CineMassive OmegaPlex: 27.6 million pixels for $12,995

Funny story -- just under three years ago, we all thought six 24-inchers latched together in a swanky multi-monitor setup was the real heat. Nowadays, it takes a real beast to even catch the ever-wandering eye of we geeks, and while the CineMassive OmegaPlex isn't a HIPerSpace, you won't need a government loan and a damn good research proposal to claim one as your own. Boasting 27.6 million pixels and a total screen resolution of 7,860 x 3,600, this ridiculous rig also comes with a 3-year warranty and a practically unheard of "zero dead pixel" policy. Feel free to infinitely boost your 1337-ness by handing over $12,995 and patiently awaiting delivery via the largest ground vehicle UPS owns. Check the vid after the break for a little more encouragement. [Warning: PDF read link]

[Via Elite Choice]

[Esat Dedezade @ Oct 23rd 2008 7:41AM]

I'll take two, one for the living room, one for the bathroom.

[Techie @ Oct 23rd 2008 7:59AM]

I just want the F-22 Raptor...

[Flashpoint @ Oct 23rd 2008 10:15AM]

For a $13,000 price tag before taxes, this doesn't make sense unless you put it in a store to show previews of new DVD's and games. I don't want any display that is seperated by border lines.

[mac404 @ Oct 23rd 2008 10:53AM]

Psh, like anyone would want to buy this. It uses TN monitors, so the viewing angles aren't very good. And this thing is huge.

[blizz419 @ Oct 23rd 2008 7:43AM]

everyone seems to love these, while they may be capable of insane resolution, not that theres any commercially available stuff to take advantage of the resolution, but i could never get used to these type of displays the bezels just ruin it for me

[Jon @ Oct 23rd 2008 7:49AM]

Over time, you would not see the bezels. Your eyes would "merge" the image.

[From My Cube @ Oct 23rd 2008 7:52AM]

i was thinking the same thing....can they really not find a slimmer bezel or do we not have the technology to make a no bezel lcd monitor?

[Richard Lai @ Oct 23rd 2008 8:17AM]

@blizz419: I agree - an expensive, high-res projector on a good screen would make more sense (no bezels, much better viewing angel). Plus no videos would have been recorded at 7,860 x 3,600 just yet, as far as I know.

[Steve @ Oct 23rd 2008 10:02AM]

I thought the same thing, exact wording even, while I was watching the video. "The bezels just ruin it for me."

I know there has to be some bezel in a setup like this, but I know they could make them smaller than that.

[j_g_puff @ Oct 23rd 2008 11:46AM]

Pah. It's not SHV resolution, so I don't want to hear about it.

[morcheeba @ Oct 23rd 2008 1:09PM]

@FromMyCube: Behind those bezels are all the connections that drive the pixels - one wire for each row or column.

So, each 1920x1200 panel has 1920+1200 wires driving 1920x1200 pixels = 3120 wires driving 2,304,000 pixels, or 738 pixels per wire, on average

To make this one big display, you'd have 7680+3600 wires driving 7680x3600 pixels = 11,280 wires driving 27,648,000 pixels, or 2451 pixels per wire.

Why does this matter? There are a lot of things linked to the number of pixels per wire... like switching speed and refresh rate. So, to pull off the larger display, you'd need to increase the switching speed of LCDs by a factor of 3 to get equivalent performance - that's a big problem.

There's also the scaling up defect problem that also affects semiconductor memory... Assume 1 fatal defect per 400 square inches... if you build 4 100-inch monitors, you'll get one defective monitor and 3 you can sell. If you make a single huge 400 inch monitor, chances are that it'll have a defect and you won't be able to sell any... that makes the price rise out of proportion to area.

[Vidikron @ Oct 23rd 2008 2:11PM]

I agree completely. I do like using multiple monitors, but I keep each one as an separate work space and never span anything across multiple monitors. Seeing the bezels in the middle of single image/window drives me crazy.

[I LOVE THE CAPS LOCK KEY @ Oct 26th 2008 1:02AM]

http://www.engadget.com/2006/04/13/wall-o-30-inchers/

[RossKTT @ Oct 23rd 2008 7:48AM]

How exactly are these set up, is it just with multiple graphics cards or is there something fancy required? I have 4 monitors available to me and wondering how easy this type of thing could be set up without having to shell out loads

[UnixSystemsEngineer @ Oct 23rd 2008 12:15PM]

Fabbing a bracket would be the hard part, you could attach them by their VESA mount on the back.

Pair of dual-head video cards and you're on your way, no problem.

[Scotty Doo @ Oct 23rd 2008 7:50AM]

Imagine playing Starwing or Starfox from the SNES on this!

....all ships check in......no sweat Fox!

[Frun @ Oct 23rd 2008 7:58AM]

Gabba Gabba

[steve @ Oct 23rd 2008 8:04AM]

>>> Quote: "System Requirements: 12 DVI video outputs "

[y3k.nik @ Oct 23rd 2008 9:08AM]

Holy pixeled fighter batman!!

"Star fox, you are a box and so is your fighter"

[Canoo @ Oct 23rd 2008 7:57AM]

1965x900 resolution per 24" monitor? never heard of that one....

[Canoo @ Oct 23rd 2008 8:03AM]

woops 3 vertical..

2620x900 per display.. still makes no sense..

[athousandleaves @ Oct 23rd 2008 8:44AM]

why bother... it can only properly display one 4K HD video at a time, you'll lose 720 lines off of one of em! :P

[eveer21 @ Oct 23rd 2008 9:48AM]

vertical would be 3600/3=1200
horizontal 7860/4=1965
so 1965x1200 no?

[rDub @ Oct 23rd 2008 9:40AM]

Your math is wrong but then again, their pixel math (on the CineMassive site) is wrong and has trickled down through all the other sites with out being corrected.

They got the total number of pixels right at 27,648,000, but the total resolution is not 7860x3600. It is actually 7680x3600. Ahh dyslexia skrites again!

1920x1200 per panel, and at 4 wide and 3 high that makes the math: 1920x4 (7680) and 1200x3 (3600)

Hope that clears all that up some for ya~

[melvz @ Oct 23rd 2008 7:57AM]

I have one of these... and they're a kick @$$ to watch PORN!

[jay.viz @ Oct 23rd 2008 8:05AM]

12 24" monitors for $12,995? Even a top of the line panel like the HP LP2475w is ~$700. $4,595+ for a mounting system seems a bit much.

[steve @ Oct 23rd 2008 8:06AM]

!!! Quote: "System Requirements: 12 DVI video outputs " !!!

so what is there offering additional to the 12 monitors? QuadSLI alone is not gonna work on that, so if NOT bundled with the neccessary hardware, 8.795 for just the mount is pretty expensive (350 per 24" display = 4.200) .. i guess i already have an idea of the additonal xxxxxx hardware required..

:/

[Caleb @ Oct 23rd 2008 4:15PM]

Yep, Your going to need a couple of these to do it with only one PC. http://www.nvidia.com/object/product_quadroplex_2100_d4_us.html
Using two SLI video cards and two of these Quadro Plex 2100's you could do up to 16 monitors as eachone has 4 dual link DVI out with 4GB total. Sweet. Couldn't find a price so... if there including something like this with the monitors that's probably where the extra cost comes in. Or alternatly you have to get something like this in addition on your own. I didn't bother to look to see if Matrrox is still in business but they used to make high end video cards that had 4 video connectors, so it's concevable that they make SLI cards with 4 DVI. 3 of those would in an SLI rig would give you 12 connectors.

