|
Yesterday I was talking with one of my friends (since I want to buy a new monitor, currently own a 22'' 16:10 from viewsonic) and we were debating the fact that 16:10 vs 16: 9 was putting 16: 9 at a disadvantage...
We were debating this, cause he got a new 16: 9 (switching his 16:10 to 16: 9) and I was like, WHY DID YOU DO THAT? 16:10 for gaming is like 1249812 times better.
and than we proceeded to debate on the subject.... 3 hours later we were still not done with it and we still had arguments about it... so I decided to get the opinion of everyone on this forum since I know that you guys are top notch players 
I would like to know if you think that for STARCRAFT 2 exclusively, it would be better a 16:10 giving you resolution like 1680x1050 (vs 1600x1000, you get no less than 4000 extra pixels)... or you think that 16: 9 is just fine.
P.S. I'm looking for a good monitor that would be in the 200$ range ~23'' with DVI and HDMI, if you have any suggestions, please tell me
Poll: Which monitor are you using?16:10 (98) 51% 16:9 (93) 49% 191 total votes Your vote: Which monitor are you using? (Vote): 16:9
(Vote): 16:10
Poll: Do you think that 16:9 is at a disadvantage compared to 16:10?No (109) 74% Yes (38) 26% 147 total votes Your vote: Do you think that 16:9 is at a disadvantage compared to 16:10? (Vote): Yes
(Vote): No
thanks for all your input
|
|
|
16 : 9 has an advantage, because you have a greater horizontal view angle.
there are 16 : 9 monitors out there with 1920x1080 for 250-300€ not sure how that translates to USD though.
there was actual a lengthy thread about that topic during the early beta here on tl.net.
plenty of screenshots proving the advantage of 16 : 9.
|
You may want to include 5:4 and 4:3 aspect ratios in your polls, which aren't uncommon.
All resolutions have to display a fixed portion of the screen for the interface at the bottom. On an extreme 16: 9 resolution, that leaves relatively little room for displaying the battlefield. The extra vertical pixels the 16:10 resolution offers should all go to to the viewable battlefield I guess. If that is true, 16:10 would therefore be superior for SC2. Then again, you probably don't see that much of a difference, and having a slightly different aspect ratio certainly won't change anything about your skill.
|
Scorch your information is wrong, Actually 16: 9 aspect ratios display a larger field than 16x10 despite the size difference. There is actually a considerable advantage using 16x 9 over 16x10 in starcraft 2.
16: 9 is better because you get more vision, it's purely only with starcraft 2. I remember there being a big thread at the start of beta regarding this.
I personally have a 16: 10 monitor, and i play SC 2 in 16: 9. In my driver options i have it set to keep aspect ratio, so i get little black bars at the top and bottom, so i still get the 16: 9 advantage but also dont get a distorted picture.
EDIT:
Here is a comparison
http://www.gamespot.com/features/6251839/index.html
and indeed, 16x9 is zoomed out considerably. almost 3 drone size spaces.
|
well I might be totaly wrong but in the case of
1680 x 1050 (16: 10)
vs
1600 x 1000 (16: 9)
The 16:10 gets an extra 80px wide and 50px height
16: 9, means that it's a little less tall than a 16:10 no? Might be totaly wrong... and I might have a misconception, but in my head 16:10 is just bigger than 16: 9 no?
|
Got a 16 there is no disadvantage at all.
You're going a bit too far in here, analysing something that really isn't going to affect you at all unless you have super sensitive senses.
|
1900 x 1080 actually has the advantage in my opinion. In case you didn't know, blizzard does NOT maintain a constant horizontal view space from aspect ratio to aspect ratio. They DO maintain the vertical view space, meaning as your aspect ratio gets "wider", you can see more of the map at once.
See these pictures here. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=112931#20
Do you see how 16 : 9 actually shows more of the map than 16:10? Now, for every other game you would probably want 16:10.
I have a 24" 16:10 montior set to display 16 : 9 when I play starcraft. I just have small black bars at the top and bottom of the screen.
|
On June 11 2010 03:22 Phayze wrote:
I remember there being a big thread at the start of beta regarding this.
Anyone could find the link to this post? I've used the search function and couldn't find anything regarding this =X
|
Unless your at the level your playing for money it doesnt matter, even then most likely still doesnt matter, but yeah 16 is better as has been stated already
|
On June 11 2010 03:25 Konsume wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2010 03:22 Phayze wrote:
I remember there being a big thread at the start of beta regarding this.
Anyone could find the link to this post? I've used the search function and couldn't find anything regarding this =X
http://www.gamespot.com/features/6251839/index.html
heres a comparison, i've updated it into my post.
