Widescreen Gaming Forum

I haven't given it an absolute ton of thought, but I'm not sure why you are using the "constant 1000pixel diagonal" for both displays?

It's been a long day, and thinking too hard makes the head hurt at this point, but I upgraded from a 19" 5:4 to 22" 16:10WS, so that my new monitor is pretty much my old one, but with extra added onto the sides. I can then run the game at 4:3 letter boxed to simulate my old display, and also in 16:10 WS.

My initial instinct is that forcing a constant 1000pixel diagonal is akin to some measure of physical size (eg 19" 4:3 vs 19" WS), which I'm not sure is relevant, as it's really only aspect ratio and FOV that factor in?

It could just be me, but I'd definitely appreciate more insight into the reasoning behind your methods :)

Aggies

I chose to equate the sets based on diagonal dimension, but there are definitely other options. As another poster stated, the choice of 1000 was done just for easy math. It could have been any number, and any measure of length (e.g. 42 inches).

You need some metric to scale the screens. Otherwise, the calculation would have to consider the actual physical dimensions of the screen, and not just the ratio of width to height.

The problem is that there are a limited number of characteristics to describe a rectangle, none of which are perfect. You could choose to scale based on screed width, height, area, or diagonal. I chose diagonal because it is the de facto standard for measuring screen size. But again, you are correct. There are other options.

The problem is that vert- doesn't just make you loose out on seeing some of the environment, it alters the perceived perspective. It makes things looked zoomed in vs 4:3. E.g. here's our friend Bioshock:
…
I would argue that the level of perceived zoom/perspective has a much, much greater impact on the game experience than simply seeing more or less of environment. If I were a developer and I wanted to keep the vision of my game as consistant as possible, the perspective/perceived zoom would be way more important to me than a couple extra virtual feet of scenery being visible at the sides.

Good post, I completely agree that the level of perceived zoon is the core issue. With all of the variables of screen ratios, screen sizes and viewing distance, the only way to achieve any type of standardization is by basing FOV on what is necessary to achieve perceived distance to an object.

Unfortunately, I think your post restates the main misunderstanding in these arguments. The picture you post takes a 16:9 image and compares it to a 4:3 image of equal vertical dimension. It creates the illusion that the 16:9 image is more “zoomed in,â€

The problem is that vert- doesn't just make you loose out on seeing some of the environment, it alters the perceived perspective.

Strictly speaking, that is not correct. The perspective is identical in the two images you show. To see this, consider widescreen and 4:3 displays of the same physical screen width (i.e. a small widescreen monitor vs. a very large 4:3 one). In that case, every object seen on the wide screen will be seen on the 4:3 screen, and it will be exactly the same size. Moreover, all of the angles on the two screens (the perspective) will be identical.

There will be only two differences: The 4:3 screen will show some more stuff at the top and bottom, and the objects in the 4:3 display will be lower resolution, less detailed, because they have less pixels.

[quote]
Unfortunately, I think your post restates the main misunderstanding in these arguments. The picture you post takes a 16:9 image and compares it to a 4:3 image of equal vertical dimension. It creates the illusion that the 16:9 image is more “zoomed in,â€

I'll say one thing that is in favour of hor+ for sure.

In RTS games you see less of the map with vert-.

I know it annoys the hell out of me in Warhammer DOW, especially since that game is a little to zoomed in to start with (in 4:3) IMO.

If I was playing online I'd go with the pillarbox, rather than see less of the map than my opponent!