Inside Apple's iPad: VGA video output - Page 3

Good point, but: the pinout diagram of the Dock Connector here shows half a dozen lines associated with Firewire. In that firewire seems to be pretty thoroughly deprecated, I would think Apple could repurpose those connectors for digital video, with the caveat that firewire equipped iPods (of which I doubt there are still a great many in service) would not be compatible.

Unless a lot of peripherals are using the firewire data bus for some obscure reason?

The incorrect use of "crippled" bothers me. Verizon would take a phone that was designed and built with certain features and remove them before selling. That is crippling.



The person who said that HDMI has a higher max resolution than DisplayPort?

Ouch, that's stupid. I don't think a developer should have to turn it on or be allowed to disable a video out like that. An exception might be if the dev wants to use it as a second screen rather than just mirror the internal screen.


Sorry, I don't buy that one bit, very different product, very different form factor, very different controls and use model. I don't see anyone stringing a cable from a device on their lap to their TV or getting up to to control it. Apple's tech specs page doesn't mention remote compatibility either.


The problem with just taking the page length out of the equation is, if you're referring to a specific paragraph, how will you communicate to someone where it is?


VGA seems to be easily able to run longer lengths without getting too expensive.


WXGA is more commonly referring to 1366x 768. It expands the horizontal axis by another third, keeping the vertical axis the same.

Im also sad that I won't be able to do jobsian ipad demos on my tv it would be similar to the Archos which is a crap device execpt when used on the TV.

But he's part right too. Apple's current Macs don't support that resolution, Apple state 2560x1600 is their max.


That higher max isn't useful except for movies, it's likely not relevant outside that use.

I don't recall him mentioning Macs at all, just that HDMI has better specs than DP, which isn't true. If he was focusing on Macs, then what is the point of bringing up anything outside of DVI since Macs have never had HDMI? There aren't any.

Sometimes you need to think first before blaming somebody for lying. Check this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_video_connectors and look at the max resolution column.

By the way, which current Apple products have full-size DisplayPort? I recall, most of them have Mini DisplayPort: the port is capable of driving resolutions up to 2560x1600 only.

Granted, the iPad wouldn't be the best way to take video to a friend's house. I'd rather have an iPod to do it, but iPods are stuck with SD output only in which case I'd rather own the DVD because it would be better quality than Apple's SD. (And while DVD isn't HD, if you have a good scaler in your TV, a DVD can look damn near as good as Apple's highly compressed 720p.)

Regardless, the point is that Apple's HD video content isn't currently portable, which is one reason I won't buy it. And while many HDTVs have VGA inputs, it remains to be seen if the iPad can support outputing its VGA video in that aspect ratio. Even if it's not 720p, can it ouput video in a 16:9 aspect ratio? Or will I end up with black bars on all four sides of my video (ie, horizontal bars because the iPad had to fit the video into it's 4:3 aspect ratio and vertical bars because my TV had to fit the resulting 4:3 output to it's 16:9 aspect ratio)? My old PPC mini, which used to be my HTPC, could output video over VGA in a 16:9 ratio. If the iPad can also, it would be a way to make Apple's HD video portable.

And note that your "cheap VGA to DVI dongle" isn't really DVI in the "digital" video interface sense of the acronym. It's really a VGA to DVI-I adaptor. DVI-I carries both an analog and digital signal. And the VGA adaptor will only include the analog signal. So if you hook it up to a DVI-D (digital only) device, or if you connect a DVI-HDMI adaptor, you'll be starring at a blank screen.

I suspect one reason the iPad (and all iPods/iPhone) are limited to analog video output are either technical (trying to get a digital video signal through the dock connector) or licensing (displaying an HD video over a digital connection requires HDCP be implemented).

You did qualify your post with "Wiki says that" so i apologize with for my comment about you lying. Wikipedia is incorrect. The specs for DP v1.2 are as I stated and much more.


You'e referring to the DP connector type. There are no limitations in throughput based on DP standard or mDP connector types for DisplayPort. Note that it's still the DisplayPort digital standard even when the port is mDP. Just like with USB-A and USB-B connector types still allowing for USB2.0 throughput.

Whats wrong with VGA? My cheap 1920:1080 flatscreen has it and it works just fine with my MacBook Pro via the miniDP to VGA adapter? Sure I woun't be able to watch BlueRay movies on it but it works just fine for DVD-Movies and large spreadsheets .

I guess like Windows, VGA still is just good enough for most of us?

I don't think you made it clear how inferior you think non-Apple technology is! And how far the mighty Jobs had to bend his knees in order to get a mere VGA output in the iPad. (Oh, I mean, XGA. Yeah, I know everybody calls it XGA!)

