The State of Video Connections

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."

Comments

Print Version

[Shimdaddy]

Spare your eyeballs with the ad free, one page print version.

Re:Print Version

[Anonymous Coward]

I looked at the linked article from the top of the page, and can't find an ad anywhere. It must have to do with my habit of browsing almost exclusively in Mozilla SeaMonkey on a platform with no Flash support. That, and having done the due diligence of right-clicking away all the ad image servers ages ago. That must be it. No ads, anyway.

The really impressive part is that you can type all that while apparently sucking your own tiny cock.

article text to avoid annoying 6 pages

[Anonymous Coward]

Most of my monitors are 19-inch CRT monsters. They do what I need them to do, they deliver a pretty image, but they're old. I still have a ViewSonic Optiquest V95 in service that dates back to around 1999. It's a VGA monitor, as are all of my displays. I shudder at the idea of updating them, not because of some sentimental attachment, but because connecting displays to computers has become so darned complicated.

The analog VGA was the standard for such a long time, some of us just got used to it. Today, I don't remember the last time I got a performance-grade graphics card with a VGA port on the back of it; I have a small cadre of DVI-to-VGA adapters that I use to plug in my monitors.

DVI as a standard features a number of sub-standards, some analog, some digital. Now DVI is already seeing the writing on the wall due to its limited bandwidth, just as the world grows accustomed to it. HDMI is crossing from the TV set to the computer, UDI is creeping into the market, and DisplayPort is riding over the horizon and hoping to take over the world.

What if you just want to play Supreme Commander or do your taxes? Can't you just poke a monitor cable plug into a display adapter and be done with it? Sure you can, if you know what to expect when you face the next generation of graphics-to-display connections.

VGA

Sure it's old, but it still works. Video Graphics Array (VGA) has been around since 1987, a few years after which it became the standard connection between the PC and its monitor and stayed that way for more than a decade. If you happen to purchase an analog CRT monitor, even one made today, it's likely to require a VGA connection to a computer.

The term VGA has come to mean a number of things. In one sense, it's used to refer to the actual port found on a graphics card or the corresponding plug (a 15-pin mini D-sub male) on a monitor cable. VGA is also sometimes used to describe the outdated and rarely used screen resolution of 640x480 pixels, which was once considered sharp and sexy.
VGA Connector
click on image for full view

VGA graphics cards date back to the days of ISA expansion ports. Such cards were typically capable of addressing only 256K of local memory and displaying 256 colors at 640x480 at a 70Hz refresh rate. As demand grew for higher resolutions and more robust graphics support, the original VGA spec became outmoded but the connection port was preserved.

VGA is analog. Graphics cards with VGA compatibility employ RAMDAC (random access memory digital to analog converter) chips to pipe digital graphics signals through the analog display cable. Of course, with digital displays like flat-panel monitors being all the rage, it would be even cooler to have a direct digital-to-digital connection from PC to display, wouldn't it? That's where DVI came to the rescue.

DVI

DVI stands for Digital Visual Interface. As digital flat-panel monitors started to become the rage at the tail end of the last century, the analog VGA connector quickly became inadequate for the needs of such displays. The DVI port is quite different from that of VGA: It's made up of up to 24 pins (most of which are for TMDS) and an additional five pins for analog compatibility. TMDS stands for Transition Minimized Differential Signaling; it's a high-speed serial interface used by the DVI and HDMI display standards.

DVI comes in three flavors:

* DVI-A, in which the A stands for analog. This type of DVI connection only transmits analog signals and is intended for use with CRT monitors. You almost never see DVI-A.
* DVI-D, the D meaning digital. This is purely digital, without any analog compatibility at all.
* DVI-I, with the I standing for integrated. This connection carries both analog and digital signals and can be used with either analog or digital displays. This is the most common DVI connector found on graphics cards.

To further complicate matters, DVI-D and D

Re:article text to avoid annoying 6 pages

[drewzhrodague]

Yup. Analog here. Many tubes, and an analog NEC projector. HDMI can go screw itself. I'll be analog with coax until anything else is far far far cheaper (or better).

Re:article text to avoid annoying 6 pages

[value_added]

Analog here. Many tubes, and an analog ...

And you get a warmer picture than the rest of us, right? ;-)

Re:article text to avoid annoying 6 pages

[sxpert]

because it doesn't specify the useless DRM shit ?

Evolution

[HomelessInLaJolla]

On one side updating the video connector may be a necessary advancement to accomodate higher bandwidth video modes. On the other side we can only hope that system vendors don't begin bundling their desktops with their monitors and inhibiting cross-pollination by strictly enforcing IP on their video adapter design.

I would hate to see the day when I use one display device for Linux and need an entirely different device to be compatible with proprietary DRM/TC/HD output or have to buy a third party descrambler type box--because we all know what a racket those were. It'd be like early 80s cable TV wars all over again.

Piss off!

[Anonymous Coward]

What's with these never ending fscking changes? Obsolescence built in, incompatible formats, changing far too frequently. Bullshit DRM "features" in each new revision.

Please stop this crap! Just give us simple digital connectors and let the boxes talk to each other. How about something plain and simple 10Gb Ethernet?

Re:Piss off!

[fyngyrz]

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

You want high bandwidth? Analog RGB can do it. You want deep color? Analog RGB can do it. You want to avoid DRM? Analog RGB is perfect for that. You want easy to record? Analog RGB -> Analog recording media *or* digital(ized) media. You want easy to connect? Analog RGB. You want easy to switch between signal sources? Analog RGB. You want easy to buffer and redistribute? Analog RGB. You want auto-mode detection? We fool engineers have been sneaking digital mode data into sync signals for decades. You want easy to process? Convert to digital, process, convert back. Trivial, inexpensive, uses off-the-shelf hardware. All the benefits, none of the disadvantages (cough DRM cough hack expensive cables hack choke expensive connectors choke.) You want easy, reasonable compression? Luma and two chroma channels. Oh wait - that's one of the methods called "component" and we've already got it. And we're replacing it because... well, it isn't because of lack of resolution or depth... oh yeah. DRM. It isn't good for DRM.

On the other hand, you want to give the media companies control over what you can do? Well then by all means support some lame-ass digital standard. They love that shite. And when you get all googly-eyed over HDMI and other all-digital transports.... they love you man, they love you.

As a public service, let me remind you that both your eyes and your ears are analog, and both your eyes and your ears have very limited dynamic range from the smallest to the largest signal they can resolve at the same time. These are hints worth noting and they have very important implications when it comes to the requirements of perception and fidelity.

Re:Piss off!

[RzUpAnmsCwrds]

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.

Re:Piss off!

[Anonymous Coward]

Digital is the reason I LOSE THE ENTIRE PICTURE(whole screeen jams/tears/artifacts) when watching cable rather than a slight glitch or artifact.

Re:Piss off!

[mrchaotica]

Yes, especially since we're talking about ADA, not DAD.

I hate to break it to you, but newer displays (i.e., LCD and everything else that's not CRT) are inherently digital. So yes, we are talking about DAD conversion.

Re:Piss off!

[toddestan]

There's no reason analog RGB won't carry 2560 x 1600 resolution - it's just that Apple doesn't support it.

Re:Piss off!

[fyngyrz]

How about we stop pretending that analog RGB looks good

How about we stop pretending it doesn't? Especially, as in your case, when there is no basis for such an assertion. I have full HD over component. My system looks beautiful. Ergo, analog doesn't give you a poor image, there's nothing inherent in it that prevents a good picture.

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.

Please. My cables hang slack in the basement, hooked over projecting screws, run about 30 feet, and they are fine. Why? Because it doesn't take much (as in, proper termination, decent coax, low-loss connectors) to run high bandwidth analog just about any distance you like. Claims to the contrary are nonsense. Can you screw up such a run? Sure. Just try it using audio cables. But for that matter, try running a multi GB/s digital signal through an audio cable and watch what happens. I mean, aside from hosing every RF receiver in your home. Yes, we're in a zone where the cables need to be right. This is no different from a digital copper run. Optical is something else entirely. But of course, you can run analog optically as well. :)

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

Oh, please. Such marketing-inspired tripe. You picked the wrong person to try and push over what you thought was a hypothetical.

