pic: 120" of CD

[Ali Ahmed]

loading photo ...

[Jessica Boucher]

Drat, I was totally going to do the exact same picture after class tomorrow.

[Jay H 237]

So, who's going to be the first one to put CD on an IMAX theater screen?

[Marc P.]

It's not the size that counts, it's how you use it!!

[Wetzel]

Originally Posted by Jay H 237

So, who's going to be the first one to put CD on an IMAX theater screen?

Let me check a few things and get back to you...


Wetzel

[jdiwnab]

I still think the 30" Apple display was more impressive because the resolusion is through the roof (Check the specs ) 2560x1600 is huge! Props for Safari though.

[dlavery]

Originally Posted by jdiwnab

I still think the 30" Apple display was more impressive because the resolusion is through the roof (Check the specs ) 2560x1600 is huge! Props for Safari though.

I agree. Remember, what counts is not the size of your pixels but how many you have!

For the record, three 21" monitors is 4.9 million pixels, which just squeeks by the 4.0 million pixels on the 30" monitor, so I think that record holds until someone gets CD on two side-by-side 30" monitors (which, at this rate, should take until about 1:16 this afternoon... ).

-dave

[KyleGilbert45]

Those displays are really impressive. I guess I'm not cool anymore with my 176x220 pixel display. Motorola MPx220 ChiefDelphi

[dlavery]

Originally Posted by KyleGilbert45

Those displays are really impressive. I guess I'm not cool anymore with my 176x220 pixel display. Motorola MPx220 ChiefDelphi

But just think what you could do if you could array 106 of them together to show CD (and just squeek by the 4 million pixels on the 30" display)!!!

-dave

[Ali Ahmed]

Originally Posted by jdiwnab

I still think the 30" Apple display was more impressive because the resolusion is through the roof (Check the specs ) 2560x1600 is huge! Props for Safari though.

I agree too. This was going through my projector on a screen at home but the resolution was horrible.

[Mike AA]

Originally Posted by dlavery

I agree. Remember, what counts is not the size of your pixels but how many you have!

For the record, three 21" monitors is 4.9 million pixels, which just squeeks by the 4.0 million pixels on the 30" monitor, so I think that record holds until someone gets CD on two side-by-side 30" monitors (which, at this rate, should take until about 1:16 this afternoon... ).

-dave

Dave, do you know where the giant screen (consisting of 12 or 16 LCD screens) which was in Einstein In Epcot when FIRST was in Disney went? That theoretically was well more than 4.9million.

[dlavery]

Originally Posted by Mike AA

Dave, do you know where the giant screen (consisting of 12 or 16 LCD screens) which was in Einstein In Epcot when FIRST was in Disney went? That theoretically was well more than 4.9million.

As far as I know those were Disney-provided displays, so theoretically they are still down at EPCOT somewhere. But i do remember that those displays were each NTSC-resolution (720x486 pixels) designed for video projection. So with an array of 12 of them, you only got up to 4.2 million pixels. An array of 16 would be 5.6 million. But in either case, did CD even get shown on the giant screen (if it never was, then that should be our new goal - get CD on the big screen at the Championships!)?
-dave

[Denman]

at a place in france called futuroscope there is a tv setup of a couple of hundred televisions, wired up to make the biggest in the world or something, however i cant find a picture...

[Elgin Clock]

TO answer your question.
No, those horses are not charging the crowds.
Yes, that is the worlds longest TV.

The installation set up by Mitsubishi Electric at the club's Sha Tin Horse Race Course last year is the world's longest television display, measuring 26 ft. tall x 231 ft. wide. As Guinness points out, that's long enough to "display the Statue of Liberty if she stepped down off her pedestal and lay on her side."

400 x 3520 pixel count...
http://www.popularmechanics.com/scie...s/1280871.html