Slashdot Mirror


High Resolution DVI Support for Plasma Displays?

spongman asks: "I'm trying to find the best way to connect a computer to a 50" (or larger) plasma display. The display I'm currently looking at is the NEC 50MP2 because its native resolution (1366x768) is high enough to meet my needs and it can display a 16:9 image with square pixels without scaling, but I'm open to suggestions for similarly-capable displays. I also want to use a DVI connection between the computer and the display to reduce interference and noise. The problem I'm having is that I can't work out which video cards support this resolution (or something near it) over a DVI connection. The only card I've found that seems to support this is the PixelPerfect from Imagine Graphics in the UK, but it's based on somewhat old technology (Kyro2) and I'd like a few more choices if possible. Does anyone have experience getting their video card connected to a plasma display over DVI at native resolution?"

146 comments

  1. ATI Radeon 8500 + component video dongle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    That is the only combination I know that will use all of an HDTV's resolution. And it has to be and 8500. The lower end versions wont cut it.

  2. Purpose? by saintlupus · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I suppose which card would be good depends on what the purpose of this is -- specifically, are you going to need killer 3D performance out of this display, or is it going to be a home theatre PC sort of setup?

    You might want to take a look at the Matrox cards if you don't need stunning 3d - my G450 supports a wide range of high resolutions, and it is available with DVI-out.

    --saint

    1. Re:Purpose? by funky+womble · · Score: 3, Informative
      If you use the Matrox Technical Support Tweak Utility you can choose the horizontal resolution in steps of 8 pixels and the vertical in steps of 2 pixels. Unfortunately 1366 isn't on the list, the nearest choice is 1368 (though PowerStrip does no better, it has the exact same choice of resolutions with the G450: I wonder if the list changes for different cards though).

      (Not quite what's asked for here, but worth a mention anyway: the dual-head 'DVDMax' output in the Matrox Windows drivers, which displays a video overlay full-screen on a second monitor, is absolutely excellent, and works with the video window in the background: quite useful for displaying video on a larger monitor while using a smaller one to operate the computer, which is ideal for certain residents of Betelgeuse 5).

    2. Re:Purpose? by rew · · Score: 2

      Unfortunately 1366 isn't on the list, the nearest choice is 1368

      That's a hardware issue. This same hardware issue most likely applies to the screen though. Thus the screen he's looking at is most likely 1368 or 1384 pixels wide...

      Oh, and it is no problem if you tell the computer to display two pixels more than fit on the screen. It's not like you'll suddenly get horribly bad quality or something...

      Roger.

  3. Geforce 4 Ti 4600 by alen · · Score: 1

    Mine has a DVI connector on it. Don't know about your specific resolution, but mine supports resolutions up to 2048 x something.

    1. Re:Geforce 4 Ti 4600 by ergo98 · · Score: 1

      Virtually every videocard sold today has a DVI connector (usually via a dongle), so this seems to be a rather odd Ask Slashdot. Of course the resolution being requested (~1366x768) is well within the range of any semi-modern video card, again making one wonder why this was accepted as an Ask Slashdot. I suspect someone wants to gloat about their 50" plasma screen. :-)

    2. Re:Geforce 4 Ti 4600 by aardvarkjoe · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      Well ... perhaps we need a 'Slashdot Show and Tell' category. In fact, I think that it would probably be more interesting than DMCA-story-of-the-day.

      --

      How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
    3. Re:Geforce 4 Ti 4600 by ergo98 · · Score: 1

      Ulch - that meat was tainted! You feel deathly sick.

      That really rings a bell...Zork?

    4. Re:Geforce 4 Ti 4600 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Historically, there have been issues with DVI support beyond 1024x768. Most modern cards, though, should have no hassles up to 2048xsomethingorother.

    5. Re:Geforce 4 Ti 4600 by florin · · Score: 3, Informative

      Actually, some semi-modern video cards like the Matrox G550 and older versions have a limitation of 1280x1024 for their DVI output. There's a story one step up that talks about a tweak utility which sounds like it might circumvent this, but with the normal drivers settings it is not possible to go higher. The GeForce 4 and possibly the ATI 8500 do not have that problem.

  4. Huh? by cascino · · Score: 3, Funny

    from the displays-of-insane-resolution dept.
    ...because its native resolution (1366x768) is high enough to meet my needs...
    Huh? Insane?

    1. Re:Huh? by SuperRob · · Score: 2

      I think here, "insane" is to interpreted as "not used by ANYONE".

    2. Re:Huh? by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 2

      I think a lot of widescreen video projectors and plasma displays use resolutions in that general area.

      It isn't "standard" such that you'd normally see it as an offered option on most computers, as mentioned elsewhere, you can get the video software called Powerstrip to customize your resolution.

    3. Re:Huh? by MonkeyBoy · · Score: 2

      I think the insane part comes in paying that much for a what amounts to a 50-inch computer display -- not just due to the cost, of course, but that in combination with a maximum resolution being THAT LOW.

      I'm pretty sure 1366x768 on a 50" monitor would look very close to 640x480 on a 21" monitor. Granted you can fit more n a 1366x768 display, but, for chrissake, I run at 1280x1024 and STILL get cramped for room when trying to get something meaningful done.

      But, by the same token, I know some vision-challenged individuals (in dire need of new glasses, I must add) who routinely run 640x480 on 21" monitors. This is the same group of people who put forth a nonstop litany of complaints about UI being too big and fonts being too small (!!) based on whatever it is they're doing (or trying to do, at least).

      --

      Moof!

    4. Re:Huh? by yandros · · Score: 1

      As far as Plasma screens go, right now you have two options: 1366x768, or 1024x1024. Things just don't seem to get any higher, from what I can find (and I've looked at several US$15k+ models).

      If someone can point me at some counterexamples, I'll be delighted. :)

  5. I'm intrested in how this will turn out. My question is why plasma as opposed to a huge crt? is it the flat screen? I thought crt was better quality anyway.

    --
    Learn it. Know it. Be it.
    1. Re:hmm.. by ergo98 · · Score: 2, Informative

      A 50" CRT? I don't believe such a thing is even made, and if it were the weight would be monstrous, not to mention that it'd be huge not only diagonally, but depthwise, consuming a huge portion of the room.

      Plasma screens, on the other hand, can be made 3.8" deep, and the power consumption (and hence heat dissipation) of plasma (& LCD) screens is dramatically lowered. Most LCDs and Plasma offer much better contrast than CRTs, and the only real critique of them is ghosting in some lower cost models, but that's mostly a complaint of yesteryear.

    2. Re:hmm.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't forget to mention non-uniform color, at least in LCDs. This is still a major problem for artists, which is why most still use CRTs.

    3. Re:hmm.. by sinistre · · Score: 1

      And if I'm not mistaken less / no radiation from the screen :)

    4. Re:hmm.. by ergo98 · · Score: 1

      Yup, very true. Indeed, perhaps I'm misreading, but the screen that I linked to seems to only consume about 8W...I find it hard to believe it could be that efficient.

      Electric Current Consumption 0.8A (DC9.3V)

    5. Re:hmm.. by deek · · Score: 1

      Not to mention that even the best CRT TVs _CANNOT_ display a horizontal resolution beyond 800-900 pixels. Plasma screens have much better resolution than CRT TVs.

      Actually, there is a CRT TV made by Sony, that does go beyond 900 pixels. It's worth nearly $40k USD. Definitely not a consumer product.

      http://bssc.sel.sony.com/Professional/webapp/Mod el Info?p=8&sp=20073&id=57474

    6. Re:hmm.. by brnsurgon1 · · Score: 1

      I saw a 50 inch CRT at an old museum (they were showing a movie on it or something. The thing whs massive it had to be at least 5-6 feet long (from electron gun to front of screen.)

    7. Re:hmm.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      maybe the contrast for plasma screens is better than crt, but I know that every lcd screen i have seen in the stores have had pretty bad contrast.

      As well as that, I have also heard that they cannot display as many colors as a crt, or the color purity isn't as good or something. I think that's why most people into imaging/graphics still use crts.

    8. Re:hmm.. by alienmole · · Score: 1
      I'm no artist, but even for pretty basic web page editing, or photo or video viewing, laptop LCDs tend to suck - minor color differences can completely disappear. If you want to simulate being subtly color blind, using an LCD will do it.

    9. Re:hmm.. by ergo98 · · Score: 1

      For sure there are still colour problems with many LCDs (though I believe that plasmas are better): i.e. they still haven't mastered an equal response for R, G, and B, so if you create colour bands side by side, they often fade out at different rates. For contrast LCDs are pretty similar to CRTs (though I find that hard to believe: I find that a LCD can display a bright aside a dark segment much better), but plasma screens have dramatically better contrast (some 3000:1). Plasma also has better color purity than LCDs.

    10. Re:hmm.. by djdrew6k · · Score: 0

      what the hell... this is for a computer. why would he want a CRT tv? Get a CRT monitor instead if that's your reasoning, those can display up to what... 3000 pixels horizontally with high-quality ones? (3000x2000) -a

    11. Re:hmm.. by deek · · Score: 1


      Well, they were talking about 50" CRTs. I can tell you that if a CRT is 50" in size, it's NOT a computer monitor. It's definitely a CRT TV. Do my comments make sense now?

      I don't know of _any_ CRT computer monitor that will handle 3000x2000 either. Please reply if you do know of one.

      CRT is a dead technology. It's gone almost as far as it can go. The solution definitely lies with flat panel displays like plasma and LCD.

  6. FPS by RedElf · · Score: 0, Offtopic
    Imagine running a beowulf cluster of those screens to play your favorite First Person Shooter!!!!

    Now that's gaming!

    --
    You know, I have one simple request. And that is to have sharks with frickin' laser beams attached to their heads!
    1. Re:FPS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep, nice idea but the only thing is that your game will only run in one cpu of one of your beowulf's computer. Unless the game is wrote for SMP, then you'll be able to use two cpu on the same machine -:)

    2. Re:FPS by fimbulvetr · · Score: 1

      I cannot find the article, but I read once that it was proven that it is easier, and people actually do better on smaller vs. larger tvs for video console games. If I can dig the article up I will post it.

    3. Re:FPS by RpiMatty1 · · Score: 1

      Whaaaa. Your saying people do better on smaller tvs?
      I have an old 13inch and a newer 21 inch tv. I do better on my 21 inch tv. the 13inch one is just too small.
      When i go home, my parents have a 36 inch flat screen tv, but I play about the same wethers its on the 21 or 36 inch.
      Ever try and play a split screen game on a tv smaller than 21"? its freakin impossible

    4. Re:FPS by zentu · · Score: 1

      Hey, You actually have an advantage with that 13 inch. If you play on that for awile split-screen, you have to learn the levels faster... where as I with my 27 Inch have the abiliy and urge to enjoy the true ambiance, and worry less about the game play. That is one of the reasons why my poor friend always kicked some major booty, the other being that he has like five siblings to play against.

  7. Obligatory Star Trek reference by baywulf · · Score: 1, Funny
    I'm trying to find the best way to connect a computer to a 50" (or larger) plasma display.


    That's easy ... plasma conduit.
  8. Similar Dilemma by raiyu · · Score: 3, Informative

    I had a similar problem when I originally got my SGI 1600sw flat panel LCD a few years back. It ran at 1600x1024 native, and to accomodate this unstandard (at the time) resolution, you were forced into using one of their "pre-approved" graphics cards. At the time they were fairly decent, but eventually they got old, without being able to upgrade, since the default connection was OpenLDI digital (not DVI), you had to buy an adapter (Usually out of stock and $600 retail) or get a new monitor.

    If there are enough monitors made at 16:9 instead of 16:10 in time 16:9 resolutions will be standardized. So if you plan to use this monitor for a few years, I think eventually you wont have any graphics cards problems. But until then, I would say the GeForce cards are very accomodating to non standard resolutions. I cant say much for 16:9 but I know that all VisionTek GeFroce2+ cards and certainly 4+ cards support 16:10 resolutions. GeForce2 was one of the few vendors that also supported 16:10 when there were only a handful of monitors running at that resolution.

    If you cant find anything that runs 16:9 and that monitor can rescale to 16:10 then I think a decent Geforce4 wont be much of a compromise. Plus, you should be able to hook up your DVD directly to it and still have it hooked up to your PC so you can still watch your movies at 16:9.

    My next monitor is the SGI F220 which im ordering next week, and lucky me I can get a GeForce4 to render, now I just have to find out if its compatible with non-SGI systems. ^_^

  9. Any modern card will work by drfrank · · Score: 2, Informative

    Do a search for "powerstrip" on download.com. For certain sure, you can use an ATI 8500, or GeForce 4 anything.

    (Lots of other cards will work, but these are the only ones I can personally attest to.)

    1. Re:Any modern card will work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who modded this redundant? It was the first to mention powerstrip, which is THE program HTPC'ers use to control desktop resolution when hooking up their boxes to their tv's (hd or orhterwise.)

      Moderators, SORT BY TIME.

    2. Re:Any modern card will work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Duh, of course, the moderators are retarded. This is proven every day many times over. For instance there is a post with the same content a few below this one and it is modded to "4, Informative" currently, even though it was posted afterwards.

      Well, retarded or stuck in some crazy time warp. Either explanation would explain everything.

  10. Relative certainty about ATI products... by Geiger581 · · Score: 1

    ATI sells a DVI -> component video adapter for their cards (may work with other brands, too, but I have no idea) that claims to support 480i/p, 720p, and 1080i. I doubt that most cards could output an interlaced signal natively for any resolution, but it would make sense that the ATI cards could output the 720p signal directly throught the DVI connector without the adapter in place.

  11. Try Matrox by -Surak- · · Score: 3, Informative

    I'm not sure about your specific application, but Matrox has always been pretty progressive with DVI support. I think they have at least one model of the G400 series with two DVI ports, and the new I think the new Parhelia card has three.

    1. Re:Try Matrox by CounterZer0 · · Score: 1

      Nope - Parhelia only has two video out - 1 DVI and one analog/VGA, with a splitter cable for the VGA port. That 'triple head' is only available in windows (atm), because it's doen in software.

    2. Re:Try Matrox by -Surak- · · Score: 1

      I just re-read the specs on it... I was wrong, it only has two DVI ports, which can be used for two displays, or you can use an included adapter on one of the DVI ports to generate seperate signals for two analog displays, giving a total of three displays. Not sure how the adapter works, but it's definately a hardware device.

  12. Syncing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In an analog world, this is simply a matter of finding the right sync freqs to set your resolution. This is a piece of cake under X Windows (once you understand the math) I'm not sure how well it works with DVI. But you're also probably using Microsoft Windows so it doesn't really matter. You're at the mercy of the drivers. Then again, perhaps the video drivers will detect the wide screen format and allow 16:9 resolutions? Probably not though.