I have a 17 foot (204 inch) display driven exclusively by component from the receiver, though I also feed it analog from a Mac via a VGA input - that's the media librarian using Delicious Library. It looks absolutely fabulous either way. You can see every glorious pixel in HD, up close. The projector has about 30 feet of cable on it, not counting the various lengths of cable the component HD input sources (XBox360, HDDVD, Blueray, PS3, Satellite) feed to the receiver and the switches; there are no problems with ringing or artifacts whatsoever. The cables go down through the floor, along for quite a distance, and back up at, and through, the projector's pedestal. Of course I don't use radio shack RCA cables to do this, I use a triple run of coax and I have it properly terminated, but this is no big deal and the technology can be built into any simple cable without adding significant cost as compared to, for instance, a many-pinned multi-pin connector.

The manufacturers have been feeding you bullshit so long you think it is true. Well, it's not, and I can prove it.

Are there advantages or unique uses to/for digital transport? Certainly. But is digital transport in any way required to view for instance, full HD at 1080x1920 at 60fps in high quality? No. Absolutely, resoundingly, factually, no.

Analog is the reason my cable signal looks like shit.

No, shitty equipment and/or shitty standards and/or shitty service is why your cable looks like shit. Cable can look butter smooth. The fact that yours doesn't isn't a reflection on technology, it is a reflection on what consumers will put up with because they're badly misinformed about what is reasonable and possible.

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

Listen to yourself. "Try using a crappy..." Why would I do that? Really, why? When I need one, I use one that is adequate to my needs. Nothing screws up at all. I switch between linux servers using a KVM and the results are pixel-perfect. It's 100% analog. Using crappy equipment will certainly get you crappy results, but why would you think this has any bearing whatsoever upon the inherent capabilities or limitations of the underlying technology? Talk about backwards reasoning!

Re:Piss off!

[fyngyrz]

Really? You mean pixels on an LCD aren't signaled in a (more or less) similar way as cells in a RAM chip? I'm no electrical engineer, but I would have assumed...

There are two issues that relate directly to your concern. One is addressing; in order to pick a ram location or a screen pixel, a signal needs to be sent to the particular location that says "hey you, and not any other." Displays and RAM can be similar in this regard, though it is more likely that a simpler scheme of sequential counters is used to drive the selections, as the signal is dependably progressive. This is always done digitally, as far as I know. This step, however, does not process the actual video levels, it routes them to a particular display location.

The other issue is the brightness of the cell triplets, and that is, in the end, an analog issue within the LCD cells. Several approaches are possible; none of the really easy ones would have a DA converter at every cell, though, which would make the access arrangement essentially similar to a multi-bit ram chip (though still analog internally, there's no way out of that.) So typically three analog signals (RGB) are routed via analog gates to neighboring LCD cells and these are either selected via a simple sequential X:Y matrix along rows and columns, or via a more complex full addressing scheme. The three signals are used to tell the LCD cell triplet how opaque (or transparent) the crystals should be until they receive their next regular update. The light behind the cells of a relatively constant brightness passes through the three cells in a ratio determined by the opacity/transparency of those cells, and the resulting color is determined in additive color space: red plus green = yellow, and so forth as it reaches your eyes, which are very good general purpose color adders. If you look very closely, you can see the triplets. You may need a loupe; on modern LCDs, they're amazingly small.

