Slashdot Mirror
Samsung Develops First LCD Panel Using DisplayPort
SK writes "Samsung has developed the world's first LCD panel using the next-generation video interface — DisplayPort. Sanctioned by VESA (the Video Electronics Standards Association), DisplayPort will serve as a replacement for DVI, LVDS and eventually VGA. By using a transmission speed more than double that of today's interfaces, Samsung's new LCD only requires a single DisplayPort interface, instead of the two DVI (Digital Visual Interface) ports now used. The speed enables 2560x1600 resolution without any color smear."
I honestly hope this gets off to a good start and that it will be supported by the industry. As far as I know, it has less (or no) DRM included and is much better at handling large resolutions.
So is there more DRM in this? Is it optional or mandatory.
HDMI and DVI are at least compatible with a cable.
Is DisplayPort?
"Exactly six months after the tech world was introduced to DisplayPort, the Video Electronics Standards Association (VESA) has proposed DisplayPort Version 1.1, which would bring high bandwidth digital content protection (HDCP) support to the standard. Previously, DisplayPort 1.0's copy protection support was described as "optional," but if the VESA DisplayPort Task Group has its way, it will become mandatory."
HDCP is mandatory.
So why not just use HDMI.
We do not need different standards for tv and computer if they do the same thing.
...instead of the two DVI (Digital Visual Interface) ports now used. The speed enables 2560x1600...
You need a 'dual link' DVI - which is actually a single cable. I've got an old 7900gtx running my 30" Dell at that resolution - and while the card is a bit long in the tooth for current games, it uses a single cable and works just fine for work and CS:Source at native resolution.
+++ UGUCAUCGUAUUUCU
TN panels=garbage that is dominating the marketplace.
Zillion:1 fake contrast ratio, viewing angles 160/160 (yeah right) and other marketing junk to hide the truth: TN is low end.
Those screenshots really show off the benefits of this new technology.
Since we have dual link DVI, and this only doubles the DVI data rate, how does this help?
Shouldn't they be putting forth a standard that will last a bit longer? Go for 10x speed, not just 2x.
This sounds like a rush to put out a new product, not for the sake of market need, but for the sake of patent royalties.
Hooray, more ultra-high-resolution equipment for displaying low-res content to people who can't see the difference.
Anyway, most of the people who will buy this stuff are middle-aged and old people who get suckered by Circuit City salesmen and can't even see the resolution of a 20 year old 27" tv hooked up to a VHS tape.
Procrastination -- because good things come to those who wait.
The single biggest problem with current video technologies is that it is not possible to have very long cables (50' +).
Ideally, I would like to be able to put the computer in another room and just run a long video cable, and then use the USB hub in the monitor to hook up everything else. This would be great for office environments too.
USB has the same cable length problem , unfortunately.
Is there any DRM garbage in this cable that works with Bluray etc? I'd like to stay clear of that shit.
The technical advantages of DisplayPort are minimal. Dual-link DVI can already do most of the things that DisplayPort does, and it has the advantage of already having decent market penetration. At first glance, I thought DisplayPort was doomed to become another in a long line of digital video standards that never caught on (LDI, OpenLDI, PanelLink, etc.). On closer examination, I think it might have a shot though.
The importance of DisplayPort is two-fold. First, unlike DVI, it's an open standard, thus requiring no license. Second, although DisplayPort's capabilities don't have much over DVI, the way it implements capabilities does. Namely, it requires less electronics and simpler/smaller cabling, potentially making it significantly cheaper to produce DisplayPort products.
So why not just use HDMI. We do not need different standards for tv and computer if they do the same thing.
Because with DisplayPort they're trying to be a bit more forward-thinking. HDMI is suited for current HiDef video resolutions. DisplayPort brings to the table the higher bandwidth that is needed for resolutions higher than 1080p.
Ad Terras Per Aspera (featured on Slashdot three or four times in the past few years) has already discussed Display port here and here.
I have already spent $20 for a MiniDVI -> DVI (actually DVI-D) and another $20 for a MiniDVI -> VGA (due to the incompatibility of DVI-D and VGA), and another $20 for a for a MiniDVI -> S-Video and Composite video for my macbook. Does this mean that I have to spend yet another $20 for yet another display option. Good thing I didn't start with an ibook and have repeated the whole process again.
HDMI 1.0
Released December 2002.
Single-cable digital audio/video connection with a maximum bitrate of 4.9 Gbit/s. Supports up to 165 Mpixel/s video (1080p60 Hz or UXGA) and 8-channel/192 kHz/24-bit audio.
HDMI 1.3
Released 22 June 2006.[7][8]
Increases single-link bandwidth to 340 MHz (10.2 Gbit/s)
=> 2560x1600 and beyond. Personally I feel 1920x1200 is enough, I don't need that huge a workspace and it's highly unlikely above-1080p will become common in the next decade or two.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
However... implementing HDCP/DPCP does require a license fee, so if it becomes mandatory there will be a fee to pay anyway, thus negating the biggest advantage DisplayPort has over HDMI. Don't you just love DRM?
This new connection doesn't seem to bring much to the table. I remember the Apple Display Connector which passed DVI, USB and power in a single cable; sure it had limitations and was proprietary but it really helped reduce the clutter. Why can't those new display standard bring more functinalities rather than just DRM?
Watch for Apple rebranding these and replacing their current line up of LCDs. Apple is a huge Samsung investor and undoubtedly has some say in the direction of product lines. And we all know Apple is usually the first to switch to new standards.
Also, I believe 640kB ought to be enough for everyone, and that the world at most needs, perhaps five computers.
The morons who created DVI decided that all signals would be put over twisted pair wiring, so you can't have a cable longer than 5 meters. That's fine if you're plugging your computer under your desk into your monitor. It's not so fine if you're trying to plug your home entertainment server in the basement into your home theater.
If they had used coax instead, you could get 50 meter cables that don't require additional power. Hopefully the DisplayPort people are smarter than that and didn't give us another useless 5m cable.
dom
Plug it back in?
Another approach I would like to see:
- DisplayPort
- DisplayPort/Secure
The idea being that anyone could implement the basic version without the support for encryption. The differing names would also avoid confusion caused by version numbers. Heck I work in the software industry and version numbers don't always describe the difference, so I doubt the layman would understand it any more. By having two differing versions it would also allow the market to decide which one they really want, as opposed to big movie companies.
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
I am reading this on a 2560x1600 30" Cinema HD monitor, and I can't see any smear that the author implies. What is this mythical problem?
It's easily cracked. For some mysterious reason *COUGH*Intel*COUGH*, DisplayPort's original copy protection (the far better AES-128) had the kaibosh put on it. That's fine - 40 exposed keys cracks the whole system, as my link says.
Why alot of industries are supporting DisplayPort is because there is supposed to be no license fees. It supports HDCP but its is not mandatory, just like in HDMI you dont have to use HDCP to transmit an image. Also display port can transmit over long distances 15m which at 1080p. And yes, HDMI/DVI is not compatible with DisplayPort since display port embeds the clock signals in the color streams. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Display_port
Given that, does anyone know where I can find DisplayPort transmitters?
The short history is that VESA became a political organization unable to get anything passed through to replace analog VGA (e.g. NAVI). The Digital Display Working Group, led by Silicon Image, defined the DVI standard and never looked back, eventually defining HDCP encryption and adding onto DVI by defining HDMI. The only meaningful thing prior to DisplayPort and after analog VGA that VESA contributed to was the mounting hardware for monitors. You'll also notice that Samsung was not part of the original HDMI working group.
The problem was that consumer electronics and computer manufacturers didn't want to pay Silicon Image skim for its patents on TMDS that's used in DVI, HDMI and the now-dead UDI. Samsung, having been left out in the cold, led the charge to DisplayPort alongside HP and a few others. They defined the open standard using PCI-Express PHY and a new link layer with lots of resolutions, audio support, and anything you could imagine. They were ready to put it out the market with its own proprietary encryption scheme called DPCP when Intel led the Hollywood charge against it. They basically said DisplayPort had to use HDCP, which was about the only concession VESA made to them. Ironically, HDCP is far weaker than the AES-128 used in the original DPCP, but they wanted it anyway and got it. Bear in mind that VESA is essentially the DisplayPort working group today. This is also the primary reason why Samsung is the first one out the gate with it.
So, this is the product that we have today. Intel has pretty much left Silicon Image to twist in the wind. However, DisplayPort has one other use, and that's to protect the video links on a system board. Today, virtually all LCD panels use LVDS signaling, which is power hungry and requires big wide wiring harnesses between the board output and the panel input. DisplayPort was also designed for a chip-to-chip and board-to-board link so that people couldn't bypass copy protection by taking their TV's LVDS output to the LCD and building a converter board to unencrypted digital format. DisplayPort solves all of these problems plus allows for modes such as 120Hz and 240Hz panel refresh rates to combat motion blur and judder (which would require quad-link LVDS just for 120Hz at current 85MHz LVDS raw transmission rates). As a side note, Silicon Image touts iTMDS for a similar purpose, but it will never gain mass acceptance for the reasons already stated.
It's my guess that, in the next 4-5 years, LVDS will be supplanted by DisplayPort in all the "big 5" LCD manufacturers (LG/Philips, Sony/Samsung, CMO, AUO, and Sharp). AMD/ATI, nVidia and Intel mobos/GPUs will likely adopt this on a bigger scale starting next year. The one thing that's for sure is that all of the manufacturers not aligned to Silicon Image (read: everyone) are hell-bent on pushing through DisplayPort, no matter how painful or how long it takes. And all of us will get dragged along with it.
Mandatory to implement, or mandatory to use? There's no reason to have your desktop encrypted, though I can see the validity in the claim of having HD content protected, no matter now much I disagree with it. As it so happens, you can just use AnyDVD HD and disable the ICT on HD movies that require HDCP for full-res playback and make your older 1080p display work its wonders.
How are sites slashdotted when nobody reads TFAs?
DisplayPort is yet another Intel standard, and Intel gets royalties on everything using it.
O penness_of_standards :-(
Boy wouldn't it be nice to dictate and own the standards everyone is forced to use?
When do you suppose AMD and Nvidia will get the balls to make THEIR own standards and not pay $$ to their new competitor?
Why are these so-called "standards" allowed to be patented and non-free?
MPEG2 and MPEG4 are patented up the wazoo and royalties are managed via mpegla.
Dolby Digital? You're supposed to pay $ for that, too.
SD cards? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secure_Digital_card#
PCIE? Oh yeah, another Intel standard. This one masquerades as an "open" standard under the umbrella of PCI-SIG. Open, in this case, means you have to be a member of PCI-SIG ($3000 per year) to participate in the spec or download it. You can order the specifications if you're a nonmember and willing to pay more $$$. The complete CD-ROM is a mere $1500 to nonmembers and $75 to members.
SATA? Much the same as PCIE. You can only participate if you pay $1500 to be a member of the group.
It will fail as the DRM nonsense. Not just because of the usual reasons but this crap that tests the distance to the screen and other bullshit ill make the connector cables stupidly expensive, will probably mean you will have to pay a license to produce one ( I can't possibly see how that could be bad for adoption ) and then you will get a bunch of incompatible devices and users screaming for something else. In short, it will suck, it will be hated, and it will die. VGA has stayed around so long for a few simple reasons:
a)It is compatible
b)It is good enough
c)It works
d)It doesn't cost a fortune
Nothing with DRM will be able to fullfill those criteria well enough to last.
My point, however, was that by being _mandatory_ to implement license fee requiring DRM on an otherwise license fee free spec, would give hardware manufacturers pause for thought. Profit margins on the hardware business are already razor thin without extra fees on top. I believe this is the reason HDMI hasn't really taken off with graphics cards manufacturers and the reason DisplayPort adoption will probably slow down if DRM becomes mandatory.
There's an infinte amount of applications for computers and processing power, but there's a finite amount of information the eye can see. A 1920x1080 picture covers about 20 degrees FOV with perfect picture for someone with 20-20 sight, which is more than you can see with your typical LCD/Plasma screen/couch distance. Cinemas recommend about 30 degrees FOV as ideal because past that people get disoriented and nauseated, so there's a slight room for improvement but only if
a) You have 1080p+ source material
b) You have a 1080p+ projector
c) You have 20-20 vision
d) You sit very close
e) You actually notice the difference
Alternatively, if you're staring into your computer monitor from up close. I however find doing that for 1-2 hours is very annoying and useless for film. But hey, wait for super-HDTV all you like for me.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
While I wouldn't say any number is "enough" in the fast changing computer biz I do agree that display port is likely to stay a high end niche solution. Historically when an existing solution can be tweaked a bit it is very difficult for a completely new standard to emerge - no matter how much more elegant. x86 vs EPIC/Risc/etc, Eisa vs Microchannel, ethernet vs atm etc. I'm betting hdmi will scale for a while yet - just as it has already with 1.3. TV is in the process of giving hdmi a huge ecosystem, once that exists everything else is just engineering. Most systems are still using VGA which has been already stretched out far beyond any original limitations. (and looks like crap on my Bravia, forcing me to burn an HDMI link, but that may just be a Sony failing)
This program was made possible by a grant from the Ultra-Humanite, and viewers like you.
For movies this makes sense but for coding or running multiple apps I would like as big as I can get.
This program was made possible by a grant from the Ultra-Humanite, and viewers like you.
On further review there are hdmi license fee issues that may make my comments foolish.
This program was made possible by a grant from the Ultra-Humanite, and viewers like you.
You appear to be overlooking the time domain...
I once read an article that heavily criticized the complexity of HDMI which made it extremely challenging to create cables of any length. The issue seemed to be that instead of simply implementing a serial stream of data, they have several parallel streams traveling over different twisted pairs, which all need to keep in sync in order to get a clean picture. Easy with lower resolutions or very short cable runs, but once you pump up the resolution you must also pump up the bandwidth. The greater the rez, the worse it gets. This is largely responsible for the high prices of HDMI cabling. It's a real bear to do right. (Plus there is the added cost of licensing the technology, which also sucks.)
So, my question is, has DisplayPort simplified any of this? Are they sending all video data as a single digital stream over a single twisted pair? If so, despite all the DRM BS, this is a huge reason to support DisplayPort vs. HDMI. It should also make it possible to run the data stream over coax for much longer distances (mix in the DRM, though, and that probably isn't possible).
Mir tut es leid, Menschen daß Einfältigfehlersuchenbaumfolgendenaffen sind.
Thankfully, by the time DRM'd content starts forcing use of HDCP, we'll have cracked AACS et al. so thoroughly that it won't matter at all. The only thing HDCP is good for is increasing the price of hardware and making early adopters buy new hardware all over again.
'Yes, firefox is indeed greater than women. Can women block pops up for you? No. Can Firefox show you naked women? Yes.'
I can easily see the individual pixels on most any desktop monitor (the IBM T221 may be an exception, but I have never seen one in the flesh). I don't think there is as big of a need to make larger screens as there is a need to make high DPI screens. Imagine that 23" monitor using something like 16000x9000 pixels instead of 1920x1080 pixels or whatever we have today.
people have a larger house in the future ...
because a screen cannot go bigger than your wall.
