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.'"
... submarine patents.
I'll place money on the emergence of one or more patent claims on this, if it becomes a new standard.
My blog
Hey, at least its optional.
I doubt it.
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
Just what I always wanted.
Give a man fire, and you warm him for the night. Set a man on fire, and you warm him for the rest of his life.
Is this going to include that new DRM-inspired video technology that MS has been touting? I wondered how that would reach the market. I didn't RTFA, and I'm too tired to Google. Don't mod this up, mod up the informed replies. :) G'night.
It's only been three years...
It's not too surprising, though. DRM has to extend to display hardware for it to be any use.
Right now I'm a Windows users and I have been for many years. I've stayed with W2K because I didn't much like the direction XP took. I'm pretty sure that there is going to come a point in the future where I move to Linux, because the control the Windows OS would have over my PC is unacceptable.
Unfortunately, the majority of PC users have no idea that this issue even exists.
--
Toby
Because as we know, every consumer loves paying for new technology, the main purpose of which is to remove features they already have! Though saying that, 99% of media purchasers will no doubt think that giving away rights is a fair compromise for not having to use an audio *and* video cable.
It's simpler.
It requires fewer wires and stuff.
It's cheaper to make.
It (optionally) supports DRM.
Sounds awesome for the manufacturers and content providers. But what do I, as a consumer, get that I don't get from DVI or HDMI?
Other than a bill for a new monitor next time I upgrade my graphics card..
http://twitter.com/onion2k
Why do you think all the manufacturers are hellbent on pushing stuff like digital TV, new audio and video standards (BluRay and this)? Because of DRM, of course. Analog is being killed on purpose and DRM is coming. There's nothing you can do about it, so get ready for DRM'd computer hardware (goodbye home-built computers and open software), speakers, TVs, monitors and stereos.
Don't think that the customer's will allow this? Just wait and see. Analog TV broadcasts will end here in 2007 and you can bet that most of the stuff will be flagged with the broadcast flag.
The owls are not what they seem
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.
Its 'optional', if you dont want to view any of the 'optional' content.
Such as streaming media, DVD, excel...
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Booooooooring.
Because there aren't any Linux media hackers in the world who'll do a rip app to fool media apps into thinking it's outputting to a DRM-protected one-of-these and instead it just gets dumped to a data file for P2P.
I mean, what are the odds? DeCSS was just a fluke.
Or, to be less snide... yes, clearly this is an attempt to create a DRM-enabled display standard, the idea being to prevent people from intercepting the unencoded, unprotected signal coming out of your video card. But, as always, the client is in the hands of the enemy. All the information needed to snap this like a twig is already present on the box.
The only way DRM will ever work is government-enforced computer controls and white-listing of 'approved' software, with unapproved software being locked out (yes, there are ways even around that, but at that point it's too much trouble for John Doe to set up the whitewashing needed to run an unapproved box that looks clean to Big Brother). And even that will just force uncontrolled boxes off the Internet (as we know it) onto grey or black wireless networks outside the reach of governments.
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
Everything is interim. Wireless is an option when TeraHz Wifi is there.
This is getting ridiculous!
My TV is already a sloppy mess full of connections. I've spent hours in the store explaining to customers (and salesdrones) what these mean and what they need. Half of those connectors should never even have been invented in the first place because a better standard already existed (Ex: VGA). I hope consumers send a huge backlash over this, because displays are expensive, and converter boxes are hard to find and even more expensive.
they can shove it directly up their ass.
they are supposed to be a technical engineering standards group DRM has nothing to do with what they do and if it is any part of the new specification then it will be proof that they sold out big time and should not be held as a respectable standards group anymore.
DRM = proof of a group becoming sell-outs.
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 the content producers who have pushed for DRM. As they see it, analog had a natural "copy prevention" element to it that copies would always be degraded compared to what they're copied from, so a fourth-generation copy would truly suck. With digital that's not the case. So they're pushing these awful, evil, hacks, and using a combination of legislation and a simple refusal to license content to systems outside of the DRM'd sphere to force manufacturers to go along with it.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
All these posts seem like there is only one option...the bend over and take it option.
But there is another....
You can vote with your wallet. don't buy this crap. If you are in a coprorate purchasing position, don't buy it for your company. I would bet that ALL of us were Windows users in the early 90's....maybe a little OS/2 Warp and BeOS here and there...but when MS didn't give us what we wanted, we switched to Linux and Mac OS X.
