> >>>> 4) What sort of output? DVI, s-video, S/P-DIF, etc. > >>> DVI plus s-video. > >> New TVs aren't going to need S-Video. > > > > You want to throw all the old TVs into the landfill? Not very green. > > When transmission goes to all digital, a lot of them are going to the > land fill. :-)
Yes, probably a lot of them will. I have a couple of old sets that no longer have a good picture. Useful for things like listening to the news while doing something else. I'm not sure what I will do with them once the analog broadcasts go away. > > We'll also need creaky old RCA analog audio out for all the prehistoric > > TVs we want to avoid throwing into the landfill. > > Sound cards usually have mini-phone stereo (3 conductor). A sound card has very limited space for connectors. A box would have plenty of space for RCA jacks. And passive heat sinking. > >>> It would be good to support component if we can. > >> Are there new TVs or monitors that have component (analog) that don't > >> have DVI or HDMI? > > > > I read a lot of complaints from people with $$$$ HDTV with component-in > > and no digital-in. Should they throw their recent $$$$ TVs into the > > landfill > > also? > > No, they should probably keep them. My relatively inexpensive HDTV has > HDMI. I think that most current products have HDMI. A TV is likely to have HDMI. A monitor is likely to have DVI. There are probably exceptions both ways. We can use either a DVI or HDMI connector. Connecting to a TV or monitor is just a matter of using a cable with the right connectors. > Component video is > going to take a lot of hardware to produce. That probably depends on what chip(s) we use. > >>> Question is, do we require DVI dual link? DVI single link is good > >>> for 1080, but only up to 60 Hz. There is a strong possibility that > >>> we will need to support 1080 at higher than 60 Hz. And there are the > >>> 3 or 4 people that have the spendy 30" displays that require dual link. > >> Most current wide screen monitors are 768 lines but higher resolution > >> ones will be coming. Currently, 1080 is only common on screens larger > >> than 32 inches. This issue might or might not be determined by the > >> chips we use. > > > > This makes it sound like you only care about TVs sold today, not TVs > > sold 2 years ago or 2 years in the future. > > No, I think that 2 channel would be good and would hope that we could > find a chip that supports it. It is a fact that we need to consider the > current and future market when designing a product. Too much of > "caring" about past TVs is going to run the price up and we will sell > less rather than more of them. > > > The 23-24" LCD computer monitors are 1920x1200. Just right for 1080 plus > > a letterbox area for subtitles / closed caption / clock / frame counter / > > editor GUI buttons / whatever. > > Yes, they are here and they cost as much as my HDTV, or more -- to me > $$$$ means not very common. But, next year they will be less expensive. Yeah, I've been watching the prices impatiently. :-) > If they need 2 channel DVI/HDMI, then we need it. The current 1920x1200 are supposed to only need single-link DVI. But if newer ones go faster than 60 Hz they will need dual-link. And if they add the flash-the-backlight-on-and-off thing to reduce ghosting, they will probably need to increase the rate. Unless they use the same data twice, the way films double or triple shutter to reduce perceived flicker. But that would make too much sense, so they'll probably increase the rate and require dual-link. I wonder why films can get away with 48 Hz, but CRTs are annoying at 70 Hz? _______________________________________________ Open-graphics mailing list [email protected] http://lists.duskglow.com/mailman/listinfo/open-graphics List service provided by Duskglow Consulting, LLC (www.duskglow.com)
