why 0% match is best for tracking and 100% match best for flick?

[MuntyYy]

51 minutes ago, sammymanny said:

What i would like: if i track a player on FOV 90 that is running from left to right, i zoom in on that same player on for example fov 45, and i have to move the mouse physically the same distance to track the running player in the zoomed state the same as i did in the normal FOV. 

Which monitor match will give that result?

Try 100% mm. What's your current sensitivity/ dpi ?

[Drimzi]

58 minutes ago, WhoCares? said:

Just out of interest: How do you navigate through ingame menus? The curser is waaaay to fast with high DPI values and isn't affected by WPS when RAW-mouse-input is enabled. 

Every game I play uses WPS for all 2D movement. The exception was when I played Payday 2, but that game required a low CPI anyway as it had a shitty sensitivity range.

 

1 hour ago, sammymanny said:

interesting stuff about 0%, the thing i personally don't like is the fact that it is a huge jump moving for example twice as far with your mouse when zoomed in. It doesn't feel natural to me, especially in games that have recoil where u are recovering all the time from (huge) jumps in aim.

What i would like: if i track a player on FOV 90 that is running from left to right, i zoom in on that same player on for example fov 45, and i have to move the mouse physically the same distance to track the running player in the zoomed state the same as i did in the normal FOV. 

Which monitor match will give that result? or is that 360 scope match (guess not, since thats WAY too fast)

You would need 360 match to do what your asking. If u saw a player 200m away in pubg, you would have to do the smallest micromovement possible to track a player, probably wouldn't be able to though due to the angular increment lol, but yeah as soon as you scope in with 8x, you will still have to do that miniscule movement to track them. This isn't really something you want. You can try 56.25%, then all fov comfortably have a max mouse distance required to aim within your angle of view.

[WhoCares?]

5 minutes ago, Drimzi said:

Every game I play uses WPS for all 2D movement. The exception was when I played Payday 2, but that game required a low CPI anyway as it had a shitty sensitivity range.

Yeah, I was playing Payday 2 as well

And Battlefield 3's menu curser speed isn't affected by WPS for some reason too

Edited June 26, 2018 by WhoCares?

[Skwuruhl]

2 hours ago, sammymanny said:

interesting stuff about 0%, the thing i personally don't like is the fact that it is a huge jump moving for example twice as far with your mouse when zoomed in. It doesn't feel natural to me, especially in games that have recoil where u are recovering all the time from (huge) jumps in aim.

What i would like: if i track a player on FOV 90 that is running from left to right, i zoom in on that same player on for example fov 45, and i have to move the mouse physically the same distance to track the running player in the zoomed state the same as i did in the normal FOV. 

Which monitor match will give that result? or is that 360 scope match (guess not, since thats WAY too fast)

It would just be cm/360 match. To track the player you're taking some physical mouse movement for a certain rotation rate. Having the mouse movement and rotation speed the same across zoom levels means having the same cm/360. What you can do instead is match based on the apparent speed of the player onscreen. For 90 and 45 fov this means the player will appear to move 2.42 times as fast since the zoom ratio between the two is ~2.42. This is 0%, for which a better name would be something like zoom ratio scaling rather than 0% monitor distance scaling.

On 6/21/2018 at 9:13 AM, Bryjoe said:

What do you do for 3rd person games? Do you match 0% for hipfire? I tend to prefer 360 distance on hipfire, most games FPS it's irrelevant because you can match the FOV, but in ones where you can't I prefer 360.

No current method really "works" for converting between first and third person. The difference in camera location (and probably other things) makes them just... not work. I personally match hipfires with cm/360, then do ADS by the zoom amount. Although there are games that also change camera position when ADS so that kinda ruins that too. If ADS is in first person then you can scale that from your usual in first person games.

On 6/18/2018 at 10:48 AM, DPI Wizard said:

I've made a quick video demonstrating what Monitor Match 0% does with tracking:

The apparent size of the fast moving targets are the same for all the different aims, and they move the same distance on the screen. Using the same script on all the aims you can see that the tracking is exactly the same.

I never realized this but it's actually pretty cool and seems kinda obvious now. If you stand 2x as far away with 2x zoom then the target is the same size and takes the same mouse movement to track them.

1 hour ago, Drimzi said:

Every game I play uses WPS for all 2D movement. The exception was when I played Payday 2, but that game required a low CPI anyway as it had a shitty sensitivity range.

