thats the thing, you don't automatically get cancer, or there wouldn't be ppl that are +80y smoking for their whole life.
can even use my family as example, grandparents that tried to live healthy, took supplements etc, never smoked and never lived past early 70s, the other gp didnt, my grandma was heavily obese, yet both lived to their 90s.
yes there are studies showing certain things, but that does not mean its going to be (negative/positive) for everyoneon the planet.
e.g. even if its 1 in a million (so to soeak),
that still means almost 8000 ppl for the whole planet.

completely ignoring how many studies have been deemed wrong a decade later.

until about 15y we didn't even know the universe was still expanding, so allmist all pros in that field where 100% wrong for quite amount of time...

if it wasnt about the sxreen size, theaters could be smaller, as the "rest of the experience" is the same...

Fry178thats the thing, you don't automatically get cancer, or there wouldn't be ppl that are +80y smoking for their whole life.
can even use my family as example, grandparents that tried to live healthy, took supplements etc, never smoked and never lived past early 70s, the other gp didnt, my grandma was heavily obese, yet both lived to their 90s.
yes there are studies showing certain things, but that does not mean its going to be (negative/positive) for everyoneon the planet.
e.g. even if its 1 in a million (so to soeak),
that still means almost 8000 ppl for the whole planet.

Yes, as I said, genetics and other things cause this to vary a lot. But it's still a question of when, not if - with the caveat that you might avoid it if something else kills you beforehand. And some luck out and avoid it for seemingly forever. But using that kind of aberration as a basis for anything is ... well, either extremely optimistic or just stupid. Would you take a 1-in-a-million high-stakes gamble on anything else?

Fry178completely ignoring how many studies have been deemed wrong a decade later.

"Some science is disproven at a later point" is not a valid argument against the applicability of scientific study in general, which is what you're doing here. The connections between screen use and eye and neck strain are quite conclusive, and it's quite unlikely that some unknown factor will show up and provide a better explanation for these issues. Repeated rapid head movement within a small range for long periods of time, such as when using a very large monitor for hours at a time, is a cause of muscle, joint and ligament strain, and will thus lead to RSIs over time. It's just a question of how much, for how long, and how other factors affect how this progresses.

Fry178until about 15y we didn't even know the universe was still expanding, so allmist all pros in that field where 100% wrong for quite amount of time...

Heck, we barely know anything at all about how the human body works, so ... yeah. But the relationship between repeated, limited movements over time and RSIs is both quite simple and well understood.

Fry178if it wasnt about the sxreen size, theaters could be smaller, as the "rest of the experience" is the same...

Nice straw man you've got there, did you make it yourself? Nobody has said screen size doesn't affect things. It is one variable among many. Theaters enact a form of selective sensory deprivation and overstimulation, for which screen size is absolutely a factor. But you get theaters with a huge range of screen sizes, and depending on where you sit and the design of the theater, the angle of view filled by the screen isn't necessarily that huge. The social experience of being in the theater including both concrete social interactions and all the learned habits and expectations surrounding this, as well as the sound, the lack of other visual stimuli, the removal from other distractions, the physical presence in a single-purpose location, and a whole bunch more affects the possibility for immersion as well. No amount of screen size will help you feel immersed if the kid behind you is kicking your seat or throwing popcorn, or if the people in front can't keep themselves from checking their phones, for example - unless you actively spend willpower to focus your attention past these distractions. The same is true for relating to a screen: it's just as much about your willed engagement with and directed focus towards the screen as it is about the material characteristics of the screen.

ValantarThat is just about the dumbest cop-out stance possible. "People do stupid, self-destructive crap all the time, so why argue against it?" is... not even an argument. People aren't generally rational actors, but there's still a point to educating and informing people about stupid and harmful habits they have. Also, smoking might kill you in 30-50 years; bad ergonomics might leave you with chronic joint pain or similar after much shorter time spans than that - months or maybe a few years.

