[ale] 30" LCD monitor locally

[arxaaron]

On 2010/11/24, at 00:36 , Richard Bronosky wrote:

> What is stupid is that you can't send the monitor a 1080p signal and
> have it black framed. Instead it only accepts (and reports itself as
> supporting) 1/4 of its native resolution.


Well.. yeah... there IS that still.

Cutting the display to 1/4 res is a pretty poor way to deal with
a 1/2 bandwidth down shift.  Single channel DVI is capable of
a lot more than they are showing, and handling it the way they
do still doesn't have any real excuse.

peace
aaron

> On 11/23/10, arxaaron <arxaaron at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Thanks David.  I stand thoroughly corrected.  The pixel count
>> resolution limits in regard to the Single or Dual DVI make
>> sense now.
>>
>> The stupid part is that the wikipedia page you reference is what
>> I was looking at, but I was totally myopic in searching for "dual- 
>> link"
>> references in the page.  That exact phrase only seems to occur in
>> reference to the bit depth, not in the sections referencing the
>> resolution capabilities.
>>
>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Visual_Interface>
>>
>> The joys of being a slow reader.
>>
>> peace
>> aaron
>>
>>
>> On 2010/11/23, at 19:19 , David Tomaschik wrote:
>>
>>> On 11/23/2010 12:25 PM, arxaaron wrote:
>>>> On 2010/11/21, at 23:36 , Richard Bronosky wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I would like to remind everyone that most 30" monitors require  
>>>>> Dual
>>>>> Link DVI to function properly. My company just bought about 28 of
>>>>> the
>>>>> Dell 30" monitors and if you hook a regular DVI device to it, it
>>>>> runs
>>>>> at 1/4 resolution. (That is a square of 4 native pixels make up 1
>>>>> software pixel.) As you can imagine it looks TERRIBLE. We could  
>>>>> have
>>>>> spent less than 50% of the money on 27" monitors and they would  
>>>>> have
>>>>> looked a lot better. The only people that could use the monitors  
>>>>> are
>>>>> the Mac users. (Even the new $900 MacBook Air can drive a Dual  
>>>>> Link
>>>>> DVI!) The people in the office with Dells were out of luck.
>>>> Upon reviewing the details of exactly what dual-link is designed to
>>>> provide, this sounds like either design incompetence or a corrupt
>>>> forced migration scam on the part of the Dell corporation.
>>>>
>>>> All that dual-link  does is provide additional data channels and
>>>> connector lines to support 48bits per pixel.  There is absolutely  
>>>> NO
>>>> practical design reason for reducing a display's resolution when
>>>> it only receives 24bits per pixel.  REQUIRING dual-link DVI on
>>>> any digital monitor is absurd.
>>>>
>>>> Your company should not only send the monitors back and
>>>> demand a full refund, they should demand a public apology
>>>> from Dell for the design failure, whether intentional or not.
>>>>
>>>> peace
>>>> aaron
>>>>
>>>>
>>> With a single-link connection, you've got 3.96Gbps of data available
>>> to
>>> you[1].  If you are assuming 60Hz refresh (most LCDs are 60 or 75,  
>>> but
>>> let's be generous and say 60) and 24 bpp, you get enough data for
>>> about
>>> 2.8 Megapixels.  2560x1600 resolution is 4 Megapixels.  That's why  
>>> it
>>> won't run.  It's not an evil Dell thing this time.  If you look at  
>>> the
>>> DVI spec, you can EITHER do 48 bits per pixel OR double the number  
>>> of
>>> pixels you can use at 24bpp.  Basically, it doubles your bandwidth.
>>>
>>> [1]
>>> https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Digital_Visual_Interface
>>>
>>> --
>>> David Tomaschik, RHCE
>>> Ubuntu Community Member
>>> Moderator, LinuxQuestions.org
>>> http://www.tuxteam.com
>>> david at tuxteam.com [GPG: 0x6D428695]
>>>