Widescreen Gaming Forum

Im getting it by more than 76 ! But only on the left screen !!! The right is o.k. !!

Error still exists on most recent Powerdesk, mine distorts after 68 pixels on the left screen only.

I emailed Matrox tech support about the bad bezel management. Here's what they said:

-----------------
Unfortunately 80 pixels seem to be the best that PowerDeskSE can do, especially under 3x1680*1050.

If you run a different resolution, like 3x1280*1024, the Bezel Management might be better.

Thank you.
-----------------

Doesn't look like a burning priority for them! I sent a disgruntled reply. More people should do so.

Useless *&^%$£!s :evil:

I run 3840x1024 and I do not recall any distortion even above 90 pixels. When I get back to my rig I'll make a point of checking.

_________________
EVGA GeForce GTX 970 SC ACX 2.0 3.5GB | 3 X LG Flatron 24EA53VQ in Nvidia Surround | Optoma HD20

At 3840x1024 there's no problem to any silly number of pixels IIRC...I never tried numbers greater than about 200 pixels, but it just didn't misbehave at that resolution for me.

I got one more reply from Matrox on the bezel management issue. Seems there are hardware limitations. Otherwise they probably would have fixed it from the get go. It's nice that they at least fessed up and didn't ignore my inquiry.

----------------------
Hi Rick,

Due to the bandwidth limitation between the graphic card and the TripleHead2Go, the available pixels in Bezel Management may vary on different triple mode.

And we could not do much more about the bandwidth.

Thank you.
----------------------

I got one more reply from Matrox on the bezel management issue. Seems there are hardware limitations. Otherwise they probably would have fixed it from the get go. It's nice that they at least fessed up and didn't ignore my inquiry.

----------------------
Hi Rick,

Due to the bandwidth limitation between the graphic card and the TripleHead2Go, the available pixels in Bezel Management may vary on different triple mode.

And we could not do much more about the bandwidth.

Thank you.
----------------------

I got the same response from them. Makes me wonder exactly how the bezel management works. I assumed it was either done within the box itself or within the software and instructions sent through USB to the box. If bezel management is done within the box, then the bandwidth between the card and box has nothing to do with it. If it is being processed in software and sent along the DVI cable, I suppose it could mess it up. But then why does one screen (the right screen) scale all the way to some ridiculous bezel offset without a problem?

More likely is that the bezel offset is done within the box due to the fact that the box splits the images. If it is done in the box, then the bandwidth should not be an issue. Seems like a shoddy explanation to me.

Easy way: output image to th2g box including black bars to offset bezel part. Takes more bandwidth but less overhead/programming on the box itself.

Hard way: output image without black bars, reducing rendered image by x pixels in 2 spots before sending to box. Only extra bandwidth are a few numbers so it knows separations.

On the box, split image at separations and display. Less bandwidth, more sophisticated code needed.

My bet is their way is the first.

Easy way: output image to th2g box including black bars to offset bezel part. Takes more bandwidth but less overhead/programming on the box itself.

Hard way: output image without black bars, reducing rendered image by x pixels in 2 spots before sending to box. Only extra bandwidth are a few numbers so it knows separations.

On the box, split image at separations and display. Less bandwidth, more sophisticated code needed.

My bet is their way is the first.

If that were the case wouldn't Windows be outputting a resolution higher than 5040x1050?