Widescreen Gaming Forum

I'm going to collect news from CES 2011 that is relevant to gaming, displays and multi-monitor technology. Please add your own info, and I will edit this original post.

Vizio announces 21:9 "ultrawide" Cinema HDTV with 2560x1080 - Engadget, vizio.com
A 21:9 display offers a 2.33:1 aspect, and is closer to to the "cinematic" movie aspect ratio of 2.78:1. This will result in lower black bars for movie watching. It also provides a wider aspect for gaming.

Even if you aren't a fan of multi-monitor gaming (Eyefinity & Surround), the work of the WSGF helps to ensure that games on these single ultra-wide monitors would be Hor+. It's aspect ratio is only slightly narrower than a 5x1-P Eyefinity setup of 2.8:1.

Personally, I'd like to see three of these in a 3x1-L Eyefinity setup. Should be possible with HDMI 1.4a connections. 3D Gaming on this wouldn't be bad either. :wink:

AMD Releases AMD Radeon HD 6000M Mobile Graphics - Engadget, AMD

AMD announced its mobile Radeon HD 6800M and 6900M series. This brings their new HD3D technology into notebooks. While it doesn't yet offer any new Eyefinity technology (beyond the known GPU improvements), this lays the groundwork for future enhancements.

The Radeon HD 6000 series will support Eyefinity through a single DisplayPort 1.2 connection. Once DP 1.2 monitors (or MST Hubs) are available, Eyefinity would be possible by daisy-chaining multiple monitors off the single DP 1.2 output.


Turtle Beach EarForce PX5 Wireless Dolby 7.1 Surround Headphone - Engadget, Turtle Beach
These wireless Dolby 7.1 Surround headphones are "designed" for the PS3 and Xbox360, but I don't see why the optical audio input couldn't be fed by a PC.

We are focused here on visual immersion, but adding wireless 7.1 audio immersion sounds like a good thing to me...

Razer 7" Widescreen Pocket Gaming PC Engadget
Amazing concept from Razer that marries an Intel Atom CPU and dual touchscreens. The lower screen has tactile keys layered on top. The keyboard can change dynamically based on game, or scenario within game. Amazing...

The Vizio TV looks interesting. Any price figures?

Personally I'd like to see an affordable version of the Ostendo 32:10 display.

Yes, the screen is indeed interesting. :)

And what range of sizes they come?

Vizio announces 21:9 "ultrawide" Cinema HDTV with 2560x1080 - Engadget, vizio.com
A 21:9 display offers a 2.33:1 aspect, and is closer to to the "cinematic" movie aspect ratio of 2.78:1. This will result in lower black bars for movie watching. It also provides a wider aspect for gaming.

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.

EDIT - And wikipedia with the hammer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspect_ratio_(image)

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.

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.

I'm betting it becomes more common. People want to watch movies without black bars. It's hard to fault them when you're talking a difference of 0.04. I'm sure they chose "21:9", as it makes sense to the masses who have grown accustomed to "16:9".

That they probably understand. 2.37:1, not so much...

In any case, I'd take one. And I bet gaming on one (assuming good image quality) would kick ass.

In any case, I'd take one. And I bet gaming on one (assuming good image quality) would kick ass.

You should get like five, and replace your entire 5-1 portrait setup ;)


And should you happen to donate the old monitors to me i wouldn't mind :P

The Vizio website says they only come in 50" and 56" flavors... and most likely very expensive.

Ultra wide seamless monitors do exist up to 12:3 ratios... but they're an order of magnitude too expensive. I just wish we see wider and wider aspects at more affordable prices. I'd take an ultra wide single monitor to my 3 monitor setup most likely.

DP1.2 daisy chaining I remember reading about that beofre DP even was released. I did not realize it was not possible with the current revision.

Lets hope that I can do this with my U2410's to reduce cable mess and maybe get rid of that "the line" problem.

But then I wonder if I can disable displays like I can now via profiles or if I will be required to keep all monitors on since they are chained.

Then again is the U24010 even DP1.2? Guess I would need a hub.

[quote]
In any case, I'd take one. And I bet gaming on one (assuming good image quality) would kick ass.

You should get like five, and replace your entire 5-1 portrait setup ;)

And should you happen to donate the old monitors to me i wouldn't mind :P
Five of those in portrait would be really skinny. I think I'd switch back to 3x1-L.

DP1.2 daisy chaining I remember reading about that beofre DP even was released. I did not realize it was not possible with the current revision.

Lets hope that I can do this with my U2410's to reduce cable mess and maybe get rid of that "the line" problem.

But then I wonder if I can disable displays like I can now via profiles or if I will be required to keep all monitors on since they are chained.

Then again is the U24010 even DP1.2? Guess I would need a hub.

You would need a hub.

I'm betting it becomes more common. People want to watch movies without black bars. It's hard to fault them when you're talking a difference of 0.04.

I would rather those displays used a closer 2580x1080 resolution than crop or compress a 2.39:1 aspect ratio. Or how about a perfect 2868x1200?

I think we are getting pseudo 2.39 because of costs and I hope it goes away quickly before it becomes endemic behavior.

I'm sure they chose "21:9", as it makes sense to the masses who have grown accustomed to "16:9".

They could just use the Cinematic HD moniker rather than make up a sexy sounding aspect ratio. That probably won't happen.

2560 matches the current 27" and 30" display panels...

Which is why it is cheaper to do it close than do it right.

OMG, I want that razer blade thingy. Especially if It can play emulators.

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.

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. :)

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.

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.

Optimus Maximus. Look it up.

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

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.

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.