this post was submitted on 09 Jan 2024
5 points (100.0% liked)

> Greentext

7930 readers
1 users here now

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 24 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] GregorGizeh@lemmy.zip 3 points 2 years ago (3 children)

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

[–] Lojcs@lemm.ee 3 points 2 years ago

Screens don't require 3d vision

[–] GrammatonCleric@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

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

[–] butter@midwest.social 3 points 2 years ago (1 children)

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

[–] ThatWeirdGuy1001@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago (1 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.

[–] BearGun@ttrpg.network 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

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

[–] Gabu@lemmy.ml -1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years 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.

[–] Timecircleline@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 years ago

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

[–] yokonzo@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago (3 children)

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

[–] ikidd@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago (1 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@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

Attaboy show em who's boss

Thrift stores

[–] thawed_caveman@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years 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@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

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

[–] timo_timboo_@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years 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@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years 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_@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years 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@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years 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.

[–] cholesterol@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

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

[–] alphapuggle@programming.dev 1 points 2 years ago (2 children)

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

[–] morrowind@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 years 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.

[–] Gork@lemm.ee 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I prefer 16:10 but rotated 22°

[–] joyjoy@lemm.ee 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

This guy games on Linux