or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Current Mac Hardware › Apple's Mini DisplayPort officially adopted by VESA
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple's Mini DisplayPort officially adopted by VESA - Page 5

post #161 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by teckstud View Post

ok- i get the hint
mangia time anyway

I think this is typical: You have been bashed throughout 120 posts, and you consider that a "hint".
That's really an understatement. How much more direct can the anti-teckstud posts be?
ADS
Reply
ADS
Reply
post #162 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJRumpy View Post

It's not a technological limitation, it's an implementation issue. Television commonly uses overscan (still does as a matter of fact, although the reasons for that are somewhat dated in a digital age). The television's had both HDMI and DVI. They all exhibit the same overscan behavior. They are first and foremost TV's and designed for that media. Even the set that I have with a VGA connector, which is a PC only connector, can't even put a full screen output without huge borders or overscan. They simply aren't designed first and foremost for a PC output.

It's encouraging to hear that the issue may be fading, but it's certainly not a standard or a thing of the past.

It's very interesting why they do what they do. I'm very familiar with it.

But, on the other hand, I've had three different Tv's with HDMI and computer DVI ports. All of them overscanned my computer media, but none of the DVI inputs did.

I have friends who use their Tv's for their audio systems as a monitor, and none overscan.

My latest is a Samsung 61", ans the same is true there.
post #163 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by sequitur View Post

I think this is typical: You have been bashed throughout 120 posts, and you consider that a "hint".
That's really an understatement. How much more direct can the anti-teckstud posts be?

Nobody should be bashing him, merely debating him. If anyone's bashing him, the mods should step in and keep in check before things look like a youtube comments page.

Honestly, how does bashing someone win an argument?
post #164 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

It's very interesting why they do what they do. I'm very familiar with it.

But, on the other hand, I've had three different Tv's with HDMI and computer DVI ports. All of them overscanned my computer media, but none of the DVI inputs did.

I have friends who use their Tv's for their audio systems as a monitor, and none overscan.

My latest is a Samsung 61", ans the same is true there.

I hooked my computer up to my parent's 52" samsung and played cod4. It. was. BEAUTIFUL. I can only imagine 61 freakin inches!
post #165 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by chronster View Post

Nobody should be bashing him, merely debating him. If anyone's bashing him, the mods should step in and keep in check before things look like a youtube comments page.

Honestly, how does bashing someone win an argument?

Sometimes he goes overboard with his "arguments".
post #166 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

It's very interesting why they do what they do. I'm very familiar with it.

But, on the other hand, I've had three different Tv's with HDMI and computer DVI ports. All of them overscanned my computer media, but none of the DVI inputs did.

I have friends who use their Tv's for their audio systems as a monitor, and none overscan.

My latest is a Samsung 61", ans the same is true there.

You do realize that HDMI is just DVI with additional copy protection and audio? They are the same interface, same signals. HDMI supports audio, but the video piece is pretty much identical other than the physical connectors.
iMac 27" 2.8 Quad i7 / 24" Dual Core 3.06 / 17" Macbook Pro Unibody / Mac Mini HTPC / iPhone 4
Reply
iMac 27" 2.8 Quad i7 / 24" Dual Core 3.06 / 17" Macbook Pro Unibody / Mac Mini HTPC / iPhone 4
Reply
post #167 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by chronster View Post

I hooked my computer up to my parent's 52" samsung and played cod4. It. was. BEAUTIFUL. I can only imagine 61 freakin inches!

Yeah. But unfortunately, we sit almost 14 feet away, so that even that size results in our not seeing 1080p, but more like 700p. We'd need a 103" diag screen to see 1080p at that distance.
post #168 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Yeah. But unfortunately, we sit almost 14 feet away, so that even that size results in our not seeing 1080p, but more like 700p. We'd need a 103" diag screen to see 1080p at that distance.

Actually, for 14 feet, 52 inches would be fine. It's on the low side, but perfectly acceptable.
iMac 27" 2.8 Quad i7 / 24" Dual Core 3.06 / 17" Macbook Pro Unibody / Mac Mini HTPC / iPhone 4
Reply
iMac 27" 2.8 Quad i7 / 24" Dual Core 3.06 / 17" Macbook Pro Unibody / Mac Mini HTPC / iPhone 4
Reply
post #169 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJRumpy View Post

You do realize that HDMI is just DVI with additional copy protection and audio? They are the same interface, same signals. HDMI supports audio, but the video piece is pretty much identical other than the physical connectors.

DVI can have the same copy protection HDMI does, and often does. HDCD is available on both.

My Tv's have had their DVI inputs labeled as "computer input", and indeed they were. No overscan. As has been said, it's implementation.

These companies have designed the interface to see a computer non overscanned signal, and project it so.
post #170 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJRumpy View Post

Actually, for 14 feet, 52 inches would be fine. It's on the low side, but perfectly acceptable.

Not for 1080p. For that at 14 feet, you need that 100" screen. At 14 feet, the best you can do is a bit under 700p with a 61" screen. You can barely see better than 480p with a 52 at that distance.
post #171 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJRumpy View Post

Actually, for 14 feet, 52 inches would be fine. It's on the low side, but perfectly acceptable.

I understand this is completely off topic, but I play Uncharted 2 on my 52" HDTV from about 5 feet away. Blows my mind
post #172 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

It's very interesting why they do what they do. I'm very familiar with it.

But, on the other hand, I've had three different Tv's with HDMI and computer DVI ports. All of them overscanned my computer media, but none of the DVI inputs did.

I have friends who use their Tv's for their audio systems as a monitor, and none overscan.

My latest is a Samsung 61", ans the same is true there..

As I said, the signaling is the same. You seem to be implying that they are fundamentally different. They are in fact the same. I agree it's all about implementation, but stating that an HDTV is basically a computer display is false. I can guarantee a computer display will display edge to edge properly hooked up to a computer. The same cannot be said for a TV.
iMac 27" 2.8 Quad i7 / 24" Dual Core 3.06 / 17" Macbook Pro Unibody / Mac Mini HTPC / iPhone 4
Reply
iMac 27" 2.8 Quad i7 / 24" Dual Core 3.06 / 17" Macbook Pro Unibody / Mac Mini HTPC / iPhone 4
Reply
post #173 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Not for 1080p. For that at 14 feet, you need that 100" screen. At 14 feet, the best you can do is a bit under 700p with a 61" screen. You can barely see better than 480p with a 52 at that distance.

Wrong. There are minimum and maximum suggested screen sizes. For 14', they range from 50" on the minimum side, to 112" on the MAX side.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/feature.htm...cId=1000021501

http://www.cnet.com/hdtv-viewing-distance/

They might fudge an inch or 3 between the various guides, but they are all essentially the same. You do not need a 100+ inch TV for a 14 foot viewing distance.
iMac 27" 2.8 Quad i7 / 24" Dual Core 3.06 / 17" Macbook Pro Unibody / Mac Mini HTPC / iPhone 4
Reply
iMac 27" 2.8 Quad i7 / 24" Dual Core 3.06 / 17" Macbook Pro Unibody / Mac Mini HTPC / iPhone 4
Reply
post #174 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJRumpy View Post

As I said, the signaling is the same. You seem to be implying that they are fundamentally different. They are in fact the same. I agree it's all about implementation, but stating that an HDTV is basically a computer display is false. I can guarantee a computer display will display edge to edge properly hooked up to a computer. The same cannot be said for a TV.

Where did I say that an HDTV is basically a computer display? I said the opposite.

But, a large number of Tvs do have DVI ports labeled as computer in. That doesn't mean that the Tv is MAINLY a computer monitor. And ALL Tvs I've ever used that had a port with at label, DIDN'T overscan. Even my Sony broadcast monitors have a DVI port labeled for computer use. They don't overscan through that port either.

They also have a switch on the rear that turns overscan off for Tv signals. It's a small matter for the Tv to have this as part of the DVI computer input.
post #175 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Where did I say that an HDTV is basically a computer display? I said the opposite.

But, a large number of Tvs do have DVI ports labeled as computer in. That doesn't mean that the Tv is MAINLY a computer monitor. And ALL Tvs I've ever used that had a port with at label, DIDN'T overscan. Even my Sony broadcast monitors have a DVI port labeled for computer use. They don't overscan through that port either.

