What are the benefits of non progressive widescreen (16:9, anamorphic) gaming?
 

Hey guys,
I know there have been discussions in the past, and that there's a list of 16:9 compatible games in another forum. I recently bought the basic 27 inch Sony Wega, relegating my 7 year old TV (bought during my college days) to the bedroom. The S-video alone is a step up. :) It's got vertical squeeze to correctly play anamorphic video sources, but no progressive scan capability.

I have a Gamecube and a PS2. I've noticed that the Gamecube games are usually setup for widescreen in the game settings, but PS2 games read it from the console settings.

Is there a real benefit to playing games in non progressive widescreen mode? It seems like the added space on the sides is pretty minimal (and actually non existent for "cheating" widescreen games like Socom). I mean, I thought I'd be able to see my recievers on the line of scrimmage better in NFL 2K3, but it looks almost the same. And is the resolution that much better, especially on a smaller set? With DVDs I can tell the difference in anamorphic mode, but not so much with games.

Just trying to solicit thoughts from other gamers with a similar setup. You obviously lose screen size when you make a normal set go widescreen, and I was just wondering if it was worth it to you guys.

I very much prefer gaming with my XBox on my 36" VVega (also non-HD) in 16x9 mode, whenever I have the option. For me, though, I just like how much crisper the image looks since the scanlines are drawn so much closer together.

Unless you have a widescreen TV.. I'd just play them as is. Games are still made with 4:3 ratio in mind.. and 16:9 as an extra. I have the same TV as you, tried playing like this and it was useless.

I did notice that I can see the whole field when I played Madden 2003 on PS2 when I played it in widescreen.

I have a PS 4:3 TV, when I have the option, I always go for 4:3. Games are designed for 4:3 and by playing in 16x9 you lose detail. 16x9 mode only helps if the information is missing to begin with (like a letterbox movie). The animophic video ads extra info (Horizontal lines) and the TV condenses it. But with Video games, a verticle space is cut from the image to fit a wider view. You can notice the difference when models go off in the distance. 4:3 mode they are clearer. 16x9 mode, they aren't because verticle resolution is cut to fit the wide image in.

I think you have got resolution mixed up with what you can see. The resolution is bumped up in 16:9, but the draw distance might be lowered.

I don't think it's appropriate to make blanket statements like "all games are made for 4:3, so 16:9 cuts the top and bottom off." I personally do not have a 16:9 television, but I have checked the 16:9 mode in a few games to see how it works, even though it was distorted horizontally. I specifically remember Eternal Darkness's pause/menu screen: the image had the same vertical size and dimension, but had additional information on the left and right widescreen area. It makes me wish I had a 16:9 TV. :)

Granted that may not be the case for all games, but I think when posting on this topic, it should be done on a game by game basis.

This is most assuredly not always the case, the "Dead or Alive" games on the XBox just to name two.

The manual for "The Getaway" for the PS2 reportedly says "The recommended option is 16x9 Widescreen", which I believe may be a first...

Even if you get more information on 16x9 mode.. the games are still MADE with standard 4x3 in mind. It's really a personal choice.. it's more akin to open matte movies. I have yet to find a game where having it in 16x9 is more than just a "cool" factor.

Yes, games like Eternal Darkness have a specific feature to allow widescreen play to allow additional information on the sides of the 4:3 normal viewing area. This is not done by chopping the top and bottom off of the game (though this was done in the previous generation, most notably Goldeneye).

In general, when the videogame is coded right, the "camera" in the game just shows more of the available field of vision, since unlike in a movie with a static camera, the whole 3D field is available for rendering. This is true for games like Madden and NFL 2K3. The problem I'm having is that you still can't see the whole field in widescreen mode, at least in 2K3.

Generally, if you play in widescreen or anamorphic mode on a regular TV, you won't get the bars at all... you'll get a widescreen image that seems stretched vertically. What the widescreen TV or WEGA will do is squish that and/or provide it's own black borders, so that there are more horizontal scan lines.

If the game "cheats" in widescreen mode, you'll get the same field of vision, but the game will slightly stretch it horizontally to fit the widescreen. This is done in SOCOM, where widescreen mode still looks decent, but no one gets a site advantage by using it.

Any other thoughts? Maybe someday I'll be able to get an HDTV and see the progressive image for myself... :)

It's been a while since I've looked at Goldeneye, but can you be a little more specific? I know that there's the option setting where you can select the screen size as full, wide, or cinema. Then there's a separate aspect ratio option of normal/16:9. Are you saying that the 16:9 mode chops the top and bottom off? I would think that it does not, but rather that it adds more to the sides, similar to the option in Eternal Darkness. Like I said, though, I haven't looked at this in a while since my N64 is with my brother at my parents' house. Can someone who has Goldeneye nearby check it out?

I have a 27" Wega and I never use Wide Screen for games. As others said, games are designed in 4X3 and the widescreen mode is just a tacked on extra.

It looks a little crisper, but I really don't care about that. The game was made for 4x3, so to me playing it in widescreen is akin to watching a pan and scan movie (though not nearly as much of a "sin." ;))

I don't know if I'd completely liken 16x9 gaming vs. 4x3 gaming to be the same as open-matte vs. widescreen. With open-matte presentations, the composition's messed up because there's so much dead space on the sides. In the cases of games where there is additional real estate on the sides, that extra area is presumably not being wasted. That doesn't necessarily make it better, but it is somewhat of a different scenario.

