Widescreen Gaming Forum

[-noun] Web community dedicated to ensuring PC games run properly on your tablet, netbook, personal computer, HDTV and multi-monitor gaming rig.
It is currently 18 Apr 2024, 11:44

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 26 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: 06 Jan 2011, 20:15 
Offline
Founder
Founder
User avatar

Joined: 13 Oct 2003, 05:00
Posts: 7358
2560 matches the current 27" and 30" display panels...


Top
 Profile  
 


PostPosted: 06 Jan 2011, 20:51 
Offline

Joined: 07 Jul 2007, 23:55
Posts: 2866
Which is why it is cheaper to do it close than do it right.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 08 Jan 2011, 20:01 
Offline
Insiders
Insiders
User avatar

Joined: 20 Aug 2009, 04:20
Posts: 2351
Location: Virginia
OMG, I want that razer blade thingy. Especially if It can play emulators.

_________________
System Core: | Intel Core i5-2500K + ASUS P8Z68-V + 16GB Corsair XMS3 DDR3 1333 MHz | Win7 x64 | MSI R7970 Lightning 3GB [1105/1400] |
Display: | 3 x Dell Ultrasharp 3007WFP-HC @ 7680x1600 | Dell u3011 |


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 09 Jan 2011, 05:12 
Offline
Editors
Editors
User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2006, 14:58
Posts: 1497
OMG, I want that razer blade thingy. Especially if It can play emulators.


I have a feeling thats about all it will do lol, with a intel atom as the cpu it wont stand up to normal pc games except really old ones, and the gpu is not going to be that great neither.

Im sure when the price is announced if it ever gets produced and sold to public that most people that thought about it will quickly forget about it.

_________________
ViciousXUSMC on the Web - YouTube :: FaceBook :: Website


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 09 Jan 2011, 16:34 
Offline
Editors
Editors
User avatar

Joined: 14 Oct 2003, 13:52
Posts: 5706
Yeah, Atom really sucks for anything newer than... well, Jedi Knight 2 IMO. Having said that, there are tons of great older games, so if I could get them working, I'd be happy. :)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 11 Jan 2011, 21:06 
Offline

Joined: 05 Dec 2010, 01:52
Posts: 11
That Razer Switchblade concept is really cool. I like the idea of the keyboard buttons switching based on the game/app. I am a WoW nerd and a keyboard that does that would be awesome. Hell I would even buy that for my regular computer if I could because I wouldn't have to set up profiles and macros. I could just drag and drop the icons to the keyboard and have it show up.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 12 Jan 2011, 06:32 
Offline
Insiders
Insiders
User avatar

Joined: 20 Aug 2009, 04:20
Posts: 2351
Location: Virginia
That Razer Switchblade concept is really cool. I like the idea of the keyboard buttons switching based on the game/app. I am a WoW nerd and a keyboard that does that would be awesome. Hell I would even buy that for my regular computer if I could because I wouldn't have to set up profiles and macros. I could just drag and drop the icons to the keyboard and have it show up.

Optimus Maximus. Look it up.

_________________
System Core: | Intel Core i5-2500K + ASUS P8Z68-V + 16GB Corsair XMS3 DDR3 1333 MHz | Win7 x64 | MSI R7970 Lightning 3GB [1105/1400] |
Display: | 3 x Dell Ultrasharp 3007WFP-HC @ 7680x1600 | Dell u3011 |


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 12 Jan 2011, 12:54 
Offline
Editors
Editors
User avatar

Joined: 14 Oct 2003, 13:52
Posts: 5706
Optimus Maximus. Look it up.

And be prepared to be horrified at the cost. ;)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 12 Jan 2011, 20:35 
Offline
Insiders
Insiders

Joined: 07 Nov 2005, 04:16
Posts: 3010
I remember a couple years back, before the price was finalized, they said it would cost as much as a "good cell phone." Apparently they meant one of those stainless steel phones with sapphire lenses.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 12 Jan 2011, 23:06 
Offline
Insiders
Insiders
User avatar

Joined: 06 May 2006, 12:46
Posts: 1640

IIRC the cinematic aspect ratio is 2.39:1. Neither their listed aspect ratio nor their resolution is that.

21:9 - 2.33:1
2560x1080 - 2.37:1

So the only way you would get the correct aspect ratio with that display is with non-square pixels. I am guessing the actual aspect ratio of that display is 2.37:1. I would not recommend buying a display from someone who conflates three different aspect ratios, gimmick name or not.

2.37 (64:27 = 43:33)
As of 2010, TVs have been introduced with this aspect ratio and are marketed as "21:9 cinema displays". This aspect ratio is not recognized by storage and transmission standards.


Ug, you're really missing the mark on that. 2.37:1 is so damned close to (depending who you talk to) the proper 2.35:1 or 2.39:1 AR for movies as not to be notable in difference. You are going to really split hairs over the difference between 2.37:1 and 2.39:1 AR? This would be ideal for black-box removed 1920x800 Blu-ray native resolution content in a HTPC environment. 1920x800 would be proper cinema aspect ratio but for a HTPC 2560x1080 makes a lot more sense combined with functional desktop use.

Simple math:
2560/1080=2.37:1 AR
1920x800=2.4:1 AR

See, not even Blu-ray gets the proper AR for movies right.

_________________
Brad Hawthorne
Product Manager
Nthusim Pty. Ltd. | www.nthusim.com


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 26 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  




Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group