Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 19th Aug 2005 17:41 UTC
Graphics, User Interfaces A brighter picture and less wires are some of the advantages to a new display standard for PCs, TVs and projectors being reviewed by the Video Electronics Standards Association, or VESA. Called DisplayPort, it allows for more colors, better resolution and refresh rates, and connections involving fewer cables.
Order by: Score:
Brighter?
by youknowmewell on Fri 19th Aug 2005 17:52 UTC
youknowmewell
Member since:
2005-07-08

Are they serious? I already turn down the brightness of both my LCD screen at work and my CRT screen at home. Having the monitor at full brightness is like looking at the Sun when you are working with a word processor. I found myself getting headaches from it until I turned down the brightness.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Brighter?
by Matt Giacomini on Fri 19th Aug 2005 21:34 UTC in reply to "Brighter?"
Matt Giacomini Member since:
2005-07-06

This is true if mid range and low quality monitors. There are many exceptions out there, the one built in to the iMAC G5 is a popular example. If you bring up a photo on the iMAC next to most $800 19 inch monitors you will notice that the iMAC is brighter and easier on the eyes at the same time. It is really just a matter of quality. There are many hi quality non-Apple monitors that can produce the same results. Midrage and cheap monitors will just burn your eyes out.

Reply Score: 1

HDMI
by Anonymous on Fri 19th Aug 2005 17:56 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

This sounds exactly like HDMI which is the current standard for HDTV's

Reply Score: 0

Hmm
by MikeGA on Fri 19th Aug 2005 18:03 UTC
MikeGA
Member since:
2005-07-22

Hmm, didn't ADC do pretty much all of this already? Why was it never accepted more widely, did Apple refuse to license it or something?

Also, it's all very well saying that DVI is getting out of date already, but very few people are aware of the concept of how it works, let alone using it.

Reply Score: 1

shotsman
Member since:
2005-07-22

The NTSC (Never Twice the Same Colour) with 535 lines is a real PITA and should have been abandoned decades ago. Whatever standard these guys come up with will have to display the current crap picture. Joe 6pack will still complain about the colors of his favourite fotball team going haywire(or was it the last six stubbies he drank?)

It is time for a complete rethink about displays and while you are doing it, stick the marketing department heads down the toilet pan. They will just screw things up, delay things and make up pay twice or three times for something that should have been a standard yesrs ago.

<Rant>
I was an exhibitor at Telecom 86 in Geneva. Yes almost 20 years ago and Sony, Phillips and others were showing HDTV then. I still have the flyer from the Sony Stand. They had a demo that showed a geisha doll with the same doll shown on a BIG Screen. You could not tell the difference between the actual doll and the picture.

IMHO, there is a more fundamental problem than screens showing TV. I think the actual delivery of HDTV is more of an issue. My Digital TV freezes every so often or something moving fast causes pixelation. This is just not good enough. If I switch the an analogue feed then I don't see any of this. Pah! Progress! Technology! Utter Rubbish.
</Rant>

Reply Score: 5

good to know
by Anonymous on Fri 19th Aug 2005 18:56 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Good to know that a new standard is being worked on. I still wonder why DVI didn't get a better spec to begin with. Or was the thought that noone would need better?

Reply Score: 0

Hrmm
by Smartpatrol on Fri 19th Aug 2005 18:59 UTC
Smartpatrol
Member since:
2005-07-06

.......and also a method for digital rights management to prevent unauthorized content from being viewed on the display.

Notice how they slip that in under the covers. Hardware solutions to anti-piracy bad idea.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Hrmm
by Anonymous on Fri 19th Aug 2005 19:15 UTC in reply to "Hrmm"
Anonymous Member since:
---

One could almost expect so. But I have faith in this being hacked like all others ;)

Reply Score: 0

RE: Hrmm
by Anonymous on Sat 20th Aug 2005 02:42 UTC in reply to "Hrmm"
Anonymous Member since:
---

"Notice how they slip that in under the covers. Hardware solutions to anti-piracy bad idea."