  13. ATI?? by Reece400 · · Score: 1

    If i can remember correcty, some ATI cards support DVI to either 1280x768 or 1280x1024, can't remeber which tho,, unfortunatly, i'm still stuck in the analog world :(

    Reece,

    1. Re:ATI?? by Reece400 · · Score: 1

      wait, i checked, it can go higher, i think that's just the limit of the monitor that was attached te it, sorry, Reece,

  14. wall projector by j1mmy · · Score: 1

    save yourself a couple grand and get a wall projector

    1. Re:wall projector by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As long as you only want to watch it in the dark...

      I have just bought a wall projector for home thearte off my PC and it's great. But remember, the darkest black you will ever see is the color of the white sceen with no projected light on it - i.e., the room needs to be dark...

  15. Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'd like to have a problem like that.

    Really.

    1. Re:Wow by Reece400 · · Score: 1

      lol, yah me too :), Reece,

    2. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Instead all you have is the genital warts and a strange desire to shove shampoo bottles up your ass. Geez.

  16. What about an AIW? by MacEnvy · · Score: 1

    My ATI All-In-Wonder Rage 128 Pro supports the 16:9 aspect ratio; however, it doesn't have DVI. You could use it plus a DVIator from Dr. Bott's ...

    --


    ***
  17. Powerstrip by Devil's+BSD · · Score: 5, Informative

    I use PowerStrip to control my video card. If you get a card with DVI out, this program should support it. It supports about any card under any O/S, too. In the Display Configuration, you should be able to configure custom resolutions. One of the presets is already 1360x768. A few more clicks should get you to 1366x768.

    --
    I'm the Devil the Windows users warned you about.
    1. Re:Powerstrip by ergo98 · · Score: 1

      1360x768 is otherwise known as "Wide XGA", and it would be the computer "native" resolution for that screen.

    2. Re:Powerstrip by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It supports about any card under any O/S, too.

      under any MICROSOFT OS.

      Thank you.
    3. Re:Powerstrip by Osty · · Score: 1

      under any MICROSOFT OS.

      Yes, PowerStrip runs under Windows. However, it can just as easily output X modelines as it can set resolutions for Windows. Therefore, you can simply dual-boot any OS that uses X and a Windows (whatever you happen to have), use PowerStrip to setup the resolution under Windows, and copy that modeline over to X just fine.

  18. Take a chance... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you are buying a $9000 display why is it a big deal to go to Best Buy or Fry's and pick up a high-end ATI or nVidia based card. Those places have a return policy don't they?

    Also doesn't the plug and play feature of monitors tell Windows what resolution it can run at. A framebuffer is just a framebuffer after all.

  19. Oh mY! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Jeez! Think about the porn on a 50"er. Ladies now you can truly see your man clearly ;)

  20. Almost anything by mfago · · Score: 1

    Almost anything new (and decent) these days will support up to 1600x1200 with the DVI interface (eg the Geforce4). Watch out though, the max resolution of the cards are often not supported with DVI.

    Using Powerstrip (etc) as others have mentioned should get you the native screen resolution.

    Lucky guy ... The NEC can do P-I-P so you can eg. watch TV and the computer at the same time. I've dreamed of attaching 2x of the Panasonic 52", but cannot justify spending $25000 on monitors.

  21. why do you have to run native res? by packeteer · · Score: 1

    when the website says:

    PC Signal Compatibility:
    VGA 640x480 @ 60,72,75,85,100, 120 Hz
    SVGA 800x600 @ 56, 60, 72,75,85,100,120 Hz
    XGA 1024x768 @ 60,70,75, 85, 100 Hz
    SXGA 1280x1024 @ 60, 75, 85 Hz
    UXGA 1600x1200 @ 60, 65, 70, 75 Hz
    WideVGA 848x480, 852 x 480 @ 60Hz
    WideXGA 1360 x 768 @60Hz

    Macintosh Compatibility:
    640x480, 832x624, 1024x768, 1152x870

    cant you just settle for a slightly different res?

    --
    unzip; strip; touch; finger; mount; fsck; more; yes; unmount; sleep
    1. Re:why do you have to run native res? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      with native resolution, you get proper square pixels, results in a less blurred, better looking image. anything and it means the aspect ratio gets screwed up and it has to compensate.

    2. Re:why do you have to run native res? by spongman · · Score: 2

      i want unscaled, square pixels: the native resolution of the display. all the modes you listed above are for the analog input, not relevant to me.

    3. Re:why do you have to run native res? by packeteer · · Score: 1

      i am curious how it deals with non-native res modes... does it cut off some of the screen sides or does it scew the entire picture to compensate? either way because the change is small it would not be very much change but its fair enough just to say you want to run it in native res...

      --
      unzip; strip; touch; finger; mount; fsck; more; yes; unmount; sleep
  22. Nethack by ergo98 · · Score: 1

    Aha...was just thinking about it and it's Nethack, right? I remember when a local BBS got a gopher net connection, and I gophered to a site that would email you files : I got Nethack as quite a few emails that I had to manually cat together to uudecode them. Ah, the fun old times.

    Though, I could never understand why it was called "Net"hack when it seemed to be entirely single player.

    1. Re:Nethack by aardvarkjoe · · Score: 1
      You're right; it's Nethack. I saw that message more times than I can count when I was first starting out. (I can proudly say, though, that I haven't died from food poisoning in quite some time.)


      Oh, and the original game was 'Hack'. The name was changed to 'Nethack' because (IIRC) it was developed over the internet. (And that was quite unusual for the time.) Of course, there are several public Nethack servers around, where you can play and find the ghosts of dead explorers, so it's kinda 'net playable' in that manner.

      --

      How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
  23. Apple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What about Apple's TiBook DVI output? I'm not sure what resolutions it handles, though.

    Jim

  24. Digital Projector? by mark_space2001 · · Score: 1
    Don't forget about digital projectors. I was at a home movie night not too long ago where someone brought one from work. What a neat toy! We had a screen set up a one end of the living room with an absolutely huge, crisp picture. I was really impressed.

    Then when it was over, we folded up the screen and put the projector in it's cabinet, and all that space was reclaimed. If you had a permanent projector mounted strategically, and one of those automatic screens that roll up into the ceiling, it would be pretty sweat.

    Just throwing random ideas at ya...

    1. Re:Digital Projector? by NiceGeek · · Score: 1

      But aren't the bulbs in those projectors only rated for so many hours of use? And if I remember correctly, they aren't exactly cheap to replace.

  25. Some pointers by x+mani+x · · Score: 5, Informative

    First, to answer your question:

    Any modern ATI or Nvidia card should work just fine. Plasma displays are very sensitive with regards to having their exact resolution displayed, so use a program like Powerstrip to make sure Windows starts up with the exact resolution and refresh rate your plasma monitor requires.

    If you haven't bought a plasma display yet, then I recommend you think twice about getting it. There are some really low cost monitors out there that can interface pretty well with a PC. Take, for example, the JVC AV-48WP30, at around $1,700 you can have a 48" HDTV that supports DVI(*). People are using this TV with their PC's at 1280x720, or 1920x540. There are also new 42" (HLM427W, I believe) and 50" (HLM507W) Samsung HDTV's that support DVI and are based on badass DLP technology (I heard this set is particularly sharp when connected to a PC). These Samsung DLP's are MUCH cheaper than other comparable sets, something like $3,000-$4,000.

    Note, however, that while the theoretical HDTV resolution is 1920x1080i, very, very few HDTV's can display a discernable pixel grid at this resolution. Still, the price difference between a modern rear-projection HDTV and a plasma monitor is significant (you can buy a decent used car with the money you save).

    Here are some very helpful links, I used them extensively when I was shopping around for a new set:

    AV Science Forum: great forum with lots of very knowledgeable people. Many of them are into using displays like plasmas/HDTV's with their PC's.

