Thinking of upgrading my monitor in a reasonable way.
- Thread starter digitalwanderer
- Start date
Yes the FOV is typically higher than it should be, I think this started cause with graphics 90degrees was mathematically quicker to calculate back in the doom days, so ppl got used to having a higher FOV than realistic right from the first FPS games. And of course ppl always wanna see more
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_of_view
"Humans have a slightly over 210-degree forward-facing horizontal arc of their visual field (i.e. without eye movements)"
"The vertical range of the visual field in humans is around 150 degrees"
so 210/150 = ~12.6:9 so actually of all the monitor ratios 4:3 is the closest to how the human eyes actually work! and with the advent of 16:10 -> 16:9 -> etc screens we are getting further and further away from how the eyes actually work. Its hilarious when you think about it, with monitor screen ratio's each 'advancement' has actually made things worse(*)
. People only thought they were getting more cause they were marketed as such, as its in the monitor makers interests to sell 'widescreens' as they are cheaper to make.
How to fix this? Perhaps define the screens size by its actual area size and not just its diagonal length(**), or the resolution by the total number of pixels (like what happens with cameras) of course this is a losing battle as diagonal length metric etc has been burnt into the publics mindset
(*)OK I can see for car games like the above video, removing the top/bottom of the screen is OK cause with driving around theres typically not much you want to see in the sky
(**)
4:3 40" diagonal = 5.34 square foot screen
16:9 40" diagonal = 4.74 square foot screen
21:9 40" diagonal = 3.96 square foot screen
32:9 40" diagonal = 2.89 square foot screen
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_of_view
"Humans have a slightly over 210-degree forward-facing horizontal arc of their visual field (i.e. without eye movements)"
"The vertical range of the visual field in humans is around 150 degrees"
so 210/150 = ~12.6:9 so actually of all the monitor ratios 4:3 is the closest to how the human eyes actually work! and with the advent of 16:10 -> 16:9 -> etc screens we are getting further and further away from how the eyes actually work. Its hilarious when you think about it, with monitor screen ratio's each 'advancement' has actually made things worse(*)
. People only thought they were getting more cause they were marketed as such, as its in the monitor makers interests to sell 'widescreens' as they are cheaper to make.How to fix this? Perhaps define the screens size by its actual area size and not just its diagonal length(**), or the resolution by the total number of pixels (like what happens with cameras) of course this is a losing battle as diagonal length metric etc has been burnt into the publics mindset
(*)OK I can see for car games like the above video, removing the top/bottom of the screen is OK cause with driving around theres typically not much you want to see in the sky
(**)
4:3 40" diagonal = 5.34 square foot screen
16:9 40" diagonal = 4.74 square foot screen
21:9 40" diagonal = 3.96 square foot screen
32:9 40" diagonal = 2.89 square foot screen
I'm sorry but this is simply wrong. In terms of pure size it's no less accurate to say you're getting more screen real estate at the sides of a smaller monitor than it is to say you're getting less screen real estate at the top and bottom of a bigger monitor.
However you unambiguously get more image when gaming on an ultrawide than on a 16:9 monitor. The image might be smaller, but you're getting more of it. In other words, regardless of how big your 16:9 screen is, you're just getting a blown up version of the middle section of an ultrawide.
So the term ultrawide is definitely justified.
Mate You do realize this is totally up to the developer?
Some choose to to do the FOV axis based on horizontal and others with vertical, I use horizontal.
eg see the screenshots of my game above or I just took a couple of screenshots of sacred 2 (obviously a big inspiration for me, one of the best ARPG's play it if you havent)
top is 4:3 bottom is 16:9
Huh? Its mathematically correct (Do you disagree with my numbers above), Show me your equations that disprove these numbers
Last edited:
Huh its mathematically correct, show me the equations that disprove the following
4:3 40" diagonal = 5.34 square foot screen
16:9 40" diagonal = 4.74 square foot screen
21:9 40" diagonal = 3.96 square foot screen
32:9 40" diagonal = 2.89 square foot screen
No offense but it sounds like you're talking 'alternative facts'
I just done a quick countup on steam survey
https://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/Steam-Hardware-Software-Survey-Welcome-to-Steam
aspect ratios < 16:9 = 6.1%
aspect ratios = 16:9 = 90.11%
aspect ratios > 16:9 = 1.97%
other = unknown = 1.84%
OK we dont know what other is, but from the looks of it tall screens are actually used by gameplayers 3x of the 21:9 etc screen users
Obviously 16:9 is the most importand and what you should focus on, but afterwards it should be the < 16:9 screens, or am I missing something and steam data is unreliable?