As opposed to...?

Anyway, why not? The geeks that write P2P apps apparently feel that technological solutions to a social problem are a good idea. Why shouldn't corporations feel the same?

Reply Score: 0

RE: Hrmm
by Ronald Vos on Sat 20th Aug 2005 17:48 UTC in reply to "Hrmm"
Ronald Vos Member since:
2005-07-06

DRM? Now I know why VESA say DVI is an outdated standard for not allowing devices to communicate with eachother. You just have to think paranoid.. ;)

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Hrmm
by re_re on Sun 21st Aug 2005 03:51 UTC in reply to "RE: Hrmm"
re_re Member since:
2005-07-06

unfortunately if you look at history the paranoid tend to always be proven right...

no DRM for me... I will avoid it by all means possible.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Hrmm
by Anonymous on Sun 21st Aug 2005 06:05 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Hrmm"
Anonymous Member since:
---

"unfortunately if you look at history the paranoid tend to always be proven right... "

More like, selective memory. One remembers when they're right, and forgets when they're wrong.

Reply Score: 0

DRM?
by Anonymous on Fri 19th Aug 2005 19:38 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Does this also add DRM?

Reply Score: 0

RE: DRM?
by JrezIN on Fri 19th Aug 2005 20:56 UTC in reply to "DRM?"
JrezIN Member since:
2005-06-29

Yes. They said "and also a method for digital rights management to prevent unauthorized content from being viewed on the display".

Reply Score: 1

whoops
by Anonymous on Fri 19th Aug 2005 19:40 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

I missed the line "also a method for digital rights management to prevent unauthorized content from being viewed on the display." when I first read it.

So I will be stiching to DVI.

Reply Score: 0

RE: whoops
by Smartpatrol on Fri 19th Aug 2005 20:56 UTC in reply to "whoops"
Smartpatrol Member since:
2005-07-06

Yeah not sure what these yahoo's are thinking but like i am going to pay $5000 or whatever for a display that I do not have complete control over. Like giving someone control of your window blinds.

Reply Score: 1

Lack of Details
by dmytro on Fri 19th Aug 2005 21:32 UTC
dmytro
Member since:
2005-07-09

The article does not include much concrete information about the DisplayPort specification. While the standard will clearly offer higher bandwidth---which translates into higher resolution, refresh rate, and (if needed) color depth---there is no indication what the bandwidth will be. The fault for the omission probably lies with VESA rather than with the author of the article.

Reply Score: 2

Some Details about DisplayPort
by dmytro on Fri 19th Aug 2005 21:59 UTC
dmytro
Member since:
2005-07-09

Information about DisplayPort can be found
http://www.vesa.org/press/displayportaug.htm

In particular, it will offer a bandwidth of 10.8 Gbits/sec, which corresponds to 6 megapixels at 75Hz and 24bps. Perhaps, we will start seeing computer displays with a 2560x1920 resolution.

Reply Score: 1

would be good without drm
by Anonymous on Fri 19th Aug 2005 22:22 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Why do so many forget why they started creating things?
If you don't do it because you think it is fun and that you love to do it then you can quit right now!!!
And all these systems trying to make it "almost" impossible for unauthorised people to see the contest is just a total WASTE of money.

DRM is for governments if even that.

Reply Score: 0

Re: would be good without drm
by Devon on Fri 19th Aug 2005 22:56 UTC
Devon
Member since:
2005-06-30

--- "DRM is for governments if even that."

What use is DRM to governments? DRM is for large corporations to maintain perfect control and stamp out smaller competitors so they can charge us whatever they like.

The only role government plays is as well-payed patsies of the corporate lobbies.

Reply Score: 1

WTF?
by Anonymous on Fri 19th Aug 2005 23:26 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

More colors? Pfff...