They also have a switch on the rear that turns overscan off for Tv signals. It's a small matter for the Tv to have this as part of the DVI computer input.

It was actually Techstud, however you seemed to be arguing the same case. I should have clarified that.
iMac 27" 2.8 Quad i7 / 24" Dual Core 3.06 / 17" Macbook Pro Unibody / Mac Mini HTPC / iPhone 4
Reply
iMac 27" 2.8 Quad i7 / 24" Dual Core 3.06 / 17" Macbook Pro Unibody / Mac Mini HTPC / iPhone 4
Reply
post #176 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJRumpy View Post

Wrong. There are minimum and maximum suggested screen sizes. For 14', they range from 50" on the minimum side, to 112" on the MAX side.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/feature.htm...cId=1000021501

http://www.cnet.com/hdtv-viewing-distance/

They might fudge an inch or 3 between the various guides, but they are all essentially the same. You do not need a 100+ inch TV for a 14 foot viewing distance.

Those are almost useless. They don't mention resolution at all. They tell you nothing.

Go here, and move down to the two charts for viewing distance and explanations. These charts are worked up from the known acuity restraints of the normal human eye.

http://carltonbale.com/?s=chart&x=0&y=0
post #177 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJRumpy View Post

For those that are curious, DisplayPort supports audio as part of it's standard. it's optional, but it's there.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DisplayPort

I didn't really have to look at the specs, but thanks. Apple despises cable clutter so I'm sure they wouldn't have intentionally gone with a cable standard (mDP) that wasn't capable of audio.

It's in there somewhere. Just like the space being reserved for the camera in the iPod Touch, it will come. The problem is_ It's hell waiting for these things to happen.
post #178 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by libertyforall View Post

Audio needs to be changed to mandatory, IMHO.

+ I second that
post #179 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by ljocampo View Post

I didn't really have to look at the specs, but thanks. Apple despises cable clutter so I'm sure they wouldn't have intentionally gone with a cable standard (mDP) that wasn't capable of audio.

It's in there somewhere. Just like the space being reserved for the camera in the iPod Touch, it will come. The problem is_ It's hell waiting for these things to happen.

Oddly enough, none of the Apple products currently implement the audio standard, but I'm sure they'll get around to it in the next few years if the DisplayPort gets it's legs.
iMac 27" 2.8 Quad i7 / 24" Dual Core 3.06 / 17" Macbook Pro Unibody / Mac Mini HTPC / iPhone 4
Reply
iMac 27" 2.8 Quad i7 / 24" Dual Core 3.06 / 17" Macbook Pro Unibody / Mac Mini HTPC / iPhone 4
Reply
post #180 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by ljocampo View Post

I didn't really have to look at the specs, but thanks. Apple despises cable clutter so I'm sure they wouldn't have intentionally gone with a cable standard (mDP) that wasn't capable of audio.

They went with DVI when HDMI was available because DVI is for computers and HDMI for entertainment systems. The ones arguing now that Apple should have gone with HDMI simply because its what all their home entertainment equipment has is shortsided. Apple may use the audio option in the DP spec at some point, but they also might ignore it since computer displays typically dont have speakers built in. Personally, I hope they do add it simply because it doesnt seem like a big deal to ad yet in can save those you want it some time and money from not having to buy a S/PDIF cable.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #181 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Those are almost useless. They don't mention resolution at all. They tell you nothing.

Go here, and move down to the two charts for viewing distance and explanations. These charts are worked up from the known acuity restraints of the normal human eye.

http://carltonbale.com/?s=chart&x=0&y=0

Yet half of my friends and family still swear they can't tell the difference between 480p and 1080p.

Field of View is far more important to the laymen IMO given decent equipment which is pretty much a given since you won't find any TV's above 50" that are not HDTV and very probably 1080p
iMac 27" 2.8 Quad i7 / 24" Dual Core 3.06 / 17" Macbook Pro Unibody / Mac Mini HTPC / iPhone 4
Reply
iMac 27" 2.8 Quad i7 / 24" Dual Core 3.06 / 17" Macbook Pro Unibody / Mac Mini HTPC / iPhone 4
Reply
post #182 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJRumpy View Post

Yet half of my friends and family still swear they can't tell the difference between 480p and 1080p.