Also: immersion is an experience produced voluntarily through effort by the person experiencing it. The things interacted with obviously play a huge role in the specifics of this immersion, but so do the beliefs and attitudes of the person in question. If you keep telling yourself that a huge monitor is more immersive, you will experience it as such - but if you don't, then you might not. Or you might just not care. Experiencing immersion is never as simple as increasing how overwhelming the sensory stimuli are - but it can help. But ... people experienced immersion in the black-and-white ultra-simplistic graphics of 70s home consoles played on 10-15" TVs. It's about the whole of the experience, not the screen you're looking at.

It is not a cop out. I promise you that even though you seriously doubt it. Using a modern big screen on a PC is like the first super fast GPU or CPU you bought or even the introduction of SATA. Ergonomics; what about all the young people with carpal tunnel or addiction to Gaming? The very reason people play Games is the fun part is it not? In fact what about all the people that have Gaming chairs that are not ergonomically correct? What about all the small keyboards that anyone that has worked in an office environment for more than 15 years knows are a higher risk of carpal tunnel?

I understand your argument about voluntary immersion when it comes to nostalgia. I will disagree with you on size does not matter for Immersion though. There is a difference when you go from one size to another. I started with a 17" 4:3 Samsung panel to a 19" HP 1080P panel to a 27" 1440P panel (those Korean panels were stellar) to a 32" 4K panel to a 49" 4K panel to a 32" 1440P 165Hz panel. I though have my PC hooked up to 55" 4K 120HZ TV with all the accoutrements like HDR, Dolby Vision and a bunch of others to enhance the experience. Screen size on a PC is something that you truly do have to experience to appreciate it. I don't mean 1080P either.

Now I totally enjoyed Pitfall on my Atari but that sit down Star Wars Game where you could destroy the Death Star was total immersion. Neither of them would be enjoyable today though. Now you are not talking about VR. Does it not matter when it indeed fills your entire field of view? Are you eyes ok to be fed that artificial light directly into your retinas? Is it like looking into a light bulb with a prism? Is VR safer ergonomically than a large display screen? I even watched a doc on a scientist that used VR to influence the behavior of mice. So it could be even more dangerous. None of that matters to some people after racing or flying a Space ship in VR F me even Super Hot is addictive as hell.

Fry178thats the thing, you don't automatically get cancer, or there wouldn't be ppl that are +80y smoking for their whole life.
can even use my family as example, grandparents that tried to live healthy, took supplements etc, never smoked and never lived past early 70s, the other gp didnt, my grandma was heavily obese, yet both lived to their 90s.
yes there are studies showing certain things, but that does not mean its going to be (negative/positive) for everyoneon the planet.
e.g. even if its 1 in a million (so to soeak),
that still means almost 8000 ppl for the whole planet.

completely ignoring how many studies have been deemed wrong a decade later.

until about 15y we didn't even know the universe was still expanding, so allmist all pros in that field where 100% wrong for quite amount of time...

if it wasnt about the sxreen size, theaters could be smaller, as the "rest of the experience" is the same...

You know, I'll tell you a personal story. I always thought I was immune to everything too, and I also know I have a pretty healthy body, never had anything threatening. I'm 36. I also smoke, still do. I sit a lot, I think about 4-5 hours per day minimum. Up until 1,5 year ago I was like you. And then, slowly, small pains that would vanish overnight, suddenly didn't vanish overnight. I would start the day with sitting uncomfortably. I also started getting pains in my jaw and corner teeth (!) and I've now burned over 4K euro on health care trying to find the cause. And then you hear, everywhere you go, like a dentist, 'but I can't really help you, the cause is unlikely to be your tooth' or 'but you can move everything fine' etc etc. Lower back pain will destroy literally everything in your daily routine: overall energy level, mood (I definitely had a depression because of it and other factors like a pandemic on top), the ability to concentrate, even my eyesight suffered, and the body could never find a comfortable, relaxing position every day, all day. Use of muscles was severely scrambled, as in, tension in random places, and responding to it, psycho-somatic stress... Just getting through the days was a massive undertaking. Had to have a power nap in the afternoon or I'd just collapse.

It was not until I recognized overall lifestyle changes were needed that I started seeing improvements. I'm now on a rigorous training schedule (fitness) focused on back problems and slowly building up. There is quite a road ahead of me too, and I'll likely have to keep working at it for the rest of my life. Meanwhile: personal situation; having a young kid and wife, they suffered from this; I dropped out of work entirely for nearly 8 months and I'm still on 80% work hours building back to a hundred. Was and still am at risk of being out of a job if recovery takes too long.

So yeah. You do you. It 'feels fine' until it doesn't. And then you're too late. Its quite a journey to throw around your daily routines, or routines you've had for a lifetime, let me tell you that... Everything becomes a question, an uncertainty.

@Vayra86
yeah i understand that (im +50), especially since some of them are dentists ,and since i do what they told me to, have not had any problems with teeth stuff.
i just have a problem with ppl generalizing it by saying "no one should" (use this), which to me is blatantly false.
never say NEVER (and yes, i know i goes both ways).

kapone32It is not a cop out. I promise you that even though you seriously doubt it. Using a modern big screen on a PC is like the first super fast GPU or CPU you bought or even the introduction of SATA. Ergonomics; what about all the young people with carpal tunnel or addiction to Gaming? The very reason people play Games is the fun part is it not? In fact what about all the people that have Gaming chairs that are not ergonomically correct? What about all the small keyboards that anyone that has worked in an office environment for more than 15 years knows are a higher risk of carpal tunnel?

I understand your argument about voluntary immersion when it comes to nostalgia. I will disagree with you on size does not matter for Immersion though. There is a difference when you go from one size to another. I started with a 17" 4:3 Samsung panel to a 19" HP 1080P panel to a 27" 1440P panel (those Korean panels were stellar) to a 32" 4K panel to a 49" 4K panel to a 32" 1440P 165Hz panel. I though have my PC hooked up to 55" 4K 120HZ TV with all the accoutrements like HDR, Dolby Vision and a bunch of others to enhance the experience. Screen size on a PC is something that you truly do have to experience to appreciate it. I don't mean 1080P either.

Now I totally enjoyed Pitfall on my Atari but that sit down Star Wars Game where you could destroy the Death Star was total immersion. Neither of them would be enjoyable today though. Now you are not talking about VR. Does it not matter when it indeed fills your entire field of view? Are you eyes ok to be fed that artificial light directly into your retinas? Is it like looking into a light bulb with a prism? Is VR safer ergonomically than a large display screen? I even watched a doc on a scientist that used VR to influence the behavior of mice. So it could be even more dangerous. None of that matters to some people after racing or flying a Space ship in VR F me even Super Hot is addictive as hell.

But that's the thing: that is a cop-out. Cut and dried, plain and simple: if you keep returning to the logic of "people enjoy doing stupid crap, so there's no use trying to dissuade them", then that is a cop-out.

Also, the whole

kapone32I will disagree with you on size does not matter for Immersion though.

thing is just as much a straw man when it's coming from you as from anyone else here. I literally never said anything even remotely close to that. Let's see, I said

ValantarExperiencing immersion is never as simple as increasing how overwhelming the sensory stimuli are - but it can help.

ValantarNobody has said screen size doesn't affect things. It is one variable among many.

And that's the whole point: I'm not arguing that screen size doesn't matter, I'm arguing against the idea that there is a direct and linear relationship between immersion and screen size. Because there isn't - it's one variable in an incredibly complex relationship between embodied sensory experience (including distractions or lack thereof, the attributes of the things being experienced, and heaps more), expectations, desires, tastes, social pressures and negotiated reactions to these, convictions, and a whole bunch of other factors.

