Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

BEST LCD FORMAT in 16:12 or 16:10 (?) & ADVANCED VIDEO SETTING: FOV

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    BEST LCD FORMAT in 16:12 or 16:10 (?) & ADVANCED VIDEO SETTING: FOV

    BEST FORMAT FOR A NEW LCD & ADVANCED VIDEO SETTINGS: FOV
    ================================================== ===

    I have still an old but superb 5:4 Eizo LCD (native 1280x1024, but for reading and playing games I use it in 1024x768 - thats more relaxed for me),
    and I am asking myself what would be the best settings in UT for FOV. By default it was set on 90.

    changing it to the one side, I see more of the envirenment, I see arriving enemies sooner, better overview. ----- Changing it to the other side, its more "zoomed" and aiming for long distances becomes easier.

    Any suggestions?
    At moment I just leave it in the middle on "90".
    ---------------

    Then the thing with the new screen (its a fu**ing jungle in the world outside about new LCDs).

    My main reason for a bigger screen is, that it delivers more immersion. You dive deeper inside the game.


    I heared some things about screens:
    - For FPS to big screens are no so good. Is that true?

    - Other people wrote 27" LCDs are a bit blury and unsharop (at least for reading, because the dot pitchs are too far away. I didn't tested it myself, so, is that true?


    If both would be true, 24" would be my maximum size.
    And 16:9 I do hate.

    So what's left (if above written is true) are two screen-types:


    => One is a 24" in the modern format 16:10. I guess most poeple would prefere this a screen.

    => The other screen is a 21" in the 4:3 (= 16:12) format, which would be from the aspect from the format more like my Eizo 4:4 (~ 16:13).
    Even with this solution 16:12 is more slime than 16:13.
    And I have to say that I, I dont know why, may be just habituation, prefere this option.
    In UT I could may be compensate a littel bit with FOV '80'.



    Hmmmm..... I guess most people here would buy the 16:10, because of seeing enemies earlier.

    But are here some other people who also stick to the old 4:3 format????
    (because of free will, not because of money)

    Or would it in the year 2009 be rather stupid o me to buy such a screen?



    I would really like to read hear your opinions - a LOT OF OPINIONS !




    (P.S. I like also to play Two Worlds, Need For Speed, HL2, and read a lot in the internet and I am just beginning to write programms in java (for documents 16:10 would be better too, I know. But for that I could buy a notebook).


    So, whats YOUR opinion ?

    #2
    I'd get the 21" 4:3.
    Seeing enemies early can be compensated with mouse movement and a good sound setup.
    Also, I can't stand panoramic screens. They make my eyes sore after a while.

    Personally, I'm playing on a 15" 4:3 @ 1024x768, and I think it's really comfortable.
    I _could_ use a bigger screen because I'm into CG, but I think it's good enough.
    Also, I sometimes write stories on my PC, and I can easily tell you that the screen size doesn't really matter, since you can adjust your font size.

    Oh and good luck with Java. I had tried it, and eventually got bored and switched to CG

    Comment


      #3
      You may find this thread relevant but perhaps not useful.

      When my 17" 4:5 monitor got fried, I got caught up in the whole discussion about how 16:9 monitors show the less of UT3 than the other aspect ratios. I eventually got a 16:9 monitor (21.5") because that aspect ratio was the only aspect ratio that I could actually find that was within my price range, and I can honestly say that I wouldn't notice any cut off viewing space if I hadn't read that thread. I did turn my FOV up to 100 from 90 as suggested in the thread, but I just don't know why so many people are so particular about this. All I know is that I play better with my current monitor than I did with my previous monitor (I have a much easier time separating objects like players/vehicles/shock balls from the environment and focusing just on that object). I don't think all the fuss over 16:9 monitors is really justified, but I do know that some gamers will stick with their preferred, virtually obsolete (IMO) monitors until hell itself takes them away.

      Comment


        #4
        The fuss over 16:9 monitors is when you use them for anything but gaming and movies. The vertical resolution is pitiful, meaning for (most) normal use you end up scrolling much more than you would otherwise. Also, none of them have a resolution suitable for 2 pages side-by-side, even 1920 width is not really sufficient for that. Honestly it's garbage - at 20" or 19" 1600x900 resolution is just sad, when you can see more vertically with a 10year old 1280x1024 17" LCD/CRT. If you do anything but gaming/movies I highly recommend you don't buy into 16:9.

        That said, I think 16:10 is the best compromise since 5:4 is all but extinct. I run 24" 1920x1200, at 100 FOV. I would have gone 1600x1200 20", but they stopped producing them and the technology was stale.


        (BTW, the only reason for the move to 16:9 is the LCD is cheaper to produce - and the consumer pays the same price.)

        Comment


          #5
          Originally posted by Liqu1D_133 View Post
          I'd get the 21" 4:3.
          Seeing enemies early can be compensated with mouse movement and a good sound setup.
          Also, I can't stand panoramic screens. They make my eyes sore after a while.
          Personally, I'm playing on a 15" 4:3 @ 1024x768, and I think it's really comfortable.