That is the power we hold. It is the ONLY voice we have as consumer and it is the most powerful one. If you feel usage rights and too restrictive or don't like the idea of "upgrading" to a restrictive system then don't and tell sales people why you aren't givign them a commission.
I only came here to do two things; kick some ass, and drink some beer...looks like we're almost out of beer.
I'm going to need a THIRD monitor adapter?
:P
I'm currently using a DVI -> VGA adapter with a VGA -> Mac adapter plugged into it so I can run my 20" Apple-branded trinitron, which I've been using for years.
Some of us can't afford to buy new monitors just because the connectors change.
errk nevermind this, I thought vesa was OSS from it being an optional kernal module! Note to self: posting on /. the first thing after waking up, is not wise!
Note to self: After posting that above Note_to_self, I should probably stay away from computers for a week.
-Alex. http://bit.ly/1iVPtfA
If you just sit there and read the screen, the content hasn't changed but the interface keeps sending the same picture over and over. With this new interface, the picture is sent once, and it only sends the changes, like let's say the pointer moving around. I'm not sure how they're going to implement this, it's not as easy as it seems, it would require a lot of work on the video chip itself.
Mostly random stuff.
If you have a homemade movie you must be able to play that. So it looks to me that a monitor with DRM is pretty much not doing anything to stop you from watching your ripped movie which has the same parameters as your homemade movie. The screendrivers do not need to be hacked for that.
The DRM probably has use in companies like for protecting documents, but I can not imagine how yet, and why that should happen at monitor level. Maybe a document can be sent around and you can open it but not display it? Pretty useless, lets not be able to open it than anyway, much more efficient.
I think they just added this DRM line for the sake of hollywood. VESA headoffice: If we add DRM to our statement of better resolutions, and bandwidth for this new standard, then we might get less opposition from Hollywood who is afraid of copies, or they might even sponsor us (evil laugh follows).
My wife's sketchblog Blob[p]: Gastrono-me
From the article:
> A similar situation emerged in 1998 when consumers were initially hesitant
> to adopt a transition from CRT to LCD screens.
I don't think this was the reason for a hesitant transition of LCD,
which would work with existing interfaces. It was the price, which was
initially too high. For me, the prizes have only come down far enough
in 2001.
A new monitor interface will take longer to adapt to because it requires
both new graphics cards and new monitors and new computer projectors.
For me, an important transition was from VGA to DVI. Since my monitors
are feeded digitally, I have a much clearer picture. Still, I'm required
to use VGA, when using a video projector.
As others have pointed out, the better refresh rate or bandwidth is hardly the
reason for proposing a new standard. DRM implementations which promise to close
an analog hole, are the driving force. I doubt that encrypting the video signal
will do any good for the refresh rate. So, don't expect consumers to fall for it.
It would require a proper framebuffer and hardware to update on the monitor... driving the price up considerably.
I can't see this taking off - even adding a few cents onto the manufacturing cost at the low end can make or break a product... this is going to be quite a bit more than that. DVI is popular because it actually removes a step (the ADC in the monitor) so it's dirt cheap to implement and gives a gain in quality... what incentive do the manufacturers have to implement this new interface? More cost, no benefit to the consumer...
And it'll be a big surprise to the masses when it gets here. I can almost hear the calls now. "Hey, why won't this movie play? It ran alright on my old computer." Welcome to Windows World, buckwheat. They'll be offended, huffy for a little while, have a passive-aggressive little snit by complaining to people who can't do anything about it. But after a while they'll go on their grumbly way because they haven't been investing in any alternative, learning a different OS or trying out open source alternatives.
I see the same things in my business customers all the time. Except I get to remind them that I told them it was coming a year ago and they go, "Oh, right. But I thought they were going to extend support for that another year?" No, sorry. The next question is usually, "Well, how much is it going to cost?" Then I get to listen to their passive-aggressive snit aimed at me, like I have some command over what MSFT does.
If you want off the MSFT treadmill you have to plan it, start experimenting with alternatives and roll out the change in a controlled environment. Getting huffy when you plug your new PC in and something doesn't work anymore just annoys those of us in the business.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
I only see this as being useful for medical displays, the kind of monitors with 4096x4096 resolutions and up, right now these are driven by several cards bundled together, each driving its part of the screen.
Mostly random stuff.
If you own a Sky box you can obtain a free Sky card to unlock the equivalent channels to FreeView.
Excellent post! +1 Insightf... oh, wait. :-)
-Scott
My other sig is a Glock
I won't get excited until someone develops an audio/video bus where you can connect multiple input devices and multiple output devices to the same bus.
I am disgusted at purchasing a TV where I can hookup one device via HDMI and one device via component video. So just what is one to do when they have two HDMI input devices and they want to view them both on their TV?
With a well designed A/V bus, I should be able to daisy chain several input and output devices to the bus. The streams on the bus should identify themselves descriptively. So, when I am changing the input source on my TV it says "Apex DVD player" or "Motorola DVR", etc. The TV shouldn't determine how many of which types of devices can be connected--rather the bandwidth of the bus should determine how many output devices can be active at once. Beyond that, if an output device has no input devices requesting the signal, why should it be using any bandwidth?
So my DVD player, DVR, Computer, TV, and audio receiver are all hooked up to the same bus. My DVD player is playing a DVD, but noone is watching it. The audio receiver is tuned into the audio channel of the DVD. In this case, only the DVD's audio channel would be on the bus. Simple bandwidth allocation based on demand. Devices can broadcast that a signal is available without actually broadcasting the signal. Then the TV is turned on and someone is watching the DVD. Now the DVD's audio and video are being broadcast. And even though the DVD audio is destined for two devices, it is only broadcast once on the bus. Combinations could be created where say you are watching the video of your computer on your TV and you are listening to the audio from a CD player, etc.
HDMI > Bandwidth than DVI, works for both monitors and televisions, BACKWARDS COMPATIBLE with DVI.
I don't have anything that can even handle 1080p yet. 90% of television isn't even broadcasting progressively, let alone HD res. I can't buy DVD's in HD yet.
Why do I need another cable/TV when I am far from fully utilizing the one I have?
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.
Or you could just use a DRM-crippled computer as a gateway and put another layer over the internet, bypassing all the DRM garbage. Think of the way that something like 6in4 works to layer IPv6 over IPv4 networks.
Actually, I think it was named in a hurry. Basically, you had ITV Digital, which offered some free channels (all the terrestrial ones and the BBC ones, possibly plus some others) and some more subscription ones, all through your TV aerial.
Then that went belly-up (partly due to counterfeit viewing cards and partly to large payments for sports rights, both of which Sky may have had a hand in), and was taken over by a joint operation between the BBC and Sky and renamed Freeview.
Oh, and the signal quality's not bad - about that of a decent analog signal, if you ask me - and it has most of the channels that are worth watching. Remember, we can't get HDTV here yet *at all* (Sky will start offering it soon, and there's the possibility of terrestrial HDTV after the analog switch-off, but until then).
What I am looking for is a way to carry video all over a new house I will be building in a few years. It turns out DVI and HDMI simple cannot run these distances. And besides that, the cabling itself is very expensive.
The traditional analog way to run video is over a 75 ohm coaxial cable, either as a baseband composite video with 2 separate audio cables, or as baseband component video (3 cables for Y, Pr, and Pb channels), or as modulated carriers suitable for cable or over-the-air (OTA) tuners. But the big question is how to advance home video distribution to the digital age. DVI and HDMI simply can't do it. I doubt DisplayPort will be able to do so, either for similar reasons. What could workd is the SDI (Serial Data Interface) and related HD upgrades used by the broadcast industry. The cabling for SDI is simple high grade 75-ohm coax and could even run a kilometer or more. The catch is that SDI is not cheap, despite the fact that technologically, it isn't really any more difficult to do than other digital technologies (it just isn't widely deployed to bring down costs). SDI also does not include any content protection methods (some would say this is a good thing).
This tendency for manufacturers to keep making all new types of connectors, and cables, and pinouts, for each new type of interfacing (USB and Firewire are other examples in a different context) just seems silly. Whatever needs to be sent or exchanged needs to simply be defined in terms of using a data bit stream, which can then be sent or exchanged over any of a number of types of physical interfaces. Follow that up with some simple high speed serial hardware interfaces (a metallic one over twisted pair, another matallic one over coax, and a fiber optic one). Done right, one type of simple and common cabling and connectors can do things from keyboards to video displays to hard drives, and even do so over a few kilometers of distance for point-to-point connections.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
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