    Home Theater Spot: similar to the above, different layout. Another great, helpful site.

    (*) Regarding these DVI connectors - yes, these are the new DVI connections used to transfer encrypted data to prevent people from copying future HD broadcasts. It is often documented that you can't use this DVI interface with your computer's DVI out, but more often than not this is not true and it will work just fine. However, ask around on the above sites about your particular DVI TV before buying an expensive DVI cable. :)

    1. Re:Some pointers by billscarwasher · · Score: 1

      Beware the GeForce2 (and probably GeForce4MX) and most GeForce cards when it comes to high resolution DVI. Most GeForce3 cards seem to do a fine job up to at least 1600x1024. GeForce2's and 1's need to have an external Silicon Image chip in order to support high resolution (over 1024x768) DVI. Just check the board for a chip with a Silicon Image logo on it, and it should be able to handle higher DVI resolutions. YMMV.

    2. Re:Some pointers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I would advise against purchasing a rear-projection television (RPTV). While they are big I don't find them to be bright enough and they have limited angle of view because of the fresnel lens, which also causes the image to have uneven brightness/color/contrast.
      In my opinion front projectors are the superior option over RPTVs for those who crave for very large screen TVs; they don't take up nearly the same floorspace as RPTVs, offer better image quality, are portable and can project an image much larger than the 50"-60" that RPTVs are limited to.

      However, I don't find either RPTVs or front projectors to be viable solution for day to day television viewing (because of short lamp-life, limited brightness and so on). Normal CRT based televisions and Plasma TVs are much better in that regard. And for those who have the dough, nothing can beat Plasma TVs in utter coolness.

    3. Re:Some pointers by krbuck · · Score: 1

      Another recommendation for the http://www.avsforum.com/ . Especially check out the HTPC (Home Theater PC) group and the Plasma group.

      Also, I don't think anyone has mentioned anything about burn-in. With plasma, you have to take precautions to prevent this, especially if you are planning to use it with lots of static images. I have a 42" panasonic plasma display (I love it for movies btw). All I've had to do is make some adjustments in the brightness and picture settings along with some modification in my viewing behavior and I've had no trouble with this at all. Do a search on the plasma forum and you'll get good advice on this subject.

      Cheers, and good luck. --Karl

    4. Re:Some pointers by x+mani+x · · Score: 2

      Hi Karl,

      Also note that the newer DLP RPTV's do not fall victim to CRT burn-in.

  26. Mac resolutions? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Macintosh Compatibility:
    640x480, 832x624, 1024x768, 1152x870


    Will this display work on a Mac at resolutions other than those listed?

    1. Re:Mac resolutions? by dfung · · Score: 1

      Yes, the display's just a display. These unusual resolutions called out for the Mac are the historical resolutions for Apple's non-multisync monitors. Those resolutions are still supported today, but on modern Macs (since the mid-90s), support for multisync monitors and most of the PC standard resolutions are included as well.

  27. yeah, really... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The widescreen iMac has a higher resolution than that.

    1. Re:yeah, really... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      My LAPTOP has higher resolution than that.

    2. Re:yeah, really... by Dahan · · Score: 2

      My NOTEBOOK has higher resolution than that.

  28. High Resolution DVI Support for Plasma Displays? by Paul+Driver · · Score: 1

    First, you nedd to check if the manufacturer requires a single or dual TDMS input. A single DVI TDMS channel maxes out at 165Mhz. 1600x1200 @ 60hz with a 5% blanking overhead is about the limit of a single channel DVI connection. IF your device requires more then 5% of the total bandwith for blanking (and many do) then both the available bandwith and resolution drops. Depending on the required refresh rate and the blanking bandwith(time) required by the device, you may be exceeding a single TDMS output. Second, you need a card with a TDMS that will output the full 165Mhz of bandwith. Some low end devices will not do this. For instance, the integrated GeForce2 TDMS had problems (maxed out at like 800x600), requiring an aftermarket TDMS be integrated on the card. This is why some large format LCD displays support 1280x1024 in DVI and 13xxish x something or another in analog mode (a samsung as I recall) for more information see http://www.ddwg.org Paul Driver

  29. I run my 24" Samsung at 1920x1200 by FreeUser · · Score: 4, Informative

    Although my ATI 8500 should be able to drive my HDTV-ready monitor at 1920x1200 resolution, I've yet to be able to coax the X driver into delivering that resolution through the DVI interface.

    However, using the Nvidia binary-only X 4.2 drivers I have no trouble driving the monitor in 1920x1280 24-bit color resolution with a GeForce4 Ti4600.

    Such a setup should work fine for a relatively low-resolution plasma like the one you are considering, at 1366x768 ... indeed, I suspect you could easilly coax that out of an ATI 8500 or ATI 7500 under XFree 4.2, and almost certainly if you use ATI's drivers.

    If you're going to spend that kind of money on a plasma, though, I'd wait a couple of years, until they support true 1080i at least. 768 lines of resolution is analogous to 1024x768 resolution on a computer (yes, I know you get more horizontal pixels in a 16:9 format, my monitor is 16:10 so I'm intimately familiar with that), so keep in mind that you are buying an expensive product whose resolution will likely be disappointing to you in a couple or three years.

    --
    The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
  30. don't bother with DVI by g4dget · · Score: 2

    The quality of plasma displays is low enough that you almost certainly won't be able to tell the difference. Just get one with a standard VGA input. If you need to run the VGA cable a long distance, Blackbox.com offers boxes that let you use standard VGA with long cables. If you really want DVI, get a DVI-to-VGA converter and put it next to the screen. Keep in mind that the signal eventually will be analog anyway.

    1. Re:don't bother with DVI by notanatheist · · Score: 1

      The plasmas I've seen all contain 15pin VGA connections for certain. And if you really want a 50" screen then why not go for Viewsonic's model? Last I read it was able to to 1600x1200 which I would imagine on a screen that size would be as hideous as running 640x480 on my 21" tube. If you're going big and flat then go for the most pixels man. And if you're on a budget Sony's 42" does somewhere in the range of 1024x768.

    2. Re:don't bother with DVI by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      It's not merely an issue of resolution. Walk into a Fry's or CompUSA. Look very closely at the monitors and at the edges of high contrast objects onscreen. There are all sorts of defects like ghosting, etc.

    3. Re:don't bother with DVI by g4dget · · Score: 2

      At Fry's or CompUSA, those are many monitors connected with very long cables to splitters and a single signal source. Of course, you get ghosting and image defects. The plasma monitors are probably connected to composite video. But if you plug one monitor into one VGA card with a good cable of reasonable length, you won't be able to tell the difference.

    4. Re:don't bother with DVI by g4dget · · Score: 2
      It's not merely an issue of resolution.

      By the way, I didn't say that it was an "issue of resolution". I didn't even mention the word "resolution".

  31. ... as in DeVice Independent? by roozbeh · · Score: 1

    This really scared me at the first look. DVI standed for something named DeVice Independent at good old days, when everyone still used TeX to format her thesis. Oh, just how sweet were the days, when you knew every nice girl will someday need you, the local TeXpert.

    Now we're back to troff again...

  32. oh, this is humor, right? by pangloss · · Score: 2

    there are a lot of cards out there that will do 1600x1200 or better via dvi.

    i know for a fact there are geforce2mx cards that can push out 1920x1200. search around for samsung 240t users and you'll find plenty of hi-res (1920x1200) dvi cards.

    however, unless you plan on keeping your computer pretty close to your display, i think your bigger problem will be the length limitations of dvi cabling: 3-5 meters.

