Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Alienware's Curved Monitor

CmdrTaco posted more than 6 years ago | from the not-for-desktop-publishing dept.

269

ViperArrow writes "Alienware has showcased a curved display prototype supporting a resolution of 2880x900, aimed mainly toward gamers, with a refresh rate of .02ms. This 3-foot-wide DLP with LED illumination will be available by the second half of 2008. The monitor is still showing some flaws, but Alienware assures us that these will be gone by release. No price has been revealed as of yet."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Here's a picture... (0, Redundant)

DaFallus (805248) | more than 6 years ago | (#21953658)

since the linked article doesn't have one... here [boingboing.net]

Re:Here's a picture... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21953682)

The pics are at the bottom, the video is the main media up front tho

HOLY SHIT It's fucking PATCH TUESDAY KIDS !! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21953942)

Get your asses rollin' /.

CRITICALS 7

Get them before they get you !!

Re:HOLY SHIT It's fucking PATCH TUESDAY KIDS !! (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21954014)

Most of us have the brains not to run windows, jackass...

Re:Here's a picture... (4, Informative)

Joe Snipe (224958) | more than 6 years ago | (#21954706)

since the linked article doesn't have one...

No, they didn't have one. They had nine. And a video.

Re:Here's a picture... (3, Informative)

crymeph0 (682581) | more than 6 years ago | (#21954780)

GP's probably running NoScript [noscript.net] in FireFox. I had to temporarily allow scripts from gawker.com to see the pictures and video.

Re:Here's a picture... (5, Funny)

DaFallus (805248) | more than 6 years ago | (#21954904)

My bad, I use NoScript and I didn't realize you had to allow scripts to run from 5 different sites to get the pictures/video to load...

Wonder how many... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21955228)

other times this has happened to you and your first thought was similar: not your fault, someone else messed up? Well, don't worry, there's now several hundred thousand people who know about your problem and will help correct any future browsing mishaps...

Re:Here's a picture... (2, Informative)

DaFallus (805248) | more than 6 years ago | (#21954938)

Apologies for replying to my own post, but I just wanted to point out that I was wrong and that the original article does have pictures and a video. I browse with Firefox and NoScript so I did not see the images until I temporarily allowed scripts from gawker.

4 Monitors in one? (1, Redundant)

Wakk013 (922235) | more than 6 years ago | (#21953670)

Looks like 4 monitors running 720x900 snapped together. Does not look curved during game play. Doesn't look like this product is really ready as yet.

Nice idea though. Good eye candy, but that's about it right now.

Re:4 Monitors in one? (1)

Brad1138 (590148) | more than 6 years ago | (#21954330)

Looks like 4 monitors running 720x900 snapped together

1440x900 is a common LCD display resolution. I'd say it's 2 monitors in one.

Re:4 Monitors in one? (2, Informative)

Apathy451 (234733) | more than 6 years ago | (#21954546)

I know this is /., but RTFA: "The Soylent Green: You can see the seams between this monitor's four segments, but the Alienware humanoids tell us that flaw will be gone by the time this craft lands on Earth."

Re:4 Monitors in one? (2, Informative)

Bender Unit 22 (216955) | more than 6 years ago | (#21954440)

Indeed.
"Alienware has showcased a curved display prototype"

prototype
(pr't-tp') pronunciation

n.

      1. An original type, form, or instance serving as a basis or standard for later stages.
      2. An original, full-scale, and usually working model of a new product or new version of an existing product.
      3. An early, typical example.
      4. Biology. A form or species that serves as an original type or example.

[French, from Greek prtotupon, from neuter of prtotupos, original : prto-, proto- + tupos, model.]
prototypal pro'totyp'al (-t'pl) or pro'totyp'ic (-tp'k) or pro'totyp'ical (--kl) adj.

hmm (3, Interesting)

wwmedia (950346) | more than 6 years ago | (#21953676)

did everyone notice in the video the way the monitor seems to be broken into 4 with the colors being dimmer?

anyways image how pRon would look on that!

Re:hmm (1, Offtopic)

Anne_Nonymous (313852) | more than 6 years ago | (#21953804)

p Ron Hubbard?

Re:hmm (0, Offtopic)

Pharmboy (216950) | more than 6 years ago | (#21953982)

Yes, unlike his successful author L. Ron, p Ron wasted his time by duping people into a cult that worships money and the mothership.

Re:hmm (1)

peragrin (659227) | more than 6 years ago | (#21953814)

I am wondering though how visible the seams are when viewing it in Real Life. sometimes Video camera's pick up subtle differences that can't normally be seen. Also Proper color correction should fix that.

I do hope those kinds of issues are sorted out before shipping.

Re:hmm (1)

Loibisch (964797) | more than 6 years ago | (#21953940)

anyways image how pRon would look on that
That's a long shot away...

Re:hmm (1)

Smidge204 (605297) | more than 6 years ago | (#21953952)

I noticed the seams too. It's actually a tad unreasonable to actually make one huge curved LCD panel... manufacturing alone would be a challange.

It may be an effect of the video camera, though, that makes it look so noticible. You know how LCD panels look offcolor and dim when viewed from an angle... so if you are sitting the proper distance from the unit, all the panels would be facing directly at you and it might look very nice.

What gets me is the "0.02ms refresh" thing. 0.00002 second refresh rate? 50,000Hz refresh? Really? I'd believe a 2.0ms (100Hz) refresh rate, but 50kHz - if that's even possible - is wildly impractical. Anything more than the game's rendering FPS is technically a waste.
=Smidge=

Re:hmm (3, Informative)

Smidge204 (605297) | more than 6 years ago | (#21954036)

Aha. The article says 0.02ms response time not refresh rate. Very different measurement there. The incorrect summary fogged my mind when reading the article... 0.02ms response time is slightly more believable.... not my much though. It's about 100x faster than current consumer-grade units (2-3ms).

=Smidge=

Re:"0.02 ms" (1)

TheRequiem13 (978749) | more than 6 years ago | (#21954052)

Yea, he must have meant 2ms, as 0.02 ms doesn't make any sense. I assume the presenter misspoke (I'll give him the benefit of the doubt, since it was just a single one-on-one session). Yet all the coverage of this monitor on various gadget sites has quoted the .02 number. People need to learn to question what they hear/read...

Re:hmm (1)

AvitarX (172628) | more than 6 years ago | (#21954130)

It's a DLP projector.

I know they refresh much better than LCDs though 200 times may be a bit stretching it.

If that is mirror flutter rate than it is a solid 5ms max (with some things being quicker, such as black to white being .02ms).

IAFOS

Re:hmm (4, Informative)

Amouth (879122) | more than 6 years ago | (#21954976)

actualy DLP chips have amazingly high responce time.. and being that the industry tends to measure responce time from gray to gray instead of white to black... i can very well see .02ms response time for the DLP chip.. but at that rate it is the color wheel that will be the limiting factor as the mirror can't reflect light that isnt' there yet.. if you think about how DLP works..

you have a grid of little onchip mirrors.. that tilt back and forth.. you have a color wheel that spins at high rpm and a blub shining throuhg it.. for a specific color to be shown the mirrors in sync with the wheel tilt to allow a certin amount of the light from the wheel through. if you have a color wheel going at say 10k rpm 3 colors in the wheel (more modern ones are using 6 and 12 color wheels to help prevent rainbow effect) each mirror has a color option 500 times a second wich means 2ms to switch from solid to solid with only a 3 color wheel.. but if you had say a green then it would be blue and yellow both and no for red. which means 2ms/3 mirror movements so .66ms responce time on the mirror.. now if you double the color wheel options you must increase the responce time.. by the same factor.. 6 color wheel = .33ms responce time 12 color wheel = .166ms response time..

while i will agree that .02 responce time is insane (providing use of a 64 color wheel) i am willing to bet that it is more like 0.2 ms responce time.. as 2ms would be a very plain cheep projector..

but DLP is by far better than LCD at responce time..

Re:hmm (1)

modecx (130548) | more than 6 years ago | (#21955314)

The alternative to the color wheel may be that they are using separate RGB LEDs for illumination, and the LEDs can surely pulse much, much more quickly than a six color wheel can spin.

I'd like to try this bad boy out in a less illuminated room. It's hardly fair to demo a rear projector in such an over illuminated place like a trade show floor.

Re:hmm (1)

TheGavster (774657) | more than 6 years ago | (#21954510)

This isn't actually an LCD panel; it's an array of DLP rear-projection screens. DLP devices can hit over 1kHz refresh rates, so I don't think that 50kHz response is out of the question. What vexes me is that it's only 900 lines tall; when is something 1080 or above going to be standard in the widescreen display market? Standard ratio monitors have been 1024 to 1200 lines for years.

Re:hmm (5, Funny)

mrchaotica (681592) | more than 6 years ago | (#21955234)

What gets me is the "0.02ms refresh" thing.

Maybe the person who said that used to work for Verizon?

Re:hmm (1)

UbuntuDupe (970646) | more than 6 years ago | (#21954058)

Just don't try to play any rhythm games on it (or any hidef tv) from a 480i input game...

Re:hmm (1)

ajs318 (655362) | more than 6 years ago | (#21954718)

480i? Who would want such a picture? That's worse than ordinary low-definition TV, which has 625 lines interlaced.

Re:hmm (0)

yoyhed (651244) | more than 6 years ago | (#21955006)

What? Ordinary low-definition TV is 640x480i.

Re:hmm (2, Insightful)

ajs318 (655362) | more than 6 years ago | (#21955084)

There are 625 lines, which are not subdivided into pixels, in the two fields which make up a standard analogue TV picture.

Re:hmm (1)

UbuntuDupe (970646) | more than 6 years ago | (#21955064)

No, 480i is standard def, and that's what most PS2 games (and all of the DDR series) output as.

Re:hmm (5, Informative)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 6 years ago | (#21955160)

480 is the number of lines in an NTSC picture. You probably live in an area with a slightly less primitive colour TV encoding. PAL encodes 625 lines, although only 576 are visible. Since PAL picture have 20% more vertical resolution, standard definition TV in the USA and other places which use NTSC looks terrible to someone used to PAL (the colour reproduction is very poor too, leading to claims that it stands for Never The Same Colour). It's probably one of the reasons why HD is doing better in the USA than Europe; the quality difference is much more apparent.

Re:hmm (2, Insightful)

192939495969798999 (58312) | more than 6 years ago | (#21954132)

Agreed, looking at the playback it's quite clearly 4 monitors stitched together, very cheesy and disappointing. It is not at all a "seamless" curved display , and looks surprisingly dumb compared with say, the zenview 6-way monitor which has defined seams. At least the picture remains sharp besides the seams, instead of having that weird fade line.

http://www.bornrich.org/entry/zenview-announces-elite-six-screen-monitor/ [bornrich.org]

Re:hmm (1)

prelelat (201821) | more than 6 years ago | (#21954252)

In the article alienware acknowledged that this was a problem and that it would be resolved before it was released in late 2008. This is just an early prototype. If it wasn't fixed I agree there would be no benefit over something like a zenview 6-way. I might still prefer something like that anyways, looks cooler and you can breakup work when you want to, to different screens. Even if you could with the alienware model it would probably be a little more confusing.

Re:hmm (2, Insightful)

dmdavis (949140) | more than 6 years ago | (#21954304)

If you RTFM, you'll see that it is described as "four nearly seamless and sharp screens", and "You can see the seams between this monitor's four segments, but the Alienware humanoids tell us that flaw will be gone by the time this craft lands on Earth." So yeah, I think that was noticed.

x900???? (1)

Shivetya (243324) | more than 6 years ago | (#21953678)

More for presentation than gaming, so why does Alienware have this product?

Re:x900???? (1)

steveo777 (183629) | more than 6 years ago | (#21955116)

More for presentation than gaming, so why does Alienware have this product?

Because they hope that people will buy it, and that they will make money.

initital thoughts (4, Interesting)

Fierythrasher (777913) | more than 6 years ago | (#21953702)

This might perhaps be good for gaming, but the fact that it is curved makes me shudder at the thought of people doing, say, photoshop work on a naturally curved surface. Sure, having a 3' flat monitor would be hard to see, having it curved is going to make drawing a straight line, or anything other than gaming, really difficult I would think.

Moreover, I'm wondering if this will result in a fish-eye lens (or reverse fish-eye lens) effect even in games.

As for price...you can bet it will be steep, but Apple thinks they can charge $3k for a 32" monitor, so I'd expect a similar cost for a 36" monitor.

Re:initital thoughts (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21954826)

This isn't a 36" monitor we're talking about, it's 36" wide. Assuming square pixels it's roughly 11" tall, leading to a "diagonal" size of sqrt(1296+121)=37.6" (and in monitor sales 1.6" is a big deal). Since Dell says that a dell-branded 30" is worth $1200, you can bet a 7.6" gain with the more expensive Alienware branding will want $5k by itself. Personally, though, I'd take their 30"... so..much...code!

Re:initital thoughts (4, Funny)

digitig (1056110) | more than 6 years ago | (#21954900)

having it curved is going to make drawing a straight line, or anything other than gaming, really difficult I would think.
Well, I'd like one for side-by-side comparisons of documents. Two ordinary monitors side-by-side wouldn't be as good because -- er -- give me a moment to think...

holy shit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21953744)

I want one!

That's a lot of pixels! (5, Insightful)

91degrees (207121) | more than 6 years ago | (#21953752)

Can any graphics card handle the sort of fill rate required from this yet?

Re:That's a lot of pixels! (2, Informative)

quarrel (194077) | more than 6 years ago | (#21953862)

I have a 30" Dell, running at its native 2560 * 1600. Apple makes one, lots of others.

2560 * 1600 = 4,096,000

This Alienware monitor:

2880 * 900 = 2,592,000

So this new monitor is nothing special total pixel wise..

Looks cool though.

--Q

Re:That's a lot of pixels! (1)

cyber0ne (640846) | more than 6 years ago | (#21953902)

It's maybe half the pixils of a 30-inch cinema display (be it Apple's or someone else's). DVI connections can handle plenty more than that, and there is no shortage of video cards that can do it. Cute toy, but hardly super-high-res.

Re:That's a lot of pixels! (2, Interesting)

Brad1138 (590148) | more than 6 years ago | (#21954486)

Can any graphics card handle the sort of fill rate required from this yet?

Are there any games designed to run at 2880x900?

Re:That's a lot of pixels! (1)

Carbon016 (1129067) | more than 6 years ago | (#21954856)

Well, um, sort of - depending on your definition of "run". World in Conflict and a few other DX10 titles support dual monitors, and seem to work well on my paired 1440x900 displays, so I can't imagine it being much different all in one - so technically it can support the fill rate, and they're designed to run at that res.

Of course that's using one monitor as a separate sort of display - a minimap or other useful feature. "normal" games would most likely have their UIs stretched beyond recognition if they attempted to add the extra width "normally". So it's not really a technical issue but an issue of "how can we make this work both 1. as a completely non-standard resolution and 2. as one display without cheating and making half the screen our inventory or something".

Re:That's a lot of pixels! (2, Insightful)

Bigbutt (65939) | more than 6 years ago | (#21954878)

And that's the $64,000 question. I have three screens at home running on two adapters (512M video ram). It'd be nice to be able to use all the extra real estate to see more of a battlefield (StarCraft or Command and Conquer for example).

