-
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.
Smogsy: HZ vs Resolution Thread
- Thread starter smogsy
- Start date
Soldato
- Joined
- 30 Nov 2011
- Posts
- 11,402
You've certainly got the facepalm bit right.
You are honestly saying that two pixels of exactly the same data should appear differently based on its location on the screen?
I mean, i just cant even... like... wut?
I'm not disagreeing with a top colorist from hollywood, he's never seen your PNG that you generated on your PC. I'm disagreeing with your interpretation of his words as they apply to an image he's never seen.
There is no point re-posting the exact same stuff I have already posted as we are now just going around in circles so re-read the article, read my posts, your posts and then come back with a new question that hasn't already been addressed before.... or leave it at agree to disagree.
EDIT:
lol wut...
In order for him to have made those comments, he will have had to have seen that moment/scene in the film (which is the same as those 2 frames/images I've posted)... Unless they watched a version of the film, which had extra and/or different scenes that the official blu ray version does not have (which I doubt)
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 30 Nov 2011
- Posts
- 11,402
Its a pretty basic thing to get wrong. A pixels location on the screen should not have any effect on its appearance. Until you get that right there isnt anything else to ask you.
No. The PNG you posted was created by you on your computer, it was not on the blu ray and it was not in front of him when he made those comments.
As i said, his comments are too far adrift from your PNG for your PNG to be an accurate representation of what he's describing.
He never talked about a specific frame, he said "scene" as a whole, there are other frames on that scene that contain the details he describes.
Lol you two
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 30 Nov 2011
- Posts
- 11,402
Dbl post
1) i dont want black bars i hate them
2) i not playing around with settings for one game, specially to get blackbars
3) ive gone back to 16:9
my current setup is
$K as main monitor And 21:9 is my secondary monitor to the right
So:
4K K+M games (first person)
1440p UW - for things i want to experience the world with gamepad
Cheers Smogsy,
From everything you said I think I am still looking to go 21:9 in either 34" 3440x1440 or 38" 3840x1600 monitor for myself. I don't mind adjusting settings. Not worried about Overwatch itself as I don't play it.
The info to compare was handy and so were the videos, it has shown I would be willing to put up with some games having sidebars especially on a larger screen anyways because loosing an inch or two on the edges shouldn't be an issue at 34" or 38" I don't think.
In regards to the other two. In fairness Nexus, I am a little at a lost to what you are saying or suggesting as Andy is correct in principle to what is being said. I don't think you are quite following what the point is and it isn't to do with the Gamma slider at all. But this is coming from TV calibration and my understanding there (my brother works for an AV supplier and I know the person who does the calibration there and often have long discussions about what it does etc).
From everything you said I think I am still looking to go 21:9 in either 34" 3440x1440 or 38" 3840x1600 monitor for myself. I don't mind adjusting settings. Not worried about Overwatch itself as I don't play it.
The info to compare was handy and so were the videos, it has shown I would be willing to put up with some games having sidebars especially on a larger screen anyways because loosing an inch or two on the edges shouldn't be an issue at 34" or 38" I don't think.
In regards to the other two. In fairness Nexus, I am a little at a lost to what you are saying or suggesting as Andy is correct in principle to what is being said. I don't think you are quite following what the point is and it isn't to do with the Gamma slider at all. But this is coming from TV calibration and my understanding there (my brother works for an AV supplier and I know the person who does the calibration there and often have long discussions about what it does etc).
Again I point back to this:
We have been through this more than twice now....
Or just leave it at agree to disagree. I'm getting tired of repeating the same thing over and over and over again, it's not my problem if you can't see/understand the points/explanations I have posted.
I have addressed various points of yours and brought up many of my own questions/points to you, of which you have completely ignored (and they tie in with this particular scene and/or are about "dark" scenes/content in general) so it's not my problem if you are ignoring my explanations/points or whatever and still insisting about pixel data being there when you turn the gamma to an unusable setting.
Again, have you actually seen the scene/part in the film?
As if you haven't then you will have no idea how that part of the film plays out. The camera angle never changes, morgan never changes his position etc. etc.
For what it's worth, here is the scene when the lights come on:
Same angle, same position that Morgan is sitting in as the dark images.
Not disputing that first point, that is your preference, I'm just referring to your points on the game overwatch on your x34:
You aren't playing around with settings for just one game. It will apply to everything and not mess up the aspect ratio for anything else, from the sounds of it, you haven't correctly got the ratio and scaling etc. settings applied on either your x34 monitor OSD settings or/and via nvidia control panel (which will be adding to your input lag if not correctly set up), essentially you should be able to play the game in exclusive fullscreen mode with black bars at the sides and any additional input lag.
Since I no longer have overwatch, I can't fire it up to check those windowed settings and if they are what I am thinking of or not (a lot of games don't correctly use those terms)
you dont understand
overwatch has:
Full screen
border less
Windowed
& has 21:9/16:9 mode
Fullscreen 21:9 @ 2560x1440 stretches the image
Fullscreen 21:9 @ 3440x1440 is zoomed in
Fullscreen 16:9 @ 2560x1440 stretches the image
Borderless = Same + input lag
Windowed = NO black bars. + extra input lag
= no optionsd for me = 16:9 monitor is the only option.
i don't want black bars so the other options are moot. No point playing around with Nvidia Control panel because exclusive 1:1 will STILL have black bars. so theirs 0 point.
Last edited:
It is more than an inch or 2. A 34" monitor will essentially become a 27" 16.9 screen:
http://www.displaywars.com/27-inch-16x9-vs-34-inch-21x9
It isn't just about the sides "physically" being cut off with black bars either but more so that you are losing the extra FOV at the sides of the game world that comes with 21.9 too i.e.
Good thing the vast majority of games in 21.9 works very well!
Fair enough, maybe I'm not explaining my points well enough or whatever but I feel that I have done my best as to what I mean and tried to use other examples to get the point across, if that doesn't come across then I/we will just leave it at agree to disagree
For the record, I'm not necessarily disagreeing with Andy's point about pixel data, just simply about what we should be seeing and what we shouldn't and that him simply adjusting the gamma is not going to produce the same result on his un-calibrated LCD display as it does on a £8000 OLED TV that has been professionally calibrated as well as the whole discussion about scene/image in question.
Last edited:
Thank you, you have presented this far better now, your OP reads completely wrong and/or is confusing...
And then proceed on to say that it fails your input lag test:
If you played using this:
Then the monitor should not have failed your Genji test... Unless you have GPU scaling enabled via your nvidia control panel, which could be adding additional input lag:
http://www.overclock.net/t/1622182/you-might-have-input-lag-without-even-knowing-it
Or are you basing this on a mode where there is no input lag added? If so, you need to make this more clear in your OP, in fact, you need to make that entire section clearer as to what you mean and specifically what mode you are referring to when carrying out your input lag test.
Your 16.9 monitor is not your only option, you do what other 21.9 gamers do for overwatch and play it in fullscreen 16.9 2560x1440 without any negative effects on input lag.... It will be no different to your 16.9 4k and 144HZ screen (outside of the panel differences)
Last edited:
fixed the testing was done in 21:9 mode running 3440x1440
you can not do this without black bars
I think we are getting confused on that last point so...
You said this in your OP:
Yet in a later post you say this:
To me that is "full screen 16.9"... As the play/screen area in the above mode is the same as a proper 16.9 27" screen. So you can in fact run "full screen 16.9" on a 21.9 monitor.
Also, testing "input lag" with the "fullscreen 21:9 3440x1440 mode" isn't exactly a fair test (if you're wanting to compare the 100HZ to 60/144HZ purely for input lag/aim/responsiveness) as it messes up your aim (since the image is zoomed in), this is the main reason I switched from "fullscreen 21.9 2560x1080" to "fullscreen 16.9 1920x1080"
You said this in your OP:
Yet in a later post you say this:
To me that is "full screen 16.9"... As the play/screen area in the above mode is the same as a proper 16.9 27" screen. So you can in fact run "full screen 16.9" on a 21.9 monitor.
Also, testing "input lag" with the "fullscreen 21:9 3440x1440 mode" isn't exactly a fair test (if you're wanting to compare the 100HZ to 60/144HZ purely for input lag/aim/responsiveness) as it messes up your aim (since the image is zoomed in), this is the main reason I switched from "fullscreen 21.9 2560x1080" to "fullscreen 16.9 1920x1080"
Last edited:
i missed the last OR
Fullscreen 16:9 2560x1440 in overwatch stretches the image to full screen it does not do 1:1
the genji test does not need aim. you just drop a mine in front of you.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 30 Nov 2011
- Posts
- 11,402
Eh, I never said that.
This should basically give you some idea of what level of detail from the image is visible on my Dell s2716dg:
Some of the background dots are anomalous and not visible detail but the rest is pretty accurate as to what bits of the image detail are visible and should be represented on almost any monitor in a meaningful way.
Some of the background dots are anomalous and not visible detail but the rest is pretty accurate as to what bits of the image detail are visible and should be represented on almost any monitor in a meaningful way.
Soldato
- Joined
- 30 Nov 2011
- Posts
- 11,402
This should basically give you some idea of what level of detail from the image is visible on my Dell s2716dg:
Yep, thats pretty similar for me, his cheeks, teeth and hand are all basically the same value pixel by pixel, and the actual "sides" of his face are both much darker values so shouldnt even be visible.
I was going to do something similar (and actually throw up the rgb values) to show how the description given of what shouldnt be visible doesnt match the actual data provided, but this does most of the job!
Eh?
So which is it?
This:
Or this:
There is something wrong if "fullscreen 16.9 2560x1440" stretches to fill the entire screen... Because it shouldn't be stretching the image if you have the correct nvidia or/and monitor ratio/scaling settings (and again, this isn't just for this game, it is for everything so 21.9 content is shown correctly i.e. fills entire screen and 16.9 content is shown correctly i.e. black bars at the sides)
This is how overwatch looked on my 21.9 29" 2560x1080 screen when running 16.9 1920x1080 fullscreen mode:
So it was essentially the equivalent to a 23" 16.9 1920x1080 screen.
To Clarify i retested.
16:9 2560x1440 Full screen display = aspect = full screen image (stretched)
16:9 2560x1440 Fullscreen Display set 1:1 = Full screen image (stretched)
16:9 2560x1440 Fullscreen GPU & Display Set = Blackbars + Input Lag
so no you cannot run Full screen 16:9 without input lag, the only way to run full screen 16:9 as shown above is use GPU scaling creating more inputlag
what should happen is overwatch should do the scaling, which it does not. because 21:9 was an afterthought & broken.
"Fullscreen 16:9 @ 2560x1440 creates black bars"
after retesting this was incorrect. i was writing all this from memory over multiple days of testing
Last edited: