..:: PCSX2 Forums ::..

I disagree - I think overall, 16:9 is superior.
I stream games on my PC, and having more space on the left and right comes in handy and feels less cramped.
Considering how tons of people watch Youtube videos and play PC games (not just PS2), it's easy to see why monitors are 16:9.

I think the stretched UI (a good example are the "fat" character portraits in Persona) is bearable, and worth it in the long run.
Plus there isn't a 16:10 mode for 16:9 monitors in PCSX2 anyway (only stretch, 4:3 and 16:9).

Hey, at least it isn't THIS wide (21:9).


Imagine playing Persona on that. If you compare 21:9 to 16:9, the UI feels completely normal.

(12-07-2012, 05:52 PM)devina40 Wrote: [ -> ]I disagree - I think overall, 16:9 is superior.
I stream games on my PC, and having more space on the left and right comes in handy and feels less cramped.
Considering how tons of people watch Youtube videos and play PC games (not just PS2), it's easy to see why monitors are 16:9.

I think the stretched UI (a good example are the "fat" character portraits in Persona) is bearable, and worth it in the long run.
Plus there isn't a 16:10 mode for 16:9 monitors in PCSX2 anyway (only stretch, 4:3 and 16:9).

Hey, at least it isn't THIS wide (21:9).


Imagine playing Persona on that. If you compare 21:9 to 16:9, the UI feels completely normal.

Indeed, the larger the screen the greater the sensation of panorama, it's a psychological pattern dictated by how we "see" the world when taking into account the peripheral vision.

Oh sure, aspect ratio is just one part of it, resolution and actual display size the other - but that was my point, 16:10 displays are generally 1920x1200, while the equivalent 16:9 resolution is 1920x1080.
That's roughly 10% more vertical space you (or rather, applications) have to play with, and it does make a difference. I have to use 16:9 monitors at work, and I do miss the extra space.
Additionally, and because of the common resolutions that come with both those ratios, current 16:9 media will always fit into 16:10 displays, there is no scaling necessary, and letterboxing doesn't take anything away - unless you have a white display trim maybe

If you feel cramped, the solution is really to get a larger display at a higher resolution.

It's kind of tangential to this topic, though, if you want to continue discussing this, I think it's better if we do it in a new thread.

"16:10 displays are generally 1920x1200"

Depends, really.
If you're lucky, your resolution will be that, although 16:10 is more popular among laptops, so in actuality, resolutions like "1280x800" "1440x900" and "1680x1050" are more common for 16:10.

And don't forget, "2560x1440" is a 16:9 resolution higher than "1920x1200", so in my opinion, resolution doesn't really matter in the long run when debating which aspect ratio is superior.

By "feeling cramped", here's what I mean.



Notice how in 4:3, the four characters can't fit on the screen without being cut-off, aka "cramped".
16:9 takes it a step further and allows the environment to breathe even more (for example, the TVs on each side of the screen aren't cut off like they are in 16:10).

It's basically what nosisab said about the sensation of panorama. If you go wider, the less "cramped" you feel, if that makes sense.

It shouldn't really matter if we're discussing it, since I'm enjoying it.
It can also help people understand why I'm reluctant on adding 16:10 patches to the collection.

This 'debate' is going nowhere. Let's agree that it's personal preference, and let it go.

If a person wants a 16:10 aspect version of a patch, that's already found, the hard part is finding the patch...not setting the aspect ratio, so the hard work is done, just look back through the pages and see how to change it from 16:9->10, and don't expect everything to be spoon-fed to you

(12-07-2012, 03:18 AM)Asmodean Wrote: [ -> ]You might need an ELF patch, If I remember right, we couldn't find a working pnach edit for the ZotE games (?)
Have you tried:

Code:

00008144 0A0A4234 803F013C 00308144
to
00008144 0A0A4234 403F013C 00308144

or

Code:

803F013C 00088144 30000526 10000226
to
403F013C 00088144 30000526 10000226

I don't have the game myself so I can't check those.

Edit: You probably know how already, but in case you don't. Just open the games' ISO with an unpacker, I just use WinRAR, and take out the elf file, open it up in a hex editor (I use HxD) and just search with find/replace, and search for the first address, and replace it with the second.

Then save the file as 'whatever'.elf. Pop it in the game's folder, and load up the iso in the dvd plugin, and run elf.

Thanks for the tips, second value worked for the PAL Second Runner version of the game And yes I wanted 16:10 because my monitor is 16:10 (@ 1680x1050) although never thought I'd trigger such a big debate XD

(12-07-2012, 08:47 PM)Bositman Wrote: [ -> ]Thanks for the tips, second value worked for the PAL Second Runner version of the game And yes I wanted 16:10 because my monitor is 16:10 (@ 1680x1050) although never thought I'd trigger such a big debate XD

Yeah... get the saw ready and get rid of that excess :1 there

Well, in the end the owner of a 16:10 monitor can always run a 16:9 program with the only cost of having small horizontal black strips, the same is not valid for a 16:9 monitor playing a 16:10 program for would be losing in image size and content... bad thing. No wonder the media producers will be willing to stick with the standard.

EG: just take that Star Ocean (or another game with native widescreen support) and play with it. Either will have stretched image or the black strips since there is no native support for 16:10 in console games, AFAIK.

Darn, never thought I'd open a 16:9 vs 16:10 debate.
I had no idea it was going to happen because I thought everyone knew 16:9 was bett-- err... more common.

Like I said before, if enough people demand 16:10 patches, I'll include them, but I still feel the same way about going with the 16:9 standard.
Besides, how do people with 16:10 monitors feel knowing that 99% of these patches are 16:9?

Those ELF patches are a different story though, I meant pnach files. Going to need to find a work around for using those ELF ones because the person who introduced them never shared how he was finding the initial addresses.. so it's a shot in the dark finding them.

Eg: The ZoTE one as an example, you can look at it and see the first dword is the one that was changed, so that must be the one corresponding to the viewport width.

803F013C 00088144 30000526 10000226
to
403F013C 00088144 30000526 10000226

So you would try changing that value to match your screen. it would be trial an error without the correct conversion method though.

I don't want to keep on harping about this, but it's kind of a sore topic for me, and I like talking about it

(12-07-2012, 09:24 PM)devina40 Wrote: [ -> ]Darn, never thought I'd open a 16:9 vs 16:10 debate.
I had no idea it was going to happen because I thought everyone knew 16:9 was bett-- err... more common.

They're more common now (they didn't used to be for PCs a couple years back) because it simplifies production of the panels, which are really no different between PCs and TVs these days, not because they're better suited for PC needs - which they're not

The problem with the picture you posted, and indeed with games in general in that regard, is that they only change the horizontal field of view, which isn't where the strength of 16:10 displays lies. True pixel based scaling would result in what I mean below (and btw, the 16:10 equivalent to 2560x1440 is 2560×1600, that doesn't change anything).

I'll show you what I mean. Take a look at the attachment. The red part is the amount of actual screen real estate you can use with a 16:9 display. The green part is the additional space you get by using a 16:10 display of the same class (size/resolution wise).

I'll freely admit that for things like movies and games you might as well stick with 16:9, there's nothing to be gained here at the end of the day because of the equipment and standards in use, as well as practices like horizontal only scaling.
But PCs aren't generally used only for games or watching movies, but to actually get work done with them, and that's pretty much what I'm getting at. 16:10 is a lot better suited for these tasks (which are anything but rare use cases) due to having more space to work with, while still being able to display 16:9 media content just fine without any hassle.

Going with that, and steering somewhat on-topic for a change, I believe that if 16:10 version of patches are available (or often included but commented out in some patches), you might as well include/mark them - although I personally just adjust patches for my own use by myself (I should probably post some of those back here, I guess ), or if I don't, I just play it letterboxed.
But choice is always good.