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."

Comments

Re:Hope it gets off

[z0M6]

Dsplayport 1.1 supports HDCP. kind of sucks, but Displayport>HDMI

dual link DVI, not two ports/cables....

[(H)elix1]

...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.

Re:dual link DVI, not two ports/cables....

[electromaggot]

Good point. I've seen multiple posts on the internet where confused people think "dual link" DVI means it requires both of the DVI ports on your graphics card. If you look at the plug-ends of that single "dual link" cable, you realize it actually has a lot more pins packed in there than standard DVI cables! So the name, while maybe accurately descriptive, is perhaps a misnomer to consumers.

Re:dual link DVI, not two ports/cables....

[RalphBNumbers]

That was my first reaction as well. And if you're only using 8 bits per color, then yes one dual-link cable will do.
However the display port panel in question uses 10 bits per color, which would require another cable even with dual-link DVI. As I understand DVI's handling of high bit depth displays, cable#1 would carry the most significant bits for it's half of the screen on link#1, and the least significant bits on link#2, while cable#2 does the same for it's half of the screen.

Re:DRM vs HDCP in DVI/HDMI

[radmege]

The DRM on DisplayPort is DPCP (DisplayPort Content Protection). "It also adds support for verifying the proximity of the receiver and transmitter, a technique intended to ensure users are not bypassing content protection system to send data out to distant, unauthorized users."

Hype... sort of.

[iamdrscience]

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.

DisplayPort is rather old news

[Anonymous Coward]

Ad Terras Per Aspera (featured on Slashdot three or four times in the past few years) has already discussed Display port here and here.

Re:DRM is HDCP

[Kjella]

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.

Re:DRM is HDCP

[Graftweed]

The bad news is that DisplayPort supports DRM. Both HDCP and DPCP (DisplayPort Content Protection). Like you said, it isn't mandatory yet, but future revisions of the standard will almost surely make it so, which is why I'm not in a hurry to upgrade.

So why not just use HDMI. Here DisplayPort has a huge advantage: it doesn't require licensing fees. This means that every manufacturer in China and Taiwan could implement this overnight.

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?

HDCP is good for one reason

[StandardCell]

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.

It's about removing Silicon Image's lockhold

[StandardCell]

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.

Re:It's about removing Silicon Image's lockhold

[jollyreaper]

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. FUCK. I hate these DRM freaks. It's just as stupid as banning camcorders from movie theaters. Newsflash, you asshats: this isn't like drugs where you have to grow and smuggle a million tons of coke to sell a million tons of coke. So long as one, ONE person manages to rip a good copy of a movie, it can be duplicated an infinite number of times. Unless they come up with some sort of spiffy watermarking technique that can flawlessly identify ripped movies, a watermarking that cannot be stripped out or repaired or anything like that, then all that DRM put into the hardware means squat-all.

It just makes me sick to think that we, the customers, are going to be stuck paying for all this extra security crap, making our equipment more complicated, more expensive, just to mollify some CEO fucks whose dicks go limp the moment they think they might lose one penny they think they're owed. Shit, why not cut off everyone's hands just so there's no chance someone might think of stealing some cheap chinese trinket from wal-mart? Why not burst our eardrums so that there's no chance we might hear music someone else paid for that we are unlicensed to hear. Gouge out our fucking eyeballs so we don't see something we should have paid for. Sheesh. What's it going to take for some nice hackers to put some illegal pr0n on these CEO's computers? Sure, that's playing dirty, but the CEO's have been dirty for years.