安装 Steam
登录
|
语言
繁體中文（繁体中文）
日本語（日语）
한국어（韩语）
ไทย（泰语）
български（保加利亚语）
Čeština（捷克语）
Dansk（丹麦语）
Deutsch（德语）
English（英语）
Español-España（西班牙语 - 西班牙）
Español - Latinoamérica（西班牙语 - 拉丁美洲）
Ελληνικά（希腊语）
Français（法语）
Italiano（意大利语）
Bahasa Indonesia（印度尼西亚语）
Magyar（匈牙利语）
Nederlands（荷兰语）
Norsk（挪威语）
Polski（波兰语）
Português（葡萄牙语 - 葡萄牙）
Português-Brasil（葡萄牙语 - 巴西）
Română（罗马尼亚语）
Русский（俄语）
Suomi（芬兰语）
Svenska（瑞典语）
Türkçe（土耳其语）
Tiếng Việt（越南语）
Українська（乌克兰语）
报告翻译问题
讨论规则及指引
举报此帖
You'll see it when television and movies starts to adopt it more widespreadly, which will further push TV manufacturers into focusing on 21:9 TVs, which will further push display panel manufacturers to target 21:9 panels, which, as you can probably expect, will eventually push computer monitor manufacturers to adopt it if it proves to be more cost-efficient compared to regular 16:9. Basically when the industry as a whole chooses to make 21:9 the new standard.
That's the reason why 16:9 overtook 16:10 on the computer market, after all.
As for similarities, I don't really see them. 16:10 went from first being introduced in computer monitors to the mass market in 2003 to be the most commonly used aspect ratio by 2008, some 5 years later. Similarly, 16:9 only needed 3 years (2008 -> 2011) before that aspect ratio became the most commonly used.
Meanwhile, over in 21:9 land, all that 5 years have resulted in is a tiny 1.2 % market share.
So to recap:
- In 5 years 16:10 went from being non-existent to being the most commonly used aspect ratio.
- In 3 years 16:9 overtook 16:10 as the most commonly used aspect ratio.
- In 5 years 21:9 have succeeded in getting a massive (heavily implied sarcasm) 1.2% market share. Great job!
Going by the adoption rates, I predict that 21:9 will overtake 16:9 as the most common aspect ratio in... eh... 15-20 years? Maybe? The fact that 4K 16:9 is being pushed more heavily than 21:9 today would suggest that said estimate isn't really realistic right now.
So no, 21:9 isn't going to overtake 16:9 anytime soon unless it have an extremely focused push behind it in the industry, partially fueled by cost effectiveness. Aspect ratio transitions are mostly determined by the industry as a whole, and not really individual consumers in that regard.
Thank you for contacting us at Capcom Support.
We pay due consideration to all feedback from customers regarding our games.
All comments received here at Technical Support are forwarded to the Development Team/Brand Manager, and the appropriate course of action is taken.
Currently Monster Hunter World does not support 21:9 or 32:9 resolutions. Whether that will change in the future remains to be determined.
We thank you for your interest regarding Monster Hunter World!
Best Regards,
Capcom Technical Support
feedback@capcom.com
TV, yes. Movies are already frequently 21:9, have been for decades. Most people don't realize that the move to 16:9 wasn't really the end of pan'n'scan. Most 16:9 movies on disc or stream are cropped.
See, I'm not sure that's going to be the major factor this time. It was last time, for sure, but people are moving away from consuming video on TV and towards computers and phones. So it's not quite so hard-coded in the laws of the industry like it used to be. You can make 21:9 content for the web and people will just assume it was produced letterboxed if they go full-screen in their browser on their 16:9 monitor. But if you have a 21:9 monitor, the stream will fill it beautifully.
I don't know if you noticed, but recently YouTube stopped pretending that all uploaded videos were 16:9. There's no more artificial letterboxing and pillarboxing outside of full-screen viewing. Even google realizes we're not constrained by physical bezels in the living room anymore.
There are actually quite a few doing it already. LG, Samsung, Benq, Asus, Acer all have 21:9 panels. I'm sure I'm forgetting some. They're not selling massively, so production numbers are low, but we all know how things go. Everyone's got the tooling set up for it already, though.
If, like, PewDiePie or some other massive-sub-count 'tuber suddenly starts going gaga over a 21:9 monitor, demand will blow up and they'll turn the dial to 11 on the production lines.
