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
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.
I think we should judge for ourselves. Can't someone post a screenshot?
Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
Does Circuit City sell a 30" computer monitor? I'm not sure they sell anything larger than a 22", which is a lower ppi monitor anyway. Something like this is probably for young whipper snappers that have more money than sense.
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.
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
You can quite clearly see the difference. When the screens get up to 1000 DPI, then maybe we'll have a reason to stop increasing resolution. Until then, the pixels are still way too large. Look at how much effort goes into font rendering (and it still pretty much sucks). If we had 1000 DPI screens, or even 300 DPI screens for that matter, we wouldn't need sub-pixel anti-aliasing, font hinting, etc. And things would look super crystal clear.
I used to say the same thing about HDTV. "TV looks fine now. How much better could it be?" Then I actually saw some HDTV programs. Then I said the same thing about HD-DVD/Bluray. "DVDs are sharp, like HDTV! How much better could it be?" Then I saw some HD-DVD movies on a 1080p TV.
It's going to be a long time before we stop having a need to increase resolution.
We also these days have a color problem. 24-bit (8-bit per component) color seems like a lot, but it doesn't compare to even 10-bit per component color. I can't imagine what a monitor with 12-bit per component color would look let, but I'm willing to bet it'll look better than what we've got now.
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?
Also, I believe 640kB ought to be enough for everyone, and that the world at most needs, perhaps five computers.
There are gobs of commercial/industrial applications for hi-res monitors.
I couldn't even begin to list all the fields where this would get snapped up...
Please abandon the "just because I don't have a serious use for [X], then neither will anyone else" mode of thinking.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
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.
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.
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.