Overclock.net banner

1 - 20 of 1177 Posts

·
Old to Overclock.net
Joined
·
6,112 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I've noticed there isn't a real 21:9 thread here. So I figured I would start one! <img alt="biggrin.gif" class="bbcode_smiley" src="http://files.overclock.net/images/smilies/biggrin.gif"><br><br>
Post your reviews, ask questions, debate 3440 x 1440 vs 4k, post your screenshots or backgrounds, your love/hate or whatever...<br><br>
I'll start <img alt="biggrin.gif" class="bbcode_smiley" src="http://files.overclock.net/images/smilies/biggrin.gif"><br><br>
It's been a long while since any tech has really excited me or really changed (quite literally as well) the aspect of gaming. Everyone games at 16:9 and has for a decade now. Big deal. 21:9 brings things to a whole new level!<br><br>
I pre-ordered the Dell U3415W 34" 21:9 3440 x 1440. I didn't even consider 4k because of the GPU demands. And it's 16:9 and I wouldn't have given up my 16:10 for it. But when I saw these new curved 21:9 displays being announced, the gimmick/hype seemed like it would do Gaming a great service! I upgraded from the Dell 3007 WFP-HC, and at first I thought I'd miss the vertical resolution of 2560 x1600. I still do, a little bit. But I can't go back now. The only potential future upgrade that I will ever consider is if there is a 40" 3820 x 1600 21:9 released. I think 21:9, at least for me, is definitely the best ratio for gaming I've ever experienced.<br><br>
You think other ratios are fine and dandy, but the only real drawback running a 21:9 monitor, in my opinion, is that when you're viewing any kind of full screen 1.85:1 media, it looks so much smaller than on an appropriate 16:9 or 16:10 monitor. The upside is that 2.39:1 content is just amazingly larger. Watching a wide screen movie on this monitor is just amazing! And, if you're like me and always loved uncropped widescreen movies, it is really something special and unique to watch them without blackout bars.<br><br>
Playing games is absolutely amazing! For me, it increases the immersion factor, even on games I've already played through. And you don't need to run SLI or xfire to enjoy it. Most games play maxed for me with 2xaa at 60fps on a single GTX 980! While 4k may become a great TV standard, I don't see it improving gaming nearly as much as a wider screen.<br><br>
I've noticed a lot of titles that I didn't think would support 21:9 actually do and a good amount of them automatically detect them. Sure some games will just not like it... but a lot of those titles are corrected by the Flawless Widescreen utility. <a href="http://www.flawlesswidescreen.org/" target="_blank">http://www.flawlesswidescreen.org/</a>.<br><br>
Sure, it's not for everyone. But, I don't think 21:9 is going to disappear anytime soon, this time!<br><br><br>
Anyway, I made a few native resolution 3440 x 1440 wallpapers from some high res NASA Hubble images so thought I would share!<br><br>
Post some of your wallpaper creations or desktop screenshots!<br><br><br><a class="H-lightbox-open" href="http://www.overclock.net/content/type/61/id/2355647/"><img alt="" class="lightbox-enabled" data-id="2355647" data-type="61" src="http://www.overclock.net/content/type/61/id/2355647/flags/LL" style="; width: 3440px; height: 1440px"></a><br><br><a class="H-lightbox-open" href="http://www.overclock.net/content/type/61/id/2355648/"><img alt="" class="lightbox-enabled" data-id="2355648" data-type="61" src="http://www.overclock.net/content/type/61/id/2355648/flags/LL" style="; width: 3440px; height: 1440px"></a><br><br><a class="H-lightbox-open" href="http://www.overclock.net/content/type/61/id/2355650/"><img alt="" class="lightbox-enabled" data-id="2355650" data-type="61" src="http://www.overclock.net/content/type/61/id/2355650/flags/LL" style="; width: 3440px; height: 1440px"></a><br><br><a