Widescreen Gaming Forum

With regards the possible implementation of bezel management, could I ask that ATI/AMD take this a step further than what Matrox did.

I.e. Matrox currently presents a resolution to Windows that is the exact resolution of the the three screens put together and then allow the outer screens to be shifted towards the centre by truncating a vertical strip of each inner edge to accomodate the bezels resulting in the outer edges being short of the frame edges by the same amount. I.e. wasted screen estate.

Rather than doing it the same as this couldn't they present a resolution to Windows with effectively an overscan amount to accomodate the size of the bezels. I.e. a virtual resolution that is wider than the panels by the amount required to manage the bezels. When the outer panel images are then shifted towards the centre to accomodate what would be 'beneath' the bezels then the extra 'overscan' on the outside edges would then be there to take up what would have been empty vertical space resulting in a fully utilised screen area.

The bigger the bezels the bigger the width of the virtual resolution required resulting in more pixels needed to be drawn and thus a potential performance hit. Best of both worlds would be to give us the choice between the two methods, preferably on the fly via hotkeys...

I believe that they are going to be doing an overscan type deal for bezel management, I don't remember where I saw that though, and it could have very well just been someone asking for that.

But yes this is something that I would definitely like to see as well.

it was implemented as a wider resolution on linux (exactly as you suggested with parts of the image under bezels not displayed)

they will do the same for windows obviously
it's easy for them since they are the one doing the gfx driver ...

if they don't do that, shame on them ! :wink:

I really hope they implement the way Matrox does..

heres my reason:

1) since I"m using 3x 24" having about 1.5 inches cropped from the extreme L and R side won't really make much difference to me.

2) The matrox way is simple and works on any game I throw at it. and work across all the TH resolution I've tried 4320x900, 4098x768. and I don't have to do anykind of extra setting in my games. I just set it once and never have to worry about it again.

3) I don't want to have the system render extra ~300x2 lines of vertical pixels (more or less I guess depending on your bezel size)
that's just more overhead taxing the system. that and the management involved.

4) IF we have to render virtual resolution.. dont' that mean we have to reconfigure our games for the virtual resolution? so instead of 5760x1200 we have to change that to 6200x1200?

I got like 30 games that I just redid the setting for over the weekend :( now I gotta go change it to this virtual resolution? so now all my 5760x1200 resolution have to be reset to 6000x1200?

and all say 4320x900 have to be change to 4700x900? and etc.. ?!

Now what if you got new monitor and the bezel size is different you gotta go through all your games again that change to another virtual resolution that fits the bezel better?

Unless ATI figure a way to do it in driver where we set it only once (but we still keep the 5760x1200 resolutions we already configured in games.) and it work across the board then it would be cool.

I guess time will tell how it is done.

I just got my 3x24's on my desk today and I can say that I do not think I will miss the edges too much ether :D'

But I see this being a bigger deal to those with smaller monitors or with larger bezels or a monitor orientation that offsets the image more.

I have my side monitors behind the front one so the result is a pretty minor break in the image.

Have not wired up and tested the monitors yet, hope to get that done today.

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

I really hope they implement the way Matrox does..
...The[b] matrox way is simple and works ...

Which is why I said... "Best of both worlds would be to give us the choice between the two methods, preferably on the fly via hotkeys..."

The Matrox method is fine but the whole point of Eyefinity is the ability to use multiple screens, not just three. If you add further screens then those blank strips on the outermost edges become even larger.

I see that as a waste of monitor space. At least with the option to use a virtual larger resolution then you can make use of that space. The method is effectively the same just that you have the option of making use of the space with the acceptance of a potential performance hit because of the larger resolution.

I.e. give us three options to manage bezels.
1. None - resolution is same as total screen resolution
2. 'Matrox' method - resolution is the same as total screen resolution but you sacrifice vertical space on the extremes to compensate for bezel size.
3. Virtual resolution method - resolution is increased to compensate for vertical space lost to bezel management.

Setup should really be no different than the current bezel management in the Matrox software. You set it once for your system.

unfortunately, I feel it will probably be the case that we will get a Virtually resolution and we have to set our games again to the new resolution.

and not one of those "set it once and work through out" like matrox. I would love to see ATI prove me wrong.

Rendering the existing amount of pixels and then stretching isn't exactly ideal. It will look skewed and at places blurry. The only real downside of rendering extra pixels.. is well rendering extra pixels.

But surely if you can handle rendering a huge resolution, a few more hundred pixels won't be a big deal.

If they're going to deal with bezel management, they might as well also deal with projector edge blending too. Both share similar issues.

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

Has anybody heard about built in support for edge blending on projectors. I have only found a couple of software packages that do this and thy cost between 4000 to 2500 per projector.