I got it all figured out! (surround gaming)

[wazoo]

Originally posted by blacklotus
Yup the 9x are very sweet indeed. But I'll settle for a "cheap" Samsung 241MP to go with my current Samsung 240T.

Yup, only 2 of the panels would be DVI.


Whether digital or analog is better, it depends.

A poor digital connector is still lousier than a very good analogue connector. (Compare the lousy R8500 digital connector to a analogue G400). But if both are equally of high quality, the digital one is definitely better, especially at higher resolutions of 1600x1200 and above.

To test this, try the pastel pink, green, blue and grey test patterns of the old nokia LCD monitor test program. Good digital and analog signals will not give you flickering effects when displaying these patterns. Poor ones will.

That 240T is SWEEEETT! I was considering it before this SurroundGaming thing popped up. I'm a major-league gamer, and it seems hard to beat.

Few questions:

I know the 240T does some ungodly resolution like 1920x1200, but is not SurroundGaming limited to 1280x1024 per display?

How are the darks on the 240T? I see it has a great (at least on paper), contrast of 500:1. I have the Apple Cinema display 22" which I hooked to my PC. AWESOME for UT, but Jedi Knight has some dark scenes which where sub-par compared to my CRT (the Apple has a 300:1 contrast).

And although the 9x (and similar products) is more expensive than the individual parts, that small bezel really *does* seem to bring the feeling of one continuous display into play.


Dunno.... still researching.

Wazoo

[xortam]

I'm considering mixing it all up. I currently use a 21" CRT for the primary (loaner, but would replace with similar size). My 17" is acting as the secondary. I might pick up a 17" digital LCD for the third display. I was considering a large 16x9 CRT before for the extra desktop and DVD viewing but I can't see watching movies on a monitor. Do you think mixing up various sized 4x3 monitors would be a problem for Surround Gaming? ... sure its not idea but the second and third heads are peripheral views anyway. I'd prefer to have various monitors that were optimized for different uses and I also don't want to let go of my old but excellent 17" CRT.

[Ali]

Take a look at this thread. The image is what I would LOVE to do. Already 1/3 of the way there.

http://forums.murc.ws/showthread.php?s=&threadid=32456

The link from that thread also has heaps of interesting multi-display setups. Could be worth looking into.

Ali

[xortam]

I prefer to have the top edge aligned when pairing differing size monitors: This arrangement also has better ergonomics for me.

P.S. It also allows my dolly that Paul gave me to straddle the top corners of the monitors.

[xortam]

This one's getting to be a bit much. Nice desk.

[KvHagedorn]

That guy must have made an awful lot of money day-trading.

[xortam]

Originally posted by KvHagedorn
That guy must have made an awful lot of money day-trading.

And probably lost a lot of money too.

[blacklotus]

Thanks. The 240T is sweet. I actually saved up for a year and not spend on any other "sins" before splurging on it.

Surround gaming will not fully utilise this monitor. Surround gaming requires 1280x1024x3 monitors. The native resolutions of the 240T or the newer 241MP (see this year's winner in Expo, Germany, March 2002) are 1920x1200 and 1600x1200 (left and right sidebars)
So in effect, you can get 3 of these babies and run them at a lowly 1280x1024 resolution each. (OUCH!!! still cheaper than 9x's though...)

For me, I'm more interested in the true independent dual head modes at 1920x1200x2 monitors. (for new flight sims that should support it and for work as well.)

The actual contrast is 400:1 (500:1 is a misprint, I believe. I've checked Samsung's LCD parts list, and they never produced a 500:1 contrast LCD panel for 24" LCDs until year 2002 for the 241MP. 240T is a year 2000 model. I bought mine in Oct 2001.)


The contrasts are very good, but still no match for a top of the line Sony F520 Mitsubishi 2060u or Eizo F965. CRTs are still better in this respect. But LCDs are more environmentally-friendly and weighs 2/3 less.

p.s Your Apple is indeed very sweet. The 22" would have been my choice, but I have concerns whether Win98 or WinXP will support the new Apple DVID to ADC boxes and identify the monitor correctly. Any ideas? (If Win98se or WinXP can use the converter box, I'll rather get the Apple 23". (Costs S$2K less, and at 1920x1200 at 23", has a higher pixel density and hence sharper image to the Samsung. )

p.p.s I believe Apple is using Samsung LCD panels as well.

Originally posted by wazoo


That 240T is SWEEEETT! I was considering it before this SurroundGaming thing popped up. I'm a major-league gamer, and it seems hard to beat.

Few questions:

I know the 240T does some ungodly resolution like 1920x1200, but is not SurroundGaming limited to 1280x1024 per display?

How are the darks on the 240T? I see it has a great (at least on paper), contrast of 500:1. I have the Apple Cinema display 22" which I hooked to my PC. AWESOME for UT, but Jedi Knight has some dark scenes which where sub-par compared to my CRT (the Apple has a 300:1 contrast).

