1920x1080 VS 1920x1200

For those who want to use it for non-gaming purposes,

1920x1200 allows you to display 2 A4 pages side by side, with the screen displaing the page the same size as the paper.

1920x1080 has just too little height for that.
 
The reason why 16:9 panels are cheaper to produce is because they can cut more panels per wafer.
 
sn3rd said:
Keeper,I think I've found a way to explain your flawed logic to you :p

Effectively what you're saying is that 1280x800 can't display what 1280x720 can, which is wrong. You are looking at things the wrong way. For your (half correct) logic to make sense, you can't compare 1920x1200 with 1920x1080 because the former can display exactly what the latter can, and more. Rather you need to compare 2140x1200 and say "hey, look: this is wider than 1920x1200".

Note keeping the vertical resolution constant when moving to a wider aspect. This is because we generally define such things by their vertical resolution (it's the denominator in the ratio). So you should rather be comparing 1920x1080 to 1728x1080, in which case you'd be right.
Click to expand...

Oh fss, it has NOTHING TO DO WITH PIXELS!!

ASPECT RATIO!

ASPECT RATIO!

ASPECT RATIO!

READ THIS > > > > > http://www.widescreengamingforum.com/wiki/index.php/Aspect_Ratio < < < < < READ THIS

my logic is not flawed, your reading skills are :D

read what murray biscuit and Rudimental posted, please.
 
wait.... you guys are just toying with me, arent you? :p

damn why do i always have to fall for the bait!
 
I think we should just give up on keeper. He is too old and set in ways.
 
you guys are not reading the wiki pages i'm posting, and not viewing the screenshot comparisons... I give up

If you can't admit you are wrong if it says so on a freaken website dedicated to FOV, Aspects & Resolutions I don't know what will

maybe next time when playing WoW at 1920x1200, take a screenshot, and change your resolution to 1920x1080 and take another one. compare.

Your brain will explode as you still won't understand it, and yell FAIL at your image program :D

/facepalm - and you call yourselves gamers :rolleyes:
 
Keeper said:
you guys are not reading the wiki pages i'm posting, and not viewing the screenshot comparisons... I give up

If you can't admit you are wrong if it says so on a freaken website dedicated to FOV, Aspects & Resolutions I don't know what will

maybe next time when playing WoW at 1920x1200, take a screenshot, and change your resolution to 1920x1080 and take another one. compare.

Your brain will explode as you still won't understand it, and yell FAIL at your image program :D

/facepalm - and you call yourselves gamers :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

They don't understand the concept of aspect ratio and FOV Keeper. They think in terms of pixels.

They don't understand that 640x480 have the same peripheral vision as 1920x1440 even though the number of pixels are way less. 640x360 would have a wider field of view than 640x480 even though the number of pixels are less!!!!!

So basically put, 1920x1440 is 4:3. even though it has the SAME WIDTH as 1920x1080 (16:9) and more vertical pixels you have a narrower field of view!!! That means 1920x1200 will have a narrower field of view than 1920x1080.

Is it so hard to understand?! Unfortunately it seems that they can't see beyond pixels...
 
Last edited:
In a 3D environment, you don't get more "image" if the number pixels are increased. IT'S THE ASPECT RATIO THAT MATTERS!!!!

compare 640x360 to 1920x1440. you'll see that that 640x360 actually shows more of the image than 1920x1440 even though it has less resolution. That's because the aspect ratio is wider!
 
genetic said:
Is it so hard to understand?! Unfortunately it seems that they can't see beyond pixels...
Click to expand...

What I Find funny is the number of people facepalming when they are they ones not getting it....it's hilarious! :D


800x600 has more pixels than 640x480 ZOMG you see so much more!!!! :D

but yeah....i'm not gonna explain it anymore.... it's pointless!
 
I have to also point out though that like in a game whith a camera from above, like sim city etc - more pixels will show you more.

i think that is what is confusing some people...
 
Keeper said:
What I Find funny is the number of people facepalming when they are they ones not getting it....it's hilarious! :D


800x600 has more pixels than 640x480 ZOMG you see so much more!!!! :D

but yeah....i'm not gonna explain it anymore.... it's pointless!
Click to expand...


It's like comparing a DVD to a BluRay. A DVD has a resolution of 720x576, while BluRay movies are 1920x1080.
Because the latter has a more pixels, does not mean you see more. Yes, you have finer detail, but your peripheral vision stays the same.

If the width of the image stays the same, but the hight is increased (as in 1920x1080 vs. 1920x1200) then your field of view narrows, ie. you actually see less, even though the amount of pixels has increased.
Increasing the hight of the image makes it more square, thereby losing the wide field of view.

