FOV settings in 16:9 games

[zed]

about westerns heres

the ultimatefilm in widescreen (which looks terrible though meant to be seen on a curved screen)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0056085/ (4/10 btw my rating)
But it was like there was stage there in film when super widescreen films were getting to be gimmicks

Im not arguing against games being wider than height but this pushing of 'widescreen' as if its somehow better, would your current favorite game 'little big planet' be better served as 16:9 or 4:3
not to mention a lot of these sub 30fps console games would be a solid 30fps if they used a 4:3 aspect.

If I get time I do some calculations to see on average what percentage 16:9 has to render more than 4:3 (with same vertical FOV)

 

[zed]

ok done some testing, I was wrong about the twice as much
in a typical FPS scene with a 16:9 vs 4:3
the widescreen will typically render between 16%->33% more (thats with having the same vertical FOV)

 

[AlNom]

That's keeping the framebuffer size fixed, right? I suppose I am wondering what you consider to be "more" (how do you calculate your 16-33% figure) because anamorphic widescreen/wider FOV would simply mean a direct increase in geometry : pixel ratio.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Im not arguing against games being wider than height but this pushing of 'widescreen' as if its somehow better, would your current favorite game 'little big planet' be better served as 16:9 or 4:3

Almost certainly 4:3. However the screen I use to play LBP (if it's ever arrives) also has to play FIFA and watch movies, which are better served at 16:9. It's a reasonable compromise IMO.

not to mention a lot of these sub 30fps console games would be a solid 30fps if they used a 4:3 aspect.

You're confusing aspect with resolution. Which is going to render faster - a 720p game or a 1920x1440? The only way rendering 4:3 saves on 16:9 is if you're drawing less. And if you're drawing less, it means the player is seeing less, so in essence you're reducing the info the player is getting which is contrary to the idea of allowing 4:3 so the player can see more! Aspect is not going to impact performance. Developers will have to budget what they can render with the screen they have, adding or removing stuff to get the framerate they want.

 

[zed]

That's keeping the framebuffer size fixed, right? I suppose I am wondering what you consider to be "more" (how do you calculate your 16-33% figure) because anamorphic widescreen/wider FOV would simply mean a direct increase in geometry : pixel ratio.

more as in number of objects, visible (ie the dots in the above screenshot are ppl, whatever)

theres the same horizontal FOV in both methods, thus wide screen gets extended outwards (like ERP saiz in the forth post)
ala here
http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/000937.html (nice looking page btw)
second screenshot is what im doing/comparing

You're confusing aspect with resolution.

no im not, im ignoring number of pixels (well not totally), but take them as being the same, ie ignore them, see the 2nd screenshot in the above link, now on average looking horizontally there will be 16->33% objects onscreen (thus pass the viewfrustum object cull test, thus need to be rendered), ie youre sending 16->33% more objects to the card to be rendered

(*)the 16->33 figure comes from I was just testing an evenly spaced grid of 200x200 spheres, so the 16->33 repeats every 90 degrees, on a true random test the figure will be close to 25%

like I said theres no 'correct method of doing this' thus noone (including the bioshock moaners) have reason to complain (bad coding nothwithstanding)

(edit)

Aspect is not going to impact performance.

btw its not just the extra geometry that will impact performance, its also everything associated with that, possible extra lights/shadowmaps visible, extra material changes etc. all in all there is a hit (unless u are totally CPU/fillrate limited) and like I say Im sure theres been a few console games that framerates would of been better if they didnt go for the widescreen buzzword