[Brent @ Oct 23rd 2008 8:11AM]

[[[General specifications]]]
Total Active Pixels: 27,648,000
Total screen resolution: 7860 x 3600 pixels
Overall dimensions: 79.4" (W) x 23.5" (D)
Total diagonal size: 77.8" (active pixel area, excluding bezels)
Height eight: 44"
Warranty: 3-year
System Requirements: 12 DVI video outputs
Power Supply: Internationally compliant (110V - 240V)
P/N: CMO

[[[LCD specifications (per panel)]]]
Viewable image: 24" diagonal per panel
Screen resolution: 1920 x 1200 pixels per panel
LCD technology: TN
Viewing angle: 178º horizontal / 178º vertical
Static contrast ratio: 1500:1
Brightness: 300 cd/m²
Response: 6ms
Maximum colors: 16.7 million
Pixel pitch: 0.264
Aspect ratio: 16:10
Bezel: Ultra-thin 0.47"
Dimensions: 27.2" (W) x 17.7" (H) x 3.3" (D)
Weight: 30 lbs (shipped)
HDMI: 1
Digital DVI-D: 1
Analog VGA: 1
Component: 1
S-Video: 1
USB: 4

[NLI @ Oct 23rd 2008 8:14AM]

Instead of 12 DVI ports you can use just one DVI and daisychain the rest via Firewire. (nhee hee hee hee)

[steve @ Oct 23rd 2008 8:22AM]

video performance by daisychaining over firewire? hmm

[Earthian @ Oct 23rd 2008 8:22AM]

4 X 1920 = 7680
3 X 1200 = 3600

so it's 7680 X 3600

[Rubicon @ Oct 23rd 2008 8:31AM]

cant you just get 12 27" samsungs for less than 13k?

[computer.dude.28 @ Oct 23rd 2008 8:35AM]

A BSOD on that would put my avatar to shame :(

[loop @ Oct 23rd 2008 8:36AM]

blu ray porn never looked so good

[y3k.nik @ Oct 23rd 2008 9:10AM]

If by good, you mean you can see big boxes instead of big bonkers... yeahhhhhhhh

[霽月瀛台 @ Oct 23rd 2008 11:33AM]

you will see a sliced pussy

[lars @ Oct 23rd 2008 8:36AM]

I have that setup, only with 30" screens of 2560x1600, totalling 10240x4800 or 49 Mpixel.

Hmm wait, maybe that was just a fantasy...

[loop @ Oct 23rd 2008 8:39AM]

check your pants...cause i think you might have had an accident

[PuBeLeSs @ Oct 23rd 2008 9:05AM]

cause you know i did :-D

[aatnet @ Oct 23rd 2008 8:37AM]

one can buy the BEST plasma or lcd tv with that amount of money (and will presumably save on electricity bills as well)

[lars @ Oct 23rd 2008 8:38AM]

Come to think of it, why haven't I seen this type of setup done using projectors? No bezels. It would seem ONE image ;P The noise from 12 projectors might be a bit much though ;P Plus, you'd need a LOT of space ;P

[MadMike @ Oct 23rd 2008 9:46AM]

I was thinking the same thing. Do rear projection with 4 HD projectors. The rear projection would allow less distance and more ambient light. Your TV would still be 5' thick. You could built the projectors in a small closet with cooling and insulation so you don't hear them and then have the screen flush with the wall. Even with the construction, that would cost less than $12,000. Of course the video processor needed for that would be $20,000. Oh well.

Hey, I think AIG bought 45 of them for each of their top executives!

[Ike Turner @ Oct 23rd 2008 8:40AM]

You can see in the video that the screens aren't even in sync. There's lag. ugh

[Wolfticket @ Oct 23rd 2008 9:40AM]

The lag ruins it for me too.
I wonder if it is caused by the monitors or the computer hardware.

[Dy Phan @ Oct 23rd 2008 8:45AM]

I don't think Windows support resolutions this high...

[Ian @ Oct 23rd 2008 8:55AM]

This isn't really advanced technology or anything, so I don't see why this is so great. This is putting 12 displays in a 3x4 grid/array. "Sweet".

[Brian Hatoff @ Oct 23rd 2008 8:55AM]

I'm waiting for the wallpaper. Don't like the bezels.

[Vianon @ Oct 23rd 2008 8:57AM]

Is that F-22 Lightning 4 up there? Looks so real! This game is going to kickass...

[athousandleaves @ Oct 23rd 2008 8:58AM]

and at that price it cant even display UHDV properly...