Last edited:
hoom
Veteran
Its a matter of perspective I guess, I can kind of get the point of view that if you take a given size of screen & add more screen to the sides you get more area.
But for a given width or diagonal you get a much bigger screen with a 'normal' ratio.
Mathematically with rectangles for a given diagonal length the most area is at 1:1 ratio & as you've shown the wider (or taller) you go from 1:1 you lose area. (at extremes a 40" wide by 1" tall screen is only 40 square inches vs 800 for a 1:1 )
PS: freedom units are farqin weird
But for a given width or diagonal you get a much bigger screen with a 'normal' ratio.
Mathematically with rectangles for a given diagonal length the most area is at 1:1 ratio & as you've shown the wider (or taller) you go from 1:1 you lose area. (at extremes a 40" wide by 1" tall screen is only 40 square inches vs 800 for a 1:1 )
PS: freedom units are farqin weird
Very interesting, I guess thats why 4:3 was a thing?
Last edited:
No idea, I was thinking of VR what aspect do they use
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_virtual_reality_headsets
they seem about 9:10 per eye, though there will be some overlap in the middle, where the same image is both in the left and right so its (9+9-x) : 10. I assume X is quite high 5 or 6 perhaps 12:10 - 13:10
edit: Reminds me of a recent science paper
https://www.pdx.edu/news/giant-jurassic-dinosaur-allosaurus-was-scavenger-not-predator
predators have good binocular vision, both eyes forward so we have sense of depth, the animals that are the prey have their eyes on the side, so they can see when someones creeping up on them
so humans with 4:3 its ideal, now if we were making screens for pigeons then 32:9 prolly makes more sense
Speaking about perspective, I prefer to think of it the opposite, dont 'add' screen, but remove parts from the scene
think of it like you're in the world everythings happening around you in 360°. What parts do you remove from sight?
Last edited:
Vacuum tube aspect ratio was dictated by tubes not lending themselves to other formats easily (not even flat) , VR's is dictated by currently applied way of doing near eye optics- the same thing.
I suppose VR users would trade the avg. ~80 circular per eye for squarey 125H / 70V per eye any day of the week really.
I suppose VR users would trade the avg. ~80 circular per eye for squarey 125H / 70V per eye any day of the week really.
Last edited:
Agree , even thought "HDR800" was funny before, not sure how to react to "HDR400" even. They seem hell bent driving it into the ground now , 30% better than avg is HDR ?.. Funny if Apple's XDR will be the more recognized format because HDR keeps falling far from initial targets so badly.
I wasn't responding to the post in which you calculated the screen size vs the diagonal width. I have no argument with that. I was responding to your statement of "the term 'wide' was choosen to imply it was giving your more, even though in fact its giving you less, they could of also called it short screens as they arent as tall". By definition this cannot be true since as I already said, it's equally as valid to claim these are smaller screens with extra at the side as it is to claim they are larger screens with less at the top and bottom. However as also noted, the only way they are actually used in games is with extra at the sides, therefore it's perfectly valid to describe them as wide screens.
Your argument rests on there being a misconception from the user that 32" in an ultra wide is the same as a 32" standard ratio screen but with "more" and I don't think that's the case at all. That would be a pretty silly mistake to make on the users part since obviously it would no longer be a 32". The diagonal sizes of ultrawides aren't intended to be compared against those of 16:9 monitors as they're two completely separate categorisations.
While I'm sure it's theoretically possible for a developer to cut the top and bottom of the image off on 21:9 and above screens because "they are just 16:9 monitors with missing bits", I'm not sure it would be a particularly wise move and I'm not sure any game has ever been published in this state. Games either support ultrawide and you get extra image at the sides compared to 16:9 monitors, or they don't, and you get black bars at the side where the extra bits would have been. In no case do you ever get missing image at the top and bottom.
Put it another way. Do you really see those 49" Samsung Ultra-ultrawides as really being giant 100" (that's a guess) PC monitors that have massive parts at the top and bottom cut off (despite no game treating them that way)? Or is it more reasonable to think of them as a double width 27" monitors which is in fact exactly how they are often marketed?
So Dead by daylight should not exist?
