Slashdot Mirror
New Display Interface Standard in the Works
virgil_disgr4ce writes "The VESA standards group is designing a new display interface standard to replace both VGA and DVI. The new standard promises better bandwidth and interoperability for a ' broad application within computer monitors, TV displays, projectors, PCs and other sources of image content.'"
Hey, at least its optional.
The standard also paves the way for optional content protection, which is not automatically part of the standard, Lempesis said. Instead, a module could be added by manufacturers to prevent unauthorized content from being viewed on the display--a feature surely to be a hit in Hollywood.
So, VESA is apparently dodging DRM yet the standard inherently allows DRM to be used. (Which is not surprising or unexpected)
This is not a dream, not a dream...we are transmitting from the year 1-9-9-9.
VESA to Finalize, Administer DisplayPort, Provide a Forum for Extensions
MILPITAS, Calif.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Aug. 16, 2005--The newly-developed DisplayPort(TM) interface proposal, which has been designed to simplify display interfaces in computer and consumer electronics systems, has been turned over to the Video Electronics Standards Association (VESA) for finalization and approval as a standard.
In May, VESA announced the DisplayPort development program by a group of industry-leading companies dedicated to creating a new digital display interface specification for broad application within computer monitors, TV displays, projectors, PCs and other sources of image content.
"The plan in May was to submit a comprehensive version of the interface proposal to VESA during the third quarter for ratification and adoption," said Ian Miller, chairman of VESA. "The group has met its internal timetable and delivered to us a very comprehensive specification, which VESA will now administer and provide a forum for future revisions."
DisplayPort allows high quality audio to be available to the display device over the same cable as the video signal. It delivers true plug-and-play with robust interoperability, and is cost-competitive with existing digital display interconnects. Designed to be available throughout the industry as an open, extensible standard, DisplayPort is expected to accelerate adoption of protected digital outputs on PCs to support viewing high definition and other types of protected content through an optional content protection capability, while enabling higher levels of display performance.
DisplayPort enables a common interface approach across both internal connections, such as interfaces within a PC or monitor, and external display connections, including interfaces between a PC and monitor or projector, between a PC and TV or between a device such as DVD player and TV display. The standard includes an optional digital audio capability so high definition digital audio and video can be streamed over the interface, and it provides performance scalability so the next generation of displays can feature higher color depths, refresh rates, and display resolutions. It also features a small, user-friendly connector optimized for use on thin profile notebooks in addition to allowing multiple connectors on a graphics card.
Layered, Modular Architecture Includes Main Link and Auxiliary Channel
DisplayPort incorporates a Main Link, a high-bandwidth, low-latency, unidirectional connection supporting isochronous stream transport. One stream video with associated audio is supported in Version.1.0, but DisplayPort is seamlessly extensible, enabling support of multiple video streams. Version 1.0 also includes an Auxiliary Channel to provide consistent-bandwidth, low-latency, bi-directional connectivity with Main Link management, and device control based on VESA's E-DDC, E-EDID, DDC/CI and MCCS standards. The Link configuration enables true "Plug-and-Play."
The Main Link bandwidth enables data transfer at up to 10.8 Gbits/second using a total of four lanes.
The promoter group based their development efforts on the premise that the PC industry requires a ubiquitous digital interface with optional content protection that can be deployed widely at minimum cost to enable broad access to premium content, according to Miller.
As higher performance display and source technologies are introduced, the demands on interface bandwidth expand and the problem will become even more acute soon with demands for more colors, higher resolutions, and higher refresh rates. The DisplayPort standard's high initial bandwidth is designed to scale to even higher bandwidths to accommodate future display requirements.
**TODO** Steal someone elses sig.
I remember hearing that they were going to integrate DRM at the BIOS level in some way. If they do that, then it seems like they might be able to have control in some (perhaps small) way no matter which OS you're running.
I have no idea how they would implement this, but I do recall hearing it.
Ignore Alien Orders
One of the biggest reasons that many companies want a standard outside of DVI and HDMI is the fact that Silicon Image and Intel basically control the show when it comes to digital interfaces. Intel needs to be mentioned because, although Silicon Image appears to spearhead the standards and controls key patents (e.g. TMDS), Intel exerts a high level of influence due to partial ownership of Silicon Image and DCP LLC. In fact, if you look at DCP LLC's address at the bottom of its web page, it resides inside Intel!
/.ers - the interface standard is optionally encrypted with DPCP, but it can apply to every single link both outside and inside the display! This means that you may not be able to crack your panel open and hack the hardware inside without a hacked encryption key (which is heavily guarded at all points within its acquisition and programming into devices). Even with HDCP, it would be a simple matter in a flat panel to take the unencrypted LVDS output and fabricate a small board with an unencrypted DVI digital output for HDTV. Therefore, don't look at DisplayPort as anyone's savior. It also remains to be seen if people will accept yet another display connector for their PCs and the resultant fragmentation, though both ATI and Nvidia are on board DisplayPort.
When DVI first came out, it was in a camp that was separate from VESA, the independent standards body responsible for the video signalling standards for PCs. VESA had been looking for a digital alternative for years but the Digital Display Working Group promoted DVI through some of the bigger manufacturers of both computer displays and manufacturers of electronics of those displays. DVI was ok but it was plagued with problems like a poor quality connector, limited cable length and very poor standards compliance. This largely limited DVI's adoption in the market for a number of years. The copy protection standard, HDCP, was added in the usual fashion of trying to "protect" the content providers. As for the standards compliance, Silicon Image knew it had screwed up and so created a compliance test center. The irony here is that Silicon Image's own first generation receivers don't even work with some of its own transmitters!
Though most consumer electronics manufacturers were included in the DDWG, at least one was conspicuously absent during the formation of HDMI, which is backwards compatible with DVI but has a smaller and more robust connector and more geared for consumer electronics rather than PC applications. That absent company was Samsung, and Ian Miller of Samsung was quite important in the VESA organization. VESA had continued during the time of HDMI's creation and ramp-up of making a new standard, the latest one being NAVI that died on the vine. Having been excluded, and knowing Samsung's growing presence in many markets and the stranglehold of Silicon Image and Intel with respect to patents and copyright protection control with limp alternatives, I believe that the current companies within DisplayPort led by Ian Miller decided to take the initiative and move forward with an independent DisplayPort standard and independent copy protection mechanism. The new copy protection scheme, called DPCP, is administered by Philips rather than Intel.
The physical layer of DisplayPort is largely based on PCI Express in order to leverage the intellectual property already within these companies and avoid licensing and royalties associated with Silicon Image's TMDS and Intel's HDCP. One very interesting point for all
In short, don't expect a whole lot of advantages for the end user here. The politics of the display industry are significant and the average consumer will continue to suffer as these politics play out in the grander scheme of business.
So the main reasoning this group is forwarding this new "interface standard" is not to improve your video quality, nor to make the cable smaller or easier to manage. Sure, those certainly are nice features, but it is not why they developed this new standard. From VESA:
"The promoter group based their development efforts on the premise that the PC industry requires a ubiquitous digital interface with optional content protection that can be deployed widely at minimum cost to enable broad access to premium content, according to Miller. "
TCPI. It's a chipset that allows for encryption, etc. Already on some of Intel's reference boards; Apple's dev models have TCPI chips, though they seem to only use them for Rosetta at the moment
Marxism is the opiate of dumbasses
Analogue broadcasts have been extended to 2009.
The broadcast flag has been shut down for the time being.
Still, everyone is on the right track, but it seems all I can do is to refuse to buy drm'd equipment.
"You should always go to other people's funerals; otherwise, they won't come to yours." -- Yogi Berra
It's a shame the Apple Display Connector wasn't more widely adopted. It put DVI, power and USB in the same connector, which was very convenient - you could leave your keyboard and mouse connected to the monitor and just have one cable going to your computer. Adding FireWire and digital audio to the connector would have been ideal.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
If you own a Sky box you can obtain a free Sky card to unlock the equivalent channels to FreeView.
Hmm... the LCD panel HAS to be driven somehow.
The individual pixels HAVE to be driven.
It would be possible to read off the panel controller, as there HAS to be somewhere that it's decrypted, and that's the last possible place.
Oh, they tried. Most high-end home theater equipment from a few years ago included a FireWire port. It's possible to daisy-chain everything together using only a single cable between devices. But, unfortunately, it has largely died out due to the lack of DRM.
Another benefit of FireWire is that it is possible to connect a cable box to your Mac and save digital versions of shows. That's probably another reason why it died.
Still another benefit is that you can connect a MiniDV camcorder directly to a compatible TV over FireWire.
It's kinda sad that this elegant technology wasn't embraced due to the lack of DRM.
Check out this pic of a home theater system. I found it a few years ago when I was in school. On the left is a regular home theater; on the right is a FireWire home theater.
Which one is VGA (HDI-15) better than?
Not DVI or HDMI. VGA cannot carry digital signals like they can.
Perhaps you mean Composite or component? All 3 component formats and composite all predate VGA & the HDI-15. Component video (YPbPr) was used on Sony's Betacam (not to be confused with Beta) in 1982. Component RGB was around at least as long. VGA (HDI-15) came out in 1987.
S-Video (Y/C) also predates VGA, although the 4-pin connector doesn't. Perhaps you used the Y/C connectors on your Amiga or C-64 to hook to your (premium) Commodore monitor.
S-Video was unavoidable because of how VCRs work (the connector was created by JVC for their S-VHS decks in 1988), component video for those devices wouldn't have been cost-effective.
So perhaps it is VGA that never should have happened?
As to DVI and HDMI, it's easy to convert HDMI to DVI if your TV has DVI.
And BTW, you forgot RF (F-connector). Most TVs have at least one of those too. And some have Firewire.
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95