FOV settings in 16:9 games

[Statix]

After Far Cry 2 came out and stoked some ire from those complaining about the poor widescreen implementation (or the slightly too-narrow FOV), I've started to wonder about what the various different FOV settings there are out there in games, particularly 16:9 games. I can tell the difference visually, that some games look "narrower" or more "zoomed-in" relative to other games.

Turok for example, has a more zoomed in, narrower FOV than COD4. Bioshock before the official patch/fix looked like it had a similiarly small/narrow FOV; I definitely prefer the new setting (disabling "FOV lock"), which makes it look more like COD4 and most other games to my eyes.

But I want to know the actual numbers for all these games. I want to know the exact FOV settings of COD4, Turok, Bioshock, and FC2. I've tried to google for them, but it's tough to find the figures I want, because the ones that usually show up in search are those for 4:3 or 16:10 ratios on computer monitors. I really want to compile a list of FOV settings for many 16:9 games; I have a definitely preference for how wide or narrow a game's FOV should be, but I want to know the numbers to go along with them.

 

[kyleb]

From the console on the PC version of CoD4, the FOV is 65. That is based on the 4:3 view though, at 16:9 it widens to just under 81. I can't say exactly off hand for the other games you mention, but you can always calculate it reasonably well yourself by seeing how many turns of your view it takes to complete a circle and dividing 360 by that.

 

[Statix]

From the console on the PC version of CoD4, the FOV is 65. That is based on the 4:3 view though, at 16:9 it widens to just under 81. I can't say exactly off hand for the other games you mention, but you can always calculate it reasonably well yourself by seeing how many turns of your view it takes to complete a circle and dividing 360 by that.

Thanks for the tip, that sounds like a useful idea.

 

[ERP]

Actually hi-Jacking this thread for a second, it's amazing how many games mess this up. I have 3 wide screen monitors hoopked up through a TrippleHead2Go so I can play at upto 48:10 aspect ratios (which I rarely actually do). I can count the number of games that actually correctly deal wiuth this on the fingers of one hand.

It's not rocket science, you just have to guarantee that the original play field is contained in whatever space your rendering to. And failing that if you set your FOV in terms of the vertical dimension it works for everyone not running portrait mode.

OK so I know exactly why this happens, devs generally develop in a window with some fixed aspect ratio, widescreen is an afterthought and no one even thinks about the other cases unless a co-worker brings it up.

Hmmmm that was more ranty than I expected.

 

[zed]

the thing is though if u maintain the same horizontal FOV going from 4:3 ->16:9 then the widescreen users will complain about they see less than the 4:3 users.

personally I believe just take what youre given, as Ive written before (esp for computer screens) widescreen's are actually worse than 4:3 as the screen is smaller (theyre cheaper to make thus manufacturers love them)
so how did this craze for this 'inferior' product happen?
its all marketting WIDEscreen, thus ppl believe theyre getting more
I wonder what the uptake would of been if they were call squashed screens

caveat - though of course if u watch exclusively widescreen movies then 16:9 etc is better

 

[Npl]

the thing is though if u maintain the same horizontal FOV going from 4:3 ->16:9 then the widescreen users will complain about they see less than the 4:3 users.

personally I believe just take what youre given, as Ive written before (esp for computer screens) widescreen's are actually worse than 4:3 as the screen is smaller (theyre cheaper to make thus manufacturers love them)
so how did this craze for this 'inferior' product happen?
its all marketting WIDEscreen, thus ppl believe theyre getting more
I wonder what the uptake would of been if they were call squashed screens

I often feel like Im the only one with that opinion. Are you married?
Nowadays theres no much choice with all HDTVs beeing cripplescreen, but that craze already started when Widescreen CRTs came up and were way more expansive then 4:3 CRTs with same or more width. On the positive side we should be happy that they dint lock down framerate/refresh to 23.976 aswell... or maybe thats reserved for the nextgen "Cinema TVs"

caveat - though of course if u watch exclusively widescreen movies then 16:9 etc is better

I dont watch much movies, but I like my subtitles displayed below the picture, not on it.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

My guess is that the 16:9 format is less 'wasteful'. As the human FOV is panoramic, on paper it doesn't make sense to have proportionally more vertical space. And if you sit with the widescreen's vertical filling your own vertical visual FOV, the horizontal FOV of a 16:9 also fills out nicely, whereas a 4:3 leaves margins either side of the screen. So a screen desgined to absolutely fill your vision would need to be 16:9 or perhaps even wider (although there's no proper vision there).

For most games this works. The player takes a human(ised) role where the interest is more in the horizontal direction, with not so much vertical to worry about. Football is a good example where the widecscreen format better fits the playing area. However in some games the interest is uniform around the player, and being able to see the same amount in all directions would be beneficial. Shooters are generally built this way these days with targets on different heights. Being able to see left and right in the immediate view, but not the enemy on the balcony above you, does highlight the limits of the 16:9 format. But then I guess in that respect a circular screen is most efficient

 

[kyleb]

the thing is though if u maintain the same horizontal FOV going from 4:3 ->16:9 then the widescreen users will complain about they see less than the 4:3 users.

Not all of us will. Some understand the fact if, for instance, you design a game for 16:9; cropping the widescreen view horizontally for lower aspect ratios can effectively break a game at those lower aspect ratios by cutting off essential visual information. Now, instead of the 4:3 safe widescreen support we had last generation, current generation games are actually building their games presentation around a widescreen aspect ratio. 16:9 based games shouldn't have their views cropped horizontally for lower aspect ratios just like 4:3 based games shouldn't have their views cropped for higher aspect ratios; in either case part of the intended view is cropped away.

 

[Malo]

Actually in the modern cases with 16:9 developed games, nothing is cropped away, vertical space is added for the 4:3 versions isn't it? Thus the moniker "tallscreen" was born.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

I can't speak for certain as to what games are doing, but in principle that's a bad idea for your engine because you're adding extra content for your graphics engine to render. If you can cope with 5 million polys per frame, say, and your 16:9 assets use that wisely, then adding 33% extra view will add objects and polygons, tipping over your refresh. I guess the easy solution is no v-sync and those rendering more have to make do with the tearing. The other option is to design for the maximum workload knowing most of your players aren't going to use it, leaving a 33% bin in your rendering performance which you could otherwise use to make what those gamers actually see look better. The best-case, totally unfeasible method, is to have an engine and assets that adapt accordingly.

 

[Rurouni]

Why don't introduce black bars for 4:3 screen? either that or crop.
If it's a movie content showed on 4:3 screen either use black bars, crop, or combination of both.... or 4:3 faithful demand that the movie need to be make for the 4:3 screen?

It's a fact that we can see more horizontally. The problem is that when you sit far from the screen, the immersion that you can get from wider screen is probably lost. The closer you're from the screen (relative to the screen size), the more you feel the benefit of having a wide screen.

 

[Npl]

Why don't introduce black bars for 4:3 screen? either that or crop.
If it's a movie content showed on 4:3 screen either use black bars, crop, or combination of both.... or 4:3 faithful demand that the movie need to be make for the 4:3 screen?

Nope, but showing black bars on games/cropping is nonsense if you can just render it. And there are alot of genres that benefit from it, like basically any game with a top-down view or splitscreen. Even shooters could benefit from it, like having enemies attacking from above/below.

It's a fact that we can see more horizontally. The problem is that when you sit far from the screen, the immersion that you can get from wider screen is probably lost. The closer you're from the screen (relative to the screen size), the more you feel the benefit of having a wide screen.

Its also a fact that you cant cover your vision horizontally even if you have a theoretically infite wide (planar) screen. By your logic it would be best to make the screen as wide as possible and only a few mm high as that would resemble the human FOV most accurately.
If you look at other aspects like the area we can actually "focus" (see sharp) then you`ll see that the shape is more like a circle. If you further look at "high end cinema" (IMAX), you will see that the aspect-ratio 1.44 is somewhere between 1.33 (4:3) and 1.78 (16:9) - given it uses a nonplanar screen of course. My point here is not to prove that 4:3 is a more natural ratio, but to disprove that 16:9 covers your FOV better (or show "more") and sadly thats what the public was tought through marketing (which is about bulletpoints to sell product).
In the end you need to use higher POVs to display more horizontally (or vertically), and on planar displays this leeds to distortions. If you ever played a shooter with big POV (>90) and did run towards and through a tunnel you seen the "horror-movie" effect where the tunnel seems to get longer and longer as you approach it. For that reasons, the assumption that Widescreen can cover more is flawed - its simply the absolute size of the screen that matters.

 

[zed]

My guess is that the 16:9 format is less 'wasteful'. As the human FOV is panoramic, on paper it doesn't make sense to have proportionally more vertical space. And if you sit with the widescreen's vertical filling your own vertical visual FOV, the horizontal FOV of a 16:9 also fills out nicely, whereas a 4:3 leaves margins either side of the screen. So a screen desgined to absolutely fill your vision would need to be 16:9 or perhaps even wider (although there's no proper vision there).

whilst reading this web page are u scrolling up+down or left + right
not to mention most cameras are 4:3
in the golden age of video games, with a lot of games the screen was tipped on its side ie they were taller vertically than horizontally
granted for some games eg FPSs widescreen is perhaps better, though for others RTSs squarer is better
but ok its all personal choice

Actually in the modern cases with 16:9 developed games, nothing is cropped away, vertical space is added for the 4:3 versions isn't it? Thus the moniker "tallscreen" was born.

yes but then the widescreen guys will complain about seeing less than the 4:3 guys, I think this is what the recent furor with bioshock

I done some calculations a while ago, when I brought a widescreen 24'' monitor, (I had to buy widescreen cause that was the only option )

wide screen 24" = 1920x1200 resolution(standard), actual size 20.4" x 12.7" = 259"
4:3 screen 24" = 1920x1440 resolution(standard), actual size 19.2" x 14.4" = 276"

as u can see a 24'' widescreen is actually 17square inches smaller than a 24inch 4:3 screen!!!!
and as Npl said before when widescreen was big a couple of years ago, u had to pay extra for the privilege of getting ripped off, what a masterful con

I just had a search for human FOV + it seems like its
200degrees horizontally
135degrees vertically ie 1.48 ratio
1.333 = 4:3
1.48 = human
1.78 = 16:9

thus actually 4:3 is closer to what humans see, + as Npl states above IMAX == 1.44, which is very close to what humans field of vision

 

[Shifty Geezer]

whilst reading this web page are u scrolling up+down or left + right

Just down

not to mention most cameras are 4:3

That's neither here nor there. The image can be cropped to suit, so your 3:2 35mm negative can be turned into a 5:1 panorama by printing big and chopping off top and bottom. It's not like we have to set the desired aspect ratio of Real Life before taking pictures

in the golden age of video games, with a lot of games the screen was tipped on its side ie they were taller vertically than horizontally

But we were playing different games that were designed to fit the displays. If we had stuck with tall screens, the games we play now would be different, or a bit rubbish as you can't see much that's relevant. "Ooooh, look at the lovely skybox. I can't see the twisting road to race around so have to drive dead slow, but at least the skybox is very pretty!"

granted for some games eg FPSs widescreen is perhaps better, though for others RTSs squarer is better but ok its all personal choice

Well, it's not really personal choice, as we're stuck buying the screens available to us, and developers have to target the hardware out there. I also think that it's a game thing. Football is better on a widescreen TV (unless you're playing Sensible Soccer) because it plays left to right. Racers are better on a widescreen because the important information is to left and right of the player. Whereas a WWII fighter-plane game is no better off in widescreen as the enemy could come from anywhere, and a vertical shooter...well

as u can see a 24'' widescreen is actually 17square inches smaller than a 24inch 4:3 screen!!!!

And that wasn't even a 16:9 widescreen! Plus, as I said earlier, you're adding a lot more pixels to render. That 4:3 screen has 33% more pixels than a 1080p screen.

I just had a search for human FOV + it seems like its...

thus actually 4:3 is closer to what humans see, + as Npl states above IMAX == 1.44, which is very close to what humans field of vision

I don't think it works like that. Firstly vertical FOV is variable due to different facial structures. The vertical view is cropped on top by the brow, and to a lesser degree by the cheeks below. Depending on facial structure, you can have a much reduced vertical FOV relative to someone else. Whereas the horizontal is open for all faces.