This lets you set outside the sensitivity range:

Granted I can't test right now to see if it's actually broken or people are just bad at following directions.

Edited June 26, 2018 by Skwuruhl

[Drimzi]

If 0% is too much of a difference for you, and you prefer a different sensitivity for a specific zoom, you could probably preserve this preferred sensitivity and still scale the correct way between the zoom state and hipfire. Incoming essay.

Pretty much every single fov dependent game divides the field of view values, which results in a monitor match equal to the measurement of the angles used. So if they used the vertical angle in their equation, then the distance match will be to the top and bottom of the screen. Just because the start point and end point both have the distance matched to that angle, doesn't necessarily mean that every other fov within that transition and any fov outside of that range has to be matched to that distance as well. The brain probably doesn't even expect them to.

To use the correct scaling, and this distance matched result together, you could find the difference between that end point's value and the correct value, and use that as a multiplier for future calculations.

Let's set the scene. You play a lot of CS:GO with 1.00 zoom sensitivity and only ever use the first zoom on the AWP. CSGO scales by dividing the 4:3 fov values, which is 75% monitor match (16:9), or 4/3 coefficient. Ignore the fact that the game applies this scaling to lots of different fovs. Now you want to convert this scaling to Overwatch.

First assumption would be to convert using 75% monitor match, but is this really what your brain is expecting when you scope in for the first time in Overwatch? I don't think so.
Every time you zoomed in with the AWP, you probably subconsciously recognised that the sensitivity is increased by 1.2211x more than the zoom amount, and so when you switch over to Overwatch, when you zoom in, your brain is probably expecting the sensitivity to be scaled by 1.2211x more than the zoom amount. An Overwatch zoom sensitivity of 46.33, rather than the 75% distance match result of 45.44.

 

So to summarise. Doing this method, you can most likely scale in the correct way, but with an arbitrarily preferred multiplier. 0% monitor match is the correct scaling, and is: tan(fovA/2)/tan(fovB/2). If you have a zoomed fov and sensitivity combination that is arbitrary and not the same as 0% monitor match, you don't use the monitor match % that results in this value, instead you find the difference between this and 0% monitor match, and use this difference as a coefficient. Formula becomes: coefficient * tan(fovA/2)/tan(fovB/2). You use this formula to convert to other fovs instead of using monitor match. So if you preferred something like 43 in Overwatch, and then found the monitor match % that results in 43, and converted this way to other games, and it didn't end up feeling right, this could be the reason why.

The only issue is if you were to apply this coefficient to the whole fov range, the ratios will all be identical, so you have to explicitly specify some start and end point which is arbitrary. It will work okay for something like PUBG, where you can find a comfy 103 fov sensitivity and 15x scope sensitivity, and scale like this for all scopes in between.


math below

awp fov = 40, csgo hipfire fov = 90, overwatch zoom fov = 51, overwatch hipfire fov = 103
(40/90) / tan(40 * pi/360) / tan(90 * pi/360) = 1.2211
((40/90) / tan(40 * pi/360) / tan(90 * pi/360)) * (tan(51 * pi/360) / tan(103 * pi/360)) * 100 = 46.33

Edited June 28, 2018 by Drimzi

[sammymanny]

22 hours ago, Drimzi said:

If 0% is too much of a difference for you, and you prefer a different sensitivity for a specific zoom, you could probably preserve this preferred sensitivity and still scale the correct way between the zoom state and hipfire. Incoming essay.

Pretty much every single fov dependent game divides the field of view values, which results in a monitor match equal to the measurement of the angles used. So if they used the vertical angle in their equation, then the distance match will be to the top and bottom of the screen. Just because the start point and end point both have the distance matched to that angle, doesn't necessarily mean that every other fov within that transition and any fov outside of that range has to be matched to that distance as well. The brain probably doesn't even expect them to.

To use the correct scaling, and this distance matched result together, you could find the difference between that end point's value and the correct value, and use that as a multiplier for future calculations.

Let's set the scene. You play a lot of CS:GO with 1.00 zoom sensitivity and only ever use the first zoom on the AWP. CSGO scales by dividing the 4:3 fov values, which is 75% monitor match (16:9), or 4/3 coefficient. Ignore the fact that the game applies this scaling to lots of different fovs. Now you want to convert this scaling to Overwatch.

