Screenshot of 4:3 vs 16:10

chaparral · 2 Aug 2011 at 18:09

Just been playing around taking some screenshots of 4:3 (1600x1200) vs 16:10 (1920x1200) to see how much of the picture you lose by using a 4:3 monitor..

Anyone here feel like going back to using a 4:3 monitor for gaming ?

4:3 (1600x1200)

16:10 (1920x1200)

Here a 16:9 (1920x1080)

Wynthorpe · 2 Aug 2011 at 18:16

Alex74 · 2 Aug 2011 at 18:17

Recently went from a 19" 5:4 to a 27" 16:9. Will never go back!

chaparral · 2 Aug 2011 at 18:20

Edited into first post...

Swifty55 · 2 Aug 2011 at 18:21

I went from 19" (5:4) to 22" (16:10) to 24" (16:9) then back to 22" (16:10).

chaparral · 2 Aug 2011 at 18:30

Swifty55 said:
I went from 19" (5:4) to 22" (16:10) to 24" (16:9) then back to 22" (16:10).

You did it wrong

You should have gone

19" (5:4) to 22" (16:10) to 24" (16:9) then to 24" (16:10)

Swifty55 · 2 Aug 2011 at 18:36

chaparral said:
You did it wrong

You should have gone
19" (5:4) to 22" (16:10) to 24" (16:9) then to 24" (16:10)

Well would have love to, but went back to a 22" (16:10) Samsung 120Hz.

May upgrade sometime in the future again but this monitor is spot on for gaming.

PinkFloyd · 2 Aug 2011 at 19:57

So you want the screen that displays less and looks terrible when running any modern video?

Wait... What?

FoxEye · 2 Aug 2011 at 20:01

Shame 16:10 is a dying ratio. Like it a lot more than 16:9 for office type work and net browsing.

Gerard · 2 Aug 2011 at 20:04

chaparral said:
Here a 16:9 (1920x1080)

I always assumed 16:9 seen a little bit less than 16:10, but in those 16:9 actually sees more using less pixels. :confused:

chaparral · 2 Aug 2011 at 20:10

Gerard said:
I always assumed 16:9 seen a little bit less than 16:10, but in those 16:9 actually sees more using less pixels.

Yes in the 16:9 shots you can see the two chimmeys on the left
Which you can't see at 16:10

dbmzk1 · 2 Aug 2011 at 20:23

In some games you see less when running it in widescreen - entirely depends on how the game handles it.

http://widescreengamingforum.com/

Pestilence · 2 Aug 2011 at 20:36

I STILL game on my main PC at 1280x1024 on a 17 inch monitor. With a 5850.

FoxEye · 2 Aug 2011 at 21:00

Gerard said:
I always assumed 16:9 seen a little bit less than 16:10, but in those 16:9 actually sees more using less pixels.

But you lose definition.

In just the same way as you could have a 1 megapixel panaromic camera, and a 6 megapixel standard camera.

The 1mp camera will show you more of the landscape, but with a loss of detail.

The price you pay with the 16:9 monitor is that everything will be smaller. You lose vertical height, but the monitor still has to display the same amount of info, so it just squashes the picture vertically.

Kenai · 2 Aug 2011 at 21:05

Not so good in games that give you widescreen as ver- rather than hor+ though

j.col · 2 Aug 2011 at 22:05

Pestilence said:
I STILL game on my main PC at 1280x1024 on a 17 inch monitor. With a 5850.

lol, you would probably get away with a 4850 at that res

i went from 1400 x 900 (19" widescreen) to a nice 22" 1920 x 1080 and will never go back

Indy500 · 2 Aug 2011 at 22:21

PinkFloyd said:
So you want the screen that displays less and looks terrible when running any modern video?

Untrue unless you mean 2560x1600, which is damned expensive on LCD compared to my 2048x1536 capable CRT... I use both an LCD and a CRT by the way so I'm not biased here.

As for video looking worse, what? :confused:

Gazanimal · 2 Aug 2011 at 22:34

28" 1920 x 1200.

Ain't no way I'm going back to lower res.

Vulcan · 2 Aug 2011 at 22:38

What is this talk of 16:9 in PC gaming? You heathens should be using the golden ratio, 16:10.

JIM_BOB7813 · 2 Aug 2011 at 22:55

Sucks for top-down games like Heroes of Newerth and Starcraft 2, you can't just put the FoV up like in an FPS. If you buy a 16:9 monitor you get a very significant increase in screen real-estate compared to 4:3.