• GregorGizeh@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    79
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    10 months ago

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

      • butter@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        10 months ago

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

        • ThatWeirdGuy1001@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          10 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.

          • BearGun@ttrpg.network
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            10 months ago

            okay but that has nothing to do with field of view, which is what the example is about.

            • Gabu@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              10 months 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@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      10 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.

  • dangblingus@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    59
    ·
    10 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.

    • FooBarrington@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      10 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.

    • ddkman@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      10 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…

    • ikidd@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      78
      ·
      10 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.

    • thawed_caveman@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      10 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.

        • timo_timboo@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          10 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.

          • Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            13
            ·
            10 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.

            • timo_timboo@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              10 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.

              • Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                edit-2
                10 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.

      • InputZero@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        10 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.

        • GbyBE@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          10 months ago

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

          • InputZero@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            10 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.

            • GbyBE@discuss.tchncs.de
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              10 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.

      • hackerwacker@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        10 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

  • jtk@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    10 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.