          Oh and good luck with Java. I had tried it, and eventually got bored and switched to CG
          I'm glad that I seem not to be the only one who likes more the old format :-)


          (Only bad thing is, that the biggest 4:3 are 21" --- with buying a 24" you get a 20% bigger picture.)
          -------------------

          and what is cg ? :-)

          Comment


            #6
            Originally posted by i_hax View Post
            The fuss over 16:9 monitors is when you use them for anything but gaming and movies. The vertical resolution is pitiful, meaning for (most) normal use you end up scrolling much more than you would otherwise. Also, none of them have a resolution suitable for 2 pages side-by-side, even 1920 width is not really sufficient for that. Honestly it's garbage - at 20" or 19" 1600x900 resolution is just sad, when you can see more vertically with a 10year old 1280x1024 17" LCD/CRT. If you do anything but gaming/movies I highly recommend you don't buy into 16:9.

            That said, I think 16:10 is the best compromise since 5:4 is all but extinct. I run 24" 1920x1200, at 100 FOV. I would have gone 1600x1200 20", but they stopped producing them and the technology was stale.


            (BTW, the only reason for the move to 16:9 is the LCD is cheaper to produce - and the consumer pays the same price.)

            No, of course I am not going to buy a 16:9. Never.

            As for the technique: The Eizo screen 21" with 1600:1200 is not the newest developpement(of course), but the technique is still state of the art.

            Comment


              #7
              At moment I think about two monitors:

              1) Eizo S2100, 21", 1600x1200, 4:3 ratio: Because it would be great TO PLAY GAMES with that format and size and color quality :-) !!


              2) Eizo SX2761W, 27", 1920x 1200, 16:10 ratio, 27ms in real (measured by a pc magazin):
              Because this size and format would be great for WORKING and READING :-), especially with the wide dot pitch (0,30mm - dont know it in yards) the letters are not tiny in nativ resolution (normally I cant use nativ solutions for wikipedia, etc.),
              and for RPGs and other games the scenery will be huge and therefore hopefully very immersive with a feelinig of "second reality" and not just a screen :-)


              ==>> But concerning Eizo 27" I would like to hear the opinion of some UT3 gamers:

              Would this screen be too big for UT3 (and fast shooters), too many parts of the screen "out of sharp area" of the eye and therefore too much eye- and head movements, and therefore my reactions too lame or just an anoying feeling for the gamer? (Somebody told me 22" is the best for shooter games).
              Or will it be still playable and hopefully immersive?

              Do you have some experience with a big screen?
              Post your comment(s), please

              Comment


                #8
                when my 19 inch monitor broke down i just had to had another monitor,so i moved my 37 inch tv upstairs and hooked it up to my computer.

                The results were suprisingly good but tbh my eyesight suck really bad and i'm used to watching big screens from a close distance :P.But yes you get accustomed to it in no time. Don't worry to much about big pixels tho cause even on my big tv and at hd resolutions it didn't bother me at all.

                I would definitely go for the 27 inch,more screen is always better and 6 inch even if its wide vs 4:3 is something that will always get in handy.....

                And if you don't believe me...

                ask your girlfriends..

                Comment


                  #9
                  I rock a 24" widescreen Dell LCD monitor @ 1920 x 1200 rez. (16:9), FOV is 100

                  Looks and plays great!, going to the 30" soon.

                  Comment


                    #10
                    I upgraded to a 24" 1920x1200 monitor sometime last year. I will never go back to a smaller screen, nor would I ever consider a 4:3 aspect ratio again. You just get used to having the real estate. It's beneficial everywhere. In response to i_hax, there's a lot less scrolling going on now than I used to have to do. Even though, yes, I have less vertical real estate than I do horizontal, websites and text spread across the whole screen resulting in shorter pages.

                    Originally posted by fireball View Post
                    ==>> But concerning Eizo 27" I would like to hear the opinion of some UT3 gamers:

                    Would this screen be too big for UT3 (and fast shooters), too many parts of the screen "out of sharp area" of the eye and therefore too much eye- and head movements, and therefore my reactions too lame or just an anoying feeling for the gamer? (Somebody told me 22" is the best for shooter games).
                    Or will it be still playable and hopefully immersive?

                    Do you have some experience with a big screen?
                    Post your comment(s), please
                    No, this is just not true. If you feel that too much of the screen is out of your viewable area, then just push it back. I have my screen farther back than any screen I have ever had in my life. Yes, you wind up with the same viewable size as a smaller screen close to you, but with a hell of a lot more resolution. And c'mon, your mom always told ya not to sit close to the screen.

                    Originally posted by Liqu1D_133 View Post
                    I'm playing on a 15" 4:3 @ 1024x768, and I think it's really comfortable.
                    Christ man, you need to upgrade. If I was driving a Pinto I guess I could justify it too, but I would still be driving a tiny car.

                    Comment


                      #11
                      I have a 21'' CRT and a 17'' TFT rotated 90ยบ. Great setup for both working and gaming

                      Comment


                        #12
                        Originally posted by fireball View Post
                        ...normally I cant use nativ solutions for wikipedia, etc...
                        You can increase the text size in the browser. In Firefox it's Ctrl+ (and Ctrl- to decrease it again). This will give you clearer text than reducing the resolution.

                        You may also benefit from turning ClearType on. I find it makes things easier to read, but some people don't like it.

                        Comment


                          #13
                          I am at 16:10, 1680 x 1050, FOV 100. All good.

                          Comment

                          Working...
                          X