Reply Score: 0

drm
by re_re on Sat 20th Aug 2005 00:53 UTC
re_re
Member since:
2005-07-06

guess this is a good reason to keep old hardware around

I despise DRM, it is a massive loss of rights and I will do all I can to not use any DRM enabled hardware.

I'll be damned if I can't display movies that I have copied that I legally own, it is so much more convenient to have them on my harddrive, I have a multimedia box that I play all my music and movies through.

this will be cracked fast but it still pisses me off..... I really hope this standard does not pass.

Reply Score: 1

RE: drm
by Anonymous on Sat 20th Aug 2005 02:54 UTC in reply to "drm"
Anonymous Member since:
---

"I'll be damned if I can't display movies that I have copied that I legally own, it is so much more convenient to have them on my harddrive, I have a multimedia box that I play all my music and movies through."

Let's play a game. I throw out the cause and you tell me what the effect is.

Downloading of material you never paid for...

Scanning in books and posting them in usenet binary groups...

Buying software at a store, making a copy and returning it for a refund...

You all may not like the solutions to the effects, but you will never have a moments peace as long as you pretend there's no cause behind these effects, an that a lot of you (generic you) either are the cause, or at least give it tact approval as some kind of "getting the man".

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: drm
by re_re on Sat 20th Aug 2005 03:02 UTC in reply to "RE: drm"
re_re Member since:
2005-07-06

I understand this.... but I purchase all my software, movies, and music legally and honestly...... I don't care about the cause, freedom is freedom and if they impliment this (drm) I will crack it and i will distribute the crack based solely on principal, I do not condone illegal use of software, music, or movies but I do believe that once I or anybody else has purchased it that I should be able to copy and use it for my own purposes as long as I do not give or sell it to others

sorry but.... the RIAA can kiss my pucker.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: drm
by Anonymous on Sat 20th Aug 2005 03:23 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: drm"
Anonymous Member since:
---

"I don't care about the cause, freedom is freedom and if they impliment this (drm) I will crack it and i will distribute the crack based solely on principal,"

You're contradicting yourself. On the one hand you speak of "the priciple" you're going to uphold, but on the other you state that you don't care about the cause. But those "causes" are the violation of principles.

So essentially your position is that you'll uphold principles that directly affect you, but ignore principles that you percieve to have no effect on you.

My point however is that those "violations of principle" do indeed affect YOU however honest you may be, and simply reacting to the effect will not make the situation better. And in fact will make it worse.

Reply Score: 0

RE[4]: drm
by re_re on Sat 20th Aug 2005 03:50 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: drm"
re_re Member since:
2005-07-06

no, I uphold principals that I believe affect everybody.

and in fact, I write my Congressman regularly about this type of legislation, so yes... I do care about how this effects everybody.

Plain and simple, I believe it is 100% wrong and constitutionally illegal to impose DRM on the general public. (not that the supreme court cares about the constitution anymore, but I do)

Reply Score: 1

DRM and HDCP
by pcummins on Sat 20th Aug 2005 02:39 UTC
pcummins
Member since:
2005-07-10

I should point out that the HDMI and HDCP DRM protection has already been broken, even before it was widely available to the public. There are numerous chips from say, Texas Instruments which convert HDCP sources to an unencrypted source, potentially enabling people to develop signal copiers that will capture the unencrypted source if need be. There are also papers detailing attack methods to break HDCP easily given enough time, so even needing a legitimate connection is no longer required.

The real battle is not on the video signal front which is destined to lose unless manufacturers get ruthless (and very expensive) DRM installed to combat it which I doubt they'd be able to do. The real battle is on getting digital copies of media unencumbered by DRM and able to play back on most systems around.

It's high time companies stop trying to lumber the average consumer with useless DRM and actually start attacking the real problem which is why consumers copy stuff in the first place. Presumably, if the cost of circumventing DRM is so expensive for the average consumer this will dissuade people from doing it. Couple this by making it so cheap to obtain legal sources of media that it becomes a waste of time breaking it. Sure, there's always going to be people who will do it, but the idea is that 95% of your audience isn't going to bother.

