Higher Resolutions?! WOW!!!

[Marshmallowman]

A few of the same techniuqes mentioned in the above links to get custom resolutions for SG gaming can be used to make *any* custom resolution , be that single or triple monitor.

If you had taken the time to read through the threads you might have worked that out.

Having said that, I would like to see what video card you are going to use at 3200 x 2400 and still get usabale frame rates. You do realise that 3200x2400 has four times more pixels than 1600x1200.

[SaTaN^666]

rofl sg gaming a bad thing? u see more, rather thenhaving ONE high res forons creen to make urself blind, I think most of us would rather have a wider view, and yes some games are NOt sg compatible well, thats why the huds are a bit streched, but oh well its no reason to go back to one screen :P

[Paddy the wak]

I agree ... don't poo poo Surround Gaming until you have tried it.

[the_hitman_guy]

first of all, the monitor costs for sale at $4,000 at Tigerdirect.com if I remember correctly. Oh, no! I never, ever realized that! I never, ever even learned resolutions, or even finding area in elementary school! How could 3200 x 2400 be 4 times the pixels than 1600 x 1200? One of the mysteries of life. No offence meant whatsoever.

I am not poo pooing Surround Gaming! I just think that it's more important to have high resolutions in the first place. And why are you saying that we will go blind? The lower the resolution, the more blind you'll get. I would rather have one screen with high rez to NOT go blind than have three screens make out of bricks, not dots (although I myself play with bricks too, which is exactly why I'm looking for something new). I mean, come on! 1600 x 1200 is the same as 2400 x 600, but you use the extra 1600 x 600 much rarer. I mean, if you could get me a high rez monitor, and then place 2 of the same ones side by side, and make them all have high rez in a game, I'd certainly go for it! If you have 3 22' inch monitors side by side, they can surround you 180 degrees. Sweeeeet.

[Paddy the wak]

the_hitman_guy wrote ....

The way you put them on 3 screens doesn't feel like such a good idea. The games weren't made to be like that, the hud is, weird, the sides seem like wasted, and you probably wouldn't look to the sides as much - there's little info there and the most action takes place in the middle.

Sounds like your poo pooing Surround Gaming to me !
And
It sounds like you haven't tried it either.

[the_hitman_guy]

I said I would like Surround Gaming too, but not if it doesn't let me have low pitch! At least read all of my post before replying.

[Jon P. Inghram]

The refresh rate on a T221 is only 41 Hz with a quad DVI card like the HR256 (the QuadroFX cards are only dual DVI, they'd be limited to 21 Hz.) Plus the response rate is 50ms.

You can get a Quadro4 NVS 400 too, it's got 4 DVI outputs. But with only 64 megs of RAM I doubt it would work that well with 3D games.

[Duty]

Originally posted by spadnos
Don't forget the monitor.

It's a mere $6800.

Well, that hurt.


Jeff

[the_hitman_guy]

Ah, jeez, come on! They've been making games for over three years which had maximum resolutions of either 2048 x 1536 or 1600 x 1200 and they still haven't made an enhancement in maximum gaming resolution? Oh, man!

I know I'm going a little off topic, but do they make DIGITAL maximum resolutions of 248 x 1536 and not 1600 x 1200 at 85 herts?

[a_h]

How could 3200 x 2400 be 4 times the pixels than 1600 x 1200? One of the mysteries of life.

Not really. You just have to multiply those numbers. Let's see:

1600x1200=1920000 Pixels
3200=2x1600
2400=2x1200
so you get: 3200x2400=2x1600x2x1200=4x1600x1200=7680000

If you multiply this with 32Bits/pixel, you end up with ~234MB data to be calculated 30-times (you do want playable fps) every second, so about 3GB has to be calculated every single second (not to mention other, non-visible, areas).

However, I don't think you ever played at 1600x1200. When I look at the current games out there, I doubt you find one that looks even better at that resolution, because they're all optimized for far lower resolutions.

Greets, Hannes

[the_hitman_guy]

Du-uh! I was being sarcastic. (did I spell sarcastic right?) No offence meant whatsoever.

[spadnos]

Actually, there's more to my point about the monitor than meets the eye (pun intended )

The finest dot pitch you can get on todays monitors (other than the T221) is about .22 mm. Let's call it 0.2 for good measure.

This means that you only get 28/0.2 or 140 pixels per inch horizontally. Since computer monitors have a 4:3 aspect ratio, you take the diagonal (visible) display size, divide by 5, and multiply by 4 to get the horizontal pixel count (multiply by 3 for the vertical) - it's a 3:4:5 triangle.

So - the ABSOLUTE BEST 20-inch (visible) monitor is 16 inches across, and can therefore display a maximum of 2240 pixels across, on 1680 lines. That's for something which is better than the best CRT technonogy available today.

So, 2048x1536 is the practical limit today anyway.

- Steve

[Pappie]

Well instead of an IBM for 6 grand, I ordered 3 Planar 23" 1600 x 1200 TFTs and a Dell dual 3.2 workstation with a PCI and AGP Parhelia 256 cards and a nVidia, QuadroFX 3000, 256MB card so I'll have all my bases covered. Since I do graphic work, I feel I have the best of all worlds for my setup. The Planars cost 2 grand so you get 3 for the cost of 1 IBM.

[the_hitman_guy]

I was thinking of bying an LCD. They don't have max rez of 2048 by 1568, but 1600 x 1200. Now, what I was wandering about was the size of the monitor. I could have a 23" with .28 dot pitch, a 20" with .25 dot pitch, a 17" with .22 dot pitch or even smaller. What should I get?

[Pappie]

If an artists, classically trained, I need realistate. Not DPI beyond the 1600 x 1200. For me the 23" flat screen was the dream ticket. I chose the Planar from the Dell site. It's 1999. but worth it if you have it to spare. I simply wouldn't blow 6 grand on any monitor under 60 inches. With a lot of apps, three monitors will give me lots of viewing. Your money your call.