First assumption would be to convert using 75% monitor match, but is this really what your brain is expecting when you scope in for the first time in Overwatch? I don't think so.
Every time you zoomed in with the AWP, you probably subconsciously recognised that the sensitivity is increased by 1.2211x more than the zoom amount, and so when you switch over to Overwatch, when you zoom in, your brain is probably expecting the sensitivity to be scaled by 1.2211x more than the zoom amount. An Overwatch zoom sensitivity of 46.33, rather than the 75% distance match result of 45.44.

 

So to summarise. Doing this method, you can most likely scale in the correct way, but with an arbitrarily preferred multiplier. 0% monitor match is the correct scaling, and is: tan(fovA/2)/tan(fovB/2). If you have a zoomed fov and sensitivity combination that is arbitrary and not the same as 0% monitor match, you don't use the monitor match % that results in this value, instead you find the difference between this and 0% monitor match, and use this difference as a coefficient. Formula becomes: coefficient * tan(fovA/2)/tan(fovB/2). You use this formula to convert to other fovs instead of using monitor match. So if you preferred something like 43 in Overwatch, and then found the monitor match % that results in 43, and converted this way to other games, and it didn't end up feeling right, this could be the reason why.

The only issue is if you were to apply this coefficient to the whole fov range, the ratios will all be identical, so you have to explicitly specify some start and end point which is arbitrary. It will work okay for something like PUBG, where you can find a comfy 103 fov sensitivity and 15x scope sensitivity, and scale like this for all scopes in between.


math below

awp fov = 40, csgo hipfire fov = 90, overwatch zoom fov = 51, overwatch hipfire fov = 103
(40/90) / tan(40 * pi/360) / tan(90 * pi/360) = 1.2211
((40/90) / tan(40 * pi/360) / tan(90 * pi/360)) * (tan(51 * pi/360) / tan(103 * pi/360)) * 100 = 46.33

maybe this is why my aim in pubg never feels as good as in csgo. in CSGO i only use zoomlevel 1 on the awp and i never feel i can not get the crosshair on target, in pubg i am often struggling with this. 

So i actually found a 103 fov sensitivity that i like to use and a 3x sensitivity that i like. would it be possible to calculate all other scope sensitivities from those 2 values?

[Drimzi]

2 hours ago, sammymanny said:

maybe this is why my aim in pubg never feels as good as in csgo. in CSGO i only use zoomlevel 1 on the awp and i never feel i can not get the crosshair on target, in pubg i am often struggling with this. 

So i actually found a 103 fov sensitivity that i like to use and a 3x sensitivity that i like. would it be possible to calculate all other scope sensitivities from those 2 values?

 

Well it would be best to find a 15x sensitivity that you like best, or just use the CSGO result since you claim its working good for you.

 

Copy+paste the line below into wolframalpha, replace the variable names with the appropriate numbers. Then use the "Convert Distance From" mode in the calculator for each PUBG scope.

PUBG_FPP_360_Distance * 1/((((40/90)  * zoom_sensitivity_ratio_mouse) / tan(40 * pi/360) / tan(90 * pi/360)) * (tan(PUBG_Scope_FOV * pi/360) / tan(PUBG_FPP_FOV * pi/360)))

 

e.g. for 35cm/360 and 3x scope

35 * 1/((((40/90)  * 1) / tan(40 * pi/360) / tan(90 * pi/360)) * (tan(26.67 * pi/360) / tan(103 * pi/360)))

= 152 cm

75% monitor match = 150.4141cm

 

e.g. for 35cm/360 and 15x scope

35 * 1/((((40/90)  * 1) / tan(40 * pi/360) / tan(90 * pi/360)) * (tan(6.67 * pi/360) / tan(103 * pi/360)))

= 618.368 cm

75% monitor match = 606.1245 cm

 

You still scale correctly using the focal length, but using an arbitrary multiplier from CSGO. If you were to set PUBG to 106.26 FOV and scoped in to 51.77 FOV (same as CSGO), you will get an identical result to 75% monitor match, identical to CSGO.

 

[sammymanny]

On 6/29/2018 at 11:08 AM, Drimzi said:

 

Well it would be best to find a 15x sensitivity that you like best, or just use the CSGO result since you claim its working good for you.

 

Copy+paste the line below into wolframalpha, replace the variable names with the appropriate numbers. Then use the "Convert Distance From" mode in the calculator for each PUBG scope.

