally than vertically in such genres. Ignore completely resolution here.
Now, a screen with more pixels is often better than a screen with fewer pixels, within reason. But if you start with a fixed pixel budget (n million), arranging those pixels in 21:9 gives no benefit vs 16:10 in some genres.
Ie 2560x1080 = 2,764,800 pixels. Take that same amount of pixels and put it in a ~16:10 ratio:
2101 x 1316 (ish, 116 pixels more)
As for "zoom". If anything, the more lop-sided your rez is, the more you have to zoom out to fit 100% of the picture into the smaller dimension. This can be seen in 1920x1080 vs 1920x1200 (when using horiz- not vert+ on the 16:10 screen). Losing vertical pixels means you have to zoom out (everything is smaller) to give the same vertical information, thanks to the lost pixels in that axis. Yes you gain more horizontal information, but everything is actually smaller. Easy to observe and to prove.
If you wanted to have the same zoom at 1920x1080 vs 1920x1200, you would have to use vert- not horiz+ on the 16:9 screen. Ie, you would have the same horiz FOV but lose vertical information. In order to preserve 100% of vertical information, and give extra horiz FOV, you must compress the vertical information into fewer pixels. That is another way of saying "zoom out".
So again I assert: there is no inherent advantage to the 21:9 aspect ratio vs the 16:9 or 16:10, for non-racing or FPS games. There is no advantage, within a set pixel budget, to seeing more horizontally that vertically. Unless all your RTS maps are shaped like long hoirzontal rectangles, to suit your screen. But assuming the RTS maps is square, 21:9 screens do not provide any benefit.
Last edited:
No that's not how it works.
A 21:9 screen isn't wider than a 16:9 screen but with contracted vertical space, it's literally a 16:9 screen with additional space to the sides and the same vertical space, it allows you to see more than you would on a non ultrawide of the same vertical resolution (I.E 1080p).
This is why Blizzard have refused to support it on SC2 due to complaints about the advantage it gives over 16:9 users.
*EDIT*
To explain it visually, here are two screenshots I just tool, firstly on my main 21:9 monitor, then on one of my secondary 16:9 1080p monitors. As you can see they are identical apart from the ultra wide showing more to the sides (there is no contraction of the vertical space).
Last edited:
It can be either. A ratio is a ratio, nothing more. What you've said is fundamentally inaccurate.
A 16:10 1920x1200 screen is a 16:9 1920x1080 screen with extra vertical pixels.
A 21:9 2560x1080 screen is a 16:9 1920x1080 screen with extra horizontal pixels.
Those are examples of how both the things you said (in bold) can be true.
A 21:9 screen can be made by taking a 16:9 screen and adding width.
A 21:9 screen can also be made by taking a 16:9 screen and taking away height.
The aspect ratio is not concerned by how many pixels you have. Pixels and resolution are completely separate from aspect ratio.
If you have a fixed pixel budget you can make a screen of any aspect ratio, right down to n x 1 (1p) at the most extreme end.
No it really can't, I would assume you had misread but you quoted/bolded it :S
I think maybe you're getting confused with the relationship between aspect and resolution?
Yes, that's what I was saying.
No they aren't. A 21:9 screen is not a vertically contracted version of a 16:9 screen, it is a horizontally expanded version, this is why the vertical size remains constant between 16:9/21:9 models but the horizontal size changes, see the above screenshots for proof.
A 29" 21:9 screen is literally a 23" 16:9 screen but 33% wider, that was the specific design they went for for the original model.
OK, let's try this another way.
Take an ultra-wide 2560x1080 screen. Add some more vertical pixels until the ratio is 16:9.
Now tell me, is a 2560x1440 screen better or worse than a 2560x1080p screen?
Forget your favourite games now, how and why they do things. Just tell me, is a 2560x1440p screen better or worse than a 2560x1080 screen?
And it becomes a 2560x1440 screen, more specifically if you started wiht a 29" ultrawide it's now a 27" 16:9, but this was never in dispute.
Our argument was that you mistakenly tried to claim that 21:9 has a drawback in games because it contracts the vertical gaming space as well as extending the horizontal gaming space, I pointed out that was nonsense.
That depends entirely on usage and personal preference.
You mean ignore the very thing we were discussing in the first place? O.o
Careful carrying those goalposts mate, wouldn't wanna slip on some straw >.>
My whole argument is that an ultra-wide screen isn't always preferable to simply having a bigger screen.
Honestly it's easier if you take specific screen resolutions out of the equation. It seems this muddies the water for some people.
All I'm saying is this:
I would rather have a bigger 16:9 screen than a 16:9 screen widened to 21:9. Either way you get more pixels. Either way you pay more.
But I would rather have my extra pixels continue to be in a more evenly proportioned aspect ratio, rather than all added to the horizontal axis.
Theoretically you could keep adding more horizontal pixels to a 1080p screen and end up with something completely ridiculous like 10:1, where you have a screen that's still 1080 pixels tall but is now 10,800 pixels wide. Yes it has more pixels, and yes you could say it's better because of that.
But I would rather take some of those extra pixels and use them to increase the rather pathetic vertical resolution, instead of just making the screen wider and wider and wider. Because that's better for some types of games, that aren't racing or FPS.
I never realised this was so controversial
If this still seems wrong to you, then let's just agree to disagree. Makes no odds. It really isn't about being "wrong" in this case. If you want super-ultra-widescreen 1080p that's fine. I don't. I'd rather have a bigger screen with more height as well as width.