As far as the crispness goes...I dunno, maybe the difference is more pronounced on a larger screen. It seems pretty substantial to me.

I knew I was going to get a bunch of flames for my post, but it's true. FOR 4:3 TV's you have a certain amount of resolution. if you run in 16x9 mode, you lose verticle resolution, meaning verticle lines are cut out to fit a wide space. You lose it because it fits in more of the surroundings from the horizontal. If your TV supports verticle line compression without loss of resolution, then you get a true 16x9 picture, but compared to the view in 4:3 mode, you aren't gaining anything, in fact you are losing some verticle resolution to fide the wide picture in.

As far as games being made for 4:3, yes, they are and then adapted for 16x9. Most of these games just compress the view horizontally and add enhanced menus or animophic video. It'd be insane for a developer to develop specifically for such a small percentage of the market.

Correcting inaccuracies != flames

What?

Okay, here's an example.

I have my XBox set to play in 16x9 mode. I pop in Dead or Alive Xtreme Volleyball, which supports 16x9. It generates the following image while my VVega is set to 4x3:

<img src="http://reit.pair.com/tyner/mmconhea_doesnt_know_what_hes_blathering_on_about/1.jpg" width="300" height="225">

I set my set to 16x9. Every scanline present while my set was in 4x3 mode is still there, but relegated to a ~1.78:1 area in the center of the screen.

<img src="http://reit.pair.com/tyner/mmconhea_doesnt_know_what_hes_blathering_on_about/2.jpg" width="300" height="169">

Again, all of the scanlines are still there. Where is information being lost? Explain the loss of resolution to me.

BTW, "vertical resolution" refers to horizontal lines, not vertical lines.

Perhaps that applies to some titles, maybe even a healthy percentage...but not all.

I don't think he explained himself correctly, but he has somewhat of a point - even in your example... clearly, the image is "squashed" in the widescreen mode.

As for his comment about 4:3 TVs... that's wrong cuz my 4:3 TV has a widescreen mode that is equivalent to a hi-def widescreen TV.

I didn't label the images clearly enough, I guess.

There are three possible scenarios for playing a 16x9 game on a 4x3 set.

1) TV 4x3, XBox 4x3
2) TV 4x3, XBox 16x9
3) TV 16x9, XBox 16x9

The first shot is of scenario 2. The second shot is of scenario 3.

The second image is 'squashed' compared to the first, but that's how 16x9 material is stored.

Think of it like:

<img src="http://reit.pair.com/tyner/mmconhea_doesnt_know_what_hes_blathering_on_about/3.jpg" width="300" height="225">
<b>TV 4x3, XBox 4x3</b>

<img src="http://reit.pair.com/tyner/mmconhea_doesnt_know_what_hes_blathering_on_about/1.jpg" width="300" height="225">
<b>TV 4x3, XBox 16x9</b>

<img src="http://reit.pair.com/tyner/mmconhea_doesnt_know_what_hes_blathering_on_about/2.jpg" width="300" height="169">
<b>TV 16x9, XBox 16x9</b>

For scenario 1, I just center-cropped the widescreen image. Xtreme Volleyball is definitely wider during the matches, but I don't know about this particular shot. The comparison shots I saw on Neotaku had a little less headroom but were much wider on the sides. It'll do for this demonstration, I guess.

If I were less lazy, I'd drag my XBox into my bedroom and provide some real examples.

Edit: changed from PDO to DOAX to provide a better point of reference and to annoy sdcrym

Yeah, I'm never coming back to this thread again. :)

:lol:

All I'm saying is, NHL 2k3 and Panzer Orta for the Xbox look un fricken real in 16x9 on my 57" sony

ctyner knows his hardware as he owns a TV that does the "squeeze". The 16x9 image may appear so-called "squished" in a screen shot compared to the 4x3 pic's but I assure you that it is not.

This is first hand knowledge as I own both a 65" 16x9 Toshiba and 50" 4x3 Toshiba that I use for games from all 3 consoles.

Thanks! I can also spell "vertical" and "anamorphic", which I guess makes me an even more reliable source of information. :D

I'm sitting here contemplating which cable pack to pick up to hook my xbox up...right now I'm using a Pelican S-video pack, with analog audio. I just picked up a used microsoft HD A/V pack (for $5!), but it's just the hub, no cords, so I'm playing with the idea of going composite or not...

here's my quandry - there are like 3 games that support progressive right now (that's an estimate) so I'm not sure it's in my best interests...BUT I want the DD5.1 benefits, so I'm thinking of grabbing a Monster Gamelink 300 and an optical cable. I want to use the Component video, BUT my Denon 3803 only has 2 component in's, and both are in use via my main DVD player and my Region free player...I'm not sure how many component inputs my Sony 57" widescreen has though...

Maybe I should use the damn HD pack I got cheap, get some longer Component cables, plug into the TV directly from the xbox instead of going through the Denon. Then go DD through the Denon. hmm...

If you mean there are only around 3 XBox games that support 480p, your estimate is way off. :) Almost every single XBox game supports 480p, though there are a handful of exceptions.

The general consensus is that the Monster Gamelink cables are outrageously overpriced, and it may be worth noting that, XBox aside, every component of my HT from my DVD player to my subwoofer uses Monster cables. Also, the Monster Gamelink cables use a proprietary connection for 5.1, so you can't just use an optical cable you may have lying around.

That sounds like the way to go.

hmm. you say i'm innacurate, but then you post images that prove my point. Thanks!