Widescreen vs. Fullscreen Implementation
- Thread starter MoeStooge
- Start date
Resolution could be an issue, though. Many poor HD-less Europeans could be left with only 720x432, which isn't all that great. I wonder if this will slow the market penetration of new consoles - since people won't get to see what they're fully capable of without shelling out for a new TV - more than it will accelerate HD adoptation.
Which will annoy them and so they'll get themselves a widescreen TV! We need to force the issue sometimes. Way back when we had B&W broadcasts alongside colour broadcasts, and eventually the B&W were cut. Anyone still on B&W had to bite the bullet and get a colour set. If we always pander to the lowest level users (like PCs do) we'll never really being making use of the technological progress. I'm agin forcing people to upgrade which is why you provide support for more than one technology simultaneously for atransition period. By all means support 4:3 in game, but don't begrudge those who have paid for a better experience to get a better experience.MoeStooge said:
In the UK 16:9 sets are pretty common, at least in my part of it, and there's not many 4:3 sets available to buy. This is one of those things where without hard facts no-one's really qualified to comment, especially just based on their local experiences though.
EasyRaider
Regular
Correctly? By what definition? A solution that cuts top and bottom can be considered just as correct.Dural said:
For any given screen area, 16:9 will always have less space vertically than 4:3. What that translates to in viewing angles is completely arbitrary, but a too large viewing angle will make things look weird. Hence, 4:3 gives you the ability too see more vertically without having things look warped.
The sweet spot will depend on individual games and user preferences. I feel it lies around 3:2 in most typical first person/chase cam gaming situations.
But more importantly for me, I will be gaming on a computer monitor for many years to come, and those are usually between 5:4 and 16:10. If I get a 16:10 monitor, then 16:9 will be acceptable, but not optimal.
EasyRaider said:
I consider adding more viewing area WITHOUT cropping the top and bottom of the screen to be a correct solution. Taking away viewing area to add to another, in my opinion, is a bad choice if the ability to keep most of the viewing area of 4:3 but add to it with 16:9 is there to use.
Also..for me..I find the 16:9 (without cropping) aspect ratio more natural, in TV watching and Game Playing. 16:9 also feels VERY good in racing games (with the Drop down camera or in First Person mode).
Widescreen makes sense because humans see more horizontal than thye do vertical. If I sit close to my 4:3 screen so it practically fills my vertical field of view, I can see plenty of space either side where there is no monitor. If I sit close enough that the monitor fills my horizontal field of view, the top and bottom of the screen are outside my vertical field of view. A monitor that reflects the aspect ratio of human vision is wideangle.
Admitedly in some games it's neither here nor there. Top down games or puzzlers like Tetris are perhaps at a disadvantage in 16:9, such as a vertical scroller having little look ahead. For most games I think widescreen's very good. RPGs, FPS, racers and sports sims are all naturally suited to widescreen I think.
Admitedly in some games it's neither here nor there. Top down games or puzzlers like Tetris are perhaps at a disadvantage in 16:9, such as a vertical scroller having little look ahead. For most games I think widescreen's very good. RPGs, FPS, racers and sports sims are all naturally suited to widescreen I think.
EasyRaider
Regular
BlueTsunami said:
That is your personal opinion, and quite frankly, it doesn't make sense to me. You could just as well turn it around: Taking away viewing area to add to another is a bad choice if the ability to keep most of the viewing area of 16:9 but add to it with 4:3 is there to use.
EasyRaider said:
Huh? The whole point of 16:9 (as the Geezer said) is to give you a natural panoramic view (thats supposed to feel natural). My beef is with taking a 4:3 Screen, cropping the Top and bottom and taking that and adding it to the sides. So ultimatley Subtracting viewing areas so you can add to other viewing areas when you have the ability to add to the area without subtracting from the area is the best choice in my book (Be it going from 16:9 to 4:3 | or 4:3 going to 16:9.
EasyRaider
Regular
Shifty Geezer said:
I have tried the same thing, and found that 4:3 is not a good fit, but not very far off either. I don't think 16:9 would be much better, if any. Moreover, you should consider how much you need to shift your eyes to focus on different parts of the image. In that respect, 4:3 feels more natural to me, while 16:9 gives mostly horisontal shifting. At normal viewing distance, I won't fill my entire field of view anyway, it would take a huge, curved display to do so.
4:3 is rarely optimal, we can agree on that. But I feel 16:9 takes widescreen too far for gaming in general. Maybe 16:10 is the sweet spot?
Last edited by a moderator:
EasyRaider
Regular
BlueTsunami said:
So basically, you just want the largest practical viewing angle?
EasyRaider said:
I've never experienced 16:10, but unfortunatley (if 16:10 is in fact the sweet spot)...16:9 has become the defacto standard for HD Resolutions (for TVs). I (personally) am fine with 16:9...I currently own a 27" 4:3 HDTV...and when I watch TV or play games..I have it in 16:9, which puts the image in LetterBox mode.
16:9 TVs (native) look very very nice when you have the image spanning all the way to the edge (without any letterboxes).
EasyRaider said:
Not the largest....but I DO prefer a more panoramic view then a square view. Honestly..when I think about 4:3 compared to 16:9...the one word that comes up is "Confining". 4:3 makes the image feel crowded (especially when theres a HUD involved). I started to feel all this after playing Killzone and Halo2 in widescreen.
Last edited by a moderator:
EasyRaider
Regular
And 16:10 has become the de facto standard for widescreen computer monitors. What a mess...
EasyRaider said:
It has....argh!!!!...what the heck is that? Now well be getting Letterbox and....Box Box (16:9 to 16:10)?
That's panavision 2.35:1 (or more correctly 47:20). I guess widescreen is holding out to sell us panavision sets in twenty years time.
Heh, Fox's CinemaScope came out back in the 50s with the 2.35:1, but I doubt we will ever see anything but projectors built for that as having to have black bars on the sides of 1.85:1 and 1.33:1 content would really cut a lot of screen space. 16:9 is pretty much a right down the middle compromised across all the aspect ratios in use and I doubt we will see any change from that.
As for games, obviously the correct way to implement widescreen is by adding to the width of the view; otherwise it wouldn't be widescreen but "lopped-off-screen" or "zoomed-in-screen" or something. Suggesting otherwise is like suggesting that movies should all be filmed at 4:3 and have the black bars pasted on later to create widescreen versions. Cearly one doesn't want to go lopping off heads and stuff by letterboxing a fullscreen view rather than simply adding a wider field of peripheral vision.
As for games, obviously the correct way to implement widescreen is by adding to the width of the view; otherwise it wouldn't be widescreen but "lopped-off-screen" or "zoomed-in-screen" or something. Suggesting otherwise is like suggesting that movies should all be filmed at 4:3 and have the black bars pasted on later to create widescreen versions. Cearly one doesn't want to go lopping off heads and stuff by letterboxing a fullscreen view rather than simply adding a wider field of peripheral vision.
Similar threads
- Locked