I will say one thing tho. You simply mis-understood the argument I was making. I did say that for a fixed pixel budget, a 21:9 has less vertical space than a 16:9, and this is 100% correct. You decided to compare a 2560x1080p screen with a 1920x1080 screen, but that is ignoring the fact that the 2560x1080p screen simply has more pixels.
I can therefore say with 100% accuracy that that specific 21:9 screen is only "better" because it has more pixels than that specific 16:9 screen. The 21:9 aspect ratio is not automatically better - you are making an unfair comparison because you have not kept the number of pixels the same.
I can do the same thing by comparing a 2560x1440p screen to a 2560x1080p screen. The 1440p 16:9 screen is better, because it has more pixels. I was trying to show you this.
Aspect ratio can be considered without looking at specific screens and their resolutions. You don't need to compare products actually being sold. Aspect ratios are just the ratio of height vs width. Nothing more. You don't need to compare resolutions.
Honestly it's easier if you take specific screen resolutions out of the equation. It seems this muddies the water for some people.
All I'm saying is this:
I would rather have a bigger 16:9 screen than a 16:9 screen widened to 21:9. Either way you get more pixels. Either way you pay more.
But I would rather have my extra pixels continue to be in a more evenly proportioned aspect ratio, rather than all added to the horizontal axis.
Theoretically you could keep adding more horizontal pixels to a 1080p screen and end up with something completely ridiculous like 10:1, where you have a screen that's still 1080 pixels tall but is now 10,800 pixels wide. Yes it has more pixels, and yes you could say it's better because of that.
But I would rather take some of those extra pixels and use them to increase the rather pathetic vertical resolution, instead of just making the screen wider and wider and wider. Because that's better for some types of games, that aren't racing or FPS.
I never realised this was so controversial
If this still seems wrong to you, then let's just agree to disagree. Makes no odds. It really isn't about being "wrong" in this case. If you want super-ultra-widescreen 1080p that's fine. I don't. I'd rather have a bigger screen with more height as well as width.
I will say one thing tho. You simply mis-understood the argument I was making. I did say that for a fixed pixel budget, a 21:9 has less vertical space than a 16:9, and this is 100% correct. You decided to compare a 2560x1080p screen with a 1920x1080 screen, but that is ignoring the fact that the 2560x1080p screen simply has more pixels.
I can therefore say with 100% accuracy that that specific 21:9 screen is only "better" because it has more pixels than that specific 16:9 screen. The 21:9 aspect ratio is not automatically better - you are making an unfair comparison because you have not kept the number of pixels the same.
I can do the same thing by comparing a 2560x1440p screen to a 2560x1080p screen. The 1440p 16:9 screen is better, because it has more pixels. I was trying to show you this.
Aspect ratio can be considered without looking at specific screens and their resolutions. You don't need to compare products actually being sold. Aspect ratios are just the ratio of height vs width. Nothing more. You don't need to compare resolutions.
Last edited:
No, you have just started arguing something else after myself and others pointed out your original argument was wrong.
Here:
Five quotes, all wrong, are you going to deny posting those?
Because 2560x1080 is the 21:9 variant of the 1080p resolution and 1920x1080 is the 16:9 variant, they are directly comparable when comparing 21:9 and 16:9. If you prefer I could compare 3440x1440 and 2560x1440 but the result is the same, additional horizontal gaming space with NO reduction in vertical gaming space.[/quote]
I don't understand why this is so difficult, uber.
You can talk about ratio without talking about resolution. They are actually independent of one another.
You look at those quotes of mine and you say, "They are all wrong!" because you are thinking about specific resolutions. I am not. That is why we cannot agree.
I will just drop this now, it is getting silly.
e: Did you just argue above that widescreen does not show more horizontally than vertically? I believe you did. Wow.
e2: See you say that 2560x1080 is the 21:9 "equivalent" of 1920x1080.
But then why could I not say that 2560x1440 is the 16:9 "equivalent" of 2560x1080? See it doesn't makes sense to just keep adding more pixels when discussing aspect ratio. When discussing aspect ratio you should keep the pixel budget constant.
Ie if you take a 16:9 you can turn it into a 21:9 by adding more horizontal pixels.
BUT BUT BUT if you take a 21:9 you can turn it into a 16:9 by adding vertical pixels!!!! We get nowhere taking this silly approach!
Ugh. I can't go round in circles any more. You stick with what you know, and if the industry agrees that 21:9 or 150:9 should be the new standard I'll just cry myself to sleep over the stupidity of it all.
You can talk about ratio without talking about resolution. They are actually independent of one another.
You look at those quotes of mine and you say, "They are all wrong!" because you are thinking about specific resolutions. I am not. That is why we cannot agree.
I will just drop this now, it is getting silly.
e: Did you just argue above that widescreen does not show more horizontally than vertically? I believe you did. Wow.
e2: See you say that 2560x1080 is the 21:9 "equivalent" of 1920x1080.
But then why could I not say that 2560x1440 is the 16:9 "equivalent" of 2560x1080? See it doesn't makes sense to just keep adding more pixels when discussing aspect ratio. When discussing aspect ratio you should keep the pixel budget constant.
Ie if you take a 16:9 you can turn it into a 21:9 by adding more horizontal pixels.
BUT BUT BUT if you take a 21:9 you can turn it into a 16:9 by adding vertical pixels!!!! We get nowhere taking this silly approach!
Ugh. I can't go round in circles any more. You stick with what you know, and if the industry agrees that 21:9 or 150:9 should be the new standard I'll just cry myself to sleep over the stupidity of it all.
Last edited:
How to screw my eyes in no time haha.43" 4K is where it's at brah
Would be far too close to me