class="H-lightbox-open" href="http://www.overclock.net/content/type/61/id/2355651/"><img alt="" class="lightbox-enabled" data-id="2355651" data-type="61" src="http://www.overclock.net/content/type/61/id/2355651/flags/LL" style="; width: 3440px; height: 1440px"></a><br><br><a class="H-lightbox-open" href="http://www.overclock.net/content/type/61/id/2355652/"><img alt="" class="lightbox-enabled" data-id="2355652" data-type="61" src="http://www.overclock.net/content/type/61/id/2355652/flags/LL" style="; width: 3440px; height: 1440px"></a><br><br><a class="H-lightbox-open" href="http://www.overclock.net/content/type/61/id/2355653/"><img alt="" class="lightbox-enabled" data-id="2355653" data-type="61" src="http://www.overclock.net/content/type/61/id/2355653/flags/LL" style="; width: 3440px; height: 1440px"></a>
 

·
:)
Joined
·
11,145 Posts
Sad to see this thread never progressing! Let's do something about that shall we <img alt="smile.gif" class="bbcode_smiley" src="http://files.overclock.net/images/smilies/smile.gif"><br><br>
I don't own a 21:9 monitor yet, just waiting for 100hz+ G-Sync before taking the plunge.<br><br>
BTW: Loved your screens, space sure can be beautiful <img alt="smile.gif" class="bbcode_smiley" src="http://files.overclock.net/images/smilies/smile.gif"><br><br>
However did find a few nice screens for my soon to be monitor!<br><br><a class="H-lightbox-open" href="http://www.overclock.net/content/type/61/id/2553718/"><img alt="" class="lightbox-enabled" data-id="2553718" data-type="61" src="http://www.overclock.net/content/type/61/id/2553718/flags/LL" style="; width: 3439px; height: 1439px"></a><br><br><a class="H-lightbox-open" href="http://www.overclock.net/content/type/61/id/2553719/"><img alt="" class="lightbox-enabled" data-id="2553719" data-type="61" src="http://www.overclock.net/content/type/61/id/2553719/flags/LL" style="; width: 3440px; height: 1440px"></a><br><br><a class="H-lightbox-open" href="http://www.overclock.net/content/type/61/id/2553720/"><img alt="" class="lightbox-enabled" data-id="2553720" data-type="61" src="http://www.overclock.net/content/type/61/id/2553720/flags/LL" style="; width: 3440px; height: 1440px"></a><br><br><a class="H-lightbox-open" href="http://www.overclock.net/content/type/61/id/2553721/"><img alt="" class="lightbox-enabled" data-id="2553721" data-type="61" src="http://www.overclock.net/content/type/61/id/2553721/flags/LL" style="; width: 3439px; height: 1439px"></a><br><br><a class="H-lightbox-open" href="http://www.overclock.net/content/type/61/id/2553722/"><img alt="" class="lightbox-enabled" data-id="2553722" data-type="61" src="http://www.overclock.net/content/type/61/id/2553722/flags/LL" style="; width: 3440px; height: 1440px"></a>
 
  • Rep+
Reactions: xenophobe and HITTI

·
Registered
Joined
·
302 Posts
21:9 framing is ugly in most of the cases. Images taken with your average camera, especially in portrait mode, are just pathetic waste of screen space on the sides. Why widescreen propellerheads still insist that embrasure view (aka "cinematic" aspect ratio) is somehow superior to IMAX?<br><br>
And if you want to check how high end cinematic experience is, just follow CIH buffs<br>
<a href="http://www.avsforum.com/forum/117-2-35-1-constant-image-height-chat/2067202-non-imax-films-not-intended-seen-cih.html" target="_blank">http://www.avsforum.com/forum/117-2-35-1-constant-image-height-chat/2067202-non-imax-films-not-intended-seen-cih.html</a><br>
Even they admit that most of multiplex venues today are width, not height, constrained. It is just unfortunate that blue-ray people gave up to widescreen propaganda and a typical feature film is cut to 800 horizontal lines down from 1080.<br><br>
In a word, nobody benefits from multiple competing aspect ratios. Widescreen TVs failed miserably, therefore 21:9 would die, because the majority would never pay a premium for what is clearly an inferior product.
