Why are all LCD monitors now widescreen?

[Guest]

I installed Worms World Party last night and had to enable that option in the ATi control panel to stop it looking funky - it should really be enabled by default.

Off-topic, but I suggest that you get Worms: Armageddon, with the patch & and the update (Installed in that order) from wa.team17.com.

With the new update, it fully supports a wide range of video resolutions so you can run the game in your screen's native resolution. If you want to play online with wwp, I'll be surprised if you find anyone on worm net since everyone has moved to WA.

Edit: Holy hell! This thing really should be enabled by default!

Edited July 20, 2008 by Guest

[ViperAFK]

I like widescreen better :) but it makes people on TV look fatter :p

Not if it's in HD or you don't have your tv set to stretch on sd channels.

[Dashel]

Stop maximizing applications and your issues with widescreen disappear. At to why, I think the consumer has spoken, for about the same price most prefer it wide.

If you area a gamer then a CRT is the most flexible, but that isn't a widescreen issue. I won't be giving up mine anytime soon but I do love my widescreen for the office.

[GreenMartian]

Stop maximizing applications and your issues with widescreen disappear.

Agreed. I stopped browsing in full screen since i got my widescreen monitor.

I also love coding in widescreen. Everything in VS is dockable, so I just dock them to the sides. Voila, no more wasted vertical space!

[_dandy_]

I'm not sure you get the point. Windows and DirectX and whatever are not responsible in any way for old 2D games looking bad on LCD monitors. The Infinity Engine, that renders all the Black Isle games, was written with 800x600 resolution in mind. Contrarily to 3D models, 2D sprites don't scale; when you change the resolution, you change their size. Short of re-drawing Baldur's Gate graphics with higher resolutions, it is impossible to make this game display the way it was meant to on a display that has a fixed resolution of 1680x1050, 1920x1200 or whatever.

I do get the point--and you've proven *my* point (all along) that it's up to the software to work with whatever hardware is present, and not the other way around.

Hint: I've bolded the relevant part of your quote.

A CRT monitor doesn't mind displaying in 320x240 or 1600x1200; it can display exactly the number of pixels you want it to display. It is flexible. LCDs, on the other hand, have a fixed resolution; try to render 800x600 on a widescreen 22" display, and you end up stretching those 800x600 pixels across the 1680x1050 physical pixels of the LCD.

I'm not sure what the relevance of *that* point is. I have a 4:3 LCD monitor (among others) and just like a 4:3 CRT it can display 320x240, 640x480, 800x600 and 1024x768 just fine. It's not a CRT vs LCD issue; it's an aspect ratio issue, which exists on CRTs as well. I used to have a 4:3 IBM CRT that could do 1680x1050 and 1920x1080, which was unusable--it made the entire desktop look way too tall and skinny. It's not the black-and-white "CRT is better than LCD" claim that you seem to make it out to be.

How software is supposed to make up for this, I wonder. :rolleyes:

The problem here is that the original developers assumed a particular aspect ratio (4:3). Since sprites don't scale (as you put it), the best solution would probably be for the software (yes, the software) to do like widescreen television sets showing 4:3 content, and add black bars to the left/right side. Or write two sets of sprites, one respecting the 4:3 ratio, and the other to respect the 16:9 ratio. Once you've got both ratios covered, the resolution becomes irrelevant. It'll look as blocky at any resolution--at least nothing will get stretched or skewed.

[Andre S. Veteran]

You go into the driver control panel and enable fixed aspect scaling (available with nVidia and ATi drivers - I've used them both). You can choose to stretch the image to fill the whole screen, stretch it to fill the vertical axis (while maintaining the aspect ratio, borders at the sides) or centre it using the exact pixel resolution (displays borders at the top, bottom and sides). I installed Worms World Party last night and had to enable that option in the ATi control panel to stop it looking funky - it should really be enabled by default.

I have an NVidia card. Where do you see the option for centering the image using 1:1 pixel mapping?

Even if that is possible it's just the best excuse LCDs can put up for being stuck with a SINGLE resolution.

[Andre S. Veteran]

I do get the point--and you've proven *my* point (all along) that it's up to the software to work with whatever hardware is present, and not the other way around.

Then please make a suggestion as to how games based on the Infinity Engine, or any 2D graphics for that matter, are supposed to look as good on fixed-resolution displays (like LCDs) than on multiple-resolution displays (like CRTs).

I'm not sure what the relevance of *that* point is. I have a 4:3 LCD monitor (among others) and just like a 4:3 CRT it can display 320x240, 640x480, 800x600 and 1024x768 just fine. It's not a CRT vs LCD issue; it's an aspect ratio issue, which exists on CRTs as well. I used to have a 4:3 IBM CRT that could do 1680x1050 and 1920x1080, which was unusable--it made the entire desktop look way too tall and skinny. It's not the black-and-white "CRT is better than LCD" claim that you seem to make it out to be.

Your LCD does not display any resolution "just fine". As I explained, LCDs have a fixed number of physical pixels. A 4:3 LCD usually has 1280 pixels on a horizontal and 1024 on a vertical. If you display 800x600 resolution on it, the software pixels won't map 1:1 with the hardware pixels. On the horizontal row there will be a 1280/800 interpolation, and on the vertical row there will be a 1024/600 interpolation. These do no make round numbers so blurry graphics ensues.