Yes, absolutely, but again, this isn't quite the same as last time. TV was still king when 16:9 took the throne, and TV had just officially made the transition, so it was inevitable. Today, so many people have cut the cord. Me, I haven't watched TV in like 5 years. I watch stuff on netflix or prime, sure, but I haven't turned on the TV in years. For all I know, it doesn't even work anymore. :)
Pretty sure I had a huge 16:10 monitor back in '99 or so. Got inspired by wossface over at id. 16:10 wasn't widely adopted until your time frame, but it's been around longer than that. Back when I got one, it was probably similar market-share to 21:9 today.
I question that statement. 16:10 had a brief time in the spotlight, but I don't remember that light being so bright that it was the most common aspect. Us early widescreen adopters had it, sure, but widescreen didn't really go mainstream until it was largely 16:9.
16:9 monitors and TVs were around a lot earlier than 2008. There were 16:9 displays before the turn of the millennium. Pretty sure I had a 16:9 rear-projection HDTV in '97 (I'm the early adopter type), and I was hardly alone. The same aspect was on a lot of early LCD panels too, especially cheaper widescreen laptops.
Not sure where you're plucking your dates from, but you're either choosing a bad source or you're misunderstanding what the milestone years represented.
I think you're confusing "introduction" and "initial mass-market interest". I would call this the tail end of the "introduction" for 21:9. Right now, it's a niche thing, as I said. The mass market is barely even aware of it. Initial mass-market interest may spark in the next year or so... just takes one popular social media celeb to be gung-ho for them, really.
See above. These numbers are bunk.
16:10 had about an 8-year run, I'd estimate, before it peaked and then declined as manufacturers decided they'd rather just make the one panel size and not two similar ones.
16:9 only became the most commonly used aspect on steam's survey a few years ago, as I recall. 2015? Maybe 2014. I forget. Tons of people using old monitors, 5:4 and 4:3 still.
21:9 has only been on offer for about five years, and useful ones that appeal to gamers for about three. The original offerings were smaller and suffered from the same issues 4K does, where HDMI didn't have enough bandwidth, so you need dual connections and a card that'll work with dual connections, or you're stuck with 30Hz. That was a guaranteed commercial fail at the time. That issue is no more, with 144Hz full-bit-depth monitors available from most vendors, albeit usually at a premium. 60Hz is actually getting cheap now if you're okay with 60fps. A friend just bought a bargain 60Hz one for somewhere north of US$100 and he's loving it. My Benq from two years back was about 5x the price. This is trending towards mass-market appeal.
This is one of those cumulative addition vs. cumulative multiplication things. Usage this year was something like 40% higher than last year, and we're not in mass-market mode yet. If popularity is sparked, it'll go mainstream (at least for desktop computers) in maybe 5 years. It'll need a spark though. Otherwise, more like 8... even in slow mode, it'll hit a threshold and manufacturers will commit.
I don't think I suggested that it would.
Again, this seems to be refuting something I haven't suggested.
I just think 21:9 will prevail, given some time. The industry saw that it was able to move from 4:3 to 16:9, which was the first ever such move. This time they have the hindsight to see that it was do-able. The idea of working to one standard aspect for everything will definitely have an appeal, because even now the need to accommodate both 16:9 and 21:9 when making movies is a chore for them.
On top of that, the rapid yearly changeover of today's digital equipment that exists regardless of aspect ratio changes will make the transition less scary. 4:3 -> 16:9 meant a lot of old, but still-in-service, equipment was going to be made obsolete. Today, everything is obsolete next year anyway.
Wow, I wrote so much more than I intended to. Sorry if it's boring. :)
I think you had enough comments in this thread as proof these people are clueless, i even provide proof that Ultrawide is rising in the actual Ultrawide Megathread, and that even a indie game that costs 4€ and had 4 reviews at the time had support for 21:9, the 22k Ultrawide Curator and coudl go on.
Do i need to take a photo of this on my AW3418DW? I want 21:9 support too, it's just what you said doesn't make sense at all.
Kill me now.
Next thing you know they'll add chromatic aberration and vignette.
lol did someone seriously write that?
21:9 has been in use since the 1960's. It was called Cinemascope.
That sure did a lot to making consumer displays the same aspect ratio..
Only took until 2010 to start happening!
It's extremely aggressive and low quality at that (looks like 2002 quality).
Add TAA in and the entire screen is just a blurry mess.
This needs to be able to be disabled, it's destroying the visuals of the game.
You are right. ;) Blur, Dept and Taa. It's giving me a headache.
Crashes Before The Main Menu .
How Sad . REFUND INBOUND .