388
submitted 6 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
all 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] [email protected] 77 points 6 months ago

Wouldnt this be the reverse, with the prey animal only being able to see a 4:3 with both eyes?

[-] [email protected] 43 points 6 months ago

Screens don't require 3d vision

[-] [email protected] 22 points 6 months ago

No, they see more of the sides to detect predators. Predators eyes are forward, narrow cone of vision

[-] [email protected] 13 points 6 months ago

I wouldn't call it narrow. It's almost 180 degrees. More than enough for a 16x9 monitor

[-] [email protected] 4 points 6 months ago

The point is how much you can see without moving your eyes.

Yeah we can technically see a pretty wide range but that's mainly peripheral. You can't really make out details unless you move your eyes to look directly at something.

Whereas prey animal eyes aren't supposed to be super detail oriented in the first place. So they can see more without moving their eyes to look directly at something because details aren't important.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Timecircleline 7 points 5 months ago

Agreed- the comparison is missing the blind spot in the middle.

[-] [email protected] 5 points 5 months ago

That's how I read it. If a narrow screen helps you see the details, it stands to reason that the high resolution part of your vision is narrower. The diagram is pointing to the prey to want a narrow monitor to fit where their vision is best.

[-] [email protected] 61 points 6 months ago

I mean, it's not, but do you King.

If the screen is inside your field of view, youre not losing detail using a 16:9 monitor.

[-] [email protected] 5 points 5 months ago

You do lose details in the sense of how much attention everything on screen gets. When looking at something, you don't process everything in your FoV equally - for example you don't notice lower resolutions outside your focus area.

[-] [email protected] 52 points 6 months ago

If you're not gaming on 9:16 you're not a true gamer

[-] [email protected] 52 points 6 months ago

I game on 9:21. I'm seeing every damn cloud in the sky and every blade of grass down to my feet.

[-] [email protected] 76 points 6 months ago

I prefer 16:10 but rotated 22°

[-] [email protected] 57 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

This guy games on Linux

[-] [email protected] 44 points 5 months ago

Maybe just try switching to a 4:3 resolution before investing in an entire monitor.

[-] [email protected] 16 points 5 months ago

Cost breakdown of my 4:3 monitors:

Please take this, I'll even pay for shipping if you need it shipped€

One of the smaller investments...

[-] [email protected] 34 points 6 months ago

Where in the fresh hell does one even get a 4:3 screen these days?

[-] [email protected] 81 points 6 months ago

I just took a 16x9 and hacked the sides off with a sawsall. It doesn't work now, but I still feel superior.

[-] [email protected] 9 points 5 months ago

Attaboy show em who's boss

[-] LaserTurboShark69 8 points 6 months ago

Thrift stores

[-] [email protected] 5 points 5 months ago

just get a 16:9 and play with the display settings to disable the edges

[-] [email protected] 5 points 6 months ago

The second hand market. I don't think many of them will even be 1080p or 60Hz, and i'm pretty sure you can forget about 4k

I have one listed on craigslist right now, for free because it's broken. No takers.

[-] [email protected] 14 points 6 months ago

I used to have a CRT screen that was 1600x1200 @60hz, so high resolution ones do exist.

[-] [email protected] 7 points 5 months ago

Hell yeah man, 4:3 CRT monitors are superior in almost every way. I have a monitor that does up to 1920x1440p@75hz, but the best ones do up to 2048x1536@80hz. Crazy.

[-] [email protected] 14 points 5 months ago

I grew up with crts. Crts had misconvergence, blooming, pincushion, lack of contrast and flicker like a fluorescent light even at higher refresh rates.

I'm fine with bad latency compared to all the problems of CRT's.

[-] [email protected] 3 points 5 months ago

Depends. If you have a quality CRT monitor, the only problem is blooming. Misconvergence and geometry in general is really only a problem with low end models or large tubes. At higher refresh rates, there's absolutely no flicker either.

Where did you get that with the contrast from? They look way better than any LCD, though OLED can come close or even surpass them.

Except when talking about motion clarity of course, which is something that somehow still can't be beaten by modern technologies. Every display that isn't a CRT just looks so blurry during motion. It makes a world of difference for games.

Since I got a nice CRT monitor, I hate playing on LCDs. Kinda regret getting that thing now.

[-] [email protected] 5 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

Misconvergence and geometry in general is really only a problem with low end models or large tubes.

From the 1980's to 1990's I had a 13" Seiko Trinitron, then a Mag 15", then ViewSonic 17". None were low end. All had misconvergence and geometry problems at their highest resolution.

If you only game on it you'll never notice. But I coded and played with CAD for fun. There was no adjustment, even with opening up and adjusting the tube chokes (which I did) that could get every corner perfectly converged and have absolutely perfect straight lines on all sides simultaneously.

[-] aBundleOfFerrets 1 points 5 months ago

Software compensation does exist, if you want to give it a blast

[-] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago

You can simulate misconverged pixels with filters but I don't see how the reverse is possible in software. Could you link to the software?

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] agamemnonymous 29 points 6 months ago

Should be flipped, compare the "seen by both eyes" regions.

[-] [email protected] 10 points 6 months ago

Counter-Strike moment

[-] [email protected] 5 points 6 months ago

I wish 4:3 was still a thing on laptops.

[-] [email protected] 6 points 5 months ago
[-] [email protected] 6 points 5 months ago

I've used one briefly, it was fantastic. If only Microsoft's Surface wasn't the biggest player in the 3:2 market.

[-] [email protected] 3 points 5 months ago

Framework uses 3:2 displays in their 13 inch model. Great little laptop and easy to repair and upgrade as well!

[-] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago

I didn't know that, thank you! I was going to look into a Framework laptop when my ancient clunker finally bites the dust. Knowing that they have a 3:2 makes them even more appealing.

[-] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago

Since they announced their AMD based system, I was waiting until they would become available where I live. As soon as they did, I ordered one and it's without a doubt one of the best laptops I ever had (the surface pro is also very high on that list), and on top of that it's very customizable, repairable and upgradeable.

[-] funkless_eck 6 points 5 months ago

I want 1:1.

Instagram life.

[-] [email protected] 6 points 5 months ago

There are 3:2 laptops like the Framework and Huawei matebook x pro. But 3:2 is still quite far from 4:3

[-] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

The newer Lenovo X1 is damn near 4:3, I think mine's 1900x1200

[-] [email protected] 4 points 5 months ago

I guess 1920x1200. The equivalent in 4:3 would be 1920x1440, not really close.

[-] [email protected] 3 points 5 months ago

About as close as you're going to get these days

[-] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago

1920x1200 is 16:10, and it’s pretty common. The Surface line uses 3:2, which is even closer.

[-] [email protected] 3 points 6 months ago

4:3 is the "both eyes" span of the prey, 16:9 the predator. If you're doing better with 4:3, you might not be the kind of "GOAT" you want to be.

this post was submitted on 09 Jan 2024
388 points (92.7% liked)

> Greentext

461 readers
551 users here now

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS