Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

The State of Video Connections

Posted by kdawson on from the so-many-plugs dept.

mikemuch writes "Joel Durham provides a nice rundown on what's happening in video interfaces as we leave VGA behind and move through the DVI flavors, visit HDMI along the way, and look forward to UDI and DisplayPort."

6 of 235 comments (clear)

  1. HDCP: it still sucks by schwaang · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This article pimps UDI, which uses an HDMI-backwards compatible plug and can do higher bandwidth (10.8Gbps) and HDCP (copy protection enforcement).

    Unfortunately, HDCP implementation sucks. Standard procedure for the problems almost everyone has with HDCP-enabled cable boxes is to *reboot the box*. Apparently, in the exchange of encryption keys a handshake sometimes gets dropped, and nobody has a firmware solution.

    Of course, even it worked right, HDCP would still suck.

    1. Re:HDCP: it still sucks by Matthew+Bafford · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You guys all must be using that Westinghouse example as an industry wide example now of failure.
      They talked about how they would come to your house and fix it for you because they had the wrong timing for the handshake on there.


      It's still a very real issue. I returned a Philips DVD player because it would consistently fail to renegotiate HDCP when I switched the TV's inputs off of the DVD player. Now, maybe this was just a timing problem and Philips failed to implement the specs correctly. Of course that's not HDCP's fault. It's entirely Philips's fault.

      Still, no matter where the blame lies, the fact is it wouldn't be an issue AT ALL if HDCP didn't exist. It's because of HDCP that there are specs to implement incorrectly. I still don't buy the idea that HDCP is going to have any meaningful impact on piracy. It's just yet another inconvenience because the consortiums assume everyone is planning to do the wrong thing. It's insulting.
  2. Important: Intel Opinion Center by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    As I'm sure many of you have noticed, Intel and OSTG went into some kind of marketing deal with the Intel "Opinion Center" on Slashdot. There is nothing inherently wrong with that as all of the "stories" (rehashed press releases) were posted in Intel's own section; none of them were on the front page or in any of the other sections. AMD had a similar deal a while ago, but that appears to have been over for a while now. The strange thing about Intel's deal is that the link on the front page is in a somewhat prominent position and has a different color scheme in order to make it stand out. But what is more interesting is that the link IS NOT A DIRECT LINK. Instead it redirects through DoubleClick for some reason. I am not trying to make this sound sinister, but I found that a little odd.

    Anyway, Intel posted a number of press releases and got a few comments here and there. But sometime last week they decided to get out of the deal. There is nothing wrong with that, but they DELETED all the previous stories and posted some lame excuse. Not that this means anything, but the comments on Intel's previous stories could still be viewed if you knew the exact url. In other words only the stories were deleted; the comments were not. This action generated a number of negative comments on the whole Intel "Opinion Center" idea. Today I went back to check on it and lo and behold they have DELETED ALL THE COMMENTS and marked the story as READ ONLY. While Slashdot claims that they can't or won't delete comments, I think it is pretty clear that things can be done if the price is right. Although I suppose we all already knew this from previous incidents, this time in particular it caught me by surprise. While a few of the comments were trolls, most of them voiced honest but negative opinions of the "Opinion Center". If you want to call it an "Opinion Center", then you should be ready to hear opinions. Otherwise just call a spade a spade: Intel "Marketing Center".

    I never liked the idea in the first place, but deleting all the previous stories AND comments is really weak and speaks a lot about the integrity of both Intel and Slashdot. If you think Intel and Slashdot did the wrong thing here, please mod this post up.

  3. Huh? by JMZero · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Such cards were typically capable of addressing only 256K of local memory and displaying 256 colors at 640x480

    My VGA card had 256k of RAM, and it did 640x480 at 16 colors. I wonder why...

    640*480=307200
    256k=262144 bytes

    That's also why most early "VGA" games ran at 320x200x256. I understand that 640x480 is sometimes referred to as VGA regardless of color depth, but that doesn't seem to be what he's doing here.

    --
    Let's not stir that bag of worms...
  4. Plus.... by shmlco · · Score: 4, Interesting

    "Why do we need another display connector?"

    If you move into TV-land you also have coaxial, composite, s-video, component, and HDMI, as well as 1/8 and 1/4" phone jacks, RCA, digital-coax, and digital-optical for audio.

    My personal theory [putting on tinfoil hat] is that's it's all a vast conspiracy by the cable and connector manuafactuers. Every new connector requires new cables, adaptors, and, in the end, replacing "obsolete" equipment that can no longer talk to one other.

    And why does an optical or HDMI cable of sufficient length end up costing more than most DVD players? It's a CABLE for Pete's sake.

    --
    Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
  5. Re:Piss off! by RzUpAnmsCwrds · · Score: 4, Interesting

    How about just analog RGB and quit pretending we need digital connections at all?


    How about we stop pretending that analog RGB looks good? Ever try screwing with the contrast setting on an LCD? That's analog technology at work.

    DVI lets me see the image outputted by my graphics card - pixel and value precise. Neither my monitor nor my graphics card supports HDCP, so DRM isn't a problem.

    As a public service, let me remind you that high-bandwidth analog signals are problematic. It doesn't take much for noise, crosstalk, or other issues to show up on an analog monitor at high resolutions.

    Try connecting your monitor to your desktop with a 20 foot DVI cable - then try doing the same thing with an analog RGB cable.

    Try using a crappy KVM. Most screw up resolutions greater than 1600x1200.

    Analog is the reason my cable signal looks like shit. It's the reason why broadcast TV looks crappy. It's the reason why AMPS cellphones have static.

    So, hell, why shouldn't we take a nice clean digital signal, run it throguh a DAC, throw it through a cable, and try to reconstruct it into a digital signal with an ADC at the other end. Extra components, extra complexity, and more chances for interference. What a great idea.