Too bad neither a single computer game nor movie will run as fast as this is needed despite how many millions of colors new technologies come up with for quite some time. The human eye cannot tell the difference from 200FPS and 2000FPS, most people can't even tell the difference between 100 and 200.
So you think this is just a way to get you to buy "The White Album" again?
it's highly unlikely above-1080p will become common in the next decade or two
You are kidding, right? I use a 1920x1200 display at work (on a 24-inch iMac). It is very nice. Bought it almost a year ago. I feel like I get a lot more work done than I did before. Just like when I first started using a 640 x 480 display, just like when I first started using a 800 x 600 display, just like when I first started using a 1024 x 768, just like when I first started using a 1280 x 1024 display. You know where this is going.
If somehow you are talking about just television, watch this holiday season as 1080p is hawked out the wazzho. It is this years' (actually, three or four years ago's) tech. It is going to be surpassed quickly. And as the TV and computer really begin to meld (YouTube was not cheap for a reason) the standards resolutions in both domain will converge (more than in the past). And things will just get bigger and bigger and bigger.
Btw, this just means sharper pictures. Mac OS X 10.5 ("Leopard") is the first fully resolution-independent mainstream OS. It comes out in Ocotober. More pixels just means things look better, not smaller.
Resolution (and other qualities of real-time graphics reproduction) will increase until images on the screen are indistinguishable from reality. Ultimately, what the computer makes in front of you (and to the side and perhaps behind and above and below) won't look much different than what is in front of you (or to the side or above, below, and behind).
Speaking of HDMI, it is hobbled by HDCP. Crap makes using a simple video splitter not work without an expensive (and IP-licensed) microchip. I don't like it when technology that does not benefit me at all makes it so I can't do things that would be easy otherwise. I do agree DisplayPort is totally unnecessary.
I've been running 1536p for the last decade (2048x1536 CRTs, 19"-21", $250-$350 each). Why should I have to downgrade for the next?
I do not agree that a full HD picture is "perfect". I can easily view the difference between a book printed with 1000 dpi and a document printed on a cheap printer with 300 dpi. My monitor has about 75 dpi. Let's say 1000 dpi is enough for everybody, and move on to field of vision. 20 degrees is not enough for everybody. For VR applications, you will need at least 180 degrees, but let's take the maximum possible, 360 degrees, as our goal. This will give you a multiplier of : 360/20 * 1000/75 = 240, which means that a resolution of 460800x259200 should be enough for "everybody", assuming you are satisfied with a flat picture. With two such monitors you can get a stereographic picture, but if you are going for true holographic effects, this resolution needs a third number for depth, e.g. 460800x259200x1000 (I don't think our depth-perception is so good that you need more than 1000 different depth-"pixels").
Another alternative would be to have better integration directly into the optical nerve, where you could exploit the fact that the eye can't see all this at the same time, anyway.
display port.
it reminds me of a story my boss told us about how when he worked at oracle they spent gobs of $ on a team to name their internal DB server app and after months and hundreds of thousands came up with WebDB in arial 12 point font.
Horse shit, guess you have never experienced the joy of a truly immersive home entertainment systems (50+ deg FOV), that 30 deg FOV is probably the minimum requirement or people get shitty cause the screen is to small.
And yes HDTV does look pathetic once you scale it up to 4m by 2m but then your brain forgets to notice and you really do start to enjoy it, and postprocessing tricks go a long way to help.
Honestly does IMAX make you want to puke? You realise they do 180 deg FOV? Take your FUD elsewhere.
GPLv2: I want my rights, I want my phone call! DRM: What use is a phone call, if you are unable to speak?
Honestly does IMAX make you want to puke? You realise they do 180 deg FOV?
Er... yeah actually... When the camera goes on a roller coaster ride, my stomach tightens in genuine anticipation. That's half the point of IMAX for me.
When Imax first came out they used to give a speech about how to 'just close your eyes if you feel nauseated or disoriented and the feeling will pass'.