• Grammaton Cleric
      link
      221 year ago

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

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        151 year ago

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

        • @ThatWeirdGuy1001
          link
          51 year 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.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              1
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              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.

    • Ook the Librarian
      link
      51 year 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]
    link
    fedilink
    601 year 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.

    • @FooBarrington
      link
      51 year 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.

  • Nate
    link
    fedilink
    English
    491 year ago

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

  • @cholesterol
    link
    431 year ago

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

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      171 year 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
    link
    331 year ago

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

    • @ikidd
      link
      English
      781 year ago

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

    • @thawed_caveman
      link
      61 year 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.

      • VindictiveJudge
        link
        141 year ago

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

        • timo_timboo
          link
          71 year 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.

          • @Blue_Morpho
            link
            151 year 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.

            • timo_timboo
              link
              41 year 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.

              • @Blue_Morpho
                link
                6
                edit-2
                1 year 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.

                • ferret
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  11 year ago

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

    • cally [he/they]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      21 year 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)

  • @spookex
    link
    101 year ago

    Counter-Strike moment

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        61 year 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]
          link
          fedilink
          21 year ago

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

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            11 year 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]
              link
              fedilink
              211 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.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        61 year 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]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    31 year 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.