Companies should be after the real pirates who are hiding over the world who make money by stealing media and then repressing CD's and DVD's and selling them cheap (or not so cheaply) to unsuspecting consumers. A recent trip to Sydney, Australia shows stores selling bootleg DVD's of popular Asia-Pacific series and movies, of which I doubt more than 5% are legitimate (it's hard to tell now, what with the tactics these guys use). The cost of a movie is about $20 Au, where a legitimate copy is about $30-35 Au.

Companies should be attacking sources of these discs and getting rid of them. Then, they should start seriously questioning why people are buying them in the first place. The jump to HD-DVD and SACD will prove that people are not interested in rebuying media for movies/albums they already own, so companies should seriously consider a licensing proposal similar to software so people can upgrade to better copies at a dramatically reduced price in order to prevent consumers from stealing better copies of media they already theoretically own.

Reply Score: 2

RE: DRM and HDCP
by Anonymous on Sat 20th Aug 2005 03:07 UTC in reply to "DRM and HDCP"
Anonymous Member since:
---

"Companies should be after the real pirates who are hiding over the world who make money by stealing media and then repressing CD's and DVD's and selling them cheap (or not so cheaply) to unsuspecting consumers."

Ah the old "Officer you should be dealing with 'real crimminals' instead of harrassing me" argument. I have news for you. The customers* that are buying the black-market DVDs/CDs are no different that the ones that illegally download material they haven't paid for.

They both have the same ethics, and the same mentality. Some even buy and download. So why try to draw an artificial line?

*Customers: You know the one's that make the whole thing work. From illegal copyright violations to spam. It speaks highly of a species who's running motto is "I just can't help myself".

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: DRM and HDCP
by re_re on Sat 20th Aug 2005 03:37 UTC in reply to "RE: DRM and HDCP"
re_re Member since:
2005-07-06

Or perhaps companies should simply go after the distributors of pirated software/music/movies .... why the hell should I be kept from copying anything that I have legally purchased, this is bull crap....

this is how I see it, ... distributers of pirated software should be punished heavily, and they should be made to pay the legal expenses of the company who has prosecuted them (providing it is legitimate).

I understand these companies need to make their money, but as far as I am concerned I will do what I damn well please with something I have purchased.

Now, if what I used was stolen, that would be a different story, .. prosecute me. Not that it matters because I purchase everything legally.

Freedom is more important than some company making their money..... it is the company's responsability to prosecute those who violate copywrite, but if the company is worng.... sucks to be them.

I think it should be illegal to prohibit somebody from copying and using software/music/movies that they have legally purchased.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: DRM and HDCP
by Anonymous on Sat 20th Aug 2005 04:00 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: DRM and HDCP"
Anonymous Member since:
---

"I think it should be illegal to prohibit somebody from copying and using software/music/movies that they have legally purchased."

[EULA from some software I purchased earlier]

"Restrictions You may not copy the software except as required to use the software in accordance with this agreement and except for one copy solely for back-up purposes."

The thing you're not allowed to do is make a copy for someone else.

Reply Score: 0

RE[4]: DRM and HDCP
by re_re on Sat 20th Aug 2005 04:04 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: DRM and HDCP"
re_re Member since:
2005-07-06

my point is, with DRM, one will most likely not be able to make a copy for themselves unless they crack either the software or the DRM on their system.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: DRM and HDCP
by pcummins on Sat 20th Aug 2005 05:19 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: DRM and HDCP"
pcummins Member since:
2005-07-10

my point is, with DRM, one will most likely not be able to make a copy for themselves unless they crack either the software or the DRM on their system.

There's no need to. If companies adopt the stance of "you have licensed the multimedia" and quit pushing "you own the disc" attitude, you'd see things change.

