Wouldnt this be the reverse, with the prey animal only being able to see a 4:3 with both eyes?
this post was submitted on 09 Jan 2024
389 points (92.7% liked)
> Greentext
7538 readers
4 users here now
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Screens don't require 3d vision
No, they see more of the sides to detect predators. Predators eyes are forward, narrow cone of vision
I wouldn't call it narrow. It's almost 180 degrees. More than enough for a 16x9 monitor
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.
okay but that has nothing to do with field of view, which is what the example is about.
It has everything to do with field of view... the region in which is you can resolve detailed information is very narrow, at only ~15º.
Agreed- the comparison is missing the blind spot in the middle.
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.
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.
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.
If you're not gaming on 9:16 you're not a true gamer
I game on 9:21. I'm seeing every damn cloud in the sky and every blade of grass down to my feet.
I prefer 16:10 but rotated 22°
This guy games on Linux
Maybe just try switching to a 4:3 resolution before investing in an entire monitor.
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...
Where in the fresh hell does one even get a 4:3 screen these days?
I just took a 16x9 and hacked the sides off with a sawsall. It doesn't work now, but I still feel superior.
Attaboy show em who's boss
Thrift stores
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.
I used to have a CRT screen that was 1600x1200 @60hz, so high resolution ones do exist.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Software compensation does exist, if you want to give it a blast
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?
just get a 16:9 and play with the display settings to disable the edges
Should be flipped, compare the "seen by both eyes" regions.
Counter-Strike moment
I wish 4:3 was still a thing on laptops.
I want 3:2
I've used one briefly, it was fantastic. If only Microsoft's Surface wasn't the biggest player in the 3:2 market.
Framework uses 3:2 displays in their 13 inch model. Great little laptop and easy to repair and upgrade as well!
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.
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.
I want 1:1.
Instagram life.
There are 3:2 laptops like the Framework and Huawei matebook x pro. But 3:2 is still quite far from 4:3
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.
Just get a smaller screen or sit a bit further then