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."

Hope it gets off

[mariushm (1022195)]

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.

Re:

[z0M6 (1103593)]

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

DRM vs HDCP in DVI/HDMI

[GodWasAnAlien (206300)]

So is there more DRM in this? Is it optional or mandatory.

HDMI and DVI are at least compatible with a cable.

Is DisplayPort?

Re:

[gEvil (beta) (945888)]

HDMI and DVI are at least compatible with a cable. Is DisplayPort?

I would guess 'no' since it's a different interface entirely. DVI and HDMI were essentially the same interface, just with different connector types.

Re:DRM is HDCP

[by Anonymous Coward]

"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.

Re:

[Graftweed (742763)]

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 wil

Re:

[Firehed (942385)]

Mandatory to implement, or mandatory to use? There's no reason to have your desktop encrypted, though I can see the validity in the claim of having HD content protected, no matter now much I disagree with it. As it so happens, you can just use AnyDVD HD and disable the ICT on HD movies that require HDCP for full-res playback and make your older 1080p display work its wonders.

Re:

[Graftweed (742763)]

Mandatory to implement, or mandatory to use?

It's never mandatory to use, even if DRM gets implemented, unless you want to display protected content. So yes, I believe you could still display your desktop just fine. The software playing a movie, for example, would just refuse to do so if the whole path wasn't protected. Someone feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, I've never messed around with HDCP and hopefully never will.

My point, however, was that by being _mandatory_ to implement license fee requiring DRM on an otherwise license fee free spec

Re:

[Midnight Thunder (17205)]

Another approach I would like to see:
- DisplayPort
- DisplayPort/Secure

The idea being that anyone could implement the basic version without the support for encryption. The differing names would also avoid confusion caused by version numbers. Heck I work in the software industry and version numbers don't always describe the difference, so I doubt the layman would understand it any more. By having two differing versions it would also allow the market to decide which one they really want, as opp

HDCP is good for one reason

[StandardCell (589682)]

It's easily cracked [freedom-to-tinker.com]. 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.

Re:DRM is HDCP

[Kjella (173770)]

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:

[joto (134244)]

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.

Also, I believe 640kB ought to be enough for everyone, and that the world at most needs, perhaps five computers.

Re:

[Kjella (173770)]

There's an infinte amount of applications for computers and processing power, but there's a finite amount of information the eye can see. A 1920x1080 picture covers about 20 degrees FOV with perfect picture for someone with 20-20 sight, which is more than you can see with your typical LCD/Plasma screen/couch distance. Cinemas recommend about 30 degrees FOV as ideal because past that people get disoriented and nauseated, so there's a slight room for improvement but only if

a) You have 1080p+ source material
b)

Re:

[toddestan (632714)]

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.

Re:

[644bd346996 (1012333)]

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.

What about the 30" displays from Apple and Dell? Are you saying they will be so unsuccessful over the next decade that we shouldn't even standardize on a single-link protocol that can support them? That sounds like a recipe for a format war to me. It also sounds like you can't comprehend the professional and academic markets. 8MP cameras are common, and you don't see a need for a display with more than 2.3MP? Talk about short-sighted.

Re:

[nurb432 (527695)]

DRM is only optional in the beginning, to get you to switch.

Re:

[radmege (1109385)]

The DRM on DisplayPort [wikipedia.org] 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."

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

[(H)elix1 (231155)]

...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 (597134)]

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:

[Jeff DeMaagd (2015)]

Dual link is definitely best, it's all in one connector. I've never tried to use two single link connectors, but that seems to be asking for trouble.

Anyway, the /. story mentions color smear. I don't understand what that means. Dual link DVI does fine, it doesn't color smear either that I've seen. The article itself mentions that it's for 10bit color at the 2560x1600 resolution, otherwise requiring three links to do the job, but is it ready yet? Is their new LCD good enough yet to display better than 8

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

[RalphBNumbers (655475)]

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

[Afecks (899057)]

An old 7900GTX?? Do you have any old flying cars or solid gold toilets you want to get rid of?

Nice screenshots!

[by Anonymous Coward]

Those screenshots really show off the benefits of this new technology.

Re:

[LighterShadeOfBlack (1011407)]

Those screenshots really show off the benefits of this new technology.

You better believe it. Here's the same content via DVI [horsies.co.uk] for comparison.

Not needed

[crow (16139)]

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.

Re:

[Kjella (173770)]

They're way late to the party, there's DVI (all current computers not using old analog) and HDMI (smaller contacts, standard on HDTVs and can carry sound). DisplayPort sounded like a poor and late idea when I first heard of it, and it doesn't look better now.

Re:

[imadork (226897)]

I haven't heard of this standard until now, but since it's using a multi-lane high-speed serial protocol, there's probably nothing holding them back from expanding the current 4-lane architecture into a 8-lane or 16-lane architecture (other than redesigning the cable and connector, of course). Just like PCI Express, for instance.

Re:

[Nozsd (1080965)]

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.

Actually, it is license free, so if it means what I think it means, there are no royalties to use this interface. I do believe it is rushed though. Just look at the connector [wikipedia.org], it's like it doesn't even need any help for it to fall out of its socket. The wonderfully original name also says something. Apparently it can transmit audio data as well, so why doesn't the name at least give so

Now if there were only more high-res eyes

[thc69 (98798)]

Hooray, more ultra-high-resolution equipment for displaying low-res content to people who can't see the difference.

Anyway, most of the people who will buy this stuff are middle-aged and old people who get suckered by Circuit City salesmen and can't even see the resolution of a 20 year old 27" tv hooked up to a VHS tape.

Re:Now if there were only more high-res eyes

[h4rm0ny (722443)]

I think we should judge for ourselves. Can't someone post a screenshot?

Re:

[Jeff DeMaagd (2015)]

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.

Re:

[christurkel (520220)]

Or better eyes. I dunno, I can't imagine running som ething at 1600x...I'd have to squint. Even 1280x makes my eyes work.

Re:

[Joe Snipe (224958)]

1600 is huge on a 30" monitor.

Re:

[Chandon Seldon (43083)]

Try using a high resolution theme for your windowing system and cranking up the font sizes. You'll run into weird graphical glitches because your apps suck, but you'll also get to see how much better higher resolution can look with fonts the same size on screen.

Re:

[TubeSteak (669689)]

Something like this is probably for young whipper snappers that have more money than sense.

No offense, but you're talking out your ass.

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.

Re:Now if there were only more high-res eyes

[DreadSpoon (653424)]

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.

Re:

[Tacvek (948259)]

There are problems though. High DPI monitors are often used as though they were high resolution monitors of standard DPI. That is trivial to program, and many people like it just fine. On the other hand it is harder to make other programs look decent. The problem is many programs work by pixel based units and assume that a pixel is roughly the size of a pixel in a 96DPI display.

As for the 10 bit per component: I think they will find that very very few programs utilize this. It will be a pain to move beyond

Re:

[AnyoneEB (574727)]

Windows (Aero Glass), Mac OS X (Aqua/Quartz), and Linux (X w/ Compiz/Beryl) are all moving toward resolution independence ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resolution_independe n ce [wikipedia.org] ). They do not seem to be there quite yet, but hopefully within a few years, it will be a standard feature. Particularly, your example of a 1000x1000 icon is silly: the icon would be vector graphics (ex. SVG) like many of the icons on my Linux system already are. Some people claim vector graphics are difficult to make pixel perfect

Re:

[PMBjornerud (947233)]

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.

I fully agree with you on resolution, but not color.

I can easily discern individual pixels with my eyes. I cannot display anything as thin as a hair on my screen, and even antialiasing it only makes it looks like a semi-blurred, slightly thick hair. Color is different, discerning two near colors in an 8-bit palette is almost impossible.

Huge resolutions are needed, because without tiny pixels it is just not possible to display tiny details. Assume the actors are reading black-on-white text on a piece of pap

Cable length - what is the max?

[pyite69 (463042)]

The single biggest problem with current video technologies is that it is not possible to have very long cables (50' +).

Ideally, I would like to be able to put the computer in another room and just run a long video cable, and then use the USB hub in the monitor to hook up everything else. This would be great for office environments too.

USB has the same cable length problem , unfortunately.

Hype... sort of.

[iamdrscience (541136)]

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.

Re:

[bomanbot (980297)]

AFAIK Another advantage is that the actual DisplayPort connector is a good bit smaller than a DVI connector, which makes it easier to build DisplayPorts into small portable devices.

It also helps on graphics cards, where two DVI connectors take up a lot of space and do not leave much room for other connectors. Maybe with DisplayPort it would be possible to get graphics cards with more connectors for Multiscreen Environments.

It's about removing Silicon Image's lockhold

[StandardCell (589682)]

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.

Mini DVI - DisplayPort

[Panascooter (948131)]

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.

Not impressed

[Oniros (53181)]

This new connection doesn't seem to bring much to the table. I remember the Apple Display Connector which passed DVI, USB and power in a single cable; sure it had limitations and was proprietary but it really helped reduce the clutter. Why can't those new display standard bring more functinalities rather than just DRM?

Re:

[Thaelon (250687)]

DRM isn't a functionality, it's an impediment.

Apple

[b1ng0 (7449)]

Watch for Apple rebranding these and replacing their current line up of LCDs. Apple is a huge Samsung investor and undoubtedly has some say in the direction of product lines. And we all know Apple is usually the first to switch to new standards.

It will fail

[BlueParrot (965239)]

It will fail as the DRM nonsense. Not just because of the usual reasons but this crap that tests the distance to the screen and other bullshit ill make the connector cables stupidly expensive, will probably mean you will have to pay a license to produce one ( I can't possibly see how that could be bad for adoption ) and then you will get a bunch of incompatible devices and users screaming for something else. In short, it will suck, it will be hated, and it will die. VGA has stayed around so long for a few s

Re:

[Constantine XVI (880691)]

In that case, you'll be using VGA and component video for a loooooooong time.

Re:

[Jackie_Chan_Fan (730745)]

i wondered that myself. I'm on an HP LP3065 30 inch lcd and i dont see color smear. The dam thing is incredible!