Overclock.net › Forums › Components › Monitors and Displays › 3840 x 1600 monitors are coming (2.4:1 aspect ratio)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

3840 x 1600 monitors are coming (2.4:1 aspect ratio) - Page 2

post #11 of 53
not cool, i wished they made it the same height as the 30" 16:10 screen.

feels odd unless someone makes 16:9 screens of equivalent PPI and height.

im kinda enjoying my 16/21/16:9 triple monitor setup. i would be really interested in a 32:9 screen, would make alot of sense for gaming and productivity especially if it supports PbP mode
post #12 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tegiri Nenashi View Post

Let me be blunt: HOR+ scaling is bull*****. If it results in narrower FOV for 40" UHD compared to 34" ultrawide, it is a problem with HOR+ algorithm, and not with the monitor. Both 34" ultrawide and 40" UHD have the same pixel density. This implies that the optimal viewing distance is approximately the same. But then, bigger monitor should take bigger FOV, as simple as that.

P.S. For game engine FOV setting is just a trivial parameter that user can dial, if its automatic setting is incorrect. There has been a long thread about it.

If you have any resolution 16:9 40" and move to a 16:9 50" or any resolution you aren't increasing the FOV, you are just essentially stretching the pixels to meet a larger size reducing the density - how good it looks depends on the resolution at that point. The size of the monitor/tv itself does not control the FOV - the format that it is viewed in controls that, ie 16:9 or 21:9. You can literally see more of what you are looking at if it has a wider format, like 21 vs 16. Size of monitor is irrelevant to how much is displayed on the screen.
Comparison (Click to show)

If you want a real world experiment plug your phone into a 40" TV and then plug it into a 50" tv and tell me how many extra home screens you see. rolleyes.gif You don't see more, just larger version of the same thing and ore pixelated.
post #13 of 53
Stop obfuscating simple issue. Measure half of your monitor width. Divide it by viewing distance. Apply a certain trigonometric function (arctan). You would arrive to some angle, say 60 degrees. Your game field of view should be set to this value. The height (or lack of thereof) never entered the story. Aspect ratio is irrelevant for proper FOV setting.

P.S. The optimal viewing distance is determined by pixel density and screen size. But it is trivial fact that higher resolution displays allow closer viewing distances. And UHD display has higher horizontal resolution than 1440p ultrawide.
Edited by Tegiri Nenashi - 1/27/16 at 9:17am
post #14 of 53
Thread Starter 
To the contrary, Jiryama has clarified to me a paradox I had never suspected: Because games "max out' vertically but not horizontally, you'll see more at 3840 x 1600 than you'll see at 3840 x 2160. His comparison photo proves this beyond a doubt.

I've been a technical writer for 37 years. Jiryana's explanation is textbook great.
Edited by MarylandUSA - 1/27/16 at 8:59am
post #15 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glenwing View Post

I am not implying that 34" ultrawide is wider in physical width or pixel count. I am explicitly stating that wider aspect ratios allow you to see a wider field of view in almost all games. The resolution is irrelevant. Almost all games use HOR+ scaling, which means that the vertical field of view is fixed and scaled to the vertical pixel count of the monitor, and the image is extended to both sides until you hit the edges of the screen. Having a higher resolution monitor with the same ratio does not mean you see more stuff to either side in the game, the image will just be the same thing scaled up. The ingame field of view only depends on how far the image extends to the sides after being scaled vertically, which only depends on how many horizontal pixels you have per vertical pixel (also known as aspect ratio). A 1920×1080 monitor will show the exact same ingame view as a 7680×4320 monitor, it will just be rendered with finer detail on the higher resolution screen. But your field of view in the game does not change.

On the other hand, a wider monitor such as 2560×1080 will have exactly the same vertical field of view (because again, with HOR+ scaling, the vertical field of view is exactly the same no matter what resolution or ratio your screen is), but since it has more horizontal pixels per vertical pixel than 16:9, the horizontal field of view is extended further before it reaches the edge of the monitor, providing a wider field of view and allowing you to see more of the game.

You may notice that this means any 21:9 display will have a wider field of view in HOR+ games than any 16:9 display, regardless of the resolutions involved. You would be able to see more ingame with a 1280×720 than with a 4096×3072 display, and likewise yes 2560×1080 and 3440×1440 displays will give you a wider field of view than a 3840×2160 display.

Thank you for this, you put what I have been trying to explain to people in a proper technical way.

I had friends with 40" 4k displays telling me I am missing out, or they are seeing more than me, because their 40" 4k display are the same width as my 34" ultrawide, but with addition viewing on the top and bottom of it.