Here's a model of one way to connect all this stuff together. Run RGB analog and power signals to all the triplets on the screen, just one after another. Run a single X-select line for each column of the display; run a single Y-select line for each row of the display. Now, if you think about this, you'll realize that if one X line is turned on, and one Y line is turned on, there will be only one triplet that has BOTH the X and Y lines turned on. That triplet has just enough circuitry to open a "gate" and take in the RGB information, storing it temporarily and using it to drive the liquid crystals appropriately. Now all it takes to make that work as a display is to sequence the X and Y lines across the display in an orderly fashion. You can even rotate the display by simply switching the X with the Y lines, or switching the drives and "next row/column" outputs of the counters that sequence them, more likely. The first requirement for this general approach is that the LCD triplet store the RGB value, and the related LCD opacity/transparency, until it is next accessed - about a 60th of a second would not be unusual. The second is that the triplet needs to be able to change fairly quickly when it is told to, or the display will appear to "blur" as the picture sends information that conveys motion, but the triplets hold on to previous brightness settings for too long, resulting in motion blur. The third is the more accurately the levels convert to opacity, the more color gradations can be achieved. Finally, and this has always been the achilles heel of LCDs, how much light can be blocked in the most opaque state and how much light gets through in the most transparent state determines the ultimate contrast ratio. There are plenty of other issues - operating temperature range and its effect on response time and depth, cell density, alternate color addition schemes, response to physical pressure on the LCD cells, power consumption - but they're not critical to understanding how the general approach works.

I keep saying "opaque/transparent"

Re:Piss off!

[poot_rootbeer]

I have full HD over component. My system looks beautiful. Ergo, analog doesn't give you a poor image, there's nothing inherent in it that prevents a good picture.

Well, you sure told us with your lone anecdotal data point.

Computer display data starts out in the digital domain. An LCD panel requires digital signals to generate an image. There's NO GOOD REASON to convert that signal from digital to analog to digital in between -- there WILL be degradation, however slight.

Re:Piss off!

[fyngyrz]

Well, you sure told us with your lone anecdotal data point.

It proves the point; such systems are workable. That's all it is there for, to solidly discredit the ridiculous claims that are appearing in this thread about noise, resolution and so forth at HD. However, presuming mine is the only such system is really kind of dim. I bought everything off the shelf. You can reasonably assume I am not the only consumer to have done so. Or do you think I'm really the only guy with a high end component system?

Computer display data starts out in the digital domain

We're talking about HD media here, not computers per se. And I really don't care if the content came from a renderer or a camera, or if it went digital or stayed analog. The POINT is it HAS to be analog at the last stage, and so analog to the monitor is a perfectly reasonable way to go. It puts the D/a at the signal origin, instead of in the display device, that's all.

An LCD panel requires digital signals to generate an image.

No, for the Nth time, they do not. I wish you would have the courtesy to read the thread instead of forcing me to repeat myself over and over. LCDs take ANALOG drive at the LCD cell level. ANALOG. All systems take analog at the final leg. Plasma, CRT, point emission systems. All ANALOG. There is no 24-bit input to individual triplets inside an LCD, or 8-bit to individual cells, or any other common panel display. There are ANALOG lines that set the crystal to the state it needs to be in until its next refresh. ANALOG.

There's NO GOOD REASON to convert that signal from digital to analog to digital in between -- there WILL be degradation, however slight.

All LCD panels that take a digital input have to convert that signal to analog, because analog is what they use. That is a "GOOD REASON." Finally, with 24-bit RGB (8-bit per channel) you don't have to worry about degradation at all. Truly. It isn't a problem. And I don't want to get into the number of bits you actually need to see a quality image with someone who doesn't even know how LCD's work.

HDCP: it still sucks

[schwaang]

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.

Re:HDCP: it still sucks

[Matthew Bafford]

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.

Re:HDCP: it still sucks

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

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.

No, the implementations of HDCP TOTALLY RAWK!

This way, people who would normally never care enough about DRM and copy prevention to even notice are getting a big steaming cup of wake-up. Anyone who has to put up with HDCP handshake failures on a regular basis will come to utterly loathe HDCP and that's just one step away from utterly loathing all DRM. It might just be enough to kill it before it grows, I say kill it before it grows!

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

Amen!

What's happening...

[Anonymous Coward]

VGA isn't going anywhere until we replace all our KVM rack switches and who needs HD for a TTY?

Re:What's happening...

[cortana]

The beginning of time called. It wants its old, tired joke back. And this one.

