Different aspect ratio same Screen

On February 20 2010 03:51 freelander wrote:
is 1024x768 the highest 4:3 resolution?
just because this comparison doesn't seem too fair

On February 20 2010 04:13 MasterOfChaos wrote:
they should have made it so
tan(FovX/2)*tan(FovY/2)=const
which basically makes what you see equal for all aspect ratios. So the widescreens show more on the side, and 4:3 shows more vertically.

Probably the reason for it becoming wider, but not narrower on widescreen is that the default function for creating a Perspective Projection matrix takes the angle for the Y opening and an aspect ratio. So they did something like "Perspective( 50deg , Width/Height , near , far)"

On February 20 2010 04:13 MasterOfChaos wrote:
they should have made it so
tan(FovX/2)*tan(FovY/2)=const
which basically makes what you see equal for all aspect ratios. So the widescreens show more on the side, and 4:3 shows more vertically.

Probably the reason for it becoming wider, but not narrower on widescreen is that the default function for creating a Perspective Projection matrix takes the angle for the Y opening and an aspect ratio. So they did something like "Perspective( 50deg , Width/Height , near , far)"

On February 20 2010 03:58 spinesheath wrote:
There is no need to go widescreen at all - widescreen allows you to see more to the left and right, while 4:3 is larger vertically. 4:3 might even be better than wide because your vision is more equally distributed.

On February 20 2010 04:53 prototype. wrote:


it's actually the same vertically

only horizontal view is different

On February 20 2010 05:03 caution.slip wrote:
ah i see, yeah 16 has more width.

isn't 16:19 1920x1080 (not 1980x1050)

i wish there were smaller resolutions that were 16

On February 20 2010 05:03 caution.slip wrote:
ah i see, yeah 16 has more width.

isn't 16:19 1920x1080 (not 1980x1050)

i wish there were smaller resolutions that were 16

On February 20 2010 19:32 teapot wrote:
=[

Now faced with the bizarre situation that if on my native 1900x1200 monitor I lower to 1900x1050 suddenly more of the map appears, but I have to look at ugly horizontal black bars.

So, ugly black bars BW? yes
ugly black bars WC3? yes
ugly black bars SC2? yes

Another PC game that suffers from consolitis.

On February 20 2010 19:40 otmar wrote:
Alot of the top war3 players use CRT monitors.. do you guys think this will be a disadvantage in sc2?

On February 20 2010 21:04 teapot wrote:


The game is optimised for 16 : 9.

All other resolutions are cropped from the 16 : 9 and will be disadvantaged in the amount of map on display.

IMO this is what should be on display:

On February 20 2010 04:13 MasterOfChaos wrote:
they should have made it so
tan(FovX/2)*tan(FovY/2)=const
which basically makes what you see equal for all aspect ratios. So the widescreens show more on the side, and 4:3 shows more vertically.

Probably the reason for it becoming wider, but not narrower on widescreen is that the default function for creating a Perspective Projection matrix takes the angle for the Y opening and an aspect ratio. So they did something like "Perspective( 50deg , Width/Height , near , far)"

On February 20 2010 23:19 Chuiu wrote:

Why should 16:10 get the advantage over both both other aspects? It should be like this:

On February 20 2010 23:15 Wuselmops wrote:
because sc2 is optimized for contemporary screens. any kind of advantage (such as more height) for old screens would have been dumb.

On February 20 2010 23:15 Wuselmops wrote:
because sc2 is optimized for contemporary screens. any kind of advantage (such as more height) for old screens would have been dumb.

On February 21 2010 02:08 Wuselmops wrote:
25% of what monitors? currently sold for gaming purposes? i don't think so.

On February 21 2010 02:08 Wuselmops wrote:blizzard chose a clear standard for the maximum field of view, that you can use on every screen, with or without bars, that really evens things up.

On February 21 2010 02:08 Wuselmops wrote:but in a few years you will laugh about this discussion, because i bet almost everyone will have 16 : 9.

On February 21 2010 02:41 Wuselmops wrote:
too small screens suck for many applications, but for what application can a screen be too wide?

On February 20 2010 11:54 Wuselmops wrote:
i already posted this in the other thread:

On February 21 2010 07:36 NeVeR wrote:


wow wtf.. Does this mean that 1920x1050 monitors actually show MORE terrain than 1920x1200 monitors? How is this possible?

On February 21 2010 03:39 caution.slip wrote:
Well when people do work, they put documents side by side (usually). If they need height to read, they should invest in a 16: 9 monitor that can be stood straight up

the only reason you need that much height is if you want to read....atleast i've never run into a situation where i need more height. Maybe for programming. But its much easier for the minority of people who need a taller monitor to get a special monitor

On February 23 2010 18:22 Virtue wrote:
You could play on the 30" using a 16 resolution although usually 30" are for productivity and already suffer from mild amounts of ghosting.

Also I'm maybe feeling that 25" may be just right for you! :D

On February 20 2010 11:54 Wuselmops wrote:
i already posted this in the other thread:

On April 30 2010 04:14 BladeRunner wrote:
I've actually been thinking about this a lot lately, since I heard Day9 say something along the lines of he almost never looks at the main screen, spending a huge majority of his time staring at the minimap or top right HUD.

On a widescreen, your eye has to travel farther to bounce back and forth between those two, and since the distance it higher, shouldn't it in theory be more difficult to watch all 3 at once by peripheral vision?

I find I spend too much time looking at the main screen so I'm considering running in a window to test how it is in 4:3

On July 26 2010 17:14 Lemure wrote:
You can still have 16: 9 aspect ratio playing on a non widescreen monitor, just use windowed no border mode in a 16: 9 aspect ratio like 1280x720.