Been trying to explain it them, that isn't how it works when it comes to gaming.

Most people look at it, as if they are just adding more pixels on the top and bottom of a 34" ultrawide, so the 40" 4k 16x9 must be better. But in reality, you are hacking off the sides of the 34" ultrawide, then stretching/scaling that image to fit the 40" 4k display. Therefore losing FOV.

Again, this is in relation to gaming.

Maybe there are games out there that actually take advantage of 4k displays and actually expand the FOV with the additional pixels 1:1, but I personally haven't played one.

Am I way wrong on this?
Daily Driver
(17 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel i7-6700K GIGABYTE G1 Gaming GA-Z170X-Gaming 7 NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 Ti Hybrid G.SKILL Trident-Z 16GB DDR4 3400 
Hard DriveCoolingCoolingOS
Samsung 960 EVO 512GB Corsair H110i GTX - CPU EVGA Hybrid 980Ti Kit WIndows 10 Pro x64 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
Acer x34 21:9 100Hz GSync Corsair K70 w/ Blue Switches Corsair HX750 Corsair Graphite 760T 
MouseMouse PadAudioAudio
Logitech G Pro Corsair MM300 Extended Beyerdynamic DT-990 Pro 250OHM Schiit Modi 2 
Audio
Schiit Magni 2 
  hide details  
Reply
Daily Driver
(17 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel i7-6700K GIGABYTE G1 Gaming GA-Z170X-Gaming 7 NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 Ti Hybrid G.SKILL Trident-Z 16GB DDR4 3400 
Hard DriveCoolingCoolingOS
Samsung 960 EVO 512GB Corsair H110i GTX - CPU EVGA Hybrid 980Ti Kit WIndows 10 Pro x64 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
Acer x34 21:9 100Hz GSync Corsair K70 w/ Blue Switches Corsair HX750 Corsair Graphite 760T 
MouseMouse PadAudioAudio
Logitech G Pro Corsair MM300 Extended Beyerdynamic DT-990 Pro 250OHM Schiit Modi 2 
Audio
Schiit Magni 2 
  hide details  
Reply
post #16 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarylandUSA View Post

...Because games "max out' vertically but not horizontally, you'll see more at 3840 x 1600 than you'll see at 3840 x 2160. His comparison photo proves this beyond a doubt...

This picture is beyond ridiculous. The height should stay the same, no matter what? Even when comparing 40" UHD with 34" ultrawide?
Quote:
Originally Posted by wsfrazier View Post

...Most people look at it, as if they are just adding more pixels on the top and bottom of a 34" ultrawide, so the 40" 4k 16x9 must be better. But in reality, you are hacking off the sides of the 34" ultrawide, then stretching/scaling that image to fit the 40" 4k display...

"Hacking the sides"? I don't know what reality you live in, but 40" UHD is objectively larger than 34" ultrawide, in both dimensions. The pixel density is approximately the same, so the optimal viewing distance has to be the same as well. Therefore, a game on 40" has to be set to a wider FOV. Not by much, but still.

Even if FOV were the same, with 40" UHD your field of view is not vertically challenged, so you'll be able to enjoy many vertical scenes in the games such as:
1. Rock climbing in Tomb Rider
2. Helicopter shooting in Far Cry
3. Taking down flying aliens and skyscraper scenery in Crysis
4. The list goes on.

Stop pitching your puny 34" "cinematic" display as if it were the pinnacle of visual entertainment.
Edited by Tegiri Nenashi - 1/27/16 at 10:08am
post #17 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by wsfrazier View Post

Thank you for this, you put what I have been trying to explain to people in a proper technical way.

I had friends with 40" 4k displays telling me I am missing out, or they are seeing more than me, because their 40" 4k display are the same width as my 34" ultrawide, but with addition viewing on the top and bottom of it.

Been trying to explain it them, that isn't how it works when it comes to gaming.

Most people look at it, as if they are just adding more pixels on the top and bottom of a 34" ultrawide, so the 40" 4k 16x9 must be better. But in reality, you are hacking off the sides of the 34" ultrawide, then stretching/scaling that image to fit the 40" 4k display. Therefore losing FOV.

Again, this is in relation to gaming.

Maybe there are games out there that actually take advantage of 4k displays and actually expand the FOV with the additional pixels 1:1, but I personally haven't played one.

Am I way wrong on this?

^ This is correct.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tegiri Nenashi View Post

Let me be blunt: HOR+ scaling is bull*****. If it results in narrower FOV for 40" UHD compared to 34" ultrawide, it is a problem with HOR+ algorithm, and not with the monitor. Both 34" ultrawide and 40" UHD have the same pixel density. This implies that the optimal viewing distance is approximately the same. But then, bigger monitor should take bigger FOV, as simple as that.

