https://www.t3.com/au/reviews/huawei-mateview-review

I like it.

this is even more amazing as it looks we don't even have a 16:10 4K screens
and this one is even more square 😀

comparison

😀

Useless.... you need 16K for faithful RGB dot phosphor reproduction. 😉

On the other hand, this one seems fine for displaying midi messages:
BenQ BH3501
😉

Eizo FlexScan EV2730Q
for
strategies
platformers
The Bridge
Micro Machines
Archon Ultra
isometric games
Baldur's Gate
top down games
River Raid
Spy Hunter
Alien Breed
Half Life 2 Lost Coast
Tomb Raider climbing/looking around (up/down)
space sims
x-wing
underwater sims
aquanox
flight sims
underground sims
descent
many puzzle/logic games
😉

robertmo wrote on 2021-08-10, 06:48:

not 4:3 but the closest one so far 😀
Huawei MateView 4K HDR
aspect ratio 1,5

No, 3:2 is 1.666 aspect ratio, not 1.5

What we need is a 4:3 HD display which is backwardly compatible with all the old standards 320x200,320*240, 640x480, 720x480, etc. I'm so tired of compromising with either stretched pictures, window-boxes, or, worse, complete elimination of all 4:3 ratios. Erasing history is NOT the answer.

zyzzle wrote on 2021-08-11, 01:38:

robertmo wrote on 2021-08-10, 06:48:

not 4:3 but the closest one so far 😀
Huawei MateView 4K HDR
aspect ratio 1,5

No, 3:2 is 1.666 aspect ratio, not 1.5

What we need is a 4:3 HD display which is backwardly compatible with all the old standards 320x200,320*240, 640x480, 720x480, etc. I'm so tired of compromising with either stretched pictures, window-boxes, or, worse, complete elimination of all 4:3 ratios. Erasing history is NOT the answer.

Maintaining proper aspect ratio on modern non 4:3 computer displays is definitely doable if you choose the right display and/or scaler and black bars on each side of the screen are not the end of the world, IMHO . The main challenge is putting together a display setup that can properly handle 4:3 DAR (display aspect ratio) content that does NOT have square pixels . An example of such content is the 320x200 resolution typically used for DOS games . I use an OSSC and a Philips 252B9 16:10 display and have no issues getting 4:3 content to display properly and at the correct 60Hz or 70Hz refresh rate (depending on the mode used).

I also enjoy 4:3 70s-80s-90s TV shows at their proper intended aspect ratio on my 16:9 HDTV and I don't feel a 4:3 TV would add anything to the experience .

Additionally, even recent movies come in different aspect ratios most often fitting somewhere between 2.40:1 (or even wider) and 1.78:1 and getting a TV screen to exactly fit each of them would be ludicrous .

zyzzle wrote on 2021-08-11, 01:38:

No, 3:2 is 1.666 aspect ratio, not 1.5

Please, use your calculator. 3/2 = 1.5/1. I can not even imagine how you got your 1.666 result...

Falcosoft wrote on 2021-08-11, 07:34:

zyzzle wrote on 2021-08-11, 01:38:

No, 3:2 is 1.666 aspect ratio, not 1.5

Please, use your calculator. 3/2 = 1.5/1. I can not even imagine how you got your 1.666 result...

It seems to be a brain fart that we can get while being sleepy.

2/3 ?
3/2 ?
(2/3 = 0.666) + (minor correction to 1.5) = 1.666

I've been down this rabbit hole too, trying to find the perfect 4:3 LCD monitor.

During the search I ran into
[1]: 1920 x 1920 monitor (for air traffic control?) and
[2]: 1600 x 1200 monitor.

Neither was perfect. And both were overpriced considering their specs.

At some point I just gave up and decided to go with:

[1]: Whatever is the mainstream high resolution monitor at the moment (that would be 4k desktop monitor right now)
[2]: 1280x1024 monitor, with IPS panel and sRGB gamut
[3]: Actual 4:3 CRT monitor.

ninjapig1212 wrote on 2021-08-11, 09:39:

I've been down this rabbit hole too, trying to find the perfect 4:3 LCD monitor. […]
Show full quote

I've been down this rabbit hole too, trying to find the perfect 4:3 LCD monitor.

During the search I ran into
[1]: 1920 x 1920 monitor (for air traffic control?) and
[2]: 1600 x 1200 monitor.

Neither was perfect. And both were overpriced considering their specs.

At some point I just gave up and decided to go with:

[1]: Whatever is the mainstream high resolution monitor at the moment (that would be 4k desktop monitor right now)
[2]: 1280x1024 monitor, with IPS panel and sRGB gamut
[3]: Actual 4:3 CRT monitor.