Shame, I was hoping for a media dock that had a HDMI output to connect to the TV, stereo connectors for audio, and a remote control to control it from the sofa.

Think of a Squeezebox on steroids.

VGA is better than nothing (and VGA isn't restricted to 1024x768, I don't see why other applications can't request 1280x720 unless Apple limit the APIs) I guess.

I resurrected an old computer recently, so I tried that a month ago, it didn't work so well. It does depend a little on the quality of the cable and the ports, there is digital to analog to digital conversion going on. The digital connectors generally seem to be a lot more resilient against distortions, especially when you're running it at such a high resolution.


You're right, though I generally treat DVI and HDMI interchangeably, and haven't had any issues arrise.


DP1.2 is only a few weeks old. An article that predates that ratification is going to be a bit out of date. mDP is now a VESA-ratified port connector. As far as I can tell, it can support all the features the big one can, except for a mechanical lock.


VGA is usually used as the informal term for the connector. XGA is a term for a specific screen resolution.

I underlined two points that are completely wrong.

For the first one, I direct you to the Apple store. As it stands right now, the iPad cannot output HD video (although it can process and playback 720p video), but it can most certainly connect to TV's made in this century as they typically come with hdmi and component inputs. For that matter, most HDTV's have VGA input as well.

For the second point, you are correct that the iPad features limited video codecs, but it is not Quicktime only. .h264 is also supported and is the most common format available.

Since those points basically encompass your entire argument, nothing you said really has much basis in reality, and here you are talking to the Apple apologists like you are somehow better than them, you just swing the other way, missing reality by just as much.

The only reason the iPad will work with modern HDTVs is that they feature a "legacy VGA connector". iPad doesn't do HDMI, and who wants to view 480i (or 480p) on their shiny HDTV that can do 1080p?

I'm glad it has vga output. I'm anxious to shut some of my geek friends up. To be fair, they don't know what it has so they can't talk up something they don't know exists yet, but again, to be fair this is a good example of "don't talk about what you don't know about."

I've seen a few people make a comment about this specifically and call the ipad junk.

I won't be buying one, but at least Apple isn't completely ignoring what people want.

Question is, will the iPad let you output local HD content at all, thru component or VGA. The iPhone doesn't let you store/playback these files, so there's no basis for comparison. Will they give an error when connected to a TV?

Clearly you didn't follow my link, or read what I wrote. HDTVs typically come with two connector types in addition to a legacy VGA port. HDMI and component. Component cables are fully capable of transmitting 1080p video, so I wouldn't really consider them legacy quite yet.

Of course I'd rather have an HD signal, but at this point you are not only ignoring the major part of my argument, but also taking my post out of context. The context was that I was replying to someone who said the iPad is not cpable of transmitting to a modern TV. Which is untrue. I was simply stating why that was the case. I never said hdmi or a 720p or greater signal wouldn't be nice.

I do find it odd that Apple is not allowing 720p video through the component cable even though the iPad can render it. This is either being done due to bandwidth limitations of the dock connector or for consistency reasons. i'm hoping it's the latter.

Right now the iPad does not have a video dock and the iPhone/iPod Touch video dock is intentionally out of date (old apple remote). I have a sneaking suspicion that a new dock is in the works, perhaps with the vaunted hdmi output you want. My only question is one of the timing. Would they update the firmware on the iPod touch and the iPhone to playback 720p video (they are capable) or would they save this dock for the iPad and the next generation of iPhone/iPod touch? Hoping for the former, expecting the latter.

Why wouldn't it?

Since the composite and component cables are for playing back media and the iPad is the first handheld to also play protected HD iTS video, perhaps they can't contractually push HD analog signals. Can you push iTS HD from a Mac via analog video out?

That could be the reason.

I'm surprised that no-one here has mentioned Light Peak. There's a newer version of that Apple I/O Chart in this article that shows Light Peak.

The VGA output makes sense as an interim measure, prior to giving some future iPad more versatile digital output via LightPeak.

The only thing I can contemplate requiring a connection to a projector would be a business presentation. And the only evidence of any app which would do this so far is keynote. If that is not a specific use case.... And a very narrow one at that.

We are talking about the maintenance of a legacy connector so this point is entirely relevant given th justification for it's upkeep.

If projectors are still using VGA connectors then I don't think LightPeak is the next step for them or the iPad. We don't even have FW1600 or USB3.0 in any Macs so I wouldn't expect LightPeak for a long time. Macs first, accessory devices later. Plus, Intel says it will be ready in 2010 with no actual date set, but then there is the time it takes for adoption.

I would expect that a LightPeak would make FW1600 and up unnecessary. That might be true of much of the need for USB3 as well.

If a faster tech that is developed years later automatically obsolesces other tech then we wouldn't be talking about VGA on the iPad.

