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

> Greentext

7582 readers
4 users here now

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 77 points 11 months ago (4 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 43 points 11 months ago

Screens don't require 3d vision

[–] GrammatonCleric 22 points 11 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 15 points 11 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] ThatWeirdGuy1001 5 points 11 months ago (2 children)

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)
[–] [email protected] 8 points 11 months ago

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

[–] ook_the_librarian 5 points 11 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] 60 points 11 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] FooBarrington 5 points 11 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] 49 points 11 months ago (2 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 51 points 11 months ago (1 children)

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] 71 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I prefer 16:10 but rotated 22°

[–] [email protected] 54 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

This guy games on Linux

[–] kshade 5 points 11 months ago
[–] cholesterol 43 points 11 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 17 points 11 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...

[–] yokonzo 33 points 11 months ago (5 children)

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

[–] ikidd 78 points 11 months ago (2 children)

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

[–] yokonzo 10 points 11 months ago

Attaboy show em who's boss

[–] [email protected] 9 points 11 months ago

Thrift stores

[–] thawed_caveman 6 points 11 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] VindictiveJudge 14 points 11 months ago (2 children)

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

[–] timo_timboo_ 7 points 11 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Blue_Morpho 15 points 11 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] timo_timboo_ 4 points 11 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Blue_Morpho 6 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

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

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 5 points 11 months ago

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

[–] [email protected] 2 points 11 months ago

while i prefer 16:9, i recently bought a monitor and had to filter out 4:3s because they were everywhere (when sorting from lowest to highest price)

[–] [email protected] 25 points 11 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 14 points 11 months ago

This just sounds retarded

[–] spookex 10 points 11 months ago

Counter-Strike moment

[–] [email protected] 4 points 11 months ago (2 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 6 points 11 months ago (3 children)
[–] [email protected] 6 points 11 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] 6 points 11 months ago

I want 1:1.

Instagram life.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 11 months ago (1 children)

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] 2 points 11 months ago (2 children)

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

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 2 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 4 points 11 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 3 points 11 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] QuaternionsRock 2 points 11 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 11 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.

load more comments
view more: next ›