Adam Tyner

That's the thing, though: you have no point. You don't know the difference between horizontal resolution and vertical resolution, you can't spell a third-grade vocabulary word like "vertical", and an inability to spell "anamorphic" shows that you have zero knowledge of anything 16x9. Think of it this way -- if you were reading a political thread and a user posted something like "I'm glad the Damacrots had Giorge Bush on there ticket, I dont like Rebuplicans" and consistently made the same fundamental errors over and over, would you take their opinions seriously at all?

You say that using the 16x9 squeeze means "less verticle resolution". Absolutely nothing as far as vertical resolution changes at all. I don't know how you can look at those screenshots, which you say prove your point, when they all have exactly the same vertical resolution.

There's no loss in horizontal resolution <small>(which is what I think you meant to say, but you don't know enough about the subject to use the proper terminology)</small> either. If you have 480 lines of resolution in a 4x3 space or 480 lines of resolution in a 16x9 space, you still have 480 lines of resolution. The third image is an approximation of what the 16x9 squeeze does. It's the exact same as the second image, only "squeezed" into a 16x9 space. You have 480 lines of resolution in all three images.

16x9 games are a different situation than 16x9 DVDs. There's not a gain in resolution with 16x9 games as there is with DVDs. On standard 4x3 sets, resolution is lost with anamorphic widescreen DVDs because scanlines have to be devoted to displaying the black letterboxing bars. On 16x9 sets and 4x3 sets with the 16x9 squeeze, the scanlines are devoted entirely to the DVD image at hand. On 4x3 sets that do the 16x9 mode properly, there aren't "black bars" in the usual sense; that's dead area where nothing of any sort is being displayed.

With video games, since every scanline's being used in 4x3 mode and every scanline's being used in 16x9 mode, there's not a gain in resolution. At the same time, there's not a loss. 480 - 480 = 0, after all.

Here are some helpful examples! First, look at this image.



Now, look at this one.



Do you see how there are the same number of dots in both images? Just because the rows of dots are closer together in the second image doesn't mean there are fewer dots. This is what the 16x9 squeeze does -- takes an image and puts it, fully intact, in a smaller space.

Again, as I've asked several times in this thread, if you think there's a loss of resolution somewhere, please explain yourself.

mmconhea

Damn son, calm down. (I hate when geeks get pissed off about their electronics).

Just because I have typos in my posts doesn't mean I have a lack of intelligence or anything. As a matter of fact I'm disabled and typing a a chore. So I'd appreciate If you would stop taking this all personal.

And your second batch of images prove my point further. The man asked if there was a benefit to playing 16x9 mode on his presumably 4:3 WEGA TV. I say there isn't.

What I'm trying to do is explain that video games and DVD's are differrent. With widescreen dvd's the amamophic picture is the actually widescreen picture stretched vertically to fill in the unused portion of the screen, which means it has more horizontal lines.

With games, which are designed for 4:3, they already fill in all the screen- the game was designed to fill the screen. So when you go with 16x9, the game (usually) zooms the camera out and crops the image, making it letterbox and then adds the extra horizontal lines to strechthe image fill the screen again. The 16x9 mode on the TV then compresses the picture to fit. So in essence, you are getting a picture that , despite it having a more panoramic view, on a 4:3 WEGA, is smaller and the view is more pushed back -less detail (but more of the view) is displayed from left to right (although just as much detail is displayed from top to bottom).

I don't have access to screen shot right now, but if you were to post a 3rd image of Hitomi lying on the beach- one in 4x3 mode on a 4x3 screen. You would see less of her foot, but perhaps the top of her head. Unless the game was designed for widescreen, and it'll be a while before they are designed specifically for widescreen, then my recommendation is that for 4x3 tv's, 4x3 mode is the true (and larger) picture.

sdcrym

You have access to a screen shot right in this thread. You're just not paying attention. Take a look at ctyner's scenario 1.

finbogg

That depends on the game....with DOA Volleyball, it is fully capable of playing in widescreen, looks great and shows you the entire court (which you can't see in 4:3).

Partly true and partly not. Anamorphic takes things shot in widescreen and pre-stretches it vertically so that it looks right on a widescreen TV, but it does not add horizontal lines. You have a set number of lines on your TV. Stretching the images does not add lines, it actually can degrade the image (depending on how much it's stretched) because you only have a certain amount of picture information to spread across the screen.

Again, I have to take issue with the idea that letterboxing is "cropping" any of the image. Crop implies that something is cut out. Letterboxing does not cause you to lose any information or picture. It's there to fill in the space that the correctly aspected picture is not using. There is no "camera" to zoom out (if the game was only made for 4:3). The image shrunk to fit (vertically) and then stretched to fill (horizontally). Your aspect is off (horizontally stretched) and the detail are smaller but again no lines are added horizontally or otherwise. It takes the finite picture information and spreads it over a larger horizontal area.

Adam Tyner

His point is valid. The 4x3-on-4x3 shot I posted was an estimation and wasn't actually culled from the game in that way.

Typos weren't the only problem with your posts, but I digress. I'm not a spelling or grammar nazi and wouldn't ordinarily harp on about it, but if you can't spell terminology crucial to your argument and, even worse, misuse it... Sorry if I came off as too grating. It's a side-effect of being grating.

Then that's what you should've said. That's what pixyboi did, and if that's his personal preference, hey, I respect that. I can certainly understand why it's not for everyone. He didn't make a smattering of inaccurate statements to try to back up his opinion <small>(nor would he have needed to, it being a preference and all)</small>, though.

I'm aware the two are different and posted as much earlier.

The preferred method of viewing "The Getaway", at least according to what someone on the HTF posted from the manual, is widescreen.

I'll avoid covering the same points as finbogg and post some comparison shots. Apologies for the quality. My video capture board doesn't have component input, so I had to use my digital camera.






Edit:

BTW, here's a graphical example with the 4x3 image of Kasumi about to serve overlaid with a similar image of her in 16x9. Her position and the like are very close, which should give a pretty good idea of how the two stack up. I gave the 4x3 portion a purple tinge to make it stand out better. Yes, I should've rotated things a bit to make it fit better, but it's close enough for these purposes...

Adam Tyner

More 4x3/16x9 comparisons.

Azurik:





I'll post more later...

sdcrym

I guess mmconhea has his screenshots now

Adam Tyner

Tony Hawk 4:





Edit -- Rallisport Challenge

gross@iastate

Dead or Alive 3 would be a good example also. You have more room to fight in widescreen mode.

Adam Tyner

I agree. So, here you go.





That's it for now.

sdcrym

You know, fujishig's initial question has only gotten three decent replies, not counting ctyner's beautiful screenshots, which speak for themselves. I have a 4:3 TV, but it's not capable of doing the squeeze like the Wega. If I did, I'd have to decide on a game by game basis. Based on the pics, for DOA3 and DOAXBV I'd do widescreen since it would give greater visiblity, but for the others, I'd probably go full screen, since not enough important information is displayed in the widescreen area to warrant the loss of screen use on the top and bottom of the 4:3 TV.

Bottom line: everybody buy 16:9 TVs and set the games to 16:9

Adam Tyner

Thanks! Those are most of the 16x9 games I own. My shots of "Amped" and "Unreal Championship" didn't turn out, but I might give them another shot later if there's any interest.

He's replied a couple of times in other DVD Talk forums since I posted those images, but he's steered clear of Video Games. I don't know if he's seen them or not. I'm curious to hear what he thinks.

DVDHO

Id like to see Maddens 2003,I play in WS 16x9 mode and would like to see it compared to standard mode.

mmconhea

Your screens are nice, but why do you insist on proving a point that I know, admitted to knowing, and everyone knows. You composit shots give the impression that the 4:3 version is actually a cropped 16x9, which I have been saying is NOT THE CASE. Yes, some games are optimized for 16x9. and you get a wider view. With 4:3 you are seing the same resolution and you are getting a taller, more detailed view. The action is closer and more character detail is shown. I could argue, as in the case of the last set of shots, the extra information provided on the edges does nothing compared to a more detailed shot of the characters. It's really down to what shot you show. Why would showing more of the edges of some games be worth it if the action is at the top or in the venter of the screen. DOAX is a great example of how widescreen would benefit, since the developers chose to leave out any markers indicating where offscreen characters are.
But then in DOA3 if two characters are on oposite sides of the fighting arena, the camera pans out so they are on opposite sides of the monitor for both 16x9 and 4:3. The camera goes out as far as it needs to. The 16x9 screen captures the level and the top and bottom is left out. The 4:3 graps the top and bottom too.


As far as development companies are concerned, I work in the industry. We have developers in our buildingof which wer are very close, and we are currently working on a few console localization projects for some various others. With the developers, and more specifically publishers, I have spoken to about it, supporting 16x9 is probably at the bottom of their list. Usually they will enable the functionality and test it, but it's always last minute and design revolves around standard desktop monitors. Makes sense since less than 1 percent of TV's out there support a true 16x9 image. Why do I know all this about 16x9 mode, well, working for a localization company, we handle a lot of subtitling for games. Subtitling for 4:3 and 16x9 games have to be handled differently. We've done our research and we know what we are doing.

Adam Tyner

I'm not trying to say "widescreen is better". That was never my intent. I wasn't really trying to prove anything with the screenshots at all, to be honest. I'd never even done a comparison or so much as seen anything along those lines until I made them. I was curious and thought others might be too. I think they do, however, show that this statement:

is incorrect, or at least not as widespread as you're making it sound.

So you're backtracking and saying that there isn't a difference in resolution? Interesting.

I made my one and only statement in my first post: I like playing 16x9 games squeezed on my 4x3 set because I like the way they look with the scanlines drawn closer together. If you don't like it, don't play it that way. (You said your set doesn't even support this mode, right?) I'm not trying to convince you or anyone otherwise. Aside from posting the comparisons, every reply since has been to correct the mistakes you've made.

If you've done your research, then why have you made so many basic errors in this thread?

mlindber

Show me a single shot in those comparisons where the 4x3 shot is "taller, more detailed". There is no more information on the top and the bottom of the frame when compared to the 16x9 mode. This is not like open-matte. This is like pan and scan.

I don't think anyone will argue that games aren't designed for 4x3. You get more "information" with 16x9 modes in games, plain and simple.

The only argument you have is that it is smaller on a 4x3 TV. The game uses the exact same resolution in 16x9, and it shows more game image.

lordzeppelin

Update! I hooked up the HD pack with some Acoustic Research Component cables (cheap from ebay - YOINK!) directly to the sony widescreen, and then a nice Lime Green Optical cable (going along with the xbox theme- cheap from ebay- YOINK! Again!) to the Denon, and VOILA! Progressive Xbox!

I can't say enough. I know I'm seeing more of the Ice in games like NHL2k3, and more of the field in FIFA being in widescreen, but the HD options make me drool. I can't believe these games look that fricken good. I mean they look good before, but they cleaned up a bit going from SVid to Component, and the DD soundtrack on Panzer Orta and Sega GT...all I can say is WOW.

If there's anyone that thinks there's no diff on a 16x9 TV with progressive scan, you're only kidding yourself.

BTW...nice info ctyner.

sdcrym

I don't think anybody here disagrees with you. Most of the arguments in this thread concern the 16:9 signal from a game being shown letterboxed on a 4:3 TV.

lordzeppelin

I know, I was being amazed. and I will be amazed more after the colorado-detroit and pittsburgh-florida brawl-fests are done...

Adam Tyner

Ask and ye shall receive.





Thanks for the kind words! Hopefully all of these examples have proven useful. I think mmconhea has at least partially figured it all out, judging by the whiplash-inducing backtracking in his last post.

sdcrym

Josh H

I think I understand what he meant. Take a look at the Tony Hawk shot. In the widescreen shot the skater looks smaller, like the camera is father away. I think he means you can see more details because in the 4x3 shots the characters and stuff are "zoomed in on" more and appear larger on the screen.

I agree with him, and it's a reason I don't use the squeeze on my 27" Wega for gaming.

Plus, as said earlier, I'm not a videophile and it just doesn't look much better to me (maybe because it's a smaller TV). Also I find the "Black bars" horribly distracting for gaming. I've gotten used to them during movies as it's the only option for watching movies in the proper aspect ratio for me until widescreen TVs drop significantly in price. But for gaming I'll just do without the black bars and play games in the 4x3 modes they were designed in.