Because 1920x1200 is a larger monitor size than 1920x1080. You can't compare them directly.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
HOT - Samsung 2343BWX 23" 2048x1152 $179.99 MIR + PC + FS
- Thread starter Zoson
- Start date
- Status
Because 1920x1200 is a larger monitor size than 1920x1080. You can't compare them directly.
With this particular monitor yes, but most 16:10 ratio monitors are 1920x1200. Since when is 1920x1080 more than 1920x1200??
It's more per inch. You are comparing two different screen sizes. It's like comparing 1024x768 to 1280x1024: the aspect ratios are different, one has more area than other, but they're two completely different sizes and not directly comparable.
vertigomhs
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2008
- Messages
- 1,231
i think what Dion was trying to say was that games are made in a 16:9 res, so when you have a 16:10 monitor, the field of view is actually zoomed in to make it 16:10, so you end up losing a small amount of viewing space.The 16:10 monitor has higher resolution. The monitor is also taller. This = SEE MORE.
That's all I was trying to say.
not sure how valid that is though :-| or if thats what he means.
So when you select 1920x1200 you're not actually playing it at that, even though you set it to that in the game? It's really just stretching it's 1920x1080 mode???
vertigomhs
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2008
- Messages
- 1,231
i would think it would zoom it in, not stretch it.
Dion
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2004
- Messages
- 3,932
Correct
xsoulbrothax
Gawd
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2003
- Messages
- 640
I think it's the other way around - most game engines are 4:3 by default, and the more widescreen your monitor is, the more you LOSE off the vertical FOV. Look up Bioshock, etc.
Dion
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2004
- Messages
- 3,932
The problem existed in Bioshock and Farcry 2.. only two games i can think of.. But they were patched already.
I bought this for my brother and used it a few days and I have to say this is truly a hot deal and a great monitor.
I'm not a huge monitor buff but, couldn't find a single thing to complain about.
Pro's
Coolest running monitor I have seen.
Great design with sensor buttons and no wasted plastic.
the screen looked great watched some movies and played some games and was without issues in terms of black levels or lag.
Resolution is strange but the higher the resolution the better in almost every case. The screen also looks perfect i 1920x1080 for those who needs to fit into a standard res, or games that don't support it.
I give it a 10 out of 10 even with no HDMI because of the price tag and lack of any real issues.
If you in need of a ISP then you already know this isn't for you, and if your looking for 120hz then this also isn't for you.
I'm not a huge monitor buff but, couldn't find a single thing to complain about.
Pro's
Coolest running monitor I have seen.
Great design with sensor buttons and no wasted plastic.
the screen looked great watched some movies and played some games and was without issues in terms of black levels or lag.
Resolution is strange but the higher the resolution the better in almost every case. The screen also looks perfect i 1920x1080 for those who needs to fit into a standard res, or games that don't support it.
I give it a 10 out of 10 even with no HDMI because of the price tag and lack of any real issues.
If you in need of a ISP then you already know this isn't for you, and if your looking for 120hz then this also isn't for you.
__hollywood|meow
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Feb 20, 2006
- Messages
- 1,500
dion is awesomely wrong. cant stop from commenting. games are not "made" in any ratio, it really depends upon the games widescreen support, there is simply the player FOV centered on xhairs for the rendered scene which either acts as vert- (chopping off the top and bottom of the 4:3 aspect ratio to FAKE widescreen support = claustrophobic), or hor+ (this is true widescreen support, it adds horizontal "columnar space", pixels, width or w/e to your peripheral viewing area) when you select a widescreen aspect ratio. now dion your key point seems to be that 16:9 adds horizontally to the FOV beyond 16:10 if i understand correctly, but plz compare the ratios. for every 16 horizontal units of width, there are 9 units of height to the picture. how can there be more to view, then, when 16:10 has the exact field of view horizontally, inherent to the ratio...and one more unit of height?
sorry for not talking about this monitor. LOL it looks nice but its a weird res.
Last edited:
Dion
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2004
- Messages
- 3,932
Look at this picture
http://img123.imageshack.us/img123/7686/diagmc9.jpg
Most if not all game companies work around the 16:9 standard. They crop everything from that. Including 4:3. So when you try to fit that 16:10 into the 16:9.. you lose space. Its that simple. 16:9 is the standard and will be forced more into the computer market. But I agree with you about this monitors res I don't like it. Id rather have 1920x1080.
http://img123.imageshack.us/img123/7686/diagmc9.jpg
Most if not all game companies work around the 16:9 standard. They crop everything from that. Including 4:3. So when you try to fit that 16:10 into the 16:9.. you lose space. Its that simple. 16:9 is the standard and will be forced more into the computer market. But I agree with you about this monitors res I don't like it. Id rather have 1920x1080.
edifyingkarma
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2008
- Messages
- 1,464
1920x1080 and 1920x1200 are identical in sharpness it just comes down to aspect ratio of which you get a tad bit more vertical space. To some this is a big deal but this doesnt make 16:9 panels CRAP in comparison to 16:10. This specific panel offers and upgrade over the 1920x1200 panels for the fact that it has a nice resolution bump. So this 2048X1152 16:9 will provide a significant resolution increase over 1920x1200 16:10 panels but you'll lose a bit of vertical space.