PUBG_FPP_360_Distance * 1/((((40/90)  * zoom_sensitivity_ratio_mouse) / tan(40 * pi/360) / tan(90 * pi/360)) * (tan(PUBG_Scope_FOV * pi/360) / tan(PUBG_FPP_FOV * pi/360)))

 

e.g. for 35cm/360 and 3x scope

35 * 1/((((40/90)  * 1) / tan(40 * pi/360) / tan(90 * pi/360)) * (tan(26.67 * pi/360) / tan(103 * pi/360)))

= 152 cm

75% monitor match = 150.4141cm

 

e.g. for 35cm/360 and 15x scope

35 * 1/((((40/90)  * 1) / tan(40 * pi/360) / tan(90 * pi/360)) * (tan(6.67 * pi/360) / tan(103 * pi/360)))

= 618.368 cm

75% monitor match = 606.1245 cm

 

You still scale correctly using the focal length, but using an arbitrary multiplier from CSGO. If you were to set PUBG to 106.26 FOV and scoped in to 51.77 FOV (same as CSGO), you will get an identical result to 75% monitor match, identical to CSGO.

 

thanks for this!

I tried out a lot of different settings and in the end i came to this conclusion (all imho):

For games with zero to no recoil, 0%mm feels really good after some time! For example AWPing in CSGO felt really good after a few hours of DM, i have played a lot of CSGO and this 0% MM made my AWP more consistent than the default setting, so much that i tried to 0%MM in pubg as well. 

But as i said before, in PUBG there is a lot of recoil. So while 0% MM is good for sniping with bolt action sniper rifles in that game, it fails for shooting semi auto and full auto with scopes. In pubg you don't only need to track a running player or driving car, but u also have to shoot as fast as possible while being able to control the recoil. 0%mm for me is too slow to handle that, meaning it takes too much time to get the crosshair on target after 1 shot or hold it on target while shooting full auto. For this kind of aiming i felt anything from 50-100mm is better (v2 feels best for me)

I think 0%mm is just good for games with zero to no recoil, i cant imagine shooting a M4 full auto with a 4x scope in pubg and still be able to keep it somewhat on target for 30 rounds. unless your base sensitivity (hipfire) is so crazy high, that 0%mm still gives u enough control with a 4x scope. (and yes, i can do this with higher %MM)

Edited July 4, 2018 by sammymanny

[WhoCares?]

5 hours ago, sammymanny said:

thanks for this!

I tried out a lot of different settings and in the end i came to this conclusion (all imho):

For games with zero to no recoil, 0%mm feels really good after some time! For example AWPing in CSGO felt really good after a few hours of DM, i have played a lot of CSGO and this 0% MM made my AWP more consistent than the default setting, so much that i tried to 0%MM in pubg as well. 

But as i said before, in PUBG there is a lot of recoil. So while 0% MM is good for sniping with bolt action sniper rifles in that game, it fails for shooting semi auto and full auto with scopes. In pubg you don't only need to track a running player or driving car, but u also have to shoot as fast as possible while being able to control the recoil. 0%mm for me is too slow to handle that, meaning it takes too much time to get the crosshair on target after 1 shot or hold it on target while shooting full auto. For this kind of aiming i felt anything from 50-100mm is better (v2 feels best for me)

I think 0%mm is just good for games with zero to no recoil, i cant imagine shooting a M4 full auto with a 4x scope in pubg and still be able to keep it somewhat on target for 30 rounds. unless your base sensitivity (hipfire) is so crazy high, that 0%mm still gives u enough control with a 4x scope. (and yes, i can do this with higher %MM)

I feel like it's the opposite 

0%mm is best for games with heavy recoil because  is most "precise" for small adjustments in the middle of the screen like you need for controlling recoil and not like 75%mm or viewspeed which Matches further to the edges of the screen. -> Better for large flicks.

Preference Maybe 

 

 

Edited July 4, 2018 by WhoCares?

[Snook_]

On 7/4/2018 at 5:28 PM, sammymanny said:

thanks for this!

I tried out a lot of different settings and in the end i came to this conclusion (all imho):

For games with zero to no recoil, 0%mm feels really good after some time! For example AWPing in CSGO felt really good after a few hours of DM, i have played a lot of CSGO and this 0% MM made my AWP more consistent than the default setting, so much that i tried to 0%MM in pubg as well. 