Mate I don't think you understand how it works, I'm terrible at explaining. I always have been
Basically the maker of a game goes
Do I want a fixed vertical or horizonatal FOV?
they choose one, then the maker chooses a FOV based on this (some games let the user also change the FOV)
by changing the FOV you can decide how much of the world you see
The assumption that 21:9 will always see more than 16:9 is wrong, its all depending on what fixed axis the maker has choosen
1/ 4:3 closely mirrors the FOV of the eyes, thus if you can choose any FOV, 4:3 will always allow you to see more of the world by moving your face closer to the screen
2/ 'widescreen' monitors of size X are cheaper to make than 4:3 ones, so it was in the manufacturers interest to push these and convince the public they are 'more' when in fact they are less
It is rare but yes there are game developers who chose vert+ over hor+ for games. For some games they want a specific FOV and so widescreen users lose vertical. This was more common back in the days when we were moving from 4:3 to 16:9 but its quite rare nowadays.
This discussion about vertical space is silly though. If you like a certain aspect ratio then you need to buy a size that provides enough vertical space for you. For ultrawide you obviously need to go larger to get back that vertical space which is fine. I love ultrawide for my home desktop and I've always recommended to go at least 34".
The idea that ultrawide is just marketing crap is just stupid though. It's about aspect ratio, not inches. You buy a size suitable for your need for your desired ratio.
This discussion about vertical space is silly though. If you like a certain aspect ratio then you need to buy a size that provides enough vertical space for you. For ultrawide you obviously need to go larger to get back that vertical space which is fine. I love ultrawide for my home desktop and I've always recommended to go at least 34".
The idea that ultrawide is just marketing crap is just stupid though. It's about aspect ratio, not inches. You buy a size suitable for your need for your desired ratio.
That's wrong IMO because more in this case is not necessarily better:
Because flatscreens can't convey actual depth only screen depth and the less close floor etc. you see the better in this case. Because floor is always a measure of IRL distance, and this still applies to VR but they need to provide "immersion" against isolation. So in that case its worth it. Would 90 circular worth it vs. 125*70? No way..
Last edited:
Silent_Buddha
Legend
Sure, but you can have the same aspect ratio at the same width with a 16:9 as you can with a 21:9 for roughly the same price or cheaper. As an added bonus, with the 16:9 you have extra vertical resolution if you need it.
I have no problems running games in a 21:9 aspect ratio on my 55" 16:9 display which would be roughly a similar width to a 52" 21:9 display. Only I'd have more vertical resolution if needed.
And since it's OLED, if I'm playing a game in a dark room, guess what? You wouldn't even know there was black bars top and bottom since there's no LCD backlight glow to ruin it. So you would basically have no way of knowing that you aren't actually playing on a 21:9 display.
For similar performing panels, larger 16:9 displays are generally cheaper than smaller 21:9 panels. I can understand not wanting to do what I'm doing with an LCD screen where the backlight glow makes it obvious you aren't using a more expensive but similar performing ultrawide display, but with OLED there is almost no downside to playing in an ultrawide aspect ration on a 16:9 display. And even with the backlight glow of LCD's I still preferred gaming at 21:9 ratios on a 16:9 display ... because it was cheaper for the same performance AND I still had more vertical resolution if I needed it.
Hell, I'd kill for a 3:2, 4:3 or 5:4 ratio OLED display and I'd still be able to benefit from ultrawide gaming if I so desired with almost no drawbacks. Currently the only downsides to doing this is the lack of curved OLED displays or refresh rates higher than 120 Hz. But the curvature is easily rectified if a display manufacturer wanted to make one (LG used to make curved OLED displays). As for the latter, I'm perfectly fine with 120 Hz ... well I would be if I could actually find a graphics card for a resonable price with HDMI 2.1 output.
Hell, looking at LG's displays if I had to choose between a 1,300 USD MSRP 34" ultrawide and a 48" 1,300 USD MSRP 48" OLED display, I know which one I'd choose to buy for ultra-wide gaming ... and it wouldn't be the ultrawide display.
The OLED would give a superior ultrawide gaming experience in an ultrawide aspect ratio in almost all respects. Hell, it has higher horizontal resolution AND width with better HDR and lower pixel response rates.Regards,
SB
Sure, but you can have the same aspect ratio at the same width with a 16:9 as you can with a 21:9 for roughly the same price or cheaper. As an added bonus, with the 16:9 you have extra vertical resolution if you need it.