And, of course, it's pretty easy to find situations where a larger screen will act against feelings of immersion: fast-paced games on a screen so large you can't easily take in information located around the screen edges; or formulated more broadly, experiences where you're constantly being forced to move your body in distracting or uncomfortable ways to do what you're trying to do; physical discomfort due to combinations of screen size and distance (whether eye strain, neck strain, or more). And, of course, all of this is bound up in everything else that plays into the experience - from the comfort of your chair to your engagement in what you're doing to whether you're doing good or have distracting stuff going on in your life to whether you're alone or with others and how this makes you think and behave, and a whole bunch more. Arguing that bigger screen = more immersion is a massive oversimplification. It's like saying the brand of katchup is the only thing determining how much you enjoy your burger.

Fry178@Vayra86
yeah i understand that (im +50), especially since some of them are dentists ,and since i do what they told me to, have not had any problems with teeth stuff.
i just have a problem with ppl generalizing it by saying "no one should" (use this), which to me is blatantly false.
never say NEVER (and yes, i know i goes both ways).

I can kind of see that, but my counter would be that the logic of your statement is based on a sort of false equivalency. Saying "no one should" in these cases is generally true, even if there are exceptions. That makes it good advice - in the vast majority of situations, it will be the correct advice. There are exceptions to essentially everything, but not giving the generally applicable advice in a situation where there's no way of knowing whether the case you're advising is an exception? That's bad advice. Your logic seems to be predicated on there being some sort of comparability of scale between the rightness and wrongness of this advice. There isn't, even if your personal experience seems to contradict that. Just because some people survive being run over by a bus doesn't make it bad advice to look before crossing a busy street. "You might want to look before crossing the street, but hey, maybe you're one of those fluke cases who doesn't get injured when they're run over, so maybe don't bother?" is both overcomplicated, confusing, and a massive misrepresentation of the likelihood of each scenario. There's nothing wrong with saying "nobody should cross the street without looking". The exceptions are implied, and do not need to be made explicit, as they really don't need to be said out loud. It's perfectly fine for each person to figure those out on their own. If you take issue with statements like that, you might want to interrogate where that reaction is coming from, as at least at face value that sounds like a kind of immature "you're not the boss of me" type of knee-jerk. If you're more concerned with the pedantic details of exceptions to broad and general truths than with the welfare and safety of others, then ... well, I'd have a think on that.

@Valantar
well if i just use your "setup" post as example. it says nothing about being a recommendation.

everything will affect you sooner or later/more or less, but unless you know every person and all variables , you cant say everyone will be negatively affected by sitting closer to a screen, even if it affects 99% of the population

this has nothing to do with letting ppl do stupid stuff, but enjoy what THEY like, and make a decision for themselves if they find any risk involved acceptable (e.g. no one "needs" to do skydiving).

if playing on a 50in at 3ft means I'll have a stiff neck when im 100, thats fine, then at least i know why i will need a nurse ..
ignoring that i can sit/lay back in my chair at a larger distance, compared to browsing/office use etc, where there is less head/eye movement (and lower speeds), making impact and long term issues less likely.

to go with a funny note:
there is at least 1 guy in india handling food he fries, with his bare hands (into bubbling hot oil)
no burns, no skin damage whatsoever.
would i recommend it to the rest of the world? no. but i also wont tell the guy to stop.. ;)

Bomby569i doubt you game in dual 32'' as monitors in front of your face, that can't be a good experience. Probably used for productivity, no? And i don't know the exact measurements but dual 32'' doesn't occupy the same area as a 58'' or am i wrong? 58'' get's very high for your field of view

the thing is if it's supposed to be used as a tv then call it a tv, a gaming tv :D

Ah, you forget the glory of supreme commander
It's more that curved screens take up less horizontal space, so you can fit them closer together - swapped a flat for a curved as the secondary some time ago and was blown away by the leftover horizontal space




this photo was on an angle and lost a corner, but demonstrates the way it's multi monitor works better - you can zoom in and out at will and use it as a giant radar/mini-map screen, or zoom in for pew pew closeups

curves are fine if all you do on them is game