But as i said before, in PUBG there is a lot of recoil. So while 0% MM is good for sniping with bolt action sniper rifles in that game, it fails for shooting semi auto and full auto with scopes. In pubg you don't only need to track a running player or driving car, but u also have to shoot as fast as possible while being able to control the recoil. 0%mm for me is too slow to handle that, meaning it takes too much time to get the crosshair on target after 1 shot or hold it on target while shooting full auto. For this kind of aiming i felt anything from 50-100mm is better (v2 feels best for me)

I think 0%mm is just good for games with zero to no recoil, i cant imagine shooting a M4 full auto with a 4x scope in pubg and still be able to keep it somewhat on target for 30 rounds. unless your base sensitivity (hipfire) is so crazy high, that 0%mm still gives u enough control with a 4x scope. (and yes, i can do this with higher %MM)

I play competitive pubg and have found 0% monitor match is good once you get used to it for scoped sprays. My 4x spray is probably my best spray and I use 36 0% MM at 800DPI. Following cars and spraying people out of them with a 4x at like 100m is really easy and comfortable. It just requires using your arm to pull down rather than only your wrist. But over time, this method is far more repeatable as having a tiny amount of pull down area with just fingers can't compensate enough for recoil changes in PUBG - There are no set patterns its all random and you need to have margin for error when dragging down which means a lowish sense helps this a lot.

[Bryjoe]

0% is best to me and I've tried them all. Most important thing is matching your hipfire/FOV as close as you can. One thing I have found is you can adjust to different sensitivities quickly, you can see this with pros too. Someone like shroud plays most games at around 30cm/360 but for CSGO he plays at 52, this is also different types of aim: the higher cm/360 the more arm you will need to use. In theory, the "best all-around" sensitivity would be one that incorporates both arm and wrist micro adjustment aim. To me this range is between 25 cm/360 and 35 cm/360 and I do find that it is applicable to any game from Quake to CSGO (it would be fast on average for CSGO and slow on average for Quake but usable for both). 

[TheNoobPolice]

wow, that's some necro! @Snook_ 

[sammymanny]

12 hours ago, Snook_ said:

I play competitive pubg and have found 0% monitor match is good once you get used to it for scoped sprays. My 4x spray is probably my best spray and I use 36 0% MM at 800DPI. Following cars and spraying people out of them with a 4x at like 100m is really easy and comfortable. It just requires using your arm to pull down rather than only your wrist. But over time, this method is far more repeatable as having a tiny amount of pull down area with just fingers can't compensate enough for recoil changes in PUBG - There are no set patterns its all random and you need to have margin for error when dragging down which means a lowish sense helps this a lot.

being good with a 4x spray has nothing to do with 0mm, imho. i can also spray full auto with a 2x,3x,4x,6x hell even 8x. its not that hard in this game, but it is also not easy.

what my point was and is, is that 0mm for me doesnt feel like the most natural transition between hipfire fov to 8x or whatever scope.

 

the more i read about it (for example stories from top kovaak aimers) the more i start to believe that muscle memory (regarding going from hipfire fov to a very zoomed in scope) is close to a hoax. some very, very good aimers in kovaaks claim that sensitivity settings between fovs dont matter at all, and that even training at a different sensitivity is beneficial (science seems to support this a bit) and that every fov is like learning a new sensitivity anyways,regardless of whatever % you use.

not once have i recognized the same sense experience on 0mm, or 50, or 75, v2 or 100 when we talk about going from hipfire to very zoomed in. if you look at pubg, all that 0mm does is either making high zoom scopes very slow or ads/hipfire very very fast. 

 

all imho of course, and open to change my mind at anytime

 

[Bryjoe]

3 hours ago, sammymanny said:

being good with a 4x spray has nothing to do with 0mm, imho. i can also spray full auto with a 2x,3x,4x,6x hell even 8x. its not that hard in this game, but it is also not easy.

what my point was and is, is that 0mm for me doesnt feel like the most natural transition between hipfire fov to 8x or whatever scope.

 

the more i read about it (for example stories from top kovaak aimers) the more i start to believe that muscle memory (regarding going from hipfire fov to a very zoomed in scope) is close to a hoax. some very, very good aimers in kovaaks claim that sensitivity settings between fovs dont matter at all, and that even training at a different sensitivity is beneficial (science seems to support this a bit) and that every fov is like learning a new sensitivity anyways,regardless of whatever % you use.

not once have i recognized the same sense experience on 0mm, or 50, or 75, v2 or 100 when we talk about going from hipfire to very zoomed in. if you look at pubg, all that 0mm does is either making high zoom scopes very slow or ads/hipfire very very fast. 

