EPTStarcraft 2 in 5760x1080 - Page 2
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
baconbits
United States419 Posts
| ||
|
MorroW
Sweden3522 Posts
| ||
|
Firkraag8
Sweden1006 Posts
On September 02 2010 00:56 Polis wrote: Chaining aspect ratio isn't an upgrade. 16: 9 are pretty much ridiculous for PC use. I have 4:3, and I still have space left on sides when I browse WWW, read anything (>90% of PC use easily). 4:3 would be better for RTS as well, why not have more balanced view? 4:3 aspect ratio don't look good on a widescreen monitor, it will be either stretched or perceived as very small with black boxes on the sides. Widescreen is the current and future state of gaming, it's up to you guys with 4:3 to upgrade and not the other way around. | ||
|
Polis
Poland1292 Posts
On September 02 2010 01:13 Firkraag8 wrote:4:3 aspect ratio don't look good on a widescreen monitor, It looks good on 4:3 monitor. They could give more high to 4:3 resolution, and more wide to 16: 9. On September 02 2010 01:13 Firkraag8 wrote:Widescreen is the current and future state of gaming, it's up to you guys with 4:3 to upgrade and not the other way around. It isn't an upgrade, and I am not interested in using 16: 9 monitor. | ||
|
monad
United States156 Posts
It would definitely take some getting used to, but I think it's possible. | ||
|
Mastermind
Canada7096 Posts
On September 02 2010 00:24 village_idiot wrote: I'm just saying that even widescreen is imbalanced Its the year 2010, buy a widescreen already. | ||
|
Opinion
United States236 Posts
But it would be awesome if you could maintain the default 1 screen UI and simply assign an entire screen to an individual unit, control group or place on the map like the enemy base. Imagine if your observer had its own full screen with its own individual camera. This would require an independently moving camera for each screen but it would be insanely awesome. | ||
|
Polis
Poland1292 Posts
On September 02 2010 01:28 Mastermind wrote: Its the year 2010, buy a widescreen already. Aspect ratio isn't a technology, what year has to do with it? 4:3 LCD is as technologically advanced as 16: 9 LCD. | ||
|
Opinion
United States236 Posts
On September 02 2010 01:31 Polis wrote: Aspect ratio isn't a technology, what year has to do with it? 4:3 LCD is as technologically advanced as 16: 9 LCD. In the year 2065 scientists will find a way to genetically engineer LCD screens in ratios up to 27:3 thanks to the discovery of a crashed alien ship on Europa. As of now this is clearly impossible as the trees used to grow LCD screens are naturally limited to 4: 3 and 16: 9 through millions of years of evolution. | ||
|
angelicfolly
United States292 Posts
On September 02 2010 01:31 Polis wrote: Aspect ratio isn't a technology, what year has to do with it? 4:3 LCD is as technologically advanced as 16: 9 LCD. It's not about technology, well actually it is. Point, higher resolutions Hd tvs and such are going widescreen. It is pretty much the acceptable format now. Will be the normal giving a few years when the lowest resolution standard you want is widescreen. Monitors have actually stagnated compared to other viewing tech (120 hrz, or the fact that we STILL have 60hz as an acceptable standard). | ||
|
Jayme
United States5866 Posts
Wouldnt use it for an RTS though | ||
|
semantics
10040 Posts
| ||
|
latan
740 Posts
| ||
|
Polis
Poland1292 Posts
On September 02 2010 01:39 angelicfolly wrote:] It's not about technology, well actually it is. Point, higher resolutions Hd tvs and such are going widescreen. It is pretty much the acceptable format now. Will be the normal giving a few years when the lowest resolution standard you want is widescreen. Aspect ratio =/= resolution. Widescreen is not a resolution. I am not really interested in changing my 4:3 monitor that offers better aspect ratio for 90% of my use, just becouse people are clueless enough to think that 16: 9 is teh new technology = better. | ||
|
ComaCat
United Kingdom33 Posts
On September 02 2010 01:56 Polis wrote: Aspect ratio =/= resolution. Widescreen is not a resolution. I am not really interested in changing my 4:3 monitor that offers better aspect ratio for 90% of my use, just becouse people are clueless enough to think that 16: 9 is teh new technology = better. Noone is trying to make you go wide-screen, the fact that 90% of your personal use doesn't warrant wide-screen does not make wide-screen any less of a technology improvement over 4:3 ratios. In my line of work being able to see 2 images side by side or 2 documents side by side is a technological breakthrough compared to 4:3 (unless I string 2 monitors together which i do with 2 widescreens anyway). The increased horizontal space when working on timeline footage in audio/video software or even with 4 windows editing things in 3D look vastly superior in wide format and greatly increase my workflow. Clueless....16  16:10 clearly is > 4:3 which is now outdated technology and an outdated ratio when working on anything other than simple word processing or web browsing | ||
|
Polis
Poland1292 Posts
On September 02 2010 02:41 SnOw. wrote: Noone is trying to make you go wide-screen, the fact that 90% of your personal use doesn't warrant wide-screen does not make wide-screen any less of a technology improvement over 4:3 ratios. The thing that doesn't make 16: 9 technological improvement is lack of new technology in it, they just cut LCD of diferent shape. You couldn't make 16: 9 crt but for LCD the technology is the same. On September 02 2010 02:41 SnOw. wrote:In my line of work being able to see 2 images side by side or 2 documents side by side is a technological breakthrough compared to 4:3 (unless I string 2 monitors together which i do with 2 widescreens anyway). You can put two documents side by side in 4:3, wide screen is only better at that specific size for it, above it you need more height for documents not more space on sides. On September 02 2010 02:41 SnOw. wrote:The increased horizontal space when working on timeline footage in audio/video software or even with 4 windows editing things in 3D look vastly superior in wide format and greatly increase my workflow. Clueless....16 16:10 clearly is > 4:3 which is now outdated technology and an outdated ratio when working on anything other than simple word processing or web browsing4:3 or 16: 9 is NOT technology, they are ASPECT RATIOS. What is the benefit for say programing with 16: 9? In some niche 16: 9 can be better for some niche, still it doesn't make it a new technology. | ||
|
TelecoM
United States10675 Posts
| ||
|
Opinion
United States236 Posts
On September 02 2010 02:41 SnOw. wrote: Noone is trying to make you go wide-screen, the fact that 90% of your personal use doesn't warrant wide-screen does not make wide-screen any less of a technology improvement over 4:3 ratios. In my line of work being able to see 2 images side by side or 2 documents side by side is a technological breakthrough compared to 4:3 (unless I string 2 monitors together which i do with 2 widescreens anyway). The increased horizontal space when working on timeline footage in audio/video software or even with 4 windows editing things in 3D look vastly superior in wide format and greatly increase my workflow. Clueless....16 16:10 clearly is > 4:3 which is now outdated technology and an outdated ratio when working on anything other than simple word processing or web browsing16 : 9 is being pushed because it is a superior aspect ratio, not a superior technology. The original aspect ratio for movies is widescreen. All movie theaters show their movies in widescreen format, squared off TVs and computer monitor were the freaks of nature, not the movies and art which came first. Just look at classic masterpieces in a museum and you can find that "widescreen" has been around as long as art itself. 4: 3 sucked for displaying art and movies as those art and movies are shot widescreen, it was just popular for a long time and is now being fazed out of popular use, not because the other aspect ratios are more technologically advanced but because they offer a more aesthetically pleasing picture. Just because LCD is more advanced than CRT, and most LCD are now 16: 9 and most CRT were 4:3 does not mean that 16: 9 is more advanced than 4: 3, it is simply a different ratio that is widely considered more pleasing to the human eye. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspect_ratio_(image) | ||
|
sNes.
United States377 Posts
| ||
|
Polis
Poland1292 Posts
On September 02 2010 03:09 Opinion wrote: 16 : 9 is being pushed because it is a superior aspect ratio, not a superior technology. It is inferior for web browsing, and document editing when you have big enough 4:3 to put two documents on sides. What do you need the extra space on sides for then? 16: 9 is pushed becouse it is less headache for factories to produce everything at the same size. On September 02 2010 03:09 Opinion wrote: The original aspect ratio for movies is widescreen. All movie theaters show their movies in widescreen format, squared off TVs and computer monitor were the freaks of nature, not the movies and art which came first. Just look at classic masterpieces in a museum and you can find that "widescreen" has been around as long as art itself. Wrong, the cinemas were using 4:3 format, but when TV sets were made, then they had moved to 16: 9 to make TV worse, not to make cinemas better, projectors technology don't limit aspect ratios. On September 02 2010 03:09 Opinion wrote:4: 3 sucked for displaying art and movies as those art and movies are shot widescreen, No it never sucked, it is only worse when you put 16: 9 on it, and it would be even worse to put 4:3 on 16: 9. On September 02 2010 03:09 Opinion wrote:it was just popular for a long time and is now being fazed out of popular use, not because the other aspect ratios are more technologically advanced but because they offer a more aesthetically pleasing picture. Why would it be more aesthetically pleasing? | ||
| ||
