Why did the world go widescreen?

2009-05-06 00:17:26

#1

Finray: Hup! Dos, Tres, Cuatro; +2,629|6051|Catherine Black

Seems to me that not long ago the default monitor would be 4:3 or even 5:4, but now it's definitely 16:10/9. Games have gone that way too, some games, for example Assassin's Creed and Mirrors Edge will only display in 16:10/9 without some modification. I'm kinda stumped as to why it went this way, is it because in general humans can see more horizontal than vertical? So it makes things more realistic? Or is it something to do with horizontal refresh rates and displaying modes?

I'm confused.

2009-05-06 00:33:39

#2

Freezer7Pro: I don't come here a lot anymore.; +1,447|6460|Winland

Where are your eyes positioned?

The idea of any hi-fi system is to reproduce the source material as faithfully as possible, and to deliberately add distortion to everything you hear (due to amplifier deficiencies) because it sounds 'nice' is simply not high fidelity. If that is what you want to hear then there is no problem with that, but by adding so much additional material (by way of harmonics and intermodulation) you have a tailored sound system, not a hi-fi. - Rod Elliot, ESP

2009-05-06 00:39:53

#3

unnamednewbie13: Moderator; +2,053|7035|PNW

Also, find me a cheap widescreen CRT.

Nowadays, widescreen LCD panels are way cheaper to manufacter, more closely fit a human's field of vision and better emulate the shape of a theater screen all at the same time.

So unless you wear a pair of these:

https://s3files.core77.com/blog/images/cyclops.jpg

Be happy.

Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2009-05-06 00:40:59)

2009-05-06 00:56:28

#4

Finray: Hup! Dos, Tres, Cuatro; +2,629|6051|Catherine Black

Freezer7Pro wrote:
Where are your eyes positioned?

What's that got to do with the price of tea in china?

unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Also, find me a cheap widescreen CRT.

Nowadays, widescreen LCD panels are way cheaper to manufacter, more closely fit a human's field of vision and better emulate the shape of a theater screen all at the same time.

So I was right, it's to do with the FOV then.

Are widescreen LCDs cheaper to manufacture than 4:3 LCDs?

2009-05-06 01:39:24

#5

Benzin: Member; +576|6261

He's referring to your eyes being spread apart like a widescreen being spread you doofus.

Widescreen has only gotten as cheap as it has because it was so widely adopted by so many people. If it had remained a niche technology (like much of the mobile computing market), it would have remained more expensive. Simple economics, my friend.

2009-05-06 02:28:13

#6

Finray: Hup! Dos, Tres, Cuatro; +2,629|6051|Catherine Black

CapnNismo wrote:
He's referring to your eyes being spread apart like a widescreen being spread you doofus.

Widescreen has only gotten as cheap as it has because it was so widely adopted by so many people. If it had remained a niche technology (like much of the mobile computing market), it would have remained more expensive. Simple economics, my friend.

Well, yes, your eyes are spaced apart, but y our focus zone is very much central.

Mk, I getit now.

2009-05-06 02:33:20

#7

.Sup: be nice; +2,646|6716|The Twilight Zone

My eyes are next to each other not on top of each other. Makes sense

https://www.shrani.si/f/3H/7h/45GTw71U/untitled-1.png

2009-05-06 02:46:18

#8

DonFck: Hibernator; +3,227|6895|Finland

My best guess is that there's just simply more action to be captured horizontally than vertically.

Then again, if we want to resort to biology:

wiki wrote:
The normal human visual field extends to approximately 60 degrees nasally (toward the nose, or inward) in each eye, to 100 degrees temporally (away from the nose, or outwards), and approximately 60 degrees above and 75 below the horizontal meridian

Horizontal: 160 degrees, Vertical: 135 degrees

Ratio
160:135 = 1.18518
4:3 = 1.33333
16:9 = 1.77777

I need around tree fiddy.

2009-05-06 02:55:45

#9

Ioan92: Member; +337|5985

Finray wrote:
Seems to me that not long ago the default monitor would be 4:3 or even 5:4, but now it's definitely 16:10/9. Games have gone that way too, some games, for example Assassin's Creed and Mirrors Edge will only display in 16:10/9 without some modification. I'm kinda stumped as to why it went this way, is it because in general humans can see more horizontal than vertical? So it makes things more realistic? Or is it something to do with horizontal refresh rates and displaying modes?

I'm confused.

They are faggits.

1280x1024 forever.

2009-05-06 03:15:54

#10

DUnlimited: got any popo lolo intersting?; +1,160|6726|cuntshitlake

I vastly prefer 4:3.

main battle tank karthus medikopter 117 megamegapowershot gg

2009-05-06 03:37:36

#11

GC_PaNzerFIN: Work and study @ Technical Uni; +528|6677|Finland

DeathUnlimited wrote:
I vastly prefer 4:3.

I dunno what I prefer anymore. I used to prefer 4:3 as my own monitor was like that and I wasn't used to ws monitors everyone else started getting. Now after few months with ws I don't really miss 4:3. Much because most games these days support ws and scaling of T220 is pretty good for old games that don't.