    1. Re:oh, this is humor, right? by spongman · · Score: 2
      yeah, but can they drive a plasma display? have you tried?

      cable length is not a problem, the computer is not going to be accessible...

  33. Why is this redundant again? by jgaynor · · Score: 2

    Drfrank is right. I use powerstrip and its an excellent reccomendation for this question. I sont have any points right now so someone mod this up. Hope that mod gets screwed in metamod.

    1. Re:Why is this redundant again? by frankske · · Score: 1

      very correct

  34. yeah by sydlexic · · Score: 1

    about $600 for the Sony's. not cheap.

    1. Re:yeah by nelsonal · · Score: 1

      You do realize that the plasma screen will cost several thousand. If the projector costs $2-3k, you can purchase several bulbs before a projector costs more.

      --
      Degaussing scares the bad magnetism out of the monitor and fills it with good karma.
    2. Re:yeah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      It is official; Netcraft confirms: *BSD is dying

      One more crippling bombshell hit the already beleaguered *BSD community when IDC confirmed that *BSD market share has dropped yet again, now down to less than a fraction of 1 percent of all servers. Coming on the heels of a recent Netcraft survey which plainly states that *BSD has lost more market share, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. *BSD is collapsing in complete disarray, as fittingly exemplified by failing dead last in the recent Sys Admin comprehensive networking test.

      You don't need to be a Kreskin to predict *BSD's future. The hand writing is on the wall: *BSD faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for *BSD because *BSD is dying. Things are looking very bad for *BSD. As many of us are already aware, *BSD continues to lose market share. Red ink flows like a river of blood.

      FreeBSD is the most endangered of them all, having lost 93% of its core developers. The sudden and unpleasant departures of long time FreeBSD developers Jordan Hubbard and Mike Smith only serve to underscore the point more clearly. There can no longer be any doubt: FreeBSD is dying.

      Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers.

      OpenBSD leader Theo states that there are 7000 users of OpenBSD. How many users of NetBSD are there? Let's see. The number of OpenBSD versus NetBSD posts on Usenet is roughly in ratio of 5 to 1. Therefore there are about 7000/5 = 1400 NetBSD users. BSD/OS posts on Usenet are about half of the volume of NetBSD posts. Therefore there are about 700 users of BSD/OS. A recent article put FreeBSD at about 80 percent of the *BSD market. Therefore there are (7000+1400+700)*4 = 36400 FreeBSD users. This is consistent with the number of FreeBSD Usenet posts.

      Due to the troubles of Walnut Creek, abysmal sales and so on, FreeBSD went out of business and was taken over by BSDI who sell another troubled OS. Now BSDI is also dead, its corpse turned over to yet another charnel house.

      All major surveys show that *BSD has steadily declined in market share. *BSD is very sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim. If *BSD is to survive at all it will be among OS dilettante dabblers. *BSD continues to decay. Nothing short of a miracle could save it at this point in time. For all practical purposes, *BSD is dead.

      Fact: *BSD is dying

  35. Beware of HDTV fakes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    HDTV resolution is 1920 x 1080 ..

    There are MANY MANY manufacturers selling TVs with SVGA or XGA resolutions trying to pass it off as HDTV.

    Be extremely careful of this .. whenever ur buying a so called HDTV ask to find out the actual resolution and make sure it's 1920 x 1080. Here's a tip if you're not paying thousands of dollars ($7k up) you're probably not getting HDTV.

    What happens? People buy it thinking thats true HDTV and think HDTV is no big deal and a waste of money. And in turn the concept of HDTV gets screwed.

    Honest business practices .. will it ever be a reality?

    1. Re:Beware of HDTV fakes by Babbster · · Score: 1
      I've looked at the lowest end of the HDTV scale (Samsung 27" 4:3), and anyone who looks at that picture for more than 10 minutes next to any of the analog-only sets then walks away saying HDTV is "no big deal" is a friggin' idiot.

      Whatever the resolution (typically 800x600 in the low-end sets), those televisions CAN still take an HD signal (which is the criterion for terming a set "HDTV-ready") and they DO look much better than vanilla NTSC.

      As far as honesty goes, I'm more afraid of HDTV zealots who cry and holler about "true" high-definition resolution (which, by the way, you can't even GET via current HD broadcasts since they are typically maxing out at around 1600x1080) and thus scare away people who might otherwise get the upgrade, and at WORST end up with a set that will display beautifully their DVDs.

      That's enough OT rant for me, I think.

    2. Re:Beware of HDTV fakes by wirehead_rick · · Score: 1

      Wrongo bucko.

      1280x720p is technically HDTV according to the ATSC standard and besides ther are _NO_ hdtv's in existance today that can actually display every pixel of 1920x1080 so don't waste your breath.

      Any HD display close to or over 720x1280 will look as stunning as 1920x1080 with todays technology. Unless you want to watch HDTV on your computer monitor. In that case, just use your computer monitor and don't worry about it.

      --
      -- Mean People Suck
  36. The answer by Stonent1 · · Score: 2, Informative



    With power strip you can dial up any resolution that you want and create a profile for it. Take a look at the nice PNG screen shot and see for yourself.

    1. Re:The answer by Stonent1 · · Score: 1

      Screenshot For some reason it didn't show up in the parent.

  37. lcd contrast is worse not better by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Look it up, all but the highest end lcd screens have horrible contrast even when compared to a mid range crt monitor

  38. hmm by ShooterNeo · · Score: 1

    I have an idea. POWERSTRIP!

    I know for a fact that Powerstrip will allow you to set the video card to custom, nonstandard resolutions. Try than and a standard Radeon 8500 (you can get them at pricewatch for $109, a stock 8500 at 275/275). Excellent 3d performance and tons of features.

    However, I'm not entirely certain that the DVI output is compatable. In all likelihood it is.

  39. Here's a simple solution... by Kalewa · · Score: 1

    If you can afford an $8000 plasma screen, you can afford to blow a few hundred dollars on graphics cards and buy one of each :)

  40. Wrong website, dude! by Kreylix · · Score: 1

    Post your question in the Plasma forum on AVSForum.com

  41. Sure. by pornaholic · · Score: 1

    Now come on. What the fu^H^H heck do you expect from us? The nice thing about high-end equipment of any sort is that you usually buy it through a very experienced salesman. Even if you can find a better deal somewhere else, just get the rundown from a good salesman. You might have to try a few, but it's not bad because you can easily tell if someone knows what they're talking about. The right guy (or gal if you're offended by that) is bound to know more than most of us.

    1. Re:Sure. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The guy just wanted to show off and to sound cool. "Oh look, I've got a plasma screen with DVI input, can you tell me if I can plug a DVI cable there?"
      He already knows the answer, he just wants to see our reactions.

      Who knows how much ass-raping and lying and cheating and stealing and cock-gobbling he had to do to afford that thing, because it's not by WORKING that you can buy things like that.

    2. Re:Sure. by spongman · · Score: 2
      Actually it's for my company and we'll be reselling or sub-leasing the screens to our customers. I don't have a test screen yet, and if you bothered to read the article you'd know that I'm still researching which screen fits the requirements. The reason I posted the question is because I don't have the money to buy a screen and I want to be sure I won't be wasting time renting one for $600+/day.

      Some people, really.

  42. AvsForum by Sudoxe · · Score: 1

    Check out http://www.avsforum.com
    I just baught my self a NEC 42MP3 plasma, its awesom. The guys at avs form, gave me lots of tips etc on setting it up....