 

·
Old to Overclock.net
Joined
·
6,112 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
<div class="quote-container" data-huddler-embed="/t/1541528/21-9-owners-appreciation-thread-post-anything-related-to-21-9/0_40#post_24303041" data-huddler-embed-placeholder="false"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by <strong>go4life</strong> <a href="/t/1541528/21-9-owners-appreciation-thread-post-anything-related-to-21-9/0_40#post_24303041"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif"></a><br><br>
Sad to see this thread never progressing! Let's do something about that shall we <img alt="smile.gif" class="bbcode_smiley" src="http://files.overclock.net/images/smilies/smile.gif"><br><br>
I don't own a 21:9 monitor yet, just waiting for 100hz+ G-Sync before taking the plunge.<br><br>
BTW: Loved your screens, space sure can be beautiful <img alt="smile.gif" class="bbcode_smiley" src="http://files.overclock.net/images/smilies/smile.gif"><br><br>
However did find a few nice screens for my soon to be monitor!</div>
</div>
<br>
Awesome! I'm almost embarrassed by seeing this thread bumped. lol<br><br><br><div class="quote-container" data-huddler-embed="/t/1541528/21-9-owners-appreciation-thread-post-anything-related-to-21-9/0_40#post_24304821" data-huddler-embed-placeholder="false"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by <strong>Tegiri Nenashi</strong> <a href="/t/1541528/21-9-owners-appreciation-thread-post-anything-related-to-21-9/0_40#post_24304821"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif"></a><br><br>
21:9 framing is ugly in most of the cases. Images taken with your average camera, especially in portrait mode, are just pathetic waste of screen space on the sides. Why widescreen propellerheads still insist that embrasure view (aka "cinematic" aspect ratio) is somehow superior to IMAX?<br><br>
And if you want to check how high end cinematic experience is, just follow CIH buffs<br>
<a href="http://www.avsforum.com/forum/117-2-35-1-constant-image-height-chat/2067202-non-imax-films-not-intended-seen-cih.html" target="_blank">http://www.avsforum.com/forum/117-2-35-1-constant-image-height-chat/2067202-non-imax-films-not-intended-seen-cih.html</a><br>
Even they admit that most of multiplex venues today are width, not height, constrained. It is just unfortunate that blue-ray people gave up to widescreen propaganda and a typical feature film is cut to 800 horizontal lines down from 1080.<br><br>
In a word, nobody benefits from multiple competing aspect ratios. Widescreen TVs failed miserably, therefore 21:9 would die, because the majority would never pay a premium for what is clearly an inferior product.</div>
</div>
<br>
Just go back to your 50's NTSC format already. lol
 

·
Probably sleep deprived
Joined
·
5,585 Posts
<div class="quote-container" data-huddler-embed="/t/1541528/21-9-owners-appreciation-thread-post-anything-related-to-21-9/0_100#post_24304821" data-huddler-embed-placeholder="false"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by <strong>Tegiri Nenashi</strong> <a href="/t/1541528/21-9-owners-appreciation-thread-post-anything-related-to-21-9/0_100#post_24304821"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif"></a><br><br>
21:9 framing is ugly in most of the cases. Images taken with your average camera, especially in portrait mode, are just pathetic waste of screen space on the sides. Why widescreen propellerheads still insist that embrasure view (aka "cinematic" aspect ratio) is somehow superior to IMAX?<br><br>
And if you want to check how high end cinematic experience is, just follow CIH buffs<br>
<a href="http://www.avsforum.com/forum/117-2-35-1-constant-image-height-chat/2067202-non-imax-films-not-intended-seen-cih.html" target="_blank">http://www.avsforum.com/forum/117-2-35-1-constant-image-height-chat/2067202-non-imax-films-not-intended-seen-cih.html</a><br>
Even they admit that most of multiplex venues today are width, not height, constrained. It is just unfortunate that blue-ray people gave up to widescreen propaganda and a typical feature film is cut to 800 horizontal lines down from 1080.<br><br>
In a word, nobody benefits from multiple competing aspect ratios. Widescreen TVs failed miserably, therefore 21:9 would die, because the majority would never pay a premium for what is clearly an inferior product.</div>
</div>
<br>
Hardly relevant when you consider people do things other than watch movies on their computer though. <img alt="redface.gif" class="bbcode_smiley" src="http://files.overclock.net/images/smilies/redface.gif"><br><br>
I used a 21:9 screen for work for months and it was fantastic, they are great for racing games, and some people just HATE bezels <img alt="thumb.gif" class="bbcode_smiley" src="http://files.overclock.net/images/smilies/thumb.gif">