Field of View is far more important to the laymen IMO given decent equipment which is pretty much a given since you won't find any TV's above 50" that are not HDTV and very probably 1080p

If you're too far away, then you won't be able to see the difference. for a 52" set and 1080p, you need to be at no more than 6.5 feet away.

If field of view is required, then with 1080p, you also have to be about 6.5 feet away with a 52".

This doesn't mean that it's not watchable at 14 feet. but you don't get any of the benefits.
post #183 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJRumpy View Post

Why require it when many applications don't need it? it would unnecessarily add cost to the implementation without any purpose. For instance, a display that has no audio capabilities wouldn't need it and it would just add to the cost of the display without benefit.

You're right but I think a display without audio capabilities, even if it wasn't necessary for a particular task, is myopic. Today's small cost of built-in audio in a display should never limit the product's market versatility.
post #184 of 255
Could we please have him gelded?

Just a joke and apologies to Techstud if I assumed the wrong sex.
post #185 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

A lot of us agree, melgross! Please have AI do something about it - like, take him out to the woodshed, or put him to pasture, or something...... anything....

Remember Voltaire?
post #186 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by der passant View Post

Could we please have him gelded?

Just a joke and apologies to Techstud if I assumed the wrong sex.

Let's not go overboard, please!
post #187 of 255
I can't decide how I feel about this. I'm still pissed that hollywood screwed me with their switch to DRM crippled video cords. Yeah, I was one of those people with an expensive projector that only supported HD resolutions via component cables. Yet hollywood decided that DVDs weren't allowed to be upscaled except over hdmi.

Well I finally dumped a bunch of money on a new receiver, a new projector, a new disk player, and new in-wall wiring. Imagine how pissed I'll be if hdmi proves to be short lived standard.
post #188 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by ljocampo View Post

Remember Voltaire?

Not personally.
post #189 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by dfiler View Post

I can't decide how I feel about this. I'm still pissed that hollywood screwed me with their switch to DRM crippled video cords. Yeah, I was one of those people with an expensive projector that only supported HD resolutions via component cables. Yet hollywood decided that DVDs weren't allowed to be upscaled except over hdmi.

Well I finally dumped a bunch of money on a new receiver, a new projector, a new disk player, and new in-wall wiring. Imagine how pissed I'll be if hdmi proves to be short lived standard.

It will be as long lived as your equipment is. When you buy new stuff, you won't care.
post #190 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by der passant View Post

Could we please have him gelded?

Just a joke and apologies to Techstud if I assumed the wrong sex.

Besides the obvious longterm benefits of Teckstud not procreating, in the short term Id like to have him banned. Putting him on your ignore list does nothing when his asinine posts get responded to so frequently. You try to give him a inch, but he sticks his foot in his mouth and before you know it he doesnt have a leg to stand on, but somehow he keeps up his backpedaling.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #191 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Let's not go overboard, please!

Trying not to go overboard but one can dream....
post #192 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Not personally.

Frak! I just spit iced coffee all over my MB.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #193 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by teckstud View Post

Display Port will eventually be kicked to the curb just like firewire, another Apple baby, was- even by it's own parent.

Eventually for sure. Such is the nature of technology. The real prediction is who's better off for it.
post #194 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

It will be as long lived as your equipment is. When you buy new stuff, you won't care.

I'm not sure what you're getting at other than dismissing my dismay at component video cables being purposefully crippled by Hollywood. Electronic manufacturers were prohibited from producing players that output HD over what had been the most common HD cabling option.

With consumers having been bit by that once, it seems like a pertinent topic when discussing new cabling standards. It wasn't that component cables couldn't deliver the signal. But rather that manufacturers were forced to disable functionality which was already there. Occasionally players from various Asian market would surface momentarily and offer DVD upscaling over component. That is until hollywood got wind of it and turned the screws, threatening to revoke the manufacturer's DRM keys.