Indeed those are good solutions, I personally use a real CRT but the alternative darry suggested (OSSC + LCD monitor that works with 70 Hz without frameskip and has a 4:3 mode) is indeed excellent. I also recommend the AOC G2590PX, which although not 1920x1200, has several 4:3 modes and a 1:1 mode that is great for showing pixel-perfect doubled 640x480. It goes up to 144 Hz on the DP input and 120 Hz on the other inputs.

ninjapig1212 wrote on 2021-08-11, 08:59:

It seems to be a brain fart that we can get while being sleepy. […]
Show full quote

Falcosoft wrote on 2021-08-11, 07:34:

zyzzle wrote on 2021-08-11, 01:38:

No, 3:2 is 1.666 aspect ratio, not 1.5

Please, use your calculator. 3/2 = 1.5/1. I can not even imagine how you got your 1.666 result...

It seems to be a brain fart that we can get while being sleepy.

2/3 ?
3/2 ?
(2/3 = 0.666) + (minor correction to 1.5) = 1.666

Yes, that's exactly what it was! I did pass grammar school math. Was too tired to realize the stoopid error that I'd made.

Well, at least 1.5:1 is getting a little closer to 4:3. So, the "black bars" on the sides of the display won't be too bad now.

Yes, the non-square 4:3 pixel ratios are what always seem to be screwed up, because most (every?) monitor sold now has square (1:1) pixels. So, without introducing complicated, and very CPU-intensive reshaping algorithms, which won't be "perfect" even with all of those CPU-intensive calculations, how do you achieve anything resembling satisfaction of these 4:3 non-square modes on a 16:9, 16:10, or 3:2 display which uses square pixels? It's a nightmare which would be solved rather well with a CRT screen. I wish you could still buy inexpensive CRTs, but they're not even made anymore.

zyzzle wrote on 2021-08-11, 23:35:

Yes, that's exactly what it was! I did pass grammar school math. Was too tired to realize the stoopid error that I'd made. […]
Show full quote

ninjapig1212 wrote on 2021-08-11, 08:59:

It seems to be a brain fart that we can get while being sleepy. […]
Show full quote

Falcosoft wrote on 2021-08-11, 07:34:

Please, use your calculator. 3/2 = 1.5/1. I can not even imagine how you got your 1.666 result...

It seems to be a brain fart that we can get while being sleepy.

2/3 ?
3/2 ?
(2/3 = 0.666) + (minor correction to 1.5) = 1.666

Yes, that's exactly what it was! I did pass grammar school math. Was too tired to realize the stoopid error that I'd made.

Well, at least 1.5:1 is getting a little closer to 4:3. So, the "black bars" on the sides of the display won't be too bad now.

Yes, the non-square 4:3 pixel ratios are what always seem to be screwed up, because most (every?) monitor sold now has square (1:1) pixels. So, without introducing complicated, and very CPU-intensive reshaping algorithms, which won't be "perfect" even with all of those CPU-intensive calculations, how do you achieve anything resembling satisfaction of these 4:3 non-square modes on a 16:9, 16:10, or 3:2 display which uses square pixels? It's a nightmare which would be solved rather well with a CRT screen. I wish you could still buy inexpensive CRTs, but they're not even made anymore.

A 1920x1200 (16:10) monitor with a 4:3 mode gives a 1600x1200 display area . 320x200 fits exactly into 1600x1200 using integer scaling (line multiplication). If one is lucky, and an "overclocked" OSSC works, you can get essentially perfect 320x200 . If one is not lucky on the OSSC front, an OSSC Pro will be an eventual option (when it comes out) .

In the mean time, the OSSC line multiplying 320x200 (actually line-doubled to 6400x400 by the VGA card first) to 1280x800 with the monitor's (non integer) scaler going the rest of the way to 1600x1200 looks good to me .
See Re: Widescreen monitors and 4:3 aspect ratio compatibility thread

8k screens no longer need integer scaling

robertmo wrote on 2021-08-12, 04:08:

8k screens no longer need integer scaling

While I agree that pixels that small imply that integer scaling is not absolutely necessary to preserve sharpness, having the ability to integer scale (line multiply) as much as possible before handing over the image to the monitor's integrated scaler stills seems like a good idea to avoid issues .

The fact that a monitor is 8K does not necessarily imply that it will do a good job at scaling low resolutions like 640x400 (for example) to its native resolution .

But it is wireless. Can it accept standard connection like HDMI, or better, VGA?

Welp, definitely not buying anything from Huawei.