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
265 Posts
Just got the Acer XR341CK and been playing a little Homeworld Remastered on it (upgraded the old rig to a GeForce550Ti for like $110, which smacks the pants off my 5-yr-old Radeon HD5850 that couldn't even push native 3440x1440 rez). Even at 30hz refresh via HDMI its blowing me away. Yeah, it's IPS with a little backlight bleed, but my old monitor was so old it's still head and shoulders better, so color me too stupid to know different if you must.<br><br>
New rig will of course take advantage of the Freesync but paying for wife's birthday gift and a minor fender bender (mine, not hers) will put a bit of a delay on that. Oh well...<br><br>
As for framing 'sucking' at ultrawide, it's funny how many billboards or banner displays there are all over skyscraper walls in Dallas with hugely tall/skinny or short-ultrawide aspect ratios advertising "shot on iPhone6" - I guess with their pano feature or something? I dunno, never joined the cult myself*. Regardless, Taco Nigiri or whatever is clearly the bearer of only <b>one</b> out of a range of opinions about what the "right" aspect ratio of anything is.<br><br>
Oh, a good source of some nice wallpapers, but not free, is Digital Blasphemy's webpage. He does some pretty cool stuff, very high rez and much of it croppable to 3440x1440 even if he doesn't offer it native; worth a few bux in my opinion.<br><br>
[* To show my own opinionatedness, as a side bash at the apple-illuminati, I've noticed all the images those banners advertise are huge wide open negative spaces (beach, oversaturated seascape, sand dunes, enormous skies) with generally one person somewhere offcenter in the frame, looking inconsequential among it all. Always made me wonder "what, apple's trying to market just to loners or something? Or perhaps imply that those who buy Apple products are explorers/mavericks instead of part of a huge market-driven herd? Strange....]
 

·
Old to Overclock.net
Joined
·
6,112 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
<div class="quote-container" data-huddler-embed="/t/1541528/21-9-owners-appreciation-thread-post-anything-related-to-21-9/0_40#post_24307681" data-huddler-embed-placeholder="false"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by <strong>PhilWrir</strong> <a href="/t/1541528/21-9-owners-appreciation-thread-post-anything-related-to-21-9/0_40#post_24307681"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif"></a><br><br>
I used a 21:9 screen for work for months and it was fantastic, they are great for racing games, and some people just HATE bezels <img alt="thumb.gif" class="bbcode_smiley" src="http://files.overclock.net/images/smilies/thumb.gif"></div>
</div>
<br>
He's one of the people that hate it on principle... he would rather have 4:3 come back.<br><br>
He doesn't understand that 21:9-ish is really the first high quality media format It's where movies progressed to before we adopted the horrible 4:3 broadcast format, which was not a desirable viewing format but a technology limitation. 16:9 HD was designed as a viewing compromise between the two, because it provided similar image loss if you full screen either.<br><br>
I hate 16:9 on principle. I'm still upset they went 16:9 instead of 1.85:1, a more modern theater format. It's wider than 16:9 too, which is why they didn't adopt it. 4:3 wouldn't have worked as well.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
265 Posts
Yeah. Some of us get that 34" widescreen could be a little 'taller'...say <b>37"</b> widescreen 21:9. <img alt="thumb.gif" class="bbcode_smiley" src="http://files.overclock.net/images/smilies/thumb.gif"> But give it a rest sometimes, sigh.<br><br>
I don't really hate any ratio in terms of content or whatnot. I hate not using most of a screen, or losing lines of resolution to black bars. Which is why I like different aspect ratios for different purposes.<br><br>
While I was looking at multimonitor setups for gaming, I was hating the idea of the bezel breaks - made me look at 3 monitors as a minimum vs. 2 at the very least. Then 34" 21:9 came out and I was quite satisfied with that rez. Works great for side-by-side work as well.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
302 Posts
4:3 is the aspect ratio adopted by IMAX. Tell them how "archaic" and "not cinematic enough" it is.<br><br>
The more competing aspect ratios you have, the more confusion it creates. Remember those windowboxed, stretched, skewed commercials at the beginning HDTV adoption? That is what you get when there is no standard. Now that virtually every footage is 16:9 it is rare to see visually defective material anymore. I didn't like this format because it is more wide than necessary, but accepted it as the lesser evil of having common standard.<br><br>
Back to astronomic images in this thread, do you think there are more elongated than round objects in the universe? Have you heard of gravitational force? Do you think image of globular cluster such as M13 is a good fit into embrasure view? Just for the reference, amateur astronomers still use eyepieces with round optics, and "wide view" in their community means eyepiece which expands FOV doth horizontally _and_ vertically.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
265 Posts
I'm <b>so</b> glad commercials now fill the whole screen. Standards, FTW!1eleventy!<br><br>
And you bring up globular clusters yet conveniently ignore spiral galaxies... for which even 21:9 isn't wide enough, as if <b>gravity</b> is an argument for squarer aspect ratios? You think the axial symmetry of lens optics means no one would pick a less symmetric FOV for astronomy if it was available? You're not even trying to make sense now.<br><br>
You have graduated from merely blindly opinionated to pure troll. No one else spams every monitor thread about every other aspect ratio saying 21:9 is the only right answer the way you slam it any chance you can manufacture...with "manufacture" the keyword. It's quite sad, at times there's almost a hint of intelligence behind your posts, but I for one won't be looking for it anymore.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
302 Posts
Spiral galaxies viewed at what angle? Sombrero galaxy is in tiny minority, and who said it doesn't perfectly fit 16:9?<br><br>
Overall, among all objects do you seriously expect elongated ones being the majority? Some kind of weirdo Zipf's law or Gaussian distribution centered around magic 2.35:1 ratio? Let's consider vertical structures, do you expect every user to rotate monitor 90 degrees in order to have a perfect skyscraper framing?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,280 Posts
The reason I personally like 21:9 is that it provides a wider FOV in most games, allowing you to see more of the game world at the same time. I also find the activation of peripheral vision enhances the immersion. You can argue all day about what sort of aspect ratio would be 'ideal for the eye', it doesn't change how games are coded and the desire people have to become engrossed in their game world.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
265 Posts
Viewed from the only angle we can view them from - unless you think we get to pick our angle to them? Seriously, you are a troll.<br><br>
I've never said anyone should enforce a single aspect ratio on anything, I've said the choice of aspect ratio should be available to fit the application either in terms of usage or the field of view of data currently available - you are the one trying to claim there's only one 'correct' choice, and 21:9 isn't it. Your sadism accusation is pure transference. To me the ideal would be some sort of scanning laser engine that could reconfigure lines vertically and horizontally to match the input. 21:9 if that's what the movie was filmed in, 16:9 or 1:1 or even a circular field of view if that's what the source data is...never interpolating lines down, or trimming out the perimeter to fit some preconceived size so I don't get to see the whole image the source represents. I sincerely hope 'screens' are just a passing technological limitation. But until then, I'll pick my screen on my desk to give me the area I want to be able to maximally use in different ways that I expect to use it for.<br><br>
And yes, vertical portrait framing is a suitable choice for some subjects and monitor uses - fullscreen views of legal documents only one obvious example. Not possible if the frame is almost square. Choice is good. My current personal preference for home use out of the choices available happens to be 21:9. Why would some asshat spend all his time attempting to "prove" one option out of many windows on the world is wrong? Seriously, you've become a punchline, accusing others of finding magical meaning in one ratio while that's exactly what you are doing, by finding only one combination magically incorrect.<br><br>
I wish it were this easy, that you'd see yourself in the mirror for what you are being and vanish in a puff of logic, or at least stop derailing threads you have no real interest in, but that implies at least a nodding appreciation of internal consistency that your clear goalpost-shuffling indicates you do not have.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
302 Posts
Don't be so obtuse. There are billions of [spiral] galaxies visible at each and every inclination angle. Some are edge on (like Sombrero), the others are seen as round disks (M101 aka Pinwheel).<br><br>