The link that keeper posted demonstrates it perfectly: http://www.widescreengamingforum.com/wiki/index.php/Aspect_Ratio
 
The_Techie said:
Shouldn't I just post the comparison screenshots to settle this once and for all? :D
Click to expand...

Techie, that is why you are the guru around here - because you ask questions, read more about it, and then learn. haven't seen many people do that on forums before :o
 
Keeper said:
Techie, that is why you are the guru around here - because you ask questions, read more about it, and then learn. haven't seen many people do that on forums before :o
Click to expand...

You flatter me :o

Well here we have comparison screenshots of Crysis Warhead, standing in the exact same spot. I took these screenshots so don't question the validity :p

1920x1080:

1920x1080.jpg


1920x1200:

1920x1200.jpg


Hopefully this should end the argument once and for all. As you can see, 1920x1080 clearly shows more horizontally at no real expense of vertical detail.
 
The_Techie said:
Hopefully this should end the argument once and for all. As you can see, 1920x1080 clearly shows more horizontally at no real expense of vertical detail.
Click to expand...


Finally some hard evidence! That should settle it once and for all!

Thanks Techie!! :D
 
Keeper, I read all posts. It appears you aren't reading mine. I'm agreeing with your logic, just not with your application thereof.

1920x1080 is NOT the widescreen equivalent of 1920x1200. It is widescreen of 1728x1080. Do you agree?

In the same way, 1920x1200 is NOT the 16:10 aspect ratio of 1920x1080. Rather, it. Is the 16:10 aspect ratio of 2140x1200.

An example. The counterstrike screenshots posted earlier only make sense using this comparison, because the 4:3 has a certain vertical resolution, and the widescreen has THE SAME vertical resolution.

Don't say resolution doesn't mean anything, because it means everything. The technical post above is case in point. Deciding where the extra viewable area comes from makes the difference. Do you add extra to the top and bottom of 16:9 to get 16:10 or do you add extra to the left and right of 16:10 to get 16:9? The former method was called Vert- while the latter was called Hor+.

Keeper you aren't replying to me. You just keep saying the same things without answering the questions.
 
sn3rd said:
Keeper, I read all posts. It appears you aren't reading mine. I'm agreeing with your logic, just not with your application thereof.

1920x1080 is NOT the widescreen equivalent of 1920x1200. It is widescreen of 1728x1080. Do you agree?

In the same way, 1920x1200 is NOT the 16:10 aspect ratio of 1920x1080. Rather, it. Is the 16:10 aspect ratio of 2140x1200.

An example. The counterstrike screenshots posted earlier only make sense using this comparison, because the 4:3 has a certain vertical resolution, and the widescreen has THE SAME vertical resolution.

Don't say resolution doesn't mean anything, because it means everything. The technical post above is case in point. Deciding where the extra viewable area comes from makes the difference. Do you add extra to the top and bottom of 16:9 to get 16:10 or do you add extra to the left and right of 16:10 to get 16:9? The former method was called Vert- while the latter was called Hor+.

Keeper you aren't replying to me. You just keep saying the same things without answering the questions.
Click to expand...

Sorry Sn3rd, I know that's directed at Keeper, but 1920x1080 is the widescreen equivalent of 1440x1080, not 1728x1080.

The human eye has a far wider field of view than it does high - that's why televisions, photographs, car windshields etc. are wider than they are high, so it makes obvious sense to add extra image to the side, as the horizon is flat - not vertical.

In games, the enemy is more likely to come from the sides than from the sky or ground, which is why it's generally better to have the extra viewing space on the sides than the top.
In certain instances, extra the vertical pixels might come in handy, but 9 times out of 10, a wider image is better than a taller image.
 
genetic said:
If the width of the image stays the same, but the hight is increased (as in 1920x1080 vs. 1920x1200) then your field of view narrows, ie. you actually see less, even though the amount of pixels has increased.
Increasing the hight of the image makes it more square, thereby losing the wide field of view.
Click to expand...
This is for Hor+ games, obviously. In absolute terms, increasing the height while keeping the width constant just increases the vertical FOV. It's like looking out of a window. If you make it squarer by increasing the vertical size, it doesn't allow you to see less horizontally. It's just the most popular method used in widescreen games that does this. You can in theory keep the same horizontal FOV as 16:9 on 16:10 but increase your vertical FOV to get rid of the distortion this would create in Hor+ (i.e. thinner people). Unfortunately, there don't ever seem to be commands to fiddle with vertical FOV to do so.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X