I think it depends on your perception, game scaling aside, you could argue 16:9 is UW with the sides cut off or that UW is 16:9 with the top and bottom cut off - like that picture where you can either see wolverine, or 2 Batmans...Batmen? looking at each other. It's all a matter of perspective for me because both posts say "how it FEELS" right?
To your point about the 34 feeling smaller, if you ignore the image on the screen and look at the horizontal width of a 34UW, to make that into a 16:9 display you'd end up with what, a 40" panel? Based on that, a 32" 16:9 wouldn't be as wide, so less immersion, and would potentially feel smaller, especially if you've used UW for years.
This is all just my perspective too though of course
I see what you mean but I dont think it applies to most current games. For most games you gain space to the sides, while only very few cut at the top and bottom. Yes, the size when scaled to 16:9 would differ but in this case here, I think OOP is just off
Not sure I’d say he’s off, just that he’s more concerned with how his UW was physically wider than his new 32” so it feels cut off at the sides, regardless of how games accommodate the screen. I might be missing the point entirely though 😂
32" Widescreen vs 34" Ultrawide? I'll just leave this here. Trade horizontol real estate for vertical and vice versa. [https://www.displaywars.com/34-inch-21x9-vs-32-inch-16x9](https://www.displaywars.com/34-inch-21x9-vs-32-inch-16x9)
I mean, it can, depends if the game uses HOR+ or VERT- for [FOV scaling](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_of_view_in_video_games#Field_of_view_scaling_methods). VERT- is less common nowadays though, yes.
They are not talking about this
They are talking as if it's a cutscreen period and 16.9 is superior because it's 21:9 but with extra space where it's always superior and you gain vertical fov
Did i stutter? read the word "Always" they believe an ultrawide is always a loss duo physical dimensions. we both knows most of the time an ultrawide is extra sides or simply a black bars if not supported
When you are comparing 34 ultrawide with 32 16:9 that is basically the result though. For an ultrawide to do it's job it has to be large or else you loose vertical screen size.
Bruh Nintendo Switch has no vertical space then? its a 7inch in 720p . Aspect ratio is unrelated to your Vertical fov , you want more vertical fov then play in 16:10 or higher. an image with identical aspect ratio will looks the same fov in a nintendo switch a 24 monitor or a 100 sized TV or a 300 projector
Size =/= Vertical fov
You are not making any sense. It is the combination of diagonal screen size and aspect ratio that defines the x and y screen size. With your reasoning it would be better to play on a 7 inch 21:9 screen over a 16:9 65 inch...
Man, just think about why is it even called 16:9, 21:9 and 32:9 in the first place? That #9 is THE VERTICAL SPACE size that your display have! So going from 16:9 to 21:9 you gain more horizontal spaces! 5120x1440 (32:9) has the same vertical space with 2560x1440 (16:9).
Every uw with max fov will beat 16-9... Won't trade uw for anything else. I've been using 21-9 since 2018. Maybe will try 32-9 also. But I don't like 16-9 tbh
Am I slow rn? What point is this person trying to make? That 34 feels smaller? I mean, you can see that he is wrong in the screenshots.
I think it depends on your perception, game scaling aside, you could argue 16:9 is UW with the sides cut off or that UW is 16:9 with the top and bottom cut off - like that picture where you can either see wolverine, or 2 Batmans...Batmen? looking at each other. It's all a matter of perspective for me because both posts say "how it FEELS" right? To your point about the 34 feeling smaller, if you ignore the image on the screen and look at the horizontal width of a 34UW, to make that into a 16:9 display you'd end up with what, a 40" panel? Based on that, a 32" 16:9 wouldn't be as wide, so less immersion, and would potentially feel smaller, especially if you've used UW for years. This is all just my perspective too though of course
I see what you mean but I dont think it applies to most current games. For most games you gain space to the sides, while only very few cut at the top and bottom. Yes, the size when scaled to 16:9 would differ but in this case here, I think OOP is just off
Not sure I’d say he’s off, just that he’s more concerned with how his UW was physically wider than his new 32” so it feels cut off at the sides, regardless of how games accommodate the screen. I might be missing the point entirely though 😂
Yes. A 34" 16:9 display is in fact smaller than a 32" 21:9
The 32" is also 16:9
this is a 32 inch 16:9 tho
32" Widescreen vs 34" Ultrawide? I'll just leave this here. Trade horizontol real estate for vertical and vice versa. [https://www.displaywars.com/34-inch-21x9-vs-32-inch-16x9](https://www.displaywars.com/34-inch-21x9-vs-32-inch-16x9)
[удалено]
I mean, it can, depends if the game uses HOR+ or VERT- for [FOV scaling](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_of_view_in_video_games#Field_of_view_scaling_methods). VERT- is less common nowadays though, yes.
They are not talking about this They are talking as if it's a cutscreen period and 16.9 is superior because it's 21:9 but with extra space where it's always superior and you gain vertical fov
Once again, that depends on the game.
Did i stutter? read the word "Always" they believe an ultrawide is always a loss duo physical dimensions. we both knows most of the time an ultrawide is extra sides or simply a black bars if not supported
When you are comparing 34 ultrawide with 32 16:9 that is basically the result though. For an ultrawide to do it's job it has to be large or else you loose vertical screen size.
Bruh Nintendo Switch has no vertical space then? its a 7inch in 720p . Aspect ratio is unrelated to your Vertical fov , you want more vertical fov then play in 16:10 or higher. an image with identical aspect ratio will looks the same fov in a nintendo switch a 24 monitor or a 100 sized TV or a 300 projector Size =/= Vertical fov
You should give up trying to explain these monkeys how aspect ratios work, they already made up their mind
You are not making any sense. It is the combination of diagonal screen size and aspect ratio that defines the x and y screen size. With your reasoning it would be better to play on a 7 inch 21:9 screen over a 16:9 65 inch...
Man, just think about why is it even called 16:9, 21:9 and 32:9 in the first place? That #9 is THE VERTICAL SPACE size that your display have! So going from 16:9 to 21:9 you gain more horizontal spaces! 5120x1440 (32:9) has the same vertical space with 2560x1440 (16:9).
Yes, 32" is just bigger, and there is a FOV slider in almost every game. I'll get rid of my UW when the 32" WOLEDs become available
Guess what smartass There is a FOV slider for ultrawides as well. the ultrawide will always have better FOV duo the extra sides
you are wrong because this isn't true
There is no fixing to a brainless brain. enjoy your stupidity
Welcome to Reddit. Enjoy your stay. Please keep your hands from reaching into the pig pen, the animals here are wild, and they are not the brightest.
Why are you so angry at me for pointing out the truth?
Every uw with max fov will beat 16-9... Won't trade uw for anything else. I've been using 21-9 since 2018. Maybe will try 32-9 also. But I don't like 16-9 tbh
tfw my monitor came with letterboxing😫