3930K | H100i | RIVF | 16GB DDR3 | GTX 480 | AX750 | 800D | 512GB SSD | 3TB HDD | Xonar DX | W8

2009-05-06 03:44:07

#12

Finray: Hup! Dos, Tres, Cuatro; +2,629|6051|Catherine Black

Ioan92 wrote:
They are faggits.

1280x1024 forever.

werd

2009-05-06 04:13:04

#13

tazz.: oz.; +1,338|6437|Sydney | ♥

The computer just seem neater when it's wide.

^{everything i write is a ramble and should not be taken seriously.... _{seriously. ♥}}

2009-05-06 04:18:31

#14

liquidat0r: wtf.; +2,223|6890|UK

I have a 17" running 1280x1024. I often wish I either had a wide screen monitor or two monitors side by side.

It'd be impractical to stack two monitors on top of each other. So it's either wider or nothing.

2009-05-06 04:19:20

#15

Finray: Hup! Dos, Tres, Cuatro; +2,629|6051|Catherine Black

liquidat0r wrote:
I have a 17" running 1280x1024. I often wish I either had a wide screen monitor or two monitors side by side.

It'd be impractical to stack two monitors on top of each other. So it's either wider or nothing.

Aren't 17" supposed to run 1024x768?

2009-05-06 04:24:04

#16

liquidat0r: wtf.; +2,223|6890|UK

Finray wrote:
liquidat0r wrote:
I have a 17" running 1280x1024. I often wish I either had a wide screen monitor or two monitors side by side.

It'd be impractical to stack two monitors on top of each other. So it's either wider or nothing.
Aren't 17" supposed to run 1024x768?

If I set it to that then everything becomes stretched vertically. 1024x768 looks like wide screen to me.

http://i43.tinypic.com/1yu34h.png

2009-05-06 04:33:02

#17

GC_PaNzerFIN: Work and study @ Technical Uni; +528|6677|Finland

My 17" is 1280x1024

3930K | H100i | RIVF | 16GB DDR3 | GTX 480 | AX750 | 800D | 512GB SSD | 3TB HDD | Xonar DX | W8

2009-05-06 04:33:35

#18

max: Vela Incident; +1,652|6830|NYC / Hamburg

I also have a 1280x1024 17'' somewhere

_{once upon a midnight dreary, while i pron surfed, weak and weary, over many a strange and spurious site of ' hot xxx galore'. While i clicked my fav'rite bookmark, suddenly there came a warning, and my heart was filled with mourning, mourning for my dear amour, " 'Tis not possible!", i muttered, " give me back my free hardcore!"..... quoth the server, 404.}

2009-05-06 04:40:14

#19

liquidat0r: wtf.; +2,223|6890|UK

max wrote:
I also have a 1280x1024 17'' somewhere

You don't count. You have everything somewhere.

2009-05-06 04:57:41

#20

Finray: Hup! Dos, Tres, Cuatro; +2,629|6051|Catherine Black

Hmm I suppose. I've got a 19" CRT and a 17" TFT both at 1280x1024..

2009-05-06 06:42:40

#21

Sydney: 2λчиэλ; +783|7106|Reykjavík, Iceland.

16:10 is the shit. I wish I had two monitor so I could use 16:5

2009-05-06 06:45:24

#22

DUnlimited: got any popo lolo intersting?; +1,160|6726|cuntshitlake

Finray wrote:
Hmm I suppose. I've got a 19" CRT and a 17" TFT both at 1280x1024..

CRT's are just about always 4:3 and thus look better if you keep the res at 4:3. 5:4 will work without problems though.

main battle tank karthus medikopter 117 megamegapowershot gg

2009-05-06 07:28:02

#23

Ioan92: Member; +337|5985

Also don't forget 1280x1024 can let you run hardware rapists like crysis easily.

2009-05-06 07:29:37

#24

GC_PaNzerFIN: Work and study @ Technical Uni; +528|6677|Finland

Ioan92 wrote:
Also don't forget 1280x1024 can let you run hardware rapists like crysis easily.

not fun when your PC's worst "bottleneck" is the 1280x1024 crap monitor

3930K | H100i | RIVF | 16GB DDR3 | GTX 480 | AX750 | 800D | 512GB SSD | 3TB HDD | Xonar DX | W8

2009-05-06 07:56:29

#25

TimmmmaaaaH: Damn, I... had something for this; +725|6702|Brisbane, Australia

I could never go back to a square screen. I am too used to having multiple windows open, and in games having the HUD/chat stuff off to the side.

Widescreen ftw.

https://bf3s.com/sigs/5e6a35c97adb20771c7b713312c0307c23a7a36a.png

BF2S Forums Why did the world go widescreen?

Freezer7Pro wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

CapnNismo wrote:

wiki wrote:

Finray wrote:

DeathUnlimited wrote:

Ioan92 wrote:

liquidat0r wrote:

Finray wrote:

liquidat0r wrote:

max wrote:

Finray wrote:

Ioan92 wrote:

Board footer