I'd expect LightPeak to be a port on Macs at first, along with FW and USB. I have doubts about FW being updated since none of their iDevices can even sync or charge through them anymore, but I would expect USB3.0 to come. Hopefully with the next professional Mac releases.

It will for sure. I think that was confirmed by some Apple guy during the iPad event, and anyway the SDK sports clear support for the feature - developers can easily paint a second "window" with different content on the external display.

I thought most of the point of this article was about making presentations using a projector. I really don't think an iPad is a good way to play entertainment media on a TV, it's just the wrong form factor. Ideally, it could do a decent job of at least sending TV video if it had a digital video connector, but then, iPad doesn't have a remote port, so it's either a matter of having it on your lap so you can control it, with a long video cord, or getting up and walking to the TV every time you need to do anything.

The iPhone should be the remote obviously

Hopefully that becomes a possibility at some point. It would help for presenting too.

Not only that but HDMI is really just DVI with audio and DVI can handle far greater resolutions than the 1330 resolution that is 1080P.

That being said for the market the iPad is aiming for VGA makes more sense. I would have liked to see Display Port then you could hook up to anything but Apple wants to keep the amount of ports simple and considering the Dock Connector can't handle the DVI output there you go.

Of note i regret the use of an offensive term here
forgive me

book

clock

wall

floor

sea floor

loose change

number 9

what ever connector we are forced >> we will find a way to port ipad content out to the world
i only wanted 1080p level or higher

and i will buy any product that has an apple on it
ANY

i will crush any product that contains msft

law of nature


peace 9

Yep. And it's for projectors. That's how Apple will pitch the iPad to businesses- as a presentation machine.

Of all the projectors I looked at all had VGA ports. That includes all the high-end HD projectors, even a Dell with DisplayPort.

No, XGA is the name for a specific IBM adapter. Nobody else used the term, because it was IBM's. When there was a need for a higher resolution, the rest of the industry just increased their clock frequency (thereby matching IBMs, because the math is all the same) and they were done. No fancy 'XGA' name needed.

This is where the 'multi-sync' monitor came from. Instead of creating a monitor that only worked at certain frequencies, it would just look for a signal along a continuum of plausible frequencies, and lock on to it when found.

IBM was busy trying to re-invent new names for the same standards. That's why 'PS/2' mouse and keyboard connectors are compatible with the original big DIN keyboard connectors and serial mice with nothing more than a direct adapter.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:MCA_IBM_XGA-2.jpg

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

Thanks for the material. Inside, you'll see a line that basically spells it out. XGA is an IBM product, not the name for the standard in use by PCs then, or now:

"XGA hardware was not cloned as extensively as VGA hardware. Nevertheless, at least one graphics company made several XGA-compatible chips, the IIT AGX."


A resolution standard would not include 'fixed function hardware acceleration to offload processing of 2D drawing tasks.'

You can also read the IBM press release announcement of the XGA adapter card here:

http://ibmmuseum.com/ohlandl/video/190-182.txt

It was a proprietary card that was almost compatible with VGA (not register compatible). In terms of resolutions, it is exactly the same as VGA at the frequency VGA uses for the same resolutions.

You Apple guys are falling for 20 year old IBM propaganda. How interesting!

I'm not sure what you are gettting at or why you keep comparing the display standard to hardware. IBM created the XGA display standard, just like VESA, Intel, Apple etc. all create standards.

It's not a big deal that IBM invented it. You do realize that IBM had to make new HW to run the super high resolution of XGA, right?

IBM invented VGA. And I will give them credit for that all day long. And if you want to call 1024x768 as VGA or Super VGA, I'm fine with that.

But XGA is not a new display standard, except in the delusional eyes of 1990 IBM, and within the framework of their failed attempt to recapture control of the PC market they had lost with the entire 'PS/2', Micro-Channel, and 'OS/2' product line. XGA is VGA with a new name; an IBM name. Nothing more.

Proof: According to the IBM press release I linked to, the XGA adapter could do 1024x768 resolution with the 8507, 8514, 8515, and 8604 monitors. The 8514 was introduced in 1987, the same time VGA was introduced, and three years before IBM marketing came up with the XGA card. If 1024x768 is a new resolution standard, how can a three year old VGA product support it?

More proof: XGA was introduced in the press release in October 1990. This July 16, 1990 Infoworld review looks at a pile of VGA cards that do 1024x768. Hmm... I guess they aren't XGA, are they? Google Books link to Info World article. And just to save you the trouble of reading it, XGA isn't mentioned once in the entire article... because IBM marketing hasn't "invented" it yet.

The article also mentions that NEC Multisync 5D monitors support 1280x1024 resolution. And all of this before IBM saved us all by 'inventing' the 1024x768 standard?