    Dan

  43. Check your DVI plug! (DVI-I or DVI-D???) by SectoidRandom · · Score: 4, Informative

    A few months back I was setting up a Plasma screen for a client, connected to just a Geforce 4, the big problem I found immediatly was the connector! DVI is not just one plug!

    It turned out the Plasma screen (Pioneer I think) has a DVI-D connector and the GeForce (and every other video card I checked) has a DVI-I connector, they are not compatible! :( What I had to do after talking to both an A/V suplier and Pioneer was use a DVI-I to VGA cable as no DVI-I -> DVI-D exists! Apparantly the quality loss is insignificant, but it just didnt feel right. :( Still it did look brilliant at 1024x resolution!

    From what I was told by various sources is that DVI-D is purely digital, where as DVI-I is part analogue, I never had time to find out more, but if anyone can clarify this and why it would be something to take into consideration.

    1. Re:Check your DVI plug! (DVI-I or DVI-D???) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From the site linked about DVI in these posts...

      If you have plugs that are DVI-D, they will accept a DVI-D or DVI-I cable. If you have plugs that are DVI-A, they will accept a DVI-A or DVI-I cable. If you have plugs that are DVI-I, they will accept any type of DVI cable.

      So the part of DVI-I and DVI-D not working togther wasn't the truth from the A/V supplier.

    2. Re:Check your DVI plug! (DVI-I or DVI-D???) by akhaksho · · Score: 1

      That's just wrong. All you needed was a DVI-D to DVI-D cable. The DVI-I connector can accept either type because it has all the pins for both DVI-D and DVI-A. Most projectors and LCD monitors that have DVI-I connectors will come with a DVI-I to VGA cable and a DVI-D to DVI-D cable.

    3. Re:Check your DVI plug! (DVI-I or DVI-D???) by obi · · Score: 3, Informative

      Well, you got scammed - you didn't need to go back to VGA. if you got a DVI-I plug and a DVI-D plug, You can use a DVI-I or DVI-D to connect the two digitally.

      Check out this passage from a DVI faq:
      "
      If you have plugs that are DVI-D, they will accept a DVI-D or DVI-I cable. If you have plugs that are DVI-A, they will accept a DVI-A or DVI-I cable. If you have plugs that are DVI-I, they will accept any type of DVI cable.

      If you have mistmatched plugs, such as DVI-D and DVI-I or DVI-A and DVI-I, you may use either a DVI-I cable or the cable that matches the other plug. For example, you may use a DVI-D cable on a DVI-I to DVI-D connection, but not a DVI-A cable.

      Note: You may not mismatch a DVI-D and a DVI-A connection.
      "

      There.

    4. Re:Check your DVI plug! (DVI-I or DVI-D???) by alexburke · · Score: 3, Informative

      It turned out the Plasma screen (Pioneer I think) has a DVI-D connector and the GeForce (and every other video card I checked) has a DVI-I connector, they are not compatible!

      Yes, they are.

      Your GeForce has a DVI-I output connector on it, which outputs both digital and analog versions of the SAME signal. You can screw a small adapter onto that DVI-I connector which converts the analog signal, ground, and DDC pins to a normal VGA HD15 connector to use a normal CRT monitor with.

      However, if you plug a digital flat-panel display with a DVI-D input into that same connector on your GeForce, it will use the digital part of the output and will look better than if you used the analog part (assuming your monitor has both DVI-D and HD15 connectors like mine.

      So, yes, it will work. Plug it in, and if it's the only thing connected to the card, the card should detect that and use the digital output automatically without you having to connect an analog monitor and switch it over to digital output in the Display Control Panel.

      You're welcome.

    5. Re:Check your DVI plug! (DVI-I or DVI-D???) by awrc · · Score: 1

      With these two all you should have needed was a simple DVI-D to DVI-D cable. The DVI-D cable will plug into the DVI-I connector on the card since the connector is female and the cable is male, so the extra four pins and key used by DVI-I to carry analog signals and prevent you from plugging DVI-I cables into DVI-D connectors just don't matter.

      All you'll lose is anything displayed before the video card drivers "kick in" to digital mode. On a typical Windoze box this means you don't see anything until the desktop, not sure how things work elsewhere.

      Example - my PC had a GeForce 3 Ti 500 with a DVI-I output. My monitor was a Samsung Syncmaster 170T with DVI-I input. Then I threw a Mac into the mix, which had an ADC to DVI-I connector hooked up to it. With me so far?

      Then I wanted to use both computers with the same display using a KVM switch. I eventually found two different KVM switches to switch a) DVI and b) USB. There was the very expensive yellow one that did it all in solid state electronics and didn't include any cables, and there was the cheap one silver with the big knob on the front that was quite literally a four-position mechanical switch, and included all necessary cables to hook up four machines to a DVI display.

      I bought the cheap one. All of the cables provided with it (and all of the connectors on the switch box itself? - can't be bothered looking right now) were DVI-D. I hooked it all up. It worked. Well, not really, it had pretty severe pixel sparkle in some places beccause two 6' DVI cables with a mechanical switch in the middle takes you over the regular DVI cable length limit and can introduce noise, but it worked in principle, and using one of the DVI-D cables to connect the DVI-I graphics card directly to the DVI-I monitor worked just fine.

      It should definitely give you a far better picture than using a DVI to VGA converter.

      As for DVI-I being part analogue and DVI-D purely digital. I won't go into all the details (such as the all-analog DVI standard) but basically DVI-I is DVI-D but with four extra pins to carry a standard analog VGA signal. They're arranged at one end of the connector around a cross-shaped key. DVI-D connectors don't have a slot for the vertical part of the key, thus preventing you from plugging DVI-I cables into DVI-D sockets, but there's nothing to prevent you from plugging DVI-D cables into DVI-I sockets - you lose the analog part of the signal, but typically the only time you'd see anything coming over that is during stuff like BIOS and Windows startup (on Windows). Macs go straight into digital the minute they start. Linux boxes - I imagine it's all down to the specific display driver/

    6. Re:Check your DVI plug! (DVI-I or DVI-D???) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      His system may have had a DVI-I connector, while only supporting DVI-A. When I went looking for the adapter i needed to convert my DVI-I to VGA I ran across a site describing a couple of cards that used the wrong connectors for the features they supported.

      (I believe one card, the early VisionTek Ti-4600 had DVI-A connections, while later have DVI-I which confused a lot of people. The box says DVI-I). Other scenarios were also outlined.

  44. DVI Info by SectoidRandom · · Score: 5, Informative

    Just found this info on DVI connectors: All About DVI

    Hope this helps..

  45. plasma by fred133 · · Score: 1

    I've been around the video industry since Motorola came out with the "works in drawer TV" in the 60's. As far as I'm concerned you should get as far away from an NEC product as you can. They seem to work under the guidelines of "build it, then dump it." They have designed and produced so many IC's and products, then dumped them before the end of life of the product that they should be prosecuted. JUNK,JUNK,JUNK! They are the epitome of the phrase "Japanese Junk".

    1. Re:plasma by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, like ALLLLL other companies trip over themselves to support you and your ICs from 1973?

      Come on. This is the world we live in, old timer. Try to get a laptop LCD from a laptop that's from 1998? No way! Try to get information for the ICs on the control PCB? SHARP SLA201TF is an IC in the SHARP LCD. No info anywhere. None. Zero.

      Do I add Sharp to your list of Japanese Junk?

  46. sacrifices by DarkHelmet · · Score: 4, Insightful
    I'm trying to find the best way to connect a computer to a 50" (or larger) plasma display.

    I'd sacrifice my ex-girlfriend to the monitor god to get one of those plasma displays.