But buy a 16x10 monitor, and just open your driver settings to force aspect ratio (I did this so SC1 wasnt distorted, and also so CSS at 800x600 wasnt distorted)
|
On June 11 2010 03:23 Konsume wrote:
well I might be totaly wrong but in the case of
1680 x 1050 (16: 10)
vs
1600 x 1000 (16: 9)
The 16:10 gets an extra 80px wide and 50px height
umm
first of all, 1600x1000 is 16 : 10
secondly, not display fixed pixel sprites like in broodwar.
sc2 is 3d and resolution (in terms of pixel per area) is only important for the quality of the picture, not for what actually gets displayed.
if i can motivate myself i will make screenshots (again) or look up my old ones here.
|
Konsume both you and your friend don't know what you are talking about when it comes to SC2/optimal monitor size and neither do Scorch in this thread.
It's pretty simple actually for SC2. Resolution does not matter at all, whether you run 1200 x 600 or 2400 x 1200 does not matter at all as they are the same ratios (just made those two ratios up for this example). Sure you will see everything a bit sharper and detailed with the high resolution, but you will not see more of the battlefield. The only thing that matters is the aspect ratios, the wider the better. This means 16 : 9 has an advantage over 16 : 10 (a small one though).
As someone else pointed out there is a nother thread with a .gif animation that explains it all.
update:
![[image loading]](http://www.abload.de/img/sc2_fov36k6.gif)
Notice how the vertical area is always the same regardless of resolution and aspect ratio, the horizontical however is not.
|
A bigger thing to worry about is probably input lag, which can be a problem on LCD monitors. Make sure when you look through reviews that they say the monitor's input lag is low, eg suitable for high-level gaming.
|
On June 11 2010 03:31 shiftY803 wrote:
A bigger thing to worry about is probably input lag, which can be a problem on LCD monitors. Make sure when you look through reviews that they say the monitor's input lag is low, eg suitable for high-level gaming.
the times when input lag on lcd screens was important for rts games are LONG gone.
on current lcd screens you can play QL quite comfortably ... you can see a slight difference between a 120fps @ 120Hz synched crt screen though.
|
I dunno... some of those S-IPS panels that graphics artists use due to the fact that their color reproduction is so good have terribad input lag. They are awesome monitors, but not for gaming. Just saying he needs to watch out.
|
On June 11 2010 03:36 shiftY803 wrote:
I dunno... some of those S-IPS panels that graphics artists use due to the fact that their color reproduction is so good have terribad input lag. They are awesome monitors, but not for gaming. Just saying he needs to watch out.
s-ips panels for 200 USD?
they are not that cheap, are they?
|
im happy with my 1930x1200 thankyou
|
|
|
i bought my Asus 24" widescreen for $180 shipped.. you just have to shop around..
|
That's actually quite a significant difference between traditional and wide-screen formats. Then again, I've played on my own 5:4 and my friend's 16:10 monitor and didn't even realize I could see more.
|
![[image loading]](http://www.slashgear.com/gallery/data_files/7/4/Samsung_SyncMaster_2243Hz.jpg)
This one^
edit: the model is SyncMaster 2243
I got it about a week ago, just in time to test it in SC2. The picture is beautiful, clear and the colors are amazing. Im not sure of the exact price but i bought it for about 270 dollars. It should be cheaper where you live.
|
16: 9 is superior to 16:10 in SC2 because of the wider view, you can't argue that.
|
Buy a 40-something inch 1080p TV and plant it 2-3 feet away from your face, and go hard.
|
Samsung P2350
23" 16 : 9
1920x1080
i LOVE it. I haven't tried Sc2 on a 16:10 so i can't tell if it is better though.
|
I have a 24" 16:10. Desktop resolution is 1920x1200. I set starcraft to 1920x1080 and get the wider view...
|
On June 11 2010 03:30 Daewon wrote:Konsume both you and your friend don't know what you are talking about when it comes to SC2/optimal monitor size and neither do Scorch in this thread. It's pretty simple actually for SC2. Resolution does not matter at all, whether you run 1200 x 600 or 2400 x 1200 does not matter at all as they are the same ratios (just made those two ratios up for this example). Sure you will see everything a bit sharper and detailed with the high resolution, but you will not see more of the battlefield. The only thing that matters is the aspect ratios, the wider the better. This means 16 : 9 has an advantage over 16 : 10 (a small one though). As someone else pointed out there is a nother thread with a .gif animation that explains it all. update: Notice how the vertical area is always the same regardless of resolution and aspect ratio, the horizontical however is not.
thanks, close topic problem solved.
|
Belgium9947 Posts
I'm just going to rename and lock this thread for easier searchability.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