Re:What's happening...

[Lumpy]

Yup. and guess what. good old VGA does HDTV just fine. I do 1280X1024 all day long on a VGA connection. so that is far higher than the HDTV 720p. I am sure I can do 1080p over VGA, just haven't found a video card or LCD that can handle it yet that did not cost 3 arms 2 legs and a kidney.

Honestly engineers and marketing guys talk all day long about how good X or Y is, and it all comes down to "how can we shove our DRM into the new standard and fool customers into buying it."

My friend though I was nuts buying a pair of 21" LCD's that had only VGA on them. they look fantastic, play FPS great and work just fine with my 7300GT card.

VGA will disappear as soon as RS232 disappears. which by what I see in the integration market, is many many years from now IF electronics makers get off their asses, which is highly unlikely from what I have seen.

Important: Intel Opinion Center

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Important: Intel Opinion Center

[Matt Perry]

I've found that it works better for me to get rid of the left bar. It's just eating up space anyway. You can do the same thing by putting the following in your userContent.css file:

/* Remove the left column */
#links {
    display: none !important;
}
#contents {
    margin-left: 0px !important;
}

Now I never have to worry about "Opinion Centers".

Re:Important: Intel Opinion Center

[!eopard]

I had no idea what this post was about, then I actually looked at the left hand navigation frame. I had never noticed this Opinion Center, with the highlighted 'Intel' under it. How long has it been there? Guess I have been ready Slashdot so long now* that I don't bother looking at those things. At home my RSS feed means I never even see the front page. Now to get back top ignoring those links. *early 2000, though I didn't register until recently.

that entire article

[President_Camacho]

No mention of Wireless HDMI?

Huh?

[JMZero]

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.

One cable to rule them all

[VoltageX]

I wish they'd hurry up and standardise the damn things. I just bought a Chimei LCD and the cable supplied is a DVI-I to DVI-I but my video card (Xpertvision Geforce 6600GT) has a DVI-D port, and for the life of me I can't find a shop here in Australia that sells a DVI-I to DVI-D cable! I can see why so many people don't like computers. Standards like SATA (small cables!) and USB (plug just about anything in) are going the right way. Hey, why couldn't we use USB2, wouldn't ~400mbits be enough?

Re:One cable to rule them all

[crabpeople]

Sata keyboards ftw. It make you type bettar!

Re:Wireless Video?

[dpokorny]

Perhaps this is because even a modest resolution (by today's standards) needs nearly 2Gbps of bandwidth?

Do the math your self: 1280 x 1024 x 24 x 60 = 1.887Gbps

This doesn't even begin to take into account any protocol overhead, sync signals, or other useful data such as audio.

Just one simple question....

[queenb**ch]

does this mean better p0rn?

2 cents,

QueenB

Re:DRM/HDCP must be optional. Remember Chinese fac

[maxwell demon]

Of course, why do we need another digital port for monitors. Some variation of Ethernet, USB, Firewire, could also do the job.

Indeed, let's also include the graphics card with the monitor instead of the computer and run an X server on the monitor and connect it through ethernet. If we in addition connect the keyboard and mouse directly to that monitor, we could even put it remote from the actual computer if we wish to. We just need a nice name for that monitor/keyboard/mouse combination running X. Well, what about calling it "X Terminal"?

What's the straight dope on HDMI?

[Matey-O]

I've heard from the home theater folks that HDMI was a seriously broken implementation. v1.1 wasn't necessarily compatible from device to device, v1.2 only carried stereo, and at the time I was in the ,market, only the PS3 used v 1.3....and they weren't necessarily backwards compatible.

They ended up with the comment that the video quality wasn't up there with component.

So, were they blowing sunshine up my skirt, or is HDMI really the tarpit they describe?

Re:What's the straight dope on HDMI?

[Aluvus]

HDMI video quality is identical to DVI.

Plus....

[shmlco]

"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.

Re:Plus....