You are advocating the choice, which sound libetarianish, which general idea I sympathize. However, your choice implies that for viewing purposes one should have numerouss devices with multiple AR, and I strongly disagree. This is just a hassle.<br><br>
I'm sorry to upset you, but at the end of the day you will buy 40" UHD 16:9 monitor (for which there are plenty of 16:9 framed beautiful backgrounds). Or maybe, display industry would catch up with ultrashort affectionates and deliver 21:9 2160p monitor. By that time the majority will move on to 8K or virtual reality sets. And suggesting that VR sets have some kind of "ultrawide" narrative in them is just ridiculous.<br><div class="quote-container" data-huddler-embed="/t/1541528/21-9-owners-appreciation-thread-post-anything-related-to-21-9/10#post_24310479" data-huddler-embed-placeholder="false"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by <strong>PCM2</strong> <a href="/t/1541528/21-9-owners-appreciation-thread-post-anything-related-to-21-9/10#post_24310479"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif"></a><br><br>
The reason I personally like 21:9 is that it provides a wider FOV in most games, allowing you to see more of the game world at the same time...</div>
</div>
<br>
If 40" UHD provides narrower FOV compared to 34" 21:9, this is a bug in the game (which accidentally can be fixed changing just one parameter).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,280 Posts
<div class="quote-container" data-huddler-embed="/t/1541528/21-9-owners-appreciation-thread-post-anything-related-to-21-9/10#post_24311799" data-huddler-embed-placeholder="false"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by <strong>Tegiri Nenashi</strong> <a href="/t/1541528/21-9-owners-appreciation-thread-post-anything-related-to-21-9/10#post_24311799"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif"></a><br><br>
If 40" UHD provides narrower FOV compared to 34" 21:9, this is a bug in the game (which accidentally can be fixed changing just one parameter).</div>
</div>
<br>
No, it isn't. It is how HOR+ scaling works, and this is what the vast majority of modern game titles use.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
302 Posts
At the end of the day scaling is just one factor. It is affine transformation in simplest form, and rendering engines eat affine transforms for lunch, breakfast, and dinner. The particular method you describe -- Hor+ -- is entirely arbitrary, ad-hock caprice if you will. I'm pretty sure, any game engine allows you to go to command line and adjust scaling to your liking.<br><br>
If enough people playing at 40" sized UHD complain, then perhaps game developers would pay attention and increase default FOV (from 90 degrees to 120 or more).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
265 Posts
<div class="quote-container" data-huddler-embed="/t/1541528/21-9-owners-appreciation-thread-post-anything-related-to-21-9/10#post_24311799" data-huddler-embed-placeholder="false"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by <strong>Tegiri Nenashi</strong> <a href="/t/1541528/21-9-owners-appreciation-thread-post-anything-related-to-21-9/10#post_24311799"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif"></a><br><br>
Don't be so obtuse. There are billions of [spiral] galaxies visible at each and every inclination angle. Some are edge on (like Sombrero), the others are seen as round disks (M101 aka Pinwheel).....</div>
</div>
<br>
No, you're being obtuse. There's not a single galaxy that we can choose what aspect to view it in. They are where they are, we are where we are. In the 'billions' there are very few in any reasonable sort of range for the average amateur astronomer to attempt to image with any fidelity that the choice of framing, in an n*(1000) by m*(1000) typified monitor resolution, would matter. For the rest we get whatever NASA wants to dribble out.<br><br><b>AS IF</b> the catalogue of galaxies wasn't again a moving goalpost against your presumption that only one 'aspect ratio' of equipment is the right answer, yet again, because "gravity", that you attempted to float a couple posts ago. There can only be a reasoned debate if both parties actually intend to debate, instead of merely endlessly changing the story and saying they're right, everyone else is wrong.<br><br>
You're also wrong that I advocated 'numerous' devices to view data with. I advocated an aspect-ratio-free device (a scanning approach one could reconfigure at whim, a virtual 'display' of sorts). In the meantime, given only what is available on the market, I've chosen an aspect I'm comfortable with...and was willing to pay a premium for because it's what I wanted and perhaps not the mainstream market share. Why do you give a flying fornication? Oh, because you're the only one whose opinion matters...forgot for a minute.<br><br>
Succinctly summed up: "Bollocks."
