|
i'm planning to buy a new screen this year and i'm torn between these two native resolutions:
- HD: 16 : 9 (1920x1080)
or
- "widescreen": 16 : 10 (1920x1200)
on the one hand, HD seems to be the standard for the years to come, and i'm gonna watch a lot of movies on it. also HD screens are usually cheaper than comparable widescreens, even if you compare price/pixel. on the other hand widescreens have more vertical space for office applications, web browsing and multi-table poker.
what about SC2? what effect do the different aspect ratios have on the field of view? can you zoom in and out? continuously?
edit: fixed resolutions
(i know both are considered widescreen formats, but when the first pc widescreens came out they had 16 : 10, the new ones with 16 : 9 are usually called "full HD" now).
|
1920x1080 is a 16 res.
if you get a 16:10 monitor and use a res like 1920:1080 its going to stretch it to make it fit.
|
Those are the same resolutions. I think you typo'd.
|
1920x1080 isa 16 : 9 res, that is. now i know why you spaced them out so far.
|
I believe 16 monitors have a larger viewing surface than 16:10 in SC2, so I'd go with an HD monitor.
|
Germany / USA16648 Posts
On February 19 2010 05:02 Wuselmops wrote:
i'm planning to buy a new screen this year and i'm torn between these two native resolutions:
- HD: 16 : 9 (1920x1080)
or
- widescreen: 16 : 10 (1920x1080)
on the one hand, HD seems to be the standard for the years to come, and i'm gonna watch a lot of movies on it. also HD screens are usually cheaper than comparable widescreens, even if you compare price/pixel. on the other hand widescreens have more vertical space for office applications, web browsing and multi-table poker.
what about SC2? what effect do the different aspect ratios have on the field of view? can you zoom in and out? continuously? you wrote 1920x1080 for both, yet you mean 1920x1200 
both are widescreen formats btw....
most widescreen pc monitors are 16 : 9 I think? which is a shame, I have one myself (1680x1050, 22"), if I went bigger I'd prefer 16 : 10, since I feel I'm lacking height more than width
|
I have a wide screen version like that i think, Westinghouse 1080Pure HDTV 42inch. widescreen.
anyways, there are three settings on it, standard, fill, and overscan.
Standard takes away any stretch, makes the screen square, so i figure its like 36 inches perfectly squared. not sure.. but anway, know it takes away stretch and makes the tv as if it were a square monitor only alot bigger.
Fill: for starcraft it strectches it for everything else, theres Options, Video, Game Resolution. BUT i play games that are 1920x1080 on this thing, and u get the most full viewing experience. But you need a good comp to run that resolution on higher end games like FPS, or shit like that. Res5 i cant do that reso, but WoW i can, VEnetica it fucks me over on that game as well if i try 1920x1080. But yeah thats that for this setting.
Overscan takes away the widescreen black top and bottom bars.
just make sure your tv has those settings, or at least similiar ones, that will achieve these things, and make sure you have the VGA plug on the back of your tv lol. taht wud suck without it.
|
Kentor
United States5784 Posts
you know what. i'd rather get a 2048x1152 (16: 9) monitor. 2x1024 horizontal would be very useful. 2 TL windows side by side . that would definitely be my next upgrade from 1680x1050...
my roommate bought one and it's samsung brand 23" for under 300 on sale. don't know the model.
neither 1920x1080 or 1920x1200 sound good anymore
|
ok, i fixed the typo in the resolution, but i couldn't come up with any other term for 16 : 10 than "widescreen", although 16 : 9 is admittedly even wider of course.
but what about the actual questions? has any of the lucky beta users compared the field of view in both aspect ratios?
|
16:10 are going out of production due to higher manufacturing price compared to 16: 9.
If you want a 16:10 screen you should get it now.
|
I use 16 : 10 Dell 24" Ultrasharp(same monitor used at last Blizzcon iirc?) at 1920x1200 and its excellent in most fps's and stuff and just for general windows stuff. The small stretching that could occur in stuff that doesn't output in that rez is next to impossible to realise I find when I watch 1080P films or games.
You can always switch to the lower rez and you'll notice it less maybe but its about the difference between small and small you'll never notice it and big is always better in the case of monitors. 24" seems to be the standard monitor me and all my friends use other then the odd 30" which is also 16 : 10 capable.