[shmlco]

S-video carries the video data as two separate signals (brightness and color), unlike composite video which carries the entire set of signals in one signal line. S-video is better. Component typically breaks them out to three different RGB or Y'PbPr signals. Component beats s-video hands down. All are analog.

HDMI is a all-digital Transition Minimized Differential Signaling (TMDS) method that also includes audio data. HDMI beats component on todays "digital" LCD and plasma screens when used with digital sources like cable or DVDs, as you're not converting from digital to analog back to a digital matrix.

I try to make sure everything I buy today has HDMI inputs/outputs, as the single cable is "cleaner" and easier to route.

Metonymy

[tepples]

Well, except for the fact that HDCP isn't a connector of any kind, nice job! See Metonymy. The connectors used with HDCP include DVI and HDMI, with HDMI devices more likely to support HDCP than DVI devices.

DVI and KVM switches..

[antdude]

What bugs me about DVI is that KVM with them are still expensive. I am still using VGA with my old Belkin OmniCube KVM switches that I bought back in 2001.

So what do you need for longer runs?

[Dr. Spork]

Well, I was pulling those numbers from thin air a bit. This isn't a plan yet, this is more of a wish for the future. There is no projector (that I can afford anyway) which can meet the specs I outlined.

So what would it take to make a cable that accomodates long runs and can transfer over 6 Gb/s? Would long runs require an even higher bandwidth because they would need a higher overhead? And how would you accomodate that with a cable? More signal-carrying wires? And how about fiber? The line loss on that would be much smaller, but could it ever be practical?

I'm picturing a future where every household with have a big computer in the basement, perhaps doubling as a water-heater (why not put the excess heat to practical use?). Since programs of the future will be designed for parallelism, I can imagine these machines will be seriously expandable, as in, daughterboards with extra numbercrunching units. And since I expect future games will be real-time ray-traced, all that numbercrunching power will get used. But this rules out thin clients, which do the rendering where the user sits. Since the rendering will need lots of numbercrunching, it too will need to get done in the basement. Which means that modern houses will need KVM outlets wherever there is a TV or a monitor. And they will need a video cable standard compatible with all of these needs and the high resolutions/framerates of the future. The computer's graphics display might support four or eight different video-out signals simultaneously, so that every display in the house could show something different. But it probably couldn't accomodate 8 different game-players, since each would only get 1/8 of the computer's rendering power. But if you play on it alone, games would look pretty awesome. Anyway, that's how I imagine the future, and it won't be possible without a seriously high-bandwith video cable.

Since I blurted all this out, I'd appreciate reactions, if you have any - especially if you have reasons to think something about my guess is unrealistic.

cable prices

[Matthew Bafford]

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.

Because that's where the big electronics stores make their profit. Ask a BestBuy employee how much that $100 monster cable costs him under the employee discount program. It'll be significantly closer to the $0 side of the range than the sticker price...

That said, there are some good companies out there that will sell perfectly good HDMI (and other) cables at reasonable prices. http://www.monoprice.com/ is one I've ordered from multiple times and had great results with. My last purchase was 10' of HDMI - I think I paid $10 shipped.

I actually was surprised to see that Target had 6' of HDMI for $15. A lot better than the $60/6' that was the best I found when I was looking for a quick cable at BestBuy...

Stop the madness!

[MobyDisk]

UDI? If another connection comes out, the back of my TV set will look like the interior of a Borg Cube.

By the time I got DVI on my DVD player and HTPC, I found my TV had HDMI. Now, I'm told "...it's unlikely that HDMI will become more than a footnote in the epic story of PC display technology..." Well that's just great. Yet another adapter that costs $50 at my local outlet for .45 cents + shipping on ebay. And the excuse that this is "just for PCs" doesn't help since my PC's hook to my TV's (and I'm not alone any more, this is happening more often.)

Many devices today still don't support the existing connections properly, so I have little faith that new connections will improve things. Many TV's have DVI inputs but still overscan. DVDs are still encoded with interlacing. HDCP has connectivity issues like the PS3 debacle. I know people who still tell me that their s-video connection is state of the art. And while most new TVs are using composite cables, that is STILL analog and YUV based instead of digital. The industry is not ready for new connectors.

