EPTStarcraft 2 in 5760x1080 - Page 3
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Bibdy
United States3481 Posts
| ||
|
latan
740 Posts
On September 02 2010 04:11 Polis wrote: 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. 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. 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. Why would it be more aesthetically pleasing? golden ratio | ||
|
kxr1der
United States213 Posts
| ||
|
Dr.Frost
United States389 Posts
On September 02 2010 00:44 Firkraag8 wrote: imbalanced is a poor choice of words, it implies that the ones to blame for the 'imbalance' is the ones with widescreen and not the player themselves who hasn't upgraded. i suppose it's 'imbalanced' to have a computer that can run this game without lagg too as opposed to those who can't. Yeah I'm sorry to say, but widescreen has been popular since about 2001. I think it is time to upgrade. There are plenty of widescreen monitors at costco for less than $150. Blizzard shouldn't cater to your old equipment, just like we don't see catering in MW 2, Resistance, Bad Company, Command and conquer. It is ridiculous to assume that Blizzard should give everyone a crappy view just because you have REALLY old hardware. I know it sounds mean I am just being honest. | ||
|
Roniii
United States289 Posts
| ||
|
Scorcher2k
United States802 Posts
On September 02 2010 02:53 Polis wrote: You couldn't make 16: 9 crt but for LCD the technology is the same. I hope this is a typo because I had a friend who paid a crap load on a 16x9 CRT a few years back. LCD simply became mainstream because it is so much cheaper to make and sucks up much less power. | ||
|
Polis
Poland1292 Posts
On September 02 2010 04:52 Scorcher2k wrote: I hope this is a typo because I had a friend who paid a crap load on a 16x9 CRT a few years back. LCD simply became mainstream because it is so much cheaper to make and sucks up much less power. Didn't know, anyway: "Most of the early electronic TV systems, from the mid-1930s onward, shared the same aspect ratio of 4:3 which was chosen to match the Academy Ratio used in cinema films at the time. This ratio was also square enough to be conveniently viewed on round cathode-ray tubes (CRTs), which were all that could be produced given the manufacturing technology of the time. (Today's CRT technology allows the manufacture of much wider tubes, and the flat-screen technologies which are becoming steadily more popular have no technical aspect ratio limitations at all.)" So they had improved on it (maybe they still cost more to make, then 4:3 crt?). I did know that TVs couldn't have widescreen aspect ratios so Hollywood nerfed TVs by going widescreen in production. That is the real reason not golden ratio made up shit, Hollywood didn't care about that before TVs. | ||
|
CrazyCow
United States308 Posts
| ||
|
cr4ckshot
United States291 Posts
| ||
|
monad
United States156 Posts
On September 02 2010 04:11 Polis wrote: 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? 9:16 Is far superior for document reading. Just turn your monitor sideways. Anway, even with 16  you can put 2 pages of a document side by side in full size and have them appear on the same screen. | ||
|
TaiYang
Canada128 Posts
| ||
|
waffling1
599 Posts
On September 02 2010 00:28 never_toss wrote: yeah i agree.. i dont think this will be allowed in tournaments, its just too much screenspace. Other than that i dont think i could personally play on 3 monitors lol... its just to much for my neck and eyes to handle! quote from 40 year old virgin: "USE YR PRRIIPHERALSS" | ||
|
djWHEAT
United States925 Posts
| ||
|
TheBB
Switzerland5133 Posts
| ||
|
Firkraag8
Sweden1006 Posts
On September 02 2010 04:35 Dr.Frost wrote: Yeah I'm sorry to say, but widescreen has been popular since about 2001. I think it is time to upgrade. There are plenty of widescreen monitors at costco for less than $150. Blizzard shouldn't cater to your old equipment, just like we don't see catering in MW 2, Resistance, Bad Company, Command and conquer. It is ridiculous to assume that Blizzard should give everyone a crappy view just because you have REALLY old hardware. I know it sounds mean I am just being honest. did you direct that towards me or the village idiot? if so you misunderstood me, because i've had a widescreen for many years, and could never go back to 4:3 | ||
|
DethAdder
United States164 Posts
On September 02 2010 04:33 kxr1der wrote: Hm am I the only person using 16:10? Not the only one  . I find 16: 9 a little too vertically, umm skinny I guess you could say. I find 16:10 to be a nice compromise. | ||
|
Ordained
United States779 Posts
On September 02 2010 00:24 village_idiot wrote: I'm just saying that even widescreen is imbalanced I don't see that, it is an advantage yes, but who doesnt have $70 to buy a new monitor these days. they are getting really cheap. | ||
|
PlayFairOrDiE
Australia13 Posts
| ||
|
Aborash
65 Posts
On September 02 2010 04:33 kxr1der wrote: Hm am I the only person using 16:10? No, youre not alone, but if I remember correctly one old beta post, show images of different aspect ratios, and the larger view was 16 : 9 due native aspect ratio picked by Blizzard as standard. | ||
| ||