1) People would be able to license the multimedia once. (Or more than once, if they choose to do so).
2) People would be able to store/view the multimedia on approved platforms as required. Transporting multimedia from location to location should be allowed on an approved platform.
3) Damaged media (storing multimedia) would be replaceable at very low costs, meaning the idea of "backing it up" is irrelevant. Naturally, this would be time restricted (so you can't get it replaced say, 25 years from now). Or you could just download it again.
4) If a new, enhanced form of the multimedia turns up (ie, BD-ROM, HD-DVD or SACD) a person pays a small fee to upgrade to the new format instead of paying to buy the disc again, or fees to upgrade their licenses.

The above removes most of the need to crack DRM or make copies. Equal access to multimedia and lenient licensing will remove the need to hack, crack or otherwise circumvent DRM licenses.

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: DRM and HDCP
by Phil on Sat 20th Aug 2005 15:09 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: DRM and HDCP"
Phil Member since:
2005-07-06

"3) Damaged media (storing multimedia) would be replaceable at very low costs"

They could do this now; I have CDs that won't play anymore, but there's no where I can send them for a replacement, despite the obvious fact that I must have a license, by virtue of having the original media.

The same goes for the other points you listed, no company wants DRM to provide a better service, as evidenced by the fact that they don't provide the best service they can without it.

I would love to be able to trade my VHS tapes for DVDs without paying all over again, but that is realistically never going to happen with any of the major media industry companies.

Reply Score: 1

v RE[7]: DRM and HDCP
by Anonymous on Sat 20th Aug 2005 16:41 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: DRM and HDCP"
RE[2]: DRM and HDCP
by pcummins on Sat 20th Aug 2005 05:12 UTC in reply to "RE: DRM and HDCP"
pcummins Member since:
2005-07-10

The customers* that are buying the black-market DVDs/CDs are no different that the ones that illegally download material they haven't paid for.

I never said they weren't. The difference is that people who download material are not supporting pirate disc manufacturers, so of the two choices I consider it a lesser crime. Think about where those profits of sales of stolen discs goes to, and you'll see what I mean. I feel badly for families or people who buy stolen discs and then think they're legitimate (like the Studio Ghibli DVD box sets that are all pirated).

Given the option of low cost, easily available multimedia in the format that benefits the consumer, consumers in most cases will choose DRM as long as it does not impede them to enjoying what they legally purchased on whatever platform they choose.

For example, if I legally download/view a DRM'ed movie, as long as I can view this on my computer and on my media entertainment system I'm happy. I don't need to crack it to "make it work" or copy it since I can just tell my friends to DL/view it themselves, in particular, if the cost to do so is reasonable and not excessive.

Reply Score: 1

DRM :(
by Anonymous on Sat 20th Aug 2005 10:09 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

DRM here DRM there, every thing is going to have DRM, What a fabulous future we'll see ;)

Reply Score: 0

RE: DRM :(
by wakeupneo on Sat 20th Aug 2005 13:12 UTC in reply to "DRM :("
wakeupneo Member since:
2005-07-06

Only if you buy into it. Let your wallet do the talking and see how quickly these new 'standards' fall off the shelves. Sony is a good example with their "no mp3 support" strategy. Sales plummeted so they gave in.

I personally won't be buying anything with these 'features' and will do my best to encourage my friends/family/co-workers/customers/acquaintances/etc. to do the same.

Reply Score: 1

Too little, too late.
by Anonymous on Mon 22nd Aug 2005 11:24 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

In particular, it will offer a bandwidth of 10.8 Gbits/sec, which corresponds to 6 megapixels at 75Hz and 24bps. Perhaps, we will start seeing computer displays with a 2560x1920 resolution.

The graphics card are already capable if displaying higher resolution, the monitors are not. And the situation will be worse and worse.

Even without the DRM, this standard is not "up to date" with the future evolution of the gfx.

The minimum spec for a new standard should be up to 8192x8192 in 128bits color to keep the fast pace of the gfx evolution, changing all the monitors take years, changing a gfx card take 10min !

Reply Score: 0