For an example of connectivity done right, look at USB 2. USB 1, USB 1.1, and USB 2 all use the same connection. The devices negotiate the appropriate speed. Ethernet does this too. Unless there is very very good reason, please don't change the physical connections. Increase the bandwidth in a backward-compatible way if necessary.

Re:I want long, lossless video cables-where are th

[Anonymous Coward]

DisplayPort: 15m with 2 wires at 1080p. Demonstrated with 2 crappy wires in one of the earliest demonstrations.
For longer distances you'll have to rely on extenders.

Glasses - real live HD

[Heisman]

I got an HD-DVD player for Christmas. My first reaction was, "wow, this is really no better at all." A couple of weeks later, I got home from a long day of 3D modeling at work and decided to watch a movie. My eyes were so strained that I dusted off my old glasses that I haven't used since college and don't really need every day. I got to the HD-DVD logo and was blown away. Watching movies has almost completely changed for me. I would agree that many people can't tell the difference, but that doesn't mean that there isn't one.

laser-7 output

[josh2a]

Cartman: Come on! Come on! Dude, what is taking so long! I wanna play!

Maintenance Guy: Uhh, what kind of output does this have? This is some ancient Super-VHS output or somethin'. I can't connect it to your float screen.

Cartman: There's gotta be some way to hook it up! It's the freakin' future!

Maintenance Guy: It may be the future for you, but I can't hook up anything to a float screen without at least a laser-7 output.

All I wanna do is play Nintendo Wii!

I agree and the content is worthless as well.

[Dion]

I think it's downright shameful that an article like that completely ignores the best video interface in the world SDI: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serial_Digital_Interf ace

DVI (and thus HDMI) is limited to very short cables, SDI does several hundred meters.
There is no DRM on SDI.
The cable for SDI is simple coax cable, it doesn't get much cheaper or robust than this.
The connectors are BNC, also robust and cheap.
The transmitters and receivers are also relatively simple and reliable.

SDI is what is currently used for digital transmission of video in professional environments, so it's not like it's completely unknown.

I'm pretty sure SDI is what we would be using if the MPAA didn't get to write standards.

Re:I agree and the content is worthless as well.

[zeronitro]

and with a whopping 3gbps the fanciest of SDI connectors cry when a simple HDMI cable can carry twice as much data. And that's just HDMI 1.0, 1.3 double's HDMI's bandwidth.
i agree that it's "nice" that it uses coax connectors... but that is also its downfall. with the lack of data transfer it's far from future proofed. hell, 1080p is the max it can keep up with. want a screen bigger then that? no can do.

we don't, we need a *device* connector

[RMH101]

...what I want is for my satellite box, dvd, amplifier, projector etc to all hook up intelligently to each other: no multiple remotes, no daisy-chaining scart cables, no having to switch the TV to AV1 and the amp to DVD each time - I want it to just work. I want an interconnect that can do video, audio AND control devices. I want my DVR to change my satellite box to the right channel at the right time without messing around with IR blasters and the like. No-one wants complexity, yet look at the average geeky AV setup.
I also don't want to have to buy all my AV gear from the same manufacturer to get any of this: there should be an open standard for this.

VESA

[DrYak]

You can certainly fit higher resolutions into 256k with 8-bit color, but you have to resort to programming the VGA registers yourself as well as using bit planes or otherwise paging the memory around.

That's why VESA came with it's BIOS extension, exposing much more function via the int 0x10, either as a TSR driver, or as part of the video BIOS later.
1.0 gave additional video modes, a standard mechanism for bank-switching, and other similar facilities (including saving the screen and mouse state).
2.0 gave linear frame buffers : no more paging required for 32-bits applications
3.0 gave support for hardware blitters.

also this whole extension made much more simpler modes that uses beyond 64Kb, because otherwise, the only portable way across all SVGA card and the original from IBM one was a crazy "unchained" mode which used a bizarre planar addressing mode (also called ModeX or Tweaked Mode... used to program those in assembly when i was a kid).