Hypothetical 8k Content

Lord Vile · July 8, 2020

8 minutes ago, Origami Cactus said:

I agree with the other dude. Ultrawide is just a normal monitor with the top and bottom parts chopped off, it is objectively worse. If i wanted ultrawide FOV, i could just crop my normal monitor and have black bars on the top and bottom.

Imo having the extra vertical FOV is more natural.

There are use cases for both of the monitor types, some like the one, some like the other.

Or it's a normal monitor with the sides extended?

You'd be cropping it a lot which is why when you watch 21:9 content it's letterboxed so you lose less.

Youe eyes have more horizontal FOV than vertical

Mihle · July 8, 2020

1 hour ago, Lord Vile said:

Point is the horizontal size for a 21:9 is always bigger than the 16:9 equivalent.

Unless your eyes are recessed into your head by 6" you have the same field of view as everyone else

It is objectively better.

So you got one that's too big to sit at comfortably?

You are just a plain up UW fanboy that cant see other views than yourself on it at this point.

As I said, it depends what standpoint you look at it just get that in to your head!

If you look just at the paper and resolutions and numbers then yes, but it doesnt really matter much at all.
There is two ways too look at UW monitors and BOTH ARE CORRECT! its just opinion what you choose.

These are the two ways, well, 3 ways but two that is more logical when choosing between the two
1. You want a monitor that have X height, when comparing UW and standard, then yes UW is wider.
2. You want a monitor that is X width, when comparing UW and standard, then UW is standard with top and bottom chopped off.

(3. Just look at total area, then standard is taller and UW is wider)

None of those ways to look at it is totally wrong, it just depends how you look at it. Its all subjective. I do it in another way than you.

Also a point I have seen some places is movies is usually UW, but to to that I have two points:
1. TV series is standard/16:9
2. There are movies where black bottom and top is "included" (dont know how many tho) and then you will get black bars on all 4 sides.

If you still dont understand, then I give up replying to you.

Mihle · July 8, 2020

58 minutes ago, Lord Vile said:

Youe eyes have more horizontal FOV than vertical

Yes, but not to the degree of UW. 16:9 is wider than its tall and to me it feels more like what the eyes are.

The1Dickens · July 8, 2020

1 hour ago, Lord Vile said:

But 21:9 monitors aren't the same width, instead of the usual 27 or 32 you get 29 and 34.

Just to clarify: A 32- or 34-Inch monitor is not 32 or 34 inches wide. It is 32 or 34 inches diagonal measurement. 21:9 is just an aspect ratio, as is 16:9, or 4:3, or 16:10. Those aren't direct measurements. A 32-inch monitor at 16:9 aspect ration (for example, the 32UD60-B) has measurements of 28.7" x 16.7" x 2.0", and a 34-inch monitor (the 34WL750-B) has measurements of 32.7" x 15" x 1.9". While the ultrawide is wider (28.7 vs. 32.7) it is also shorter (15 vs. 16.7).

As for pixel resolutions, it is a matter of perspective. Having 2 images of the same horizontal resolution (2560), a 21:9 Ultrawide image is 1080 tall, and a 16:9 is 1440 tall. Granted, if you lock the vertical resolution to 1080, the 21:9 ultrawide has a width of 2560, whereas the 16:9 is only 1920.

31 minutes ago, Lord Vile said:

Or it's a normal monitor with the sides extended?

You'd be cropping it a lot which is why when you watch 21:9 content it's letterboxed so you lose less.

I've never even seen content produced at native 21:9 ratio. When I had an ultrawide, if I set anything to full screen to match height, it cut off the sides, or stretches it. If it went to width, it cuts off the top and bottom, or squishes it. It's why many games had to have "Ultrawide" patches.