CRTs can do widescreen resolution just fine (for real), with letterboxing. CRTs are actually able to display 1680x1050 physical pixels without stretching the image, as long as the driver is set up properly (yours evidently was not). The aspect ratio issue is resolved at the software level, by adding black bars on whichever side is too large on the display. However the pixel mapping issue is not and cannot be resolved at the software level. Well, actually, there is a way, by centering the image as theyarecomingforyou mentionned, but it can make the image ridiculously small. So unless the hardware does it (like CRTs), you are screwed.

The problem here is that the original developers assumed a particular aspect ratio (4:3). Since sprites don't scale (as you put it), the best solution would probably be for the software (yes, the software) to do like widescreen television sets showing 4:3 content, and add black bars to the left/right side. Or write two sets of sprites, one respecting the 4:3 ratio, and the other to respect the 16:9 ratio. Once you've got both ratios covered, the resolution becomes irrelevant. It'll look as blocky at any resolution--at least nothing will get stretched or skewed.

Again you miss my point: I was talking about how the software pixels map the physical pixels, not the aspect ratio. On a CRT, if you rectify the aspect ratio using letterboxing, you get a perfect image, just smaller. On an LCD, it is not enough to correct the aspect ratio since the software pixels still don't match the physical pixels of the display unless by coincidence.

[chconline Veteran]

1) It looks cooler

2) It sounds cooler

3) It's cheaper to make; smaller surface area for same diagonal

Still loving my Dell 2007FP 20" standard aspect monitor :p I got a widescreen as my second.

[_dandy_]

Granted, my point was never about aspect ratio. It's only been about who's responsible for adapting--the software, adapting to the hardware, or the hardware, adapting to the software. No more, no less, and that's the end of that. You've only managed to confuse the subject matter further by now also throwing in 1:1 pixel mapping into the topic.

I'm done.

[Andre S. Veteran]

The only one confused here is you, as you introduced your point as a reply to mine when it had nothing to do with it.

[PGHammer]

Mine is 19" and I already want something smaller. 19" is just toooo huge. With TVs, yeah, bigger is better. But for computers, the smaller the better.

What resolution did you run the smaller screen at?

I went this year from 17" to 19" (both CRTs), but the resolution changed from 1280x1024 @ 60 Hz to 1600x1200 @ 75 Hz (both non-interlaced). The biggest problem (when browsing the Web) is that most sites are *still* geared for 1024x768; viewing such a site at 1280x1024 (let alone 1600x1200) just seems *wrong*.

[Leddy]

The first part there is false. The human field of vision is circular. However, if you think about it, there's more to see on a horizontal plane than on a vertical one, so it still makes sense (in terms of pictures/movies/TV) to have a screen that's taller than it is wide.

Unless you're really into clouds and grass. No, not that "grass."

The human field of vision is circular only if you're blind in one eye. We have two eyes side-by-side, our horizontal peripheral vision is wider than our vertical peripheral vision.

[coolvi]

IMHO, perhaps the most overlooked reason that all/majority of the monitors today are in widescreen is that to receive the "Certified for Windows Vista" logo, any display unit has to be in wide aspect physically to begin with. Did you really think all the manufacturers would agree to the initial investments for adjusting the manufacturing process just because of the nature of human vision even if it could achieve lower costs in the long run? Maybe Vista's certification criteria were based on these scientific facts, I doubt any other manufacturers would act this quickly for the same cause unless there was a fatal ergonimical challenge with the product. Microsoft's in a strong market position to initiate such a change and nobody could afford to be left behind, thus the transition seemed to have been overnight.

[.tony]

Widescreen would be great for Sidebar users like me.

I'm stuck with a 4:3 19" LCD though :(

[lalalawawawa]

What resolution did you run the smaller screen at?

I went this year from 17" to 19" (both CRTs), but the resolution changed from 1280x1024 @ 60 Hz to 1600x1200 @ 75 Hz (both non-interlaced). The biggest problem (when browsing the Web) is that most sites are *still* geared for 1024x768; viewing such a site at 1280x1024 (let alone 1600x1200) just seems *wrong*.

What is wrong? I have 19" Philips CRT monitor with 1280*1024 and nothing is wrong. In fact, it is great. :)

[Badtz-Maru]

The human field of vision is circular only if you're blind in one eye. We have two eyes side-by-side, our horizontal peripheral vision is wider than our vertical peripheral vision.

what he says.

[Huleboeren]

Well to start with movies are recorded in widescreen and then "chopped" down into our classic full screen views. All video games and current operating systems fully support widescreen resolutions so you dont have to worry about the stretched or skewed displays anymore. Widescreen displays offer more visible workspace on our desktop the ability to show a wider and larger view in our video games, so the question isn't why are all monitors now widescreen but rather why wouldn't they be. They make more sense in every aspect.

Battlefield 2 doesnt even support widescreen resolutions :p

I like widescreens, but only if they are above 20"