Secondly I think psychologically, in the processing of the image, the horizontal is resolved with more importance. If I just sit here and wiggle my fingers at the periphery of my own vision, I notice them far wider compared to height. Most human experience happens in the plane of view. We don't have a huge amount to worry about or interact with above us. This is reflected in artistry. A broad panoramic photo taken on a film camera is captured on a 3:2 ratio film, and then cropped to create the panorama, disgarding the redundant sky etc. Consider a James Bond movie where the photography places the characters in the vertical centre, and he's rushing through a market. A 4:3 aspect would limit the number of people on screen as they aren't piling up on top of each other but are packed side by side - to show the crowd surrounding 007 you'd want a widescreen aspect, or you'd have to zoom out with your 4:3 frame to have a smaller Bond and a lot of boring space above him. Consider the famous 'face-off shot' with a character either side of the screen. In the 4:3 frame, they have to to be right in each other's face - you can't get any distance. At a cinema's panoramic ratio, you can get a lot of distance between them, giving creative options to define visually the relationship between the characters. Yes, this then limits the vertical artistry. If you wanted to show...Rapunzel, up a tall tower, you couldn't highlight the tower's height reaching high up with the prince craning his neck up. The composition would have to go with a totally different viewpoint. However for the majority of content, the widescreen format better fits human perception. I think this is true of most contemporary games, and as the screens for viewing games also need to display films 99.9% of the time, and most of the time those films photography benefits from a wide aspect, i think the widescreen is the better choice for a standard, and the 16:9 was a reasonable compromise.

 

[orangpelupa]

16:9 is too wide
16:10 is good IMO.

played CoD4 in my 17" 4:3, then my monitor broken, buy 17" lcd 16:10. and i can see more thing, and it also give better in-game feeling.

in 4:3 i can clearly see the monitor border and my wall.
in my 16:10 lcd, what i see is the CoD4 game screen.

(i put my lcd about 30cm from my eye.)

as for 16:9... is too wide. it hard to see the enemy on sides.

 

[ERP]

Actually my point wasn't adding space is the right solution or wrong one.
When you get to extreme aspect ratios like 48x10, most games are unplayable because your cropping so much off the top and bottom that you can't see where your going or worse your character can actually get off the screen.

As I say the solution isn't rocket science you have to frame the primary play surface so it fits on the monitor. you can usually do this if your're only concerned with widescreen by considering FOV in your code to describe the vertical FOV rather than the horizontal one.

 

[kyleb]

But again, if you design your game to target 16:9, and then use the same vertical FOV for 4:3, you could wind up effectively breaking the game at that narrower aspect ratio by cutting off important visual information.

 

[AlNom]

Why don't introduce black bars for 4:3 screen? either that or crop.
If it's a movie content showed on 4:3 screen either use black bars, crop, or combination of both.... or 4:3 faithful demand that the movie need to be make for the 4:3 screen?

Condemned and maybe a couple others do this. Assassin's Creed adds black bars to 16:10 monitors on PC. I'm not sure if there was much of an outcry either...

 

[zed]

As I say the solution isn't rocket science you have to frame the primary play surface so it fits on the monitor. you can usually do this if your're only concerned with widescreen by considering FOV in your code to describe the vertical FOV rather than the horizontal one.

yes thats a possible way, but there is no fixed solution that will please all users, hmm unless perhaps if u let them choose the FOV.
whilst one may think widescreen just adds a bit onto the sides, its far more than a bit and is from memory with the same vertical FOV in 4:3 + 16:9, widescreen actually has to render about twice as much!! this can make a huge performance difference between the two modes, with a fixed horizontal FOV the difference is usually not so much.

from looking at the latest valve figures, 4:3 still rules (though no doubt in ~3years 16:9 will be in the majority)
4:3 Aspect Primary Displays (1310713 of 1777051 Total Users (73.76% of Total) )
16:9 Aspect Primary Displays (458576 of 1777051 Total Users (25.81% of Total) )

thus at the moment 4:3 is still the choice to please the majority

 

[Shifty Geezer]

That's on PC though. How many 4:3 TVs have you seen in people's homes? Most folk I know have switch to widescreen, the only one's not being disinterested in watching TV/movies on the whole.