![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
goodolarchie
Weaksauce
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2005
- Messages
- 96
So first let me start with my goals:
-Upgrade my monitors
-Support 3 monitors
-Spend less than $1500
-Have a uniform face, minimal bezel/screen size mismatch
The plan:
Main Monitor: 1 U3011 at 2560x1600 (landscape)
Peripheral Monitors: 2 P2011H's at 900x1600 (portrait)????
The setup:
Single 5970 or 6870 running 2 DVI to P2011H???'s, 1 DP to U3011, Eyefinity software
Will look crudely like:
|---||----.----||---|
|---||----.----||---|
Why the ghetto Tri-monitor Setup?
Cost, really. Having used 3 oddly sized monitors for several years, I know that I will make use of 3 monitors at all times, beit gaming or work.
Aesthetics come into play though too, and optical efficiency. While a 7680x1600 3*30" setup sounds amazing, consider that this is a 48:10 display ratio. That might be fun for panoramic gaming, but for practical use it's too much eye-travel. It sounds lazy, but consider my setup alternatively:
900+2560+900 x 1600
(4360 x 1600)
Reduced to simplest terms:
45+128+45:80
(218:80)
(~27:10)
Thus the resultant ratio is 2.725:1. Panoramic by all standards, and not too far from anamorphic film (thin black bars will be present on either side, resulting in a loss of about 10% of total area).
Dimensionally:
U3011: sits somewhere between 17 and 18" of actual screen height (this is vertical portion of a landscape monitor).
P2011H: is around 18.9" tall (vertical portion of a portrait monitor)
This will result in a ~1.5" gap in actual screen size between the main and peripheral monitors. Not good and a better solution is recommended.
Current Issues:
We will need a solution for the 1.5" gap described above. I won't receive the U3011 for a couple weeks likely, so I should have a variety of options laid out when I finally do find out it's visible screen height (If anybody has one and can measure I'd greatly appreciate it!).
Solution Requirements:
~19-21" 'Peripheral Monitors' will be used
-Must Pivot (turn 90 degrees without special mount)
-Must be as close to in viewable screen width to the measured viewable U3011 screen height to stay mated flush
-Must be able to handle a vertical resolution of exactly 1600 pixels (A native 1600x900 is well-suited for this)
-1680x1050 could work if 80 pixels were cut off vertically, right? Not ideal.
-Height adjustable would be a plus.
-Matte finish. Glossy wouldn't look good next to the Dell.
Potential Optical Work-around:
One of the issues to overcome is minimizing the bezel overlay between viewable screen. Tri-monitors (labeled A, B, C) are typically setup a slightly-angled array:
/ A
| B [p:]
\ C
Wherein the touching bezels between A-B and B-C can overlap in front of, or behind B. Assuming we do the latter, the screen actually resides at a depth of field deeper, creating the illusion of a smaller monitor. The downside of this is that the optimal viewing angles and distance become somewhat restrictive.
To visualize this, imagine you're a photographer photographing three people of differing heights (two taller, one shorter). The goal is to make them look roughly the same height while standing upright, so you position the shoulders of the the shorter fellow in front of the others, and take the photograph from the hip. The resultant perspective is three equally tall people, until the camera moves.
Thus we can use a disparately "taller" peripheral (A and C) monitor, compensate for the discrepancy while also minimizing bezel gap between viewable areas.
-Upgrade my monitors
-Support 3 monitors
-Spend less than $1500
-Have a uniform face, minimal bezel/screen size mismatch
The plan:
Main Monitor: 1 U3011 at 2560x1600 (landscape)
Peripheral Monitors: 2 P2011H's at 900x1600 (portrait)????
The setup:
Single 5970 or 6870 running 2 DVI to P2011H???'s, 1 DP to U3011, Eyefinity software
Will look crudely like:
|---||----.----||---|
|---||----.----||---|
Why the ghetto Tri-monitor Setup?
Cost, really. Having used 3 oddly sized monitors for several years, I know that I will make use of 3 monitors at all times, beit gaming or work.
Aesthetics come into play though too, and optical efficiency. While a 7680x1600 3*30" setup sounds amazing, consider that this is a 48:10 display ratio. That might be fun for panoramic gaming, but for practical use it's too much eye-travel. It sounds lazy, but consider my setup alternatively:
900+2560+900 x 1600
(4360 x 1600)
Reduced to simplest terms:
45+128+45:80
(218:80)
(~27:10)
Thus the resultant ratio is 2.725:1. Panoramic by all standards, and not too far from anamorphic film (thin black bars will be present on either side, resulting in a loss of about 10% of total area).
Dimensionally:
U3011: sits somewhere between 17 and 18" of actual screen height (this is vertical portion of a landscape monitor).
P2011H: is around 18.9" tall (vertical portion of a portrait monitor)
This will result in a ~1.5" gap in actual screen size between the main and peripheral monitors. Not good and a better solution is recommended.
Current Issues:
We will need a solution for the 1.5" gap described above. I won't receive the U3011 for a couple weeks likely, so I should have a variety of options laid out when I finally do find out it's visible screen height (If anybody has one and can measure I'd greatly appreciate it!).
Solution Requirements:
~19-21" 'Peripheral Monitors' will be used
-Must Pivot (turn 90 degrees without special mount)
-Must be as close to in viewable screen width to the measured viewable U3011 screen height to stay mated flush
-Must be able to handle a vertical resolution of exactly 1600 pixels (A native 1600x900 is well-suited for this)
-1680x1050 could work if 80 pixels were cut off vertically, right? Not ideal.
-Height adjustable would be a plus.
-Matte finish. Glossy wouldn't look good next to the Dell.
Potential Optical Work-around:
One of the issues to overcome is minimizing the bezel overlay between viewable screen. Tri-monitors (labeled A, B, C) are typically setup a slightly-angled array:
/ A
| B [p:]
\ C
Wherein the touching bezels between A-B and B-C can overlap in front of, or behind B. Assuming we do the latter, the screen actually resides at a depth of field deeper, creating the illusion of a smaller monitor. The downside of this is that the optimal viewing angles and distance become somewhat restrictive.
To visualize this, imagine you're a photographer photographing three people of differing heights (two taller, one shorter). The goal is to make them look roughly the same height while standing upright, so you position the shoulders of the the shorter fellow in front of the others, and take the photograph from the hip. The resultant perspective is three equally tall people, until the camera moves.
Thus we can use a disparately "taller" peripheral (A and C) monitor, compensate for the discrepancy while also minimizing bezel gap between viewable areas.
Last edited:
