Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Widescreen with games

Last response: in Computer Peripherals
Share
November 14, 2006 11:24:43 PM

I was thinking about getting a widescreen but am worried about the stretching and pixel mapping. I know it depends on a lot of things, but do widescreen monitors generally give you no problems with scaling in games? Or would it be safe to just stick with a regular.

And do recent games generally support widescreen? Bc if it doesnt, then youd get bars, and then youd be better off getting a regular non widescreen of the same size for more resolution?

More about : widescreen games

November 15, 2006 2:27:36 AM

but do generally regular non-widescreens of the same size give you more/better resolution?

Im getting a 19 inch.
November 15, 2006 5:47:43 PM

most 19" widescreens run 1440x900 native resolution, while the regular variant is 1280x1024.

while most newer games support wide 16:10 resolutions (1440x900, 1680x1050, 1920x1200), and even 16:9 resolutions for those using HDTVs as their monitors, keep in mind that a 19" wide actually has less surface area than a 19" regular, or at least it appears that way.

If you're gonna go wide, I recommend 20" or higher, with resolutions of 1680x1050 or 1920x1200. Save your pennies! I own a 24" Samsung syncmaster 244t at 1920x1200. It works with the games I play, and the picture is incredible. I could never go back to a non-widescreen format...

and to make a note of it, the standard 19" 4x3 res 1280x1024 isn't really 4x3...it's weird they chose that resolution... it should be 1280x960
Related resources
November 15, 2006 6:11:32 PM

Quote:
"... the standard 19" 4x3 res 1280x1024 isn't really 4x3...it's weird they chose that resolution... it should be 1280x960


Acutually it's not 4:3 at all, but rather 5:4.... and it's OK. It's the "standard resolution" for 17" & 19" conventional LCD monitors... 1280x1024.
November 16, 2006 3:34:56 PM

yeah it's pretty much the most common computer screen resolution amongst flat panels in general. I just wonder why they deviated from 4:3 to begin with. Then again I guess I can see why "widescreen" panels for computers are 16:10 rather than 16:9. People didn't wanna give up any of their vertical resolution when switching from 1600x1200 crt's to 1920 wide flat panels?

They ought to work on a panel that physically changes size depending on the input signal :wink: Lord knows what they'll be able to do with OLED technology.
November 16, 2006 3:50:10 PM

I think "they" settled on various sizes by convention. And, TV displays didn't settle on the same as PC monitor. Why? Who knows. "Enough" makers bet on some parameter and it became the "standard"...

There apprently were some attempts at 1600x1200 in a 19" LCD... I know of only one... a Planar. The format never caught on with the buying public (maybe because the text was too small ??), so we ended up with something other.

It seems it leaves the best all-around performance display... for PC monitor,TV, and price... as the 24", LCD computer monitor. At 1920x1200 resolution, it can handle almost everything currently available in the video display marketplace.
November 16, 2006 4:04:49 PM

I heartedly agree with you there :)  Honestly the prices for panels that size have and will hopefully continue to drop. (I've seen some for 700-800...they may go even lower this holiday season) It's worth saving up some extra money for them.

The samsung 244t that I have also carries HDCP, component, s-video, and a fairly decent menu system...I have a digital cable HD receiver hooked up via component, and though the picture isn't what you'd get on a nice upconverting 1080p HDTV, it's still a thing of beauty to watch tv on once in awhile. I would assume this is the case for the Dell and probably the Gateway 24" monitors that are getting quite a bit of buzz lately?
!