I'm guessing SC2 already have a native 16 : 10 resolution of 1920 x 1200 as virtually all recent games have and I remember WoW used to have it years ago doubt it would be missing at all.
|
black bars around movies just make me angry for some reason. With 16 it hugs the edges so nicely!
|
most widescreen pc monitors are 16 : 9 I think? which is a shame, I have one myself (1680x1050, 22"), if I went bigger I'd prefer 16 : 10, since I feel I'm lacking height more than width
Uh, 1680x1050 is 16:10.
|
Germany / USA16648 Posts
yeah it is, I meant another screen I use, my bad
|
I prefer 16 : 10
General computer usage on a letterbox screen ≠ fun.
Though it seems the cheapo manufacturers are switching to 16 : 9 because it's cheaper to produce and they are making them that size for TVs.
As you notice a lot of PC games are now ports from games consoles. So I predict a lack of support for 16 : 10 in the future =/ It already happened on Fear 2.
Console users... >.<
|
On February 19 2010 06:54 teapot wrote:
I prefer 16 : 10
General computer usage on a letterbox screen ≠ fun.
Though it seems the cheapo manufacturers are switching to 16 : 9 because it's cheaper to produce and they are making them that size for TVs.
As you notice a lot of PC games are now ports from games consoles. So I predict a lack of support for 16 : 10 in the future =/ It already happened on Fear 2.
Console users... >.<
I don't really notice the difference between 16: 9 and 16: 10 monitors, nor do i feel I'm constricted by the height of the screen. And I work with REAL letterbox format - dual 1920*1080 side by side, so my desktop is 3840*1080. Maybe I'm just experiencing the lack of clutter when you're able to put another application on the next window instead of having them side by side on the one screen.
|
ok, it's gonna be 16 : 9 for me. :-)
![[image loading]](http://www.abload.de/img/sc2_fov36k6.gif)
|
for 16 : 9 (seems to be best) what resolution is best for this?
also is there any screen that workes perfectly in sc2 16 : 9? (fix in by exact pixel)
|
i'm not in the beta, but i guess the highest supported resolution for 16 : 9 will be full HD (1920x1080), which is also the native resolution of most screens sold right now, but i don't know what graphics card you need to run it smoothly on this res.
|
Wow, I thought those screenshots would be inaccurate, because 16: 10 should have more vertical pixels. But I just tested it and they are true.
Looks like they butchered 16 : 10 support. =/ They just upscaled and cropped the lower resolution >.<
Hopefully people on beta can request they fix this. =/
btw
another reason to like 16 : 10 is that it is the Golden Ratio 
|
On February 20 2010 05:19 Wuselmops wrote:
i'm not in the beta, but i guess the highest supported resolution for 16 : 9 will be full HD (1920x1080), which is also the native resolution of most screens sold right now, but i don't know what graphics card you need to run it smoothly on this res.
That's the only 16 : 9 resolution in the beta. Apparently they forgot to add 1280x720 (720p).
If you add height=720 and width=1280 to the Variables.txt SC2 just starts in 1280x800 with black bars on the sides.
|
to the extent that shot is accurate, they butchered 4:3 too. my 1600*1200 has more vertical res than any of those 1650*1080 monitors but I don't get to use it :-/
|
On February 20 2010 06:10 MamiyaOtaru wrote:
to the extent that shot is accurate, they butchered 4:3 too. my 1600*1200 has more vertical res than any of those 1650*1080 monitors but I don't get to use it :-/
Resolution don't count at all, why would it? They could let you zoom twice as far out if they wanted with a crap 800x600 resolution.
I think the thing is that it would be very evil against wide screen users to crop the screen on the top and bottom, since a long thin screen is worse than a square one, what matters most is the smallest distance between the edges not the total view area.
Like if you had a screen that was twice as wide and half as high you would have the same viewing area but it would totally suck for gaming.
|
Isn't it odd that people with larger monitors can see MORE of the map if they REDUCE the resolution?
|
I prefer 16:10 as well. It's good for both movie and games.
SC2 is optimized for 16:9 only?? That is lame.
|
Buy 16:10. I think you can handle playing with black bars on sides, can't you? 
You don't suffer from losing any pixels, and your drivers should support it fully.
|
Requested this .gif in another thread. Glad someone made it (whether they read my post or not). I'm really surprised that 16 offers the most viewable screen area. How can that be right? :|
|
I haven't got the beta, but is 1440x900 supported?
|
On February 20 2010 07:32 AdunToridas wrote:
I haven't got the beta, but is 1440x900 supported?
Yep
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