That's why I'm torn about the new standard. It's yet another cabling change. Yet at least it's one that isn't being driven by the desire for digital restrictions management.
post #195 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by dfiler View Post

That's why I'm torn about the new standard. It's yet another cabling change. Yet at least it's one that isn't being driven by the desire for digital restrictions management.

I see nothing to be torn about. This is the first time I can recall that a free standard with capacities and features that current displays cant even come close to handling is being offered. On top of that, its the same exact connect on every single Mac, not a variation of port interfaces and different capabilities. This is a good thing.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #196 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by dfiler View Post

I'm not sure what you're getting at other than dismissing my dismay at component video cables being purposefully crippled by Hollywood. Electronic manufacturers were prohibited from producing players that output HD over what had been the most common HD cabling option.

With consumers having been bit by that once, it seems like a pertinent topic when discussing new cabling standards. It wasn't that component cables couldn't deliver the signal. But rather that manufacturers were forced to disable functionality which was already there. Occasionally players from various Asian market would surface momentarily and offer DVD upscaling over component. That is until hollywood got wind of it and turned the screws, threatening to revoke the manufacturer's DRM keys.

That's why I'm torn about the new standard. It's yet another cabling change. Yet at least it's one that isn't being driven by the desire for digital restrictions management.

I'm not dismissing it. I've literally got boxes of very expensive SCSI cables, and just about every other obsolete cable around, as well as a couple of hundred pounds of other obsolete computer stuff, not including computers.

My point is that as long as your stuff is good, you won't have to think about it. New models with those standards will be around for years.

But at some time, when you need something new, you'll have gotten your money's worth from it, and it will be time to move on.
post #197 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

I see nothing to be torn about. This is the first time I can recall that a free standard with capacities and features that current displays cant even come close to handling is being offered. On top of that, its the same exact connect on every single Mac, not a variation of port interfaces and different capabilities. This is a good thing.

The fact that it's a free standard, and no licensing is required goes a long ways for it. I didn't know that about DP until reading this thread. As soon as I read that, my opinion on it's potential changed.
post #198 of 255
All of these new connectors may be cute, but certainly not professional.

A professional connector is positively LOCKING in place.
Think XLR connectors, think ethernet connector, DVI, heck even a old VGA port had screws that KEEP things IN PLACE.

By comparison there's constant issues with lose FW cables, lose mini-USB plugs, and now we'll likely get ever more fragile.

You can't have a professional production environment if you have to worry about someone bumping into your equipment and connectivity goes ape shit.

I wish Apple would pay as much attention to these things to compact and sexy ID.
I don't care if it's thumb screws, clips, hooks, latches, BNC connectors, magnets or whatever, but a cable has to be designed to stay put and securely connected. The current crop of cute and small connectors just doesn't cut it.
post #199 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

Besides the obvious longterm benefits of Teckstud not procreating, in the short term I’d like to have him banned. Putting him on your ignore list does nothing when his asinine posts get responded to so frequently. You try to give him a inch, but he sticks his foot in his mouth and before you know it he doesn’t have a leg to stand on, but somehow he keeps up his backpedaling.

[smile]

Reading AI threads daily for years, I often wonder why I do it. At first, it was the technical abilities of its members, then it just became entertaining. Without Techstud playing devil's advocate, or the usual PC trolls, and the wisdom & intellect of Melgoss, it wouldn't be much to read here. I respect all your opinions, ignorance, intelligent discourse, and fanboyisms. It makes my day.
post #200 of 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

I see nothing to be torn about. This is the first time I can recall that a free standard with capacities and features that current displays cant even come close to handling is being offered. On top of that, its the same exact connect on every single Mac, not a variation of port interfaces and different capabilities. This is a good thing.

How about the fact that when standards change there are incompatibilities and, at the very least, the hassle of physical adapters?

It's obvious how you feel about the tradeoff of moving to a new standard, but come on! Shouldn't you at least recognize that it's a tradeoff?

For instance, I'm not a gamer nor a college student. But imagine for a second their situation. They just bought a new iMac for school and yet they just can't plug in their cable box or Wii. Instead, they have to research the situation and buy additional equipment.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Mac Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Current Mac Hardware › Apple's Mini DisplayPort officially adopted by VESA