Discussion in 'PC Gaming' started by drz01, Jan 7, 2008.
2880 x 900??? That's crap! All you'll see on the screen are people looking like they're fat and supported by two stumps.
Turn the details to very high for .7 FPS at that resolution!
oops.. let me clean that up *grabs mop*
was going to post that on front page but didnt think it was worth it seeing as most pages didnt have that much to say on it
Whoa!!!! thats gonna be cool ... man oh man wish I had money to burn!
Not bad, would be truly sexy if it was flat!
Sounds like my co-workers...
So whatever happened to head mounted VR displays?
They give much better emmerion and have been around for years. They just don't seem to have much uptake or price drops.
Looks amazing but heard there are problems with it (yes only prototype) but still. And yea with that I'd think it would have a better resolution then that. Geez.
i hope you're kidding.
anyway, i think the resolution's fine. that's more than 2.5mp which is more than 1600x1200 or 1680x1050 screens. anything more would be too many pixels for most video cards to push. and it's better than having two or three lcd's with the gaps in between.
edit: actually, i just realized it's DLP. not sure why they went that route. i would prefer an LCD or OLED version.
I'm not kidding. Just imagine that you had your photo as a desktop background on a 17" monitor... It probably looks fine, great! Now imagine that photo stretched out to the sides 3 times. What would you look like in the stretched out photo?
It wouldn't be stretched out at all. You get more space width-wise, the elements on the screen don't stretch to compensate. Same way when you increase your resolution, things just get smaller, you get more space.
We all want one lets be real here ... all of us what this or something like it ...
I want 4 of them ahahha
Only 4? I would stack 6 of them and play Halo 3 'till my eyes bleed.
If you stack 6 (2 high 3 across) you would have a half circle around you. Why turn around to see your enemy when you can just turn your head.
vern said it. just because something is wider, doesn't mean it's supposed to change the way objects look on the screen. do you have a widescreen tv? if so, you probably are one of those people who just stretches regular 4:3 content to your 16:9 screen so everyone is short and fat and cars have oval wheels. i see it all almost all of the restaurants and bars and it bugs the hell out of me. when you see a movie in the theater, it's not stretched out, is it?
I have two 7-8 year old CRT monitors that I still use that achieve 1920x1440. I just find it amusing that it is technically greater than 1080p (1920x1080).
Oh I know. It's very annoying. When I make TV promos in HD, I always reformat the 4:3 video so that it's "pillarboxed." Yet, I notice that few others in my line of work bother to do so.
I've realised I made a mistake about stretching the picture in widescreen format. But my comment was made based on current formats being put on to new technology. Just like you said, putting a 4:3 content on to a 16:9 screen will stretch it... same goes for putting 16:9 content on to this new screen which is 28.8:9 ratio, if I'm not mistaken.
16:9 is a good ratio for screens, I won't disagree with that - it looks good. But if this screen has a ratio of 28.8:9. I think it's just a bit toooooo wide.
As technology progresses, developers will make games/movies etc in the wider format, but at the moment I just don't see that happening.
2.35:1 is "anamorphic widesscreen" (21.15:9, for reference), and what most movie theaters show and lots of movies on disc are shown at. this aspect ratio for displays might eventually catch on in the consumer market, but im thinking 16:9 is a good compromise between 2.35:1 and 4:3, not to mention most content is normal 16:9 widescreen.
at any rate, the monitor that this thread is about is most deinitely designed with gaming in mind, where there is no is really no AR to worry about. most games nowadays let you set any resoluion you desire without distorting anything.