[ale] 30" LCD monitor locally

[Richard Bronosky]

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.

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]
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ale mailing list
>> Ale at ale.org
>> http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale
>> See JOBS, ANNOUNCE and SCHOOLS lists at
>> http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ale mailing list
> Ale at ale.org
> http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale
> See JOBS, ANNOUNCE and SCHOOLS lists at
> http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo
>

-- 
Sent from my mobile device

.!# RichardBronosky #!.