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,280 Posts
<div class="quote-container" data-huddler-embed="/t/1541528/21-9-owners-appreciation-thread-post-anything-related-to-21-9/10#post_24312032" data-huddler-embed-placeholder="false"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by <strong>Tegiri Nenashi</strong> <a href="/t/1541528/21-9-owners-appreciation-thread-post-anything-related-to-21-9/10#post_24312032"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif"></a><br><br>
At the end of the day scaling is just one factor. It is affine transformation in simplest form, and rendering engines eat affine transforms for lunch, breakfast, and dinner. The particular method you describe -- Hor+ -- is entirely arbitrary, ad-hock caprice if you will. I'm pretty sure, any game engine allows you to go to command line and adjust scaling to your liking.<br><br>
If enough people playing at 40" sized UHD complain, then perhaps game developers would pay attention and increase default FOV (from 90 degrees to 120 or more).</div>
</div>
<br>
This has been a 'thing' for a lot longer than 40" UHD or any UHD model for that matter existed. You can change the FOV in some games (not always allowed in multiplayer) but that just has the effect of zooming out and is often accompanied by things looking odd (fishbowl in some cases). It isn't the same as having exactly the same scene rendered, as it should be, but with more to the sides.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
302 Posts
<div class="quote-container" data-huddler-embed="/t/1541528/21-9-owners-appreciation-thread-post-anything-related-to-21-9/10#post_24314706" data-huddler-embed-placeholder="false"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by <strong>PCM2</strong> <a href="/t/1541528/21-9-owners-appreciation-thread-post-anything-related-to-21-9/10#post_24314706"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif"></a><br><br>
...You can change the FOV in some games (not always allowed in multiplayer) but that just has the effect of zooming out and is often accompanied by things looking odd (fishbowl in some cases)...</div>
</div>
<br>
Changing FOV is <i>indistinguishable</i> from zooming. If you zoom too much (to have wider field of view) then you have noticeable fisheye lens effect; it is an artifact of spherical field of view rendered on flat surface. What I'm saying is that today gap in monitor sizes is quite dramatic and players start using TV sized monitors at their descs. One-size-fits-all FOV (like in Crysis 3 set to 60 degrees) is no longer applicable.<br><div class="quote-container" data-huddler-embed="/t/1541528/21-9-owners-appreciation-thread-post-anything-related-to-21-9/10#post_24314706" data-huddler-embed-placeholder="false"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by <strong>PCM2</strong> <a href="/t/1541528/21-9-owners-appreciation-thread-post-anything-related-to-21-9/10#post_24314706"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif"></a><br><br>
...It isn't the same as having exactly the same scene rendered, as it should be, but with more to the sides...</div>
</div>
<br>
It is <i>exactly</i> the same. If you sit super close to ultrawidescreen monitor so that your effective FOV approaches to fisheye lens, then you have to adjust your FOV in the game, and this will cause the same distortion artifacts.<br><br>
To put it another way, widescreen is just a really big screen with the top and bottom cut off. No magic distortion happens at those top and bottom; quite the opposite, the most distortion happens at the extreme viewing angles, which are at the sides.
 
1 - 20 of 1177 Posts
Top