P.S. For game engine FOV setting is just a trivial parameter that user can dial, if its automatic setting is incorrect. There has been a long thread about it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tegiri Nenashi View Post

Stop obfuscating simple issue. Measure half of your monitor width. Divide it by viewing distance. Apply a certain trigonometric function (arctan). You would arrive to some angle, say 60 degrees. Your game field of view should be set to this value. The height (or lack of thereof) never entered the story. Aspect ratio is irrelevant for proper FOV setting.

P.S. The optimal viewing distance is determined by pixel density and screen size. But it is trivial fact that higher resolution displays allow closer viewing distances. And UHD display has higher horizontal resolution than 1440p ultrawide.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tegiri Nenashi View Post

This picture is beyond ridiculous. The height should stay the same, no matter what? Even when comparing 40" UHD with 34" ultrawide?
"Hacking the sides"? I don't know what reality you live in, but 40" UHD is objectively larger than 34" ultrawide, in both dimensions. The pixel density is approximately the same, so the optimal viewing distance has to be the same as well. Therefore, a game on 40" has to be set to larger FOV. Not by much, but still.

Even if FOV were the same, with 40" UHD your field of view is not vertically squashed, so you'll be able to enjoy many vertical scenes in the games such as:
1. Rock climbing in Tomb Rider
2. Helicopter shooting in Far Cry
3. Taking down flying aliens and skyscraper scenery in Crysis
4. The list goes on.

Stop pitching your puny 34" "cinematic" display as if it were the pinnacle of visual entertainment.

I'm sorry, but you are simply wrong. I'd suggest you actually just test things and see what happens before you go arguing for one side or another.

For HOR+ scaling, there's really no other scaling method that would work. If you try to extend the scene vertically too far you get stretching and other weird issues pretty quickly, particularly on FPS games, with gun models and such. With horizontal field of view, you do get stretching as well (as seen on triple 16×9 eyefinity/surround setups) but you can go much much further out before encountering such issues. 21:9 isn't even close to two 16×9 monitors side-by-side, let alone three, so it's still well inside the comfort zone for stretching compared to the issues with triple monitor setups.

And as for arguments about screen size and pixel density, you don't seem to understand how this works. How would you suggest the game determine how far away a person is viewing in order to set the FOV properly? The computer has absolutely no idea how large the monitor is. It can only see the resolution. All 1920×1080 monitors are the same size as far as the computer is concerned, all 3840×2160 monitors are 4× the size of all 1080p monitors. That's why you have alignment issues with multi-monitor setups with different pixel densities. You may have a 27" 1080p and 1440p monitor side-by-side, but from the computer's point of view the 1440p monitor is 33% larger in each direction, so a window dragged along the top of the 1080p monitor will appear on the 1440p monitor only 3/4 of the way up the screen (1920 out of 2560 vertical pixels).

Due to this, games and other software have no idea what the pixel density of a display is or how large the monitor is, and certainly not how far away someone is sitting to determine the optimum field of view. Thus, having a larger monitor will not allow you to see any more of the game world. And neither will having a larger resolution at the same ratio. Any 16:9 monitor will display the same image, just rendered with finer detail due to each pixel representing a smaller portion of the image, so finer details can be represented instead of being lumped into a single pixel. The image on a 21:9 monitor in games with HOR+ scaling (which is basically all games) will have a wider/larger ingame view than ANY 16:9 monitor, regardless of the resolutions involved.

Once again I suggest you just run some tests yourself before continuing to argue about how things work when you clearly don't know the answer yourself.
Edited by Glenwing - 1/27/16 at 10:27am
Number Five
(15 items)
 
   
CPUMotherboardGraphicsGraphics
Intel Core i7-3930K GIGABYTE GA-X79-UP4 NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 Ti NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 Ti 
RAMRAMHard DriveHard Drive
Samsung Green DDR3 Corsair XMS3 DDR3 Seagate 600 SSD Crucial MX100 SSD 
CoolingMonitorMonitorMonitor
Corsair Hydro Series H80i Dell UltraSharp U2414H Dell UltraSharp U2414H Dell UltraSharp U2415 
MonitorPowerCase
ASUS ProArt PA248Q Corsair RM1000i Phanteks Enthoo Luxe 
CPUGraphicsRAMHard Drive
Intel Core i5-2520M Intel HD Graphics 3000 DDR3 Seagate 600 SSD 
Hard DriveMonitor
Samsung SSD 840 PRO 1600x900 TN Laptop Display 
  hide details  
Reply
Number Five
(15 items)
 