And although the 9x (and similar products) is more expensive than the individual parts, that small bezel really *does* seem to bring the feeling of one continuous display into play.


Dunno.... still researching.

Wazoo

[blacklotus]

It's more a matter of how much you can save for things you want to get rather than how much you can earn.

(We orientals are rather scroogy compared to the more free spending occidentals. Of course, exceptions abound )

Originally posted by KvHagedorn
That guy must have made an awful lot of money day-trading.

[xortam]

blacklotus , KvHagedorn was referring to the picture that I posted.

[SpiralDragon]

what would be nice is if someone (although it would be xpensive) did a tripl monitor solution out of plasma display insted of LCD or CRT

btw are LCD monitors capable of 10bit per-chanel display..... ? from what i have read so far they only suport true color 16m colors...... what about CRTs ??

[Novdid]

can you imagine the cost?!?!

[SpiralDragon]

Originally posted by Novdid
can you imagine the cost?!?!

wel if i skimp on a general PC update... stay with a PIII 933, 512MB SDR RAM and a few other not so important parts that i already have mabe... just mabe i would be a few $10,000 short...... any rich person care to adopt a poor 24yr old

[wazoo]

Originally posted by blacklotus
Thanks. The 240T is sweet. I actually saved up for a year and not spend on any other "sins" before splurging on it.

Surround gaming will not fully utilise this monitor. Surround gaming requires 1280x1024x3 monitors. The native resolutions of the 240T or the newer 241MP (see this year's winner in Expo, Germany, March 2002) are 1920x1200 and 1600x1200 (left and right sidebars)
So in effect, you can get 3 of these babies and run them at a lowly 1280x1024 resolution each. (OUCH!!! still cheaper than 9x's though...)

For me, I'm more interested in the true independent dual head modes at 1920x1200x2 monitors. (for new flight sims that should support it and for work as well.)

The actual contrast is 400:1 (500:1 is a misprint, I believe. I've checked Samsung's LCD parts list, and they never produced a 500:1 contrast LCD panel for 24" LCDs until year 2002 for the 241MP. 240T is a year 2000 model. I bought mine in Oct 2001.)


The contrasts are very good, but still no match for a top of the line Sony F520 Mitsubishi 2060u or Eizo F965. CRTs are still better in this respect. But LCDs are more environmentally-friendly and weighs 2/3 less.

p.s Your Apple is indeed very sweet. The 22" would have been my choice, but I have concerns whether Win98 or WinXP will support the new Apple DVID to ADC boxes and identify the monitor correctly. Any ideas? (If Win98se or WinXP can use the converter box, I'll rather get the Apple 23". (Costs S$2K less, and at 1920x1200 at 23", has a higher pixel density and hence sharper image to the Samsung. )

p.p.s I believe Apple is using Samsung LCD panels as well.

The Apple 22" works GREAT with a product from Dr.Bott called DVIator. It takes the Apple single cable and splits it into component power, video and USB. I had zero problem hooking it up under WinXP, and am currently writing this in 1600x1024 on my PC. I just run it as a standard XVGA monitor.

I am using a GeForce4 Ti4600 and use Nview to run both a doublehead solution (when in the mood), but generally I just "lug" (not really as these LCD's hardly weigh ANYTHING) my 22" over to my PC for night-time gaming and run it single.

In fact, I've been playing Jedi Knight II and, last night, GTA3, both in native 1600x1024. VERY NICE!

Gaming remains my primary diversion, so I think I'll still go for the 9X solution - although that 240T tugs at me. That small bezel size (.75 inches!) between screens really works for me. I too am a flight sim junky (mainly mil sims like Falcon 4.0, IL-2 etc.) and hope that they will support the Parhelia SurroundGaming in the future as that is definetely my next card if SurroundGaming works as well as it sounds.

Actually, I'm off right *now* to E3 to see for myself. THey are running UT2003 (UT is one of my alltime favorites) on the PArhelia with the Panoram monitors. I'll let ya know how they look!

Regards,

Wazoo

[Helevitia]

HDTV?

I was thinking aobut all of this(again, for the millionth time) and was wondering who would release a graphics card that would plug into my HDTV using the component inputs. This would give me 2/3 the view of 3 monitors and I think would look rather nice. The block diagram on the Parhelia chip shows "HDTV" but what does it mean? My guess is they will not release the Parhelia with whatever feature they may have had in mind. Here is the big problem, HDTV is currently using component inputs and the movie industry doesn't like it, because it is not "secure". This fall they will release ieee1394 connectors on HDTV's and all of us(a couple million) that have the component inputs will be screwed. Is there a connector of sorts that converts RGB to component inputs? I knwo the older RCA set-top boxes had RGB and you had to use a special cable to connect it to your TV. Anybody have any ideas?

Thanks,

Dave