The three screens work great for my programming projects though.

[John]

Re:That's a lot of pixels! (1)

berashith (222128) | more than 6 years ago | (#21955018)

Oh NO!!!
Time to restart Duke Nukem for native 2880x900

Re:That's a lot of pixels! (3, Informative)

Have Blue (616) | more than 6 years ago | (#21955240)

Many modern games will let you specify arbitrary pixel dimensions and aspect ratio, either with the console or by hand-editing the config file. I imagine it'll make the HUD look a little weird.

...tf? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21953758)

it has a 50kHz refresh rate? that can't be right

Re:...tf? (1)

It'sYerMam (762418) | more than 6 years ago | (#21955158)

No, it has a 0.02ms "refresh rate" which doesn't even make sense because a "ms" is a unit of time not of rate. You'd think "nerds" would at least know their units.

on behalf of all of slashdot, i would like to say (1)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 6 years ago | (#21953762)

DROOL

Re:on behalf of all of slashdot, i would like to s (1)

teslar (706653) | more than 6 years ago | (#21953962)

Naw, I'm not drooling, so please don't speak for me. In fact, the resolution leaves me distinctly unimpressed, given the size of the beast. The only wow-factor is the curved form, but I'm not yet sure how much, if at all, that will improve gaming experience. Not sure it's useful for working at all, as others have pointed out. Also, if you need screen estate, it's probably cheaper to put 3 1920x1200 monitors or so next to each other.

Re:on behalf of all of slashdot, i would like to s (1)

teeloo (766817) | more than 6 years ago | (#21953998)

BARF

Stop It MoFos, Stop IT now (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21953784)

Now is the time to STOP IT !!

Gah, DLP (1)

Neon Spiral Injector (21234) | more than 6 years ago | (#21953798)

Does anyone else feel like they are going to be sick or at least get a huge headache when looking at DLP displays?

If I sit perfectly still it's OK. But even little movements cause my eyes hurt. Turning my head to talk to the person next to me is likely to cause me to puke into their lap.

I don't suffer from motion sickness or anything like that. It is just these displays, front or rear projection don't seem to form a stable picture to my eyes.

Re:Gah, DLP (1)

yodleboy (982200) | more than 6 years ago | (#21953898)

2 comments. the first is it's funny how DLP bugs some people but not others. I have a 65" DLP here at home and I've never had an issue, but i've got friends that get a headache.

the second is that the visible lines on this monitor are one of the issues that will be resolved by the time it ships, so calm down people, or read the article...

Re:Gah, DLP (1)

SixFactor (1052912) | more than 6 years ago | (#21955232)

Your reaction to fast motion on DLP is really interesting - it's the first I've heard of it. We have a 61" DLP at thome, and have not noticed any illness during fast movies like any of the Bourne series of flicks.

Maybe you have what I jokingly call "Sniper Eyes," which my kids have, when they focus rapidly on my moving head during TF2 sniper war sessions on 2Fort (insert booming UT voice here: HEADSHOT!)

I did some googling, and it might not be the fact that it's a DLP screen. See here [pcworld.com] , where the writer claims even LCDs can cause them.

Awesome, dude (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21953812)

Looks wild, but it's really thick (because of the projection process). I doubt it will be cheap.

Flight Simmers (4, Insightful)

PowerEdge (648673) | more than 6 years ago | (#21953906)

I can see this product geared towards flight simmers. Figure out how to drive four of these displays (front, left, right, back) and I'll be happy. That and I won't have to worry about installing a furnace in my new house.

Re:Flight Simmers (1)

Loibisch (964797) | more than 6 years ago | (#21953966)

That and I won't have to worry about installing a furnace in my new house.
Yeah, because most likely to afford 4 of these babies you'd have to sell your house anyway... ...and your neighbour's... ...and your grandmother for some change for the video card to drive it...

Re:Flight Simmers (1)

PowerEdge (648673) | more than 6 years ago | (#21954006)

yeah. or a down payment on a Cirrus.

Oh great! Four of these... (1)

sfled (231432) | more than 6 years ago | (#21953920)

set up around me and I'd never leave the house.

Oh, wait, how much is the video card?

So it's like a CRT... (4, Funny)

mushadv (909107) | more than 6 years ago | (#21953926)

but backwards?

Re:So it's like a CRT... (1)

niceone (992278) | more than 6 years ago | (#21955174)

Yeah, it's like being inside a CRT - but without the electron gun burning a hole in the back of your head!

Useful Only For Gaming? (1)

MrCrassic (994046) | more than 6 years ago | (#21953964)

Will this monitor serve any productive purpose outside of enhancing gaming experience? I can personally see myself having a curved monitor as a hinderance for writing applications or anything that closely resembles writing on a flat surface (i.e. code, documents, spreadsheets, etc.).

Re:Useful Only For Gaming? (1)

Itchyeyes (908311) | more than 6 years ago | (#21954192)

I could think of a few things, robotic surgery, piloting UAVs, flight simulators, etc... anything that involves immersing the user in another point of view. Obviously this is a niche device, but for what it is, it's pretty cool.

Re:Useful Only For Gaming? (1)

thatskinnyguy (1129515) | more than 6 years ago | (#21954714)

How could you let virtual reality porn slip your mind? Get with the program man.

Re:Useful Only For Gaming? (1)

mrchaotica (681592) | more than 6 years ago | (#21955318)

Hookers are cheaper.

Re:Useful Only For Gaming? (1)

CannedTurkey (920516) | more than 6 years ago | (#21955022)

Time to start thinking outside the box, and inside the ball!

Wiiiidddeeee Windows. (1, Interesting)

ErroneousBee (611028) | more than 6 years ago | (#21953970)

So will Gizmodo take a hint and develop a website that looks good in a short and wide window?

I get sick of having to scroll vertically stacked content into view when I'm on a wide-screen display.

Maybe someone could memo the BBC and Ars about this too.

Re:Wiiiidddeeee Windows. (1)

It'sYerMam (762418) | more than 6 years ago | (#21955208)

I don't see how this is offtopic to be honest. The problem is that huge lines of text aren't practical to read - after some experimentally verifiable length, it's too far for your eye to follow down back to the start of the next line. That's why I didn't bother buying a widescreen monitor - mostly I'm reading or writing, with some gaming and TV watching. For reading, the vertical pixels are much more useful, since they let you see more on the screen at a time. Perhaps if we begun to see webbrowsers which displayed two consecutive pages side-by-side then we'd be on to something, but 1440 pixels divided into two page widths is a measly 720 pixels each, minus borders and scroll bars. Even a midrange 1600 pixel widescreen sets you back to the days of 800x600.

Differing specs (2, Informative)

clegrand (1082829) | more than 6 years ago | (#21953978)

Eh.. Gizmodo sez .02ms refresh ... wow.. Macworld sez 2ms refresh ... sounds more reasonable

Okay, this one still resides in the land of dreams, but tell me the mere sight doesn't set your salivary glands into overdrive. Alienware's working on a curved monitor that actually helps simulate peripheral vision in gaming. The resolution on this truly remarkable feat of engineering is an astounding 2880x900 and it's run off a Dual Link DVI set up (with some serious graphics horsepower). As if that's not enough, it uses DLP technology, is backlit by LEDs, and has a 2ms response time.
http://www.macworld.com/article/131451/2008/01/gboxces1.html [macworld.com]

not very curvy (1)

Oktober Sunset (838224) | more than 6 years ago | (#21954010)

it's not exactly wrap around, with that shallow curve, it wouldn't fill your field of vision much more than a flat monitor of the same size. They nee to make it even wider and even more curvy.

Re:not very curvy (4, Funny)

berashith (222128) | more than 6 years ago | (#21955090)

Is that you Sir Mix-a-lot?

Gaming on RPTV (2, Insightful)

Jaktar (975138) | more than 6 years ago | (#21954062)

I'm not sure how many other people have done it but I've attempted to game on my rear projection HDTV. It looks like poop. Their refresh rate is based on 60hz which is where they got their .02 refresh rate (1/60hz). I'll pass on this one.

Re:Gaming on RPTV (2, Informative)

Brad1138 (590148) | more than 6 years ago | (#21954418)

Their refresh rate is based on 60hz which is where they got their .02 refresh rate (1/60hz)

The article says .02ms not .02s. hz is cycle/second not per Millisecond.

Nice but...... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21954068)

I want one taller so it's in the proper ratio for 1080P. Seeing films on a curved screen makes a big difference. Not sure that I'd get one for gaming but if they make a HiDef one I'm placing an order. I'm sure they'll work out the four screen issue, I'm a bit surprised by the poor blacks. Normally DLPs have nice rich blacks. Hopefully that'll get worked out by launch as well. The LEDs should last indefinitely which gets rid of the downside of DLP and makes it superior to LCD in life expectancy. I just hope the poor blacks aren't a side effect of the LEDs.

LED don't cause poor blacks... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21955078)

Poor blacks are caused by the man holding them down!

I just had... (1)

Tastecicles (1153671) | more than 6 years ago | (#21954074)

...a Joygasm. I want one of these. Make that two. Price is not an issue.

If you have to ask how much it costs... (1)

bondjamesbond (99019) | more than 6 years ago | (#21954092)

...you can't afford it.

I, for one, welcome our curved overlords.

Fahrenheit 451 (1)

gblackwo (1087063) | more than 6 years ago | (#21954150)

People could spend a chunk of their annual income to get a "parlour wall", a screen with moving pictures that would be come your new family. The really rich people could buy four of these and surround themselves entirely, and for an additional price, their name could even be added to the program to be inserted into the dialogue.

why do screen resolutions keep going down? (2, Insightful)

razorh (853659) | more than 6 years ago | (#21954158)

with all the high def mania out there, why is it that monitor resolutions keep going lower and lower? I still run mainly CRT's because I like 1600x1200 and I don't want to pay a bunch of $$ for an LCD that will support that (most traditional ratio LCD's are 1280x1024, widescreens are Something x somethingcloseto 1024). Now, 900?

A common arguement I hear is 'well, you loose some there but you make up for it on the sides'. HELLO? If I am browsing a web page, looking at a document, or basically doing just about anything, I want length/height on my display, I want to be able to stretch it out up and down.. not sideways.

Maybe for gaming this lower resolution is ok, but really, lets start seeing some higher res. monitors as 'standards'.

Re:why do screen resolutions keep going down? (4, Insightful)

Alioth (221270) | more than 6 years ago | (#21954254)

Turn the display on its side.

No seriously. We have monitors like that at work that have a stand that allow them to be turned on their sides to view or use "sheet like" programs like web browsers, word processors etc.

Can't do this with just any LCD (1)

uuxququex (1175981) | more than 6 years ago | (#21954998)

If you try this on most laptops, you will quickly see that it won't work very well. The polarisation filter in a typical wide-screen laptop makes the viewing angle from the sides very good. This is needed so both your eyes see the same hue and luminance. The angle can be quite steep (left-eye to right-side of the display, for instance). You don't need this as much for up and down, because your eyes see the same no matter what. Yes, your display is slightly brighter on top (or bottom, doesn't matter) but both eyes see the same. Now, if you rotate your display 90 degrees, your eyes will see different brightness. This makes for some very uncomfortable viewing. You can try it easily.

Re:why do screen resolutions keep going down? (1)

pizzach (1011925) | more than 6 years ago | (#21955012)

LCDs, because of how they are made have only one resolution that doesn't look like poop called the natural resolution of the display. So companies usually choose the resolution for the monitor size that works the best for the most people and make that the natural resolution. Another words, they choose the resolution that ensures the icons and texts don't get so small it's an eye sore. Because of the above, saying that you want a higher resolution LCD is basically synonymous with I want a larger LCD.