Belgain Roffles
Gawd
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2008
- Messages
- 546
While I won't argue that Dion isn't correct that the (current) situation allows users with 16:9 monitors to have the largest field of view as it is generally true.
The problem is though that aspect ratio is a terrible way to determine the size of a player's field of view in a given game.
Here's an example given an assumption that the only games being played are ones which are "H+" (misleading term, I'll get to that later) and yield the largest FoV at 16x9 resolutions:
If a person was to use three monitors (20" 19" and 18.5" with 4:3, 16x10, and 16x9 AR respectively) one after the other in an identical place on their desk, while sitting an identical distance away, all monitors would be roughly 16" wide and therefore take up an almost identical arc width for the user's eyes. Since the aspect ratios are different however, the 16x10 monitor would occupy a larger arc for the user's vertical field of view, and the 4x3 monitor, an even larger one. When playing games however, the 16x9 would yield a significantly wider FoV than the 4:3 and slightly more than the 16x10, despite not actually appearing any wider to the user in this situation.
Having a horizontal field of view over opponents is a significant advantage, so the user with the 20" 4:3 monitor may be forced to play in a 16x10/9 resolution simply to compete.
Tying the FoV to an aspect ratio is crap because it has little to nothing to do with the actually viewable arc size that a user is actually experiencing in real life. I would argue that since vertical FoV is less important than horizontal, why should the widest format monitor give the widest FoV no matter the actual size of the monitor itself. If we wanted the most level playing field given players with different aspect ratios, any "standard" FoV would have to be "cut" to fit a given aspect ratio. That means that if a given FoV has to be cut, it should be the one less critical to gameplay. (vertical) Of course this has happened already, but largely when the horizontal FoV wasn't wide enough in the first place. (Bioshock, etc) Hor+ for a 16:10 user is simply Hor- for a 4:3 user no matter the actual size of the screens being used.
The same thing occurs with 16:10 and 16:9, albeit on a smaller scale.
Sticking to any aspect ratio as a standard for FoV will always be unfair to many gamers as long as there are differing aspect ratios being offered for displays. The solution (imo) is to simply set a maximum (minimum too) for both horizontal and vertical FoVs, and let the user decide what settings they feel they need. (TF2 does this for horizontal FoV, and I assume they leave vertical as a constant)
The problem is though that aspect ratio is a terrible way to determine the size of a player's field of view in a given game.
Here's an example given an assumption that the only games being played are ones which are "H+" (misleading term, I'll get to that later) and yield the largest FoV at 16x9 resolutions:
If a person was to use three monitors (20" 19" and 18.5" with 4:3, 16x10, and 16x9 AR respectively) one after the other in an identical place on their desk, while sitting an identical distance away, all monitors would be roughly 16" wide and therefore take up an almost identical arc width for the user's eyes. Since the aspect ratios are different however, the 16x10 monitor would occupy a larger arc for the user's vertical field of view, and the 4x3 monitor, an even larger one. When playing games however, the 16x9 would yield a significantly wider FoV than the 4:3 and slightly more than the 16x10, despite not actually appearing any wider to the user in this situation.
Having a horizontal field of view over opponents is a significant advantage, so the user with the 20" 4:3 monitor may be forced to play in a 16x10/9 resolution simply to compete.
Tying the FoV to an aspect ratio is crap because it has little to nothing to do with the actually viewable arc size that a user is actually experiencing in real life. I would argue that since vertical FoV is less important than horizontal, why should the widest format monitor give the widest FoV no matter the actual size of the monitor itself. If we wanted the most level playing field given players with different aspect ratios, any "standard" FoV would have to be "cut" to fit a given aspect ratio. That means that if a given FoV has to be cut, it should be the one less critical to gameplay. (vertical) Of course this has happened already, but largely when the horizontal FoV wasn't wide enough in the first place. (Bioshock, etc) Hor+ for a 16:10 user is simply Hor- for a 4:3 user no matter the actual size of the screens being used.
The same thing occurs with 16:10 and 16:9, albeit on a smaller scale.
Sticking to any aspect ratio as a standard for FoV will always be unfair to many gamers as long as there are differing aspect ratios being offered for displays. The solution (imo) is to simply set a maximum (minimum too) for both horizontal and vertical FoVs, and let the user decide what settings they feel they need. (TF2 does this for horizontal FoV, and I assume they leave vertical as a constant)
Last edited:
xsoulbrothax
Gawd
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2003
- Messages
- 640
Yeah - I didn't want to get into a debate, but in my experience over the last couple years it'd generally been something of a battle to get Hor+ instead of Vert-, with Valve and Crytek pretty much being the exceptions, and UE3 and Battlefield- engined games typically being nasty offenders. Looks like it's gotten better over the last year and change, though.