    Two birds with one stone.

    --
    /^[A-Z0-9._%+-]+@[A-Z0-9.-]+\.[A-Z]{2,4}$/i
    1. Re:sacrifices by MADCOWbeserk · · Score: 2

      I'd sacrifice my ex-girlfriend

      Hell I would sacrifice my current girlfriend.

    2. Re:sacrifices by Mignon · · Score: 2
      Hell I would sacrifice my current girlfriend.

      Dude, if she reads Slashdot, you just did.

  47. Parhellia supports custom resolutions by itself by iamr00t · · Score: 1

    Plus awsome quality of course.

  48. How about this Fujitsu 1024x1024 by Tomji · · Score: 0

    Price is reasable. saw it for around $7000

    PDS-4241
    Display Type AC type plasma display panel
    Screen Size 36.2" W x 20.4" H (42" diagonal)
    Dimensions 40.7" W x 25.2" H x 3.3" D
    Weight 62.8 lbs
    Brightness 700 cd/m2
    Pixel Count 1024 x 1024
    Aspect Ratio 16:9
    Displayable Colors 16.77 million colors
    Contrast Ratio 500:1
    Video Standards Supported NTSC, PAL, SECAM, 3.58NTSC,
    4.43NTSC, PAL-60, M-PAL, N-PAL
    Video Inputs S-video, Composite, Component
    Computer Inputs RGBHV, VGA, DVI-D
    Viewing Angle 160 degrees

    http://www.plasmavision.com/4241.html

    1. Re:How about this Fujitsu 1024x1024 by Tomji · · Score: 0

      http://www.plasmavision.com/5001specs.html

      this one is bigger but has this wierd resolution 1366x768

  49. Resolution in Notebook vs. stand alone displays? by antoniol · · Score: 1

    I'm looking into getting my first LCD display for my PC. One thing I find puzzling: How come every (?) 15" stand alone display out there has only 1024x768 pixels, when notebook makers seem to have no problem with giving you 1600x1200 on the same area? (I'm thinking specifically of Dell's "UXGA TFT" displays). Even budget notebooks from Dell (sub $2000 range) give 1400x1050. I would have thought the technology would be exactly the same, no?

  50. Check out a better options by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    www.projectorcentral.com is the best place on the web for comparing various projectors.

    They list _everything_, even professional equipment, and are regularly updated.

    Their search function is amazing.

    http://www.projectorcentral.com/projector_search .c fm

    How about a new JVC DLA-QX1G?
    Native resolution: 2048x1536 Pixels
    Brightness: 7000 Lumens
    MSRP (USD):$ 225,000

    You can search on price, brightness, resolution, etc and easily find your best choice.

  51. Re:Similar Dilemma (check out Samsung LCD's) by Erik_ · · Score: 1

    Hmmm... I've seen bigger and better quality LCD panels from Saumsung, and probably cheaper too. Check out the Samsung SM181T, SM191T and SM210T. These screens have some great features such as 250cd/m2, Contrast 500:1, View-angle 170/170 (H/V), Response Time 25ms, Analog & DVI-D Digital connectors etc... Make sure your new LCD screen has a good Contrast setting and has a good response time (if you intend to play games on it.)

  52. 16 by 9 by cheese_wallet · · Score: 2

    Has anyone else noticed that most recent movies are being released with an aspect ratio of 2.35 instead of 1.85? this means all those beautiful 16:9 TVs will have to letterbox the 2.35s if you don't want to streatch the picture out vertically.

    I think that kind of sucks.

    1. Re:16 by 9 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, it doesn't suck, this is good! This means the troubled tech-industry will be able to seel eve _w_i_d_e_r_ televisions! That makes more jobs in Malaysia which is a troubled country.

    2. Re:16 by 9 by funky+womble · · Score: 2
      The 2.35 releases are just giving you the film as it was shot, to keep the composition correct. Unless the TV screen is the same shape as the original film, there's no single way of displaying the image that will please everyone.

      At least if the DVD is released at 2.35, you can have your own equipment do the pan-and-scan if you don't like letterboxing. If it was released in 16:9 with parts of the original picture removed, there would be no way to recover them.

      Of course 1.85 isn't quite 16:9 either..

    3. Re:16 by 9 by cheese_wallet · · Score: 2

      Can you really have your own equipment do pan and scan? How does it know what part of the picture to look at?

      On a related note, I personally think that LCD projectors are going to improve to the point that people will want to go back to that method instead of a projection TV. I know I am almost to that point.

    4. Re:16 by 9 by funky+womble · · Score: 2
      I know that a lot of the software players will do pan and scan. I have seen 'aspect ratio conversion' in feature lists for hardware players, though since I've never used a hardware player I wouldn't know for sure.

      Certainly in the UK, broadcast digital television allows a choice of aspect ratio (changed in the setup menus of the set-top box), so it would seem a bit strange for DVD video to be any different. I don't really know how that would display a 2.35 picture though, it might just be for 16:9 to 4:3 conversion.

      I can't find any references about how the player decides which part of the picture to zoom in on, it would be most sensible for the position information to be encoded on the disk, but I don't know if that's actually the case.

  53. Check out Apple displays by Markonen · · Score: 2

    I don't know what you'll be paying for the SGI display, but since it hasn't exactly been the budget brand earlier I think the similar-spec Apple displays might be a cheaper alternative.

    In short, Apple has a 1600x1024@22" display for $2499 and a 1920x1200@23" display for $3499.

    Apple has a custom display connector for which you'll need a $149 adapter, but the proprietary format is quite useful: a single cable will carry power, DVI and USB to the display. This means that you can hide a noisy six fan Athlon beast in your closet (up to 15ft away with an extension) and only have one cable coming to desk, with your keyboard, mouse and speakers attached to the display. Neat!

    1. Re:Check out Apple displays by bdrago · · Score: 1

      The SGI F220 is the next generation of the 22" Apple Cinema Display. I'll leave the details as an excercise for the reader.

      One of the cool things about the F220 is that is has VGA, DVI, S-Video, and composite video inputs. You can switch between them from the front panel, or with the handy remote control. It even has picture-in-picture.

      So it's not the cheapest, but it does have some extra features some users would be interested in.

  54. Re:Resolution in Notebook vs. stand alone displays by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You are mistaking true resolution with 'apparent resolution'. Just like lots of LCDs claim 24 bit color, but in reality the actual panel has support for 18 bits. Just because the input circuitry can handle 24 bits, doesn't mean the panel IS 24 bits. It's scaled down.

  55. Re:Resolution in Notebook vs. stand alone displays by Superpaz · · Score: 1

    Who wants to pay $1000 for a 15" LCD? I'm sure it would cost a lot more to support the higher resolutions.

  56. Intellectual property rears it's ugly head qjkx by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Know why clean digital interfaces aren't around? Yep, IP. The DVI signal can be intercepted and that Disney movie can be stolen, thus DVI is stopped dead in its tracks from expanding. Oh well.

  57. R300 Should have it.. by Blowit · · Score: 1

    ATI has been a leader in offering multiple types of resolutions. I would highly suggest looking at the Radeon 9700 Pro and see if it will support this resolution. If not currently, it will eventually as this is only a driver issue. ATI would consider adding this to their driver to allow Plasma screens be properly visible.

    --
    *Headline News* censorship shuts down the Internet! More at 6PM!
  58. Geforce3 for sure by fktup · · Score: 1

    I was over at my bosses house last year and was playing quake3 on a 50' plasma screen. He was using a Geforce 3. He also had the exact same setup in his downstairs studio. So it would probably be safe to say that a Geforce4 would support it too.