When interfaces become a bit more resolution independent or things start getting upscaled in the OS again we'll start seeing the higher resolution LCDs.

Anyone have anything they want to correct anything poopishly wrong?

Re:why do screen resolutions keep going down? (1)

dreamchaser (49529) | more than 6 years ago | (#21955144)

I felt the same as you until I finally switched from a 1600x1200 CRT to a 1680x1059 22" LCD. It's more than high enough res, I enjoy the widescreen format, and it's so much easier on my eyes. YMMV.

Why is it being touted for gamers/video? (1)

mykepredko (40154) | more than 6 years ago | (#21954212)

Just looking at the screen, my first thought was that the format would be great for code/system development with seamless transition across multiple open applications.

It would also be great for different industries (I'm thinking the financial markets) where more than two screens are the norm. The curved structure might allow for a smaller workstation.

In any case, it's a kewl concept and it will be interesting to see where it goes.

myke

900? (1)

MMC Monster (602931) | more than 6 years ago | (#21954458)

Nine hundred pixels high seems a bit low. You probably can't do anything with this monitor except play games or watch cinamascope movies.

Wait a Minute (4, Funny)

trongey (21550) | more than 6 years ago | (#21954462)

I thought I was supposed to be excited about a perfectly flat screen in a super thin frame. Now I'm supposed to go back to being all googly about a curved screen with big bulge in the back again? This is too hard, I give up.

Re:Wait a Minute (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21954846)

I googled both of them and I'm still excited.

Rubbish (2, Insightful)

Spad (470073) | more than 6 years ago | (#21954592)

My two 17" LCDs do 2560x1024 - they may not be seemless, but that doesn't really bother me. 2880*900 is pretty poor, especially when you consider the size of the thing.

Oznium? (1)

thatskinnyguy (1129515) | more than 6 years ago | (#21954664)

I heard a little blurb in there about it being powered by oznium [oznium.com] LEDs. This monitor is powered by the same brand of LEDs I used to rice a car a while back! One thing I will say: those little suckers are bright!

Wrong approach? (1)

Doctor Faustus (127273) | more than 6 years ago | (#21954734)

At some point, it's going to stop making sense to make the monitors bigger and bigger. If you're going to do something exotic and expensive like this, why not glasses?

Would take some getting used to (1)

Richard.g.k (1215362) | more than 6 years ago | (#21954746)

Having to look back and forth on it would take quite a bit of getting used to wouldnt it?

Curved? (1)

ajs318 (655362) | more than 6 years ago | (#21954754)

Surely all computer displays used to be curved, not so very long ago?

Nice field of vision, poor 3D. (1)

Half-pint HAL (718102) | more than 6 years ago | (#21955148)

Yes, a curved monitor does present great field-of-vision opportunities, but it's breaking one of the unwritten rules of 3D graphics: software perspective curving isn't necessary because the gamer's physical world does the job for you.

What do I mean? Modern 3D engines generally make a flat projection of a plane, with the drawn size of an object being related to the z difference between the player and the object. However, basic geometry says we should take the true distance, equated with the x, y and z differences. If you look at a window, you will see it as oblong, but if you compare the visual length of the top and bottom edges, they're likely to be different.

Calculating that perspective distortion is computationally expensive, but we're OK, because the difference in physical distance between the eye and the various points of the monitor starts to make up for this (but not completely).

In the days of Quake and Duke Nukem 3D, most of us still had curvy CRTs. These curves exaggerated the natural curve and enhanced the 3D. These days, our flat LCDs have reeduced that and things start to seem a bit flatter.

HAL.

"No price has been revealed as of yet." (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21955284)

Oh, that's easy; "if you have to ask the price, you can't afford it"
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?