__hollywood|meow
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Feb 20, 2006
- Messages
- 1,500
i just referenced some 1280x1024 (4:3), 1680x1050 (16:10), and 1600x900 (16:9) screenshots taken from a game with hor+, true widescreen support hacked in...resized them to equal pixel height to compare the horizontal.. and the FOV actually is a little bit wider in 16:9 than 16:10. of course you'd need a larger diagonal screen size (inch or two? dunno) to make the image the same size as 4:3/16:10, because the ratio is so short...
last OT post in here i swear
cannondale06
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2007
- Messages
- 16,180
for gaming its the aspect ratio NOT the total number of pixels that allow you to see more. so do you think people see more with 1024x768 than they do with 800x600? of course not when it comes to games as they are both 4:3.
anyway, some of these posts are hilarious. a 16:9 screen will have a wider view than 16:10 in properly implemented widescreen games. to be clear it will simply just add more to the sides. all Source games do it right if you want to know what properly implemented looks like. some people claim they can run the 16:9 res on their 16:10 screen and just get black bars. it doesnt always work that way though and the image can be stretched. if a game does happen to come out thats not properly done like Bioshock and Far Cry 2 were at release you can be sure widescreengamingforum.com will be on top of it and gets a fix. of course in both cases the fix is now implemented from an official patch.
bottom line is that if you need the extra real estate height wise for work then go with a 16:10 1920x1200. if its mainly for gaming and movie watching then go with a 16:9 1920x1080 or 2048x1156. because of consoles basically all games from that last couple years and going forward are designed around the 16:9 aspect ratio anyway. now at this point the 16:9 monitors are all TN so if you desire a very high quality monitor well you have no real choice but to go with one of the 16:10 monitors that are not TN.
xsoulbrothax
Gawd
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2003
- Messages
- 640
i think that's the part i was disagreeing with - you would expect that, yeah, but it's largely been the multiplats that were vert-. bioshock on the consoles still is, gears of war, FC2.. despite being intended for consoles who are probably more often widescreen than the PC, they still managed to chop off FOV if you use a widescreen.
and yeah, upon doing more research for the 09 games it seems like they've gotten a lot better about diong hor+ for PC games. i think pretty much all of them this year are either hor+ or anamorphic.
elektronisch
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2004
- Messages
- 2,305
i love Samsung monitors, TN panels or not - they make quality monitors. Colors are awesome perfect and never had an issue with input lag. Best bang for the buck
Even if a few games give you a little more width do view, not all will be better or show "more" in 16:9 than 16:10.
Plus, for many of us our gaming rig doubles as an editing rig or workstation. Then the extra pixels can come in handy for work or editing purposes.
Plus, for many of us our gaming rig doubles as an editing rig or workstation. Then the extra pixels can come in handy for work or editing purposes.
Zoson
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2001
- Messages
- 6,113
I've had two of these for half a year now. I got them when they were released earlier this year for almost twice the price they are now.
I like 'em a lot. Wouldn't trade one even for a 30" panel. Do you know what it's like to 'have no pixels?' That's how I describe the screen. No Pixels.
I made this thread when I saw the deal to share the love.
Excellent. Thanks Zoson. I've been looking for an upgrade to my 2005FPW. Seems like this might fit the bill. Not to finnicky about the IPS vs The World wars anymore. It's either this, the F2380, or that new NEC that's due out but they aren't even coming close to the price on this.
silent hero
Gawd
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2008
- Messages
- 1,022
No actually you see less. Less viewing height makes it look like a wider view. 16:10 at 1920x1200 vs 16:9 at 1920x1080, tell me which would you rather have? The difference between 2048x1152 and 1920 x 1200 is minimal. Just that 16:9 again looks wider.
These panel makers can take their mainstream 16:9 panels and shove them up their asses.
cannondale06
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2007
- Messages
- 16,180
you are WRONG when it comes to gaming though. 16:9 simply adds more to the sides than 16:10 and you lose NOTHING on properly implemented widescreen.No actually you see less. Less viewing height makes it look like a wider view. 16:10 at 1920x1200 vs 16:9 at 1920x1080, tell me which would you rather have? The difference between 2048x1152 and 1920 x 1200 is minimal. Just that 16:9 again looks wider.
These panel makers can take their mainstream 16:9 panels and shove them up their asses.
If I was in the market for a new display right now this would definitely be on my short list, along with the 24" ultrasharp they keep putting on sale for $400, and the E-IPS they keep putting on sale for $210 or so. The fine dot pitch must really be a joy on the eyes for someone detail oriented, such as an editor, or someone who is always reading a ton.
- Status