    A Geforce4 also supports dual monitors. I should tell my boss to get one and run dual plasmas.Quake3 @ 2732x768 would look pretty funny im sure. The quake3 engine is really adept at playing in unstandard resolutions.

  59. Well.. by mindstrm · · Score: 2

    CRT is better quality than LCD, for sure...
    But plasma?

    I saw a plasma screen at LG the other day.... seen it for the good part of a year, every day.

    It's the most stunning video quality I've EVER seen, anywhere. Crips, accurate, high-res, wicked contrast, you can see it from a mile away in the mall, insane viewing angle.

    It costs about $30,000 though.

    If I had to guess, I'd say that a plasma screen can probably be made to be superior to a CRT.
    Not cheaply.

  60. *sigh* by mindstrm · · Score: 2

    Projector.
    Go get a high end LCD or DLP projector. Do they make them in HDTV resolutions yet?

  61. My Radeon 7500 is doing DVI 1600x1200 just fine! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm posting this on my ATI Radeon 7500, running at 1600x1200 via a DVI connection to a Dell 2000FP 20" LCD. Cost me $110 last fall (the card, not the monitor :) ) Any newer ATI product is surely capable of the same. I'd check before buying an Nvidia product, my research last summer indicated that many/all of the GeForce cards were limited to 1280x1024 when using DVI, Matrox cards were similarly limited.

    Call me crazy, but I'd think 1366x768 on a 50" monitor is going to look kinda crappy, that's barely 25 dpi, isn't it?

  62. My experience with plasma and DVI by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...was less than inspiring. I have a Fujitsu 5002 which has the same 1366 x 768 resolution and DVI. I've given up on getting it to work with an Nvidia card. I do have a friend who got a custom driver from ATI which worked, but it was a pure hack.

    A lot of the comments on here are incorrect. Yes, current cards will do 1600 x 1200 and beyond but the big issue is:

    - very few will support 1366 x 768 resolution as a preset, and it must be exactly 1366 x 768 or the plasma's scaler kicks in.

    - the 1366 resolution is not on a byte boundary. The Pixel Perfect/Kyro 2 is one of the only DVI chipsets to address this type of resolution out of the box AFAIK.

    - tweak utilities like Powerstrip generally do not have access to DVI registers, only analog registers. The author of Powerstrip has stated as much on their support forum, and I found that Powerstrip did nothing to help me on the DVI side (but it worked great on the analog side).

    To make matters worse, the Fujitsu DVI implementation is totally broken and it reports itself to Windoze as a 1024 x 768 display. Apparently it does work with the Pixel Perfect card but that card doesn't meet my other requirements for image quality and GPU power.

    Like I said, I'm sitting back and waiting for a solution. There is a lot of informed comment on this topic on the Plasma forum at www.avsforum.com, so keep an eye out there.

    Finally, you may find Congress and the MPAA conspiring to make vanilla DVI useless shortly. It looks like future HD standards will all require encrypted DVI, and they've decided all of us who forked out dollars for today's DVI plasma displays can go to hell.

  63. AUTHOR addendum by spongman · · Score: 4, Informative
    First thanks for all your replies, I've gotten some good information.

    I should have been a bit more specific with my question.

    Firstly I want to use the DVI input on the display because I want to get the highest fidelity possible. I also want to be able to use the natvie resolution of the screen because I don't want the screen to have to scale the video image. The problem with using the DVI interface is that the DVI spec allows the screen to tell the video card which DVI resolutions it supports, and even though the screen may have a native resolution of 1366x768 (16:9) it may not advertise that mode to the card, and even if it does the driver or the card may not support that mode.

    I know that most DVI-capable video cards will support video modes larger than that of the screen (1600x1200, for example), but as far as I know the selection is limited when the DVI interface is being used.

    I know of the PowerStrip utility and its ability to create custom resolutions, but it doesn't necessarily mean that the display is capable of being driven at those resolutions.

  64. Use Matrox, and define your own monitor by mhoesch · · Score: 1

    Hi,

    The Matrox drivers (at least up to two years ago...) have a monitor description file in text form. You can define your own monitor there. I did this for a workstation monitor with a resolution like yours and 60 Hz around 4 years ago (worked with Millenium I,II and Mystique cards). It was pretty easy, the monitor config file even worked with OS/2.
    If you're interested, I can try to dig in my backups, to find that config file.

    --
    Marc Hoeschele, Germany
  65. Related DVI question by wik · · Score: 2

    I have a dell 2000FP LCD monitor that I'm using with an analog input right now. The image looks fine at 1600x1200 with my old matrox millenium II card.

    I'm curious to see if anyone has gotten the 2000FP's DVI input to work with more modern 3D cards at 1600x1200 in Linux. In particular, I'd like to know which cards actually work at this resolution in DVI mode. Thanks!

    --
    / \
    \ / ASCII ribbon campaign for peace
    x
    / \
  66. Oddball DVI behavior... by nbvb · · Score: 2

    Be careful with slight incompatibilities between DVI specs ...

    As an example, I have 5 pieces of equipment:
    1) Apple Cinema Display 22" (ADC connector)
    2) PowerMac G4/466 (GeForce2 MX video board w/ADC)
    3) PowerBook G4/800 (w/DVI-I output)
    4) Sun Blade 1000 w/XVR-1000 video board (w/DVI-D output)
    5) Sun 24" LCD (1920x1200 native; DVI-D & VGA in)

    Now, ANY of the equipment can drive my Apple Cinema Display fine (I have the Apple DVI-to-ADC converter also to support the PBook & SunBlade).

    The Sun display looks GREAT on the Sun Blade, but it's awful on the PowerBook. The PBook supports its native resolution at 1920x1200, but I get all sorts of interference on the screen. Bits of "static" all over the display. If I use the VGA connector, it looks fine.

    And it's not my display or PBook, because I've swapped both with other people @ my office and we all have this problem.

    GRR... anyone know what the F___ is going on?

    Why would I get that static? Now, an interesting point, the Sun docs for the 24" say that it only supports DVI-D and *NOT* DVI-I. The PBook is DVI-I. I thought that using a DVI-D cable with a machine with DVI-I output would act just like DVI-I (just ignoring the analog pins)?

    The cable I'm using doesn't have the 4 analog pins around the "crosshair" so to speak.

    Anyone have this LCD? Has anyone seen this behavior before?!?!

    --NBVB

    1. Re:Oddball DVI behavior... by jovlinger · · Score: 1

      I _think_ that dvi-d is a dual channel dvi connector, as per the earlier comment that 1600x1200 was pretty much all that one DVI channel is good for.

      I'm suprised you're getting any picture at all, using dvi-i

  67. NEC 50MP2 can't support Native rate over DVI! by EDA+Wizard · · Score: 1

    I'm late to this discussion, but hopefully this will get modded up before someone spends $9K for this display. Nobody has pointed out the most critical bit. The NEC 50MP2 will not support native rate over DVI. There is no way to get a 1:1 pixel mapping via DVI on the NEC 50MP2!

    I had a similar application and decided to go with the Pioneer 503CMX because of the native rate support. The 503CMX is one of the only 50" displays that won't mess with the native rate image and directly display each pixel.

    NEC specs say they will support the native resolution, but they actually use the internal scaler before the image is displayed. This prevents 1366x768 images from being directly mapped to pixels. Instead you get something "close" to what you want.

    There is very long threads on the difficulty of getting most Plasmas to do native rate over DVI at AVS Forum.

    Search for "Native rate dvi nec 50mp2" at http://www.avsforum.com for all the threads on this problem with this display.