 

all imho of course, and open to change my mind at anytime

 

Yes, "matching same sensitivity between games" doesn't seem to have much real world merit when you look at professional players or renowned aimers. You can get used to new and different sensitivities much faster than you would think. If anything, it would make sense to train aiming and sensitivity like any other mechanical skill: starting slow and precise and eventually increasing speed so you can do the same motion just as precise at a higher, more useful speed. This is a bit at odds with how aiming works at high and low sens, low being primarily arm aiming and high being primarily wrist and finger aiming. If you train at both spectrums of sensitivity, theoretically you would be good at all aiming types, arm, wrist and finger.

0% MM is the only match that has any mathematical basis behind it, the rest are just arbitrarily picking a point on the screen to match for, whether you think this matters at all in-game is the debate. Is there a reason why most CSGO pros us 75% MM besides that is the game default? Why do some use more than default? If you're going to pick one, you might as well pick 0% as it's the only one that has an actual consistent ratio, and it's the default sens for games like Apex and Call of Duty. It also is extremely prevalent among overwatch pros. It is the only ratio that "matches" regardless of resolution and aspect ratio.

Aiming seems to have more to do with your relationship with the mouse and how to handle it than the actual consistent distance you move it. It's why someone like shroud just has good aim, it doesn't really matter what sens he uses he just knows how to aim. That being said slowing down any mechanical skill makes your more consistent and speeding it up makes you less consistent.

Edited February 10, 2020 by Bryjoe

[TipsyGames]

is there anyway to do this for csgo?

 

[DPI Wizard]

20 minutes ago, TipsyGames said:

is there anyway to do this for csgo?

Yes, but it will only work for one scope/zoom level at a time since the game doesn't have separate setting for each of them.

[TipsyGames]

ok can you explain this for someone that is stupid in bfV i have it on 0 as there is setting but for csgo i have no idea what any of this means people are putting 

[DPI Wizard]

3 minutes ago, TipsyGames said:

ok can you explain this for someone that is stupid in bfV i have it on 0 as there is setting but for csgo i have no idea what any of this means people are putting 

If you convert from your BFV settings and just select CSGO with the default settings in the calculator (MDV 0%) it will do it automatically.

Like in this example: https://www.mouse-sensitivity.com/?share=e4ae4c576f07e4accb522e3b83810665

Then you have to choose the zoom sensitivity for CSGO for the aim you want to be 0%.

[TipsyGames]

ah ok thank you so i can only have 1 scope zoom setting to match 0 as there is only the 1 option in csgo for it

 

[DPI Wizard]

Just now, TipsyGames said:

ah ok thank you so i can only have 1 scope zoom setting to match 0 as there is only the 1 option in csgo for it

Correct, the others will be off.

[TipsyGames]

23 minutes ago, DPI Wizard said:

Correct, the others will be off.

is there a way to make the coefficient 1.1 as i no in bfV the coefficient is default at 133 witch i think means you move mouse 133% across your screen rather than 100 and i think csgo is the same value of 133 is there a way to do it so am at 1to1 not 133 with csgo hipfire or do you need to change fov for that?

 

[Snook_]

What’s the difference between mdv 0% and mdh 0% in the calculator? Which one should everyone be using dpi wizard / does it matter?

 

@DPI Wizard

Edited June 16, 2021 by Snook_

[fortunate reee]

11 hours ago, Snook_ said:

What’s the difference between mdv 0% and mdh 0% in the calculator? Which one should everyone be using dpi wizard / does it matter?

essentially same at 0% you dotn have to worry about mdh or mdv

[DPI Wizard]

11 hours ago, Snook_ said:

What’s the difference between mdv 0% and mdh 0% in the calculator? Which one should everyone be using dpi wizard / does it matter?

 

@DPI Wizard

As mentioned above they are essentially the same, but only when the aspect ratio is the same. If you convert from say 16:9 to 21:9 they will be different.

[Snook_]

1 hour ago, DPI Wizard said:

As mentioned above they are essentially the same, but only when the aspect ratio is the same. If you convert from say 16:9 to 21:9 they will be different.

Cool was just interested why you suggested MDV instead of MDH