I have no problems running games in a 21:9 aspect ratio on my 55" 16:9 display which would be roughly a similar width to a 52" 21:9 display. Only I'd have more vertical resolution if needed.
And since it's OLED, if I'm playing a game in a dark room, guess what? You wouldn't even know there was black bars top and bottom since there's no LCD backlight glow to ruin it. So you would basically have no way of knowing that you aren't actually playing on a 21:9 display.
For similar performing panels, larger 16:9 displays are generally cheaper than smaller 21:9 panels. I can understand not wanting to do what I'm doing with an LCD screen where the backlight glow makes it obvious you aren't using a more expensive but similar performing ultrawide display, but with OLED there is almost no downside to playing in an ultrawide aspect ration on a 16:9 display. And even with the backlight glow of LCD's I still preferred gaming at 21:9 ratios on a 16:9 display ... because it was cheaper for the same performance AND I still had more vertical resolution if I needed it.
Hell, I'd kill for a 3:2, 4:3 or 5:4 ratio OLED display and I'd still be able to benefit from ultrawide gaming if I so desired with almost no drawbacks. Currently the only downsides to doing this is the lack of curved OLED displays or refresh rates higher than 120 Hz. But the curvature is easily rectified if a display manufacturer wanted to make one (LG used to make curved OLED displays). As for the latter, I'm perfectly fine with 120 Hz ... well I would be if I could actually find a graphics card for a resonable price with HDMI 2.1 output.
Hell, looking at LG's displays if I had to choose between a 1,300 USD MSRP 34" ultrawide and a 48" 1,300 USD MSRP 48" OLED display, I know which one I'd choose to buy for ultra-wide gaming ... and it wouldn't be the ultrawide display.
Regards,
SB
You can't do this consistently with all games though. I tried for a long time (on both an LCD monitor and OLED TV) and eventually gave up and got an ultrawide and haven't looked back. It's also a PTA to set this up on a game by game basis unless you're running everything including the Windows desktop in the same 21:9 aspect ratio, and even then many games just won't accept it. i.e. they'll default to full screen anyway.
Also it's not everyone's cup of tea, at least those that haven't tried it
but it's impossible to run a proper ambilight setup on a 16:9 screen with games running in 21:9 aspect ratio, and honestly, as someone who has both, I'd take the backlighting over the deeper blacks of OLED any day of the week.
The concept of running 21:9 on a 16:9 sounds great as a best of both worlds concept but I was afraid if these issues.
Is the ideal to have a custom resolution setup in the driver and run the game in windowed Fullscreen?
I think what confuses ppl and they think they are getting 'more' with 21:9 etc is cause they buy a bigger monitor, eg they go from 28" 16:9 to 34" 21:9 and they think wow I can see so much more with 21:9, wow duh
yet if you look here -> http://www.displaywars.com/34-inch-21x9-vs-34-inch-16x9
you can see 21:9 is fractionally wider but loses way more at the top and overall is a lot smaller. Coupled with the fact that larger 16:9 often are 8.3 million pixels vs the much smaller 4.9 million pixels you typically get with a 21:9 ratio screen
FACT: There is nothing stopping a 16:9 behaving like a 21:9 if the software allows it, its just a matter of changing the FOV to suit. :FACT you can not deny this.
I've been looking at this a bit recently and this is what some ppl do often with 21:9 games if they are not supported natively, they will first throw a hissy fit and then second try and hack it so they support 21:9
It literally is all a software issue, take your 16:9 or 4:3 screen apply black tape to the top and bottom of the screen and viola, you have a 21:9 screen
Its rarely about aspect ratio, its diagonal inches and resolution
Its all about marketing as 40" sounds better than 32", companies try to maximize profits(*)
https://www.bestbuy.com/site/comput...rs/pcmcat143700050048.c?id=pcmcat143700050048
https://www.amazon.com/Monitors-Computers-Accessories/b?ie=UTF8&node=1292115011
https://www.newegg.com/LCD-LED-Monitors/SubCategory/ID-20?Tid=161617 <- they actually have an option for aspect ratio, well done newegg)
I was looking spains biggest pc site https://www.pccomponentes.com/monitores-pc
a couple of years ago there was just a handful of 21:9+ monitors now they make up maybe 1/3 of them, its like the transition > a decade ago from first 4:3 to 16:10 and then to 16:9 which I hated as well as 4:3 was near ideal (and like you have seen matches what the human eye sees)
I can literally see the future in 5-10 years when 4:3 montors make a comeback costing a premium as they will be marketed as tall screens and young ppl will go gaga wow I can see so much more than my 32:9 screen(**)
which one is a better deal?
