Aspect ratios for gaming

[EasyRaider]

My opinion, is your base is 4:3. You make sure everything works in 4:3. Then if someone is playing in 5:4, 16:10, or 16:9 you increase the FoV in the larger dimension to compensate.

I'm not so sure about the 16:9 case. 16:9 usually means TV. That usually means long viewing distance and less effective display area, giving a lot of distortion with a large FOV.

Though nowdays on the PC it might an idea to base for 5:4 due to the numbers of FPDs out there and just increase the HFoV for each wider aspect. Though, I'm sure people would complain that a CRT gets more visable are than a newly bought FPD.

Let them complain. 5:4 is hardly suited for gaming anyway, and 16:10 is quickly gaining popularity.

BTW, I'm not used to 5:4 and it looks really narrow and weird when I see it. I can't explain it, but it's like pheripheral vision is more important at the sides. To a point that is, I never could understand 2.35:1 and similar aspect ratios for movies.

 

[EasyRaider]

regarding putting various HUD elements and crap on the sides : I don't see it as a good idea. ever tried putting the task bar on the left side? a few people like it but it sucks. our vision seems to be best at "scrolling" from top to bottom. just look at a sheet of paper, or a web page, the ratio is quite the opposite of widescreen.
a PC monitor serves an infinite number of purposes. browsing the web in widescreen doesn't appeal to me.

I agree. For viewing text, you can't beat a narrow window like a page in a book. Make it too wide, and reading becomes more difficult. But 16:10 works nicely for having a second or third window on screen.

 

[the maddman]

I agree. For viewing text, you can't beat a narrow window like a page in a book. Make it too wide, and reading becomes more difficult. But 16:10 works nicely for having a second or third window on screen.

I have two widescreen machines now, and I love to code on them. I can have the text editor open and a web browser/help browser next to it.

I'm sure a 21" LCD at a high rez would be nice too, but the widescreen is a lot cheaper.

 

[Moloch]

2:35 FTW.
FYi a lot of movies are in this format so you'll still have black bars

 

[skazz]

Given that all 17 and 19 inch TFTs (except the new widescreen ones) are 5:4, I find it very funny to see so much reference to 4:3 in this thread.

I bought a Dell FPW2005 last year because it was very cheap (20 inch widescreen, pixel pitch almost identical to a 17 inch TFT, 1680x1050 resolution). Even though it can pivot, it remains always in horizontal position unless I need to plug cables. I have experimented with pivoting it to be vertical widescreen. It required vertical neck movement to be able to comfortably view text at top and bottom. In comparison, side to side neck movement is FAR more comfortable.

I've used a 20 inch 4:3 screen regularly too, and actually find that to be a fraction too tall, and so requiring minor neck movement. This is partially because of the very small pixel size and me therefore sitting quite close to the screen.

I actually use the 20 inch widescreen next to a 17 inch 5:4 these days. Due to their close pixel sizes they work very well together. Rotating your neck horizontally is comfortable and easy, so having a band of text not too tall (to avoid horitzontal neck movement) but wide is the best approach for email/webbrowsing in my opinion.

As for gaming: Thumbs up here.

 

[Blazkowicz]

those screens are so large that you have to rotate your neck?
makes me think of watching a live tennis match

I'll maybe get a 21" CRT soon, does that mean I'll have to rotate my neck too?
(being a CRT I'll be able to choose the pixel size and sit at the distance I want, though)

 

[skazz]

I am being serious about the fact that it's not comfortable reading text across the full height of the screen if you are fully using a rotated 20 inch widescreen. Vertical eye movement is something which we do far less than horizontal eye movement, so I really do find myself needing to move my neck perceptibly in that situation, whereas normal widescreen use doesn't really require it.

The whole issue made me analyze how we actually use our eyes and how PC use comfort actually works...

 

[Blazkowicz]

well I'm under the impression that vertical eye movement is less painful that horizontal eye movement, your mileage may vary, and sure I didn't test a rotated 20" widescreen

 

[Chris123234]

Personally I like my dual monitor set up as compared to a single monitor. Its more productive and more convenient. Therefore widescreen is better then 4:3.

 

[epicstruggle]

Personally I like my dual monitor set up as compared to a single monitor. Its more productive and more convenient. Therefore widescreen is better then 4:3.

Same here. i had real hopes that parhelia would kick this part of the market into overdrive, unfortunatly it didnt happen. Im still hopeful either NV/ATI jumps into the 3 monitor setups, especially for gaming.

epic

 

[see colon]

Same here. i had real hopes that parhelia would kick this part of the market into overdrive, unfortunatly it didnt happen. Im still hopeful either NV/ATI jumps into the 3 monitor setups, especially for gaming.

epic

there's always this. i would consider it if there was room for another monitor on my desk.

 

[DemoCoder]

I hate 4:3. I am too used to 16:9 and higher from extensive movie watching. All of the monitors and TVs in my house are now widescreen. Wide-screen monitor, widescreen 5085W Samsung in my bedroom, and 120" widescreen projector in my living room. I get alot more satisfaction from having my horizontal peripheral vision "filled up" than having my vertical peripheral vision filled. I don't really enjoy IMAX as much as I should given this, especially the awkward feeling of having to "look up". It makes for some interesting effects when you're watching video of aerial footage flying over something, but otherwise, I find the vertical extension annoying, compared to the open-vista-like feeling you get with a very wide screen.