Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Cinerama Computer Monitor!

This is topic Cinerama Computer Monitor! in forum Film-Yak at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=002520

Posted by Sean Weitzel (Member # 244) on 09-22-2003, 03:34 PM:

I found this website interesting. I wouldn't think they could use the word "Cinerama" for their product though.

http://www.go-l.com/monitors/cinerama/features/index.htm

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 09-22-2003, 04:35 PM:

Mmmmmmmmmm, 92"!

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 09-22-2003, 05:22 PM:

It would be less expensive to just buy three 15" or 17" flat screen monitors and line them up side by side. I would rather have a 23" flat panel monitor capable of showing 1920 X 1200 pixels. Apple and other vendors are selling such monitors for under $2,000 now.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 09-22-2003, 06:13 PM:

5 monitors? That is just utterly ridiculous! Why settle for such a narrow view when you could have monitors all around you (360 degrees)? Behind you, above you, below you. Everywhere you look would be a monitor just filled with shortcuts to Windows applications just waiting for you to double click. [Razz]

By the way, Apple makes the BEST flat screen monitors.

Posted by Jon Miller (Member # 163) on 09-22-2003, 07:15 PM:

Joe--I concur! (I'm using one now. [thumbsup]

)

Speaking of Apple, couldn't the "l" folks have done something other than rip off the look and feel of Apple's web site? The site looks too serious to be a parody.

Posted by Martin Brooks (Member # 1269) on 09-22-2003, 08:49 PM:

Actually, the $1500 for the 3-monitor 3072x768 really isn't bad.

But I agree that both Cinerama and Apple should get together and sue these guys. Not only is the site and UI a copy of Apple's, but the layout of the components in the computer looks like it's trying to emulate Apple as well. And almost every menu term on the site is the same syntax as Apple uses.

Funny thing is that the site says the guy designed these computers primarily for video editing applications (and because he was unhappy with Apple's computers when he produced a Coke spot on them in 1999.) But I have never noticed these machines advertised in the various pro-video journals that I get.

The computers do look like interesting alternatives to the usual Wintel crap from HP, Compaq, Dell, etc. But they're not cheap: the 17" laptop is priced from $2200 to $5900 with WiFi only in the $4000 and over machines and Bluetooth an optional extra in all the machines.

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 09-23-2003, 07:45 AM:

Anyone notice the disclaimer:

"Not responsible for typographical errors..."

Well then, just who IS responsible? I demand accountability from any firm that tries to sell me a flying fortress by telling me it's a computer monitor.

Those things are hideous. [puke]

Posted by Ron Yost (Member # 1850) on 09-23-2003, 10:54 AM:

You guys are just jealous you didn't think of it. [Smile]

Ron Yost

Posted by Stewart Anderson (Member # 1809) on 09-23-2003, 11:00 AM:

Not that I condone copying Apple's UI of their site, but I think their product is actually a very good idea.

If you can run multiple applications in Windows, then why would you not want more monitors? [Smile]

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 09-23-2003, 05:19 PM:

That's not the first product that has joined together pairs (or more) of computer monitors. Dell has offered things like that on their website. I can recall Silicon Graphics promoting similar items years ago. Ever since Windows adopted multiple-monitor capability a lot of vendors have tried (with little success) in marketing siamese twinned or tripled monitors.

Actually one of the best uses for a joined three-screen monitor is in a racing game setup.

For doing video and graphics work, I'd still rather go with CRT units. So what if my 21" screen weighs nearly 80 pounds? My AnthroCart can hold it.

Posted by William Hooper (Member # 71) on 09-24-2003, 12:57 AM:

The Matrox graphics card is very reliable for multi-monitor setups
http://www.matrox.com/mga/multidisplay/home.cfm

Posted by Martin Brooks (Member # 1269) on 09-24-2003, 12:17 PM:

quote:
For doing video and graphics work, I'd still rather go with CRT units

Why? A CRT is more tiring to the eyes and the color is more inconsistent over time.

Edit: Okay, there is an article in the NY Times today about CRT vs. LCD and that traditionally, CRTs were able to display more colors, but that newer LCDs are getting pretty close.

[ 09-25-2003, 12:39 PM: Message edited by: Martin Brooks ]

Posted by Matt Hale (Member # 1518) on 09-24-2003, 06:07 PM:

I built this 9-headed monster last year:

It was intended for a store window but the monitors ended up being too dim to be seen during the day. It looked awesome at night though.

Posted by Steven Privett (Member # 718) on 10-01-2003, 12:42 AM:

I had a 3 monitor system for a short while. The hot babe wallpaper stretched across the screens was impressive.

Posted by Mike Olpin (Member # 1115) on 10-01-2003, 01:39 AM:

See Matt's nine-headed-monster up two posts? Look left, even more, right there. See that? That's a Mac tower running there! Yay!

Posted by Steven Privett (Member # 718) on 10-02-2003, 02:07 PM:

Oh yeah I see that... A Mac Tower, well look at that... excuse me for a sec... [puke]

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 10-02-2003, 05:27 PM:

quote:
For doing video and graphics work, I'd still rather go with CRT units

quote:
Why? A CRT is more tiring to the eyes and the color is more inconsistent over time.

That's not really true --at least if you buy a quality CRT unit rather than some cheapo monitor at Best Buy. I can look at my 5 year old Viewsonic P815 21" monitor for hours on end without eye strain. But then this monitor was pretty expensive at the time and has a much higher refresh rate than any "affordable" CRT.

The main reason why CRTs are still far better for graphics work is very simple: much higher resolution display.

I really don't care at all if a flat panel monitor is 18", 19" or 20". Nearly all of those flat panel displays top out at a puny 1280 X 1024 resolution, and that just is not productive enough to sit on my desk. The starting point for me is 1600 X 1200. That standard is not negotiable. Every professional graphics app is brimming with lots of toolbar trash. A lower rez setting like 1024 X 768 or 1280 X 1024 is just unworkable. That's also why I still have never owned a laptop computer.

Then you have to figure the price per pixels comparision. Sure, some flat panel monitors can show a 1600 X 1200 display. But most of these 20" or larger monitors are still commanding a price well over $2000. That's more than what Apple charges for their 23" Studio Cinema Display. But since I don't own a Mac (at least not yet) I cannot consider that model a viable option to purchase; it isn't compatible with Windows PCs. To counter, you can buy a 21" or 22" CRT display for well under $1,000 that shows a great quality image at settings up to 2048 X 1536.