https://www.newegg.com/p/pl?N=100160979 601311404&Order=1
https://www.newegg.com/p/pl?N=100161617 601305587&Order=1
btw 16:9 is called widescreen, yet we can see on steam that >90% of gameplayers have a 16:9 monitor, surely now this is standard
(*)hmmm I just posted something related in another thread here, but that was about film rentals, its amazing how well marketing works, we all fall for it even me.
EDIT:
(**) Think about tech, it continually is getting better, screens are just gonna get bigger until we reach where you could have any size, it'll prolly be a paper thin screen covering a wall, now what shape is ideal? Its obviously the human eyes 4:3 ratio its not gonna be 32:9, just like now if they came out with VR 21:9 and market it as widescreen, letting you see even more, ppl would laugh (though I wouldnt be surprised if a company tries as humans we are so easily led)
yet if you look here -> http://www.displaywars.com/34-inch-21x9-vs-34-inch-16x9
you can see 21:9 is fractionally wider but loses way more at the top and overall is a lot smaller. Coupled with the fact that larger 16:9 often are 8.3 million pixels vs the much smaller 4.9 million pixels you typically get with a 21:9 ratio screen
FACT: There is nothing stopping a 16:9 behaving like a 21:9 if the software allows it, its just a matter of changing the FOV to suit. :FACT you can not deny this.
I've been looking at this a bit recently and this is what some ppl do often with 21:9 games if they are not supported natively, they will first throw a hissy fit and then second try and hack it so they support 21:9
It literally is all a software issue, take your 16:9 or 4:3 screen apply black tape to the top and bottom of the screen and viola, you have a 21:9 screen
mate have you shopped for a monitor recently.
Its rarely about aspect ratio, its diagonal inches and resolution
Its all about marketing as 40" sounds better than 32", companies try to maximize profits(*)
https://www.bestbuy.com/site/comput...rs/pcmcat143700050048.c?id=pcmcat143700050048
https://www.amazon.com/Monitors-Computers-Accessories/b?ie=UTF8&node=1292115011
https://www.newegg.com/LCD-LED-Monitors/SubCategory/ID-20?Tid=161617 <- they actually have an option for aspect ratio, well done newegg)
I was looking spains biggest pc site https://www.pccomponentes.com/monitores-pc
a couple of years ago there was just a handful of 21:9+ monitors now they make up maybe 1/3 of them, its like the transition > a decade ago from first 4:3 to 16:10 and then to 16:9 which I hated as well as 4:3 was near ideal (and like you have seen matches what the human eye sees)
I can literally see the future in 5-10 years when 4:3 montors make a comeback costing a premium as they will be marketed as tall screens and young ppl will go gaga wow I can see so much more than my 32:9 screen
(**)which one is a better deal?
https://www.newegg.com/p/pl?N=100160979 601311404&Order=1
https://www.newegg.com/p/pl?N=100161617 601305587&Order=1
btw 16:9 is called widescreen, yet we can see on steam that >90% of gameplayers have a 16:9 monitor, surely now this is standard
(*)hmmm I just posted something related in another thread here, but that was about film rentals, its amazing how well marketing works, we all fall for it even me.
EDIT:
(**) Think about tech, it continually is getting better, screens are just gonna get bigger until we reach where you could have any size, it'll prolly be a paper thin screen covering a wall, now what shape is ideal? Its obviously the human eyes 4:3 ratio its not gonna be 32:9, just like now if they came out with VR 21:9 and market it as widescreen, letting you see even more, ppl would laugh (though I wouldnt be surprised if a company tries as humans we are so easily led)
Last edited:
I had to setup a custom resolution in the driver and then run Windows at that resolution with the aspect ratio scaling option enabled. You then run the game at that same resolution (assuming it offers the resolution within the game) in borderless windowed mode - again, assuming it has that option. I found that setting to full screen even if the game displays the custom resolution usually just stretches the image across the full panel.
It can work in quite a few games and when it does it's perfect, but it's hit an miss and unless you're willing to run Windows in the custom resolution it's a pain to change desktop resolution every time you fire up a game (and back again afterwards).
Similar threads