   
CPUMotherboardGraphicsGraphics
Intel Core i7-3930K GIGABYTE GA-X79-UP4 NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 Ti NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 Ti 
RAMRAMHard DriveHard Drive
Samsung Green DDR3 Corsair XMS3 DDR3 Seagate 600 SSD Crucial MX100 SSD 
CoolingMonitorMonitorMonitor
Corsair Hydro Series H80i Dell UltraSharp U2414H Dell UltraSharp U2414H Dell UltraSharp U2415 
MonitorPowerCase
ASUS ProArt PA248Q Corsair RM1000i Phanteks Enthoo Luxe 
CPUGraphicsRAMHard Drive
Intel Core i5-2520M Intel HD Graphics 3000 DDR3 Seagate 600 SSD 
Hard DriveMonitor
Samsung SSD 840 PRO 1600x900 TN Laptop Display 
  hide details  
Reply
post #18 of 53
Thread Starter 
Tegiri,
The explanations by Jiryama and Glenwing may sound counterintuitive. But they are shared by pcmonitors.info in this article. Check out the photos there; you'll see more game at 2560x1080 than you see at 2560x1440.

(added:) As far back as 2007, this paradox was explained, illustrated, and lamented in Widescreen and FOV, which noted:

"It's a tricky balancing act, and not many rendering engines get it right. That's probably why there's a Widescreen Gaming Forum dedicated to dealing with FOV and widescreen issues, along with at least one other website, Widescreen Gamer."

PS: Keep it civil.
Edited by MarylandUSA - 1/27/16 at 10:29am
post #19 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glenwing View Post

For HOR+ scaling, there's really no other scaling method that would work. If you try to extend the scene vertically too far you get stretching and other weird issues pretty quickly, particularly on FPS games, with gun models and such. With horizontal field of view, you do get stretching as well (as seen on triple 16×9 eyefinity/surround setups) but you can go much much further out before encountering such issues. 21:9 isn't even close to two 16×9 monitors side-by-side, let alone three, so it's still well inside the comfort zone for stretching compared to the issues with triple monitor setups.

So you stretch the scene vertically "too far" and you get "weird issues pretty quickly". And if you do the same horizontally it is OK? You are beyond belief in your widescreen religion. Do you even know what "uniform" in "uniform zoom" means?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glenwing View Post

...How would you suggest the game determine how far away a person is viewing in order to set the FOV properly? The computer has absolutely no idea how large the monitor is....

Please give some credit to human ingenuity. Certainly a monitor can send its size down the wire. It certainly sends its resolution during HDMI or Display Port handshake. Next, microsoft kinect already determines distance to a viewer, and I don't see a reason why any competent game developer couldn't do the same with simple camera and off-the-shelf image recognition software.

Or just have this value at the game graphics options screen for user to set it manually.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Glenwing View Post

Due to this, games and other software have no idea what the pixel density of a display is or how large the monitor is, and certainly not how far away someone is sitting to determine the optimum field of view. Thus, having a larger monitor will not allow you to see any more of the game world. And neither will having a larger resolution at the same ratio. Any 16:9 monitor will display the same image, just rendered with finer detail due to each pixel representing a smaller portion of the image, so finer details can be represented instead of being lumped into a single pixel. The image on a 21:9 monitor in games with HOR+ scaling (which is basically all games) will have a wider/larger ingame view than ANY 16:9 monitor, regardless of the resolutions involved..

Once again, setting correct FOV is a trivial issue. If FOV is not set properly, then it is a defect, which has to be fixed. Stop inventing weird reasons why larger higher resolution display has to have narrower FOV.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarylandUSA View Post

...Check out the photos there; you'll see more game at 2560x1080 than you see at 2560x1440...

It is pretty easy to make a monitor, which has more pixels, to show you more. The fact that you are persistently denying this trivial truth reveals how biased you are.
Edited by Tegiri Nenashi - 1/27/16 at 11:04am
post #20 of 53
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tegiri Nenashi View Post

It is pretty easy to make a monitor which has more pixels to show you more. That fact that you are persistently denying this trivial fact reveals how biased you are.
I' might well be gullible, ignorant, or naive, but I'm not biased toward widescreen. I don't game, and I have no love for widescreens. This is my 1x2 39-inch 4K set up at work:



and my 1x3 16:10 at home:
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Monitors and Displays
Overclock.net › Forums › Components › Monitors and Displays › 3